Philosophy Now Forum

How might you feel about this?

If you are using physics to make statements about the observable universe, you are doing science.

If you are using physics to make statements about everything, you are doing religion.

Fair enough? If yes, this resolves my concern. I don't object to you sharing a religious faith, and if you are able to label it as religious faith, I'll have far fewer quibbles.

Thank-you for exposing Craig. How can this fraudulent claim to 'reason' end up in a magazine like 'Philosophy Now' ?

GROUNDED wrote:Thank-you for exposing Craig. How can this fraudulent claim to 'reason' end up in a magazine like 'Philosophy Now' ?

I appreciate your thanks. Yet I invite you to reconsider your question.

It is wonderful that WL Craig had his say on P.Now! Here his ideas can be exposed and analyzed by believers and non-believers alike. He is a hero in the Christian community. Posters in the Catholic Answers Forum's philosophy section were continually quoting him.

There is still a battle going on between science and religion, and the outcome is unresolved. Personally I think that with respect to ideas about the beginnings, the most important ideas of all, science and religion are equally mistaken. Philosophy might consider crawling out from the pit of irrelevancy that it has settled in over the last few centuries, by deciding the outcome of the battle.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that PNow must only print articles that meet some standard for reason, and in this you are clearly correct. But if our editor takes on the entire job of determining those standards, the magazine will only come to reflect his beliefs. Is that what you want in a Philosophy magazine? Better perhaps that he seeks articles that are competently written that a fair percentage of readers will find interesting and relevant, whether they disagree or not.

I want Philosophy Now to publish ideas on all sides of the science vs. religion debate. Otherwise it becomes an untrustworthy mouthpiece for a single narrow viewpoint, like NBC and CNN, or it ignores that debate and becomes irrelevant.

What do you think?

I think you are absolutely correct and well said, might I add.

My comment was emotionally driven, somewhat reactionary, a bit short sighted, and not really intended to support a rigorous comprehensive position; you were right to correct me - just venting - sorry about that.

After all, if we didn't have people like Craig or magazines like PN, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

Good can come from bad, Gaia from primordial chaos (just an allegory Mr. Craig) , enlightenment from darkness etc.

I'm just a bit despondent about the state of philosophy in the world today in general.

- the education system in our schools that fail to teach critical thinking skills
- the susceptibility of the general public to religion
- even the general lack of philosophical training demonstrated by some of the worlds leading scientists

This is my first time on this forum (or any other forum for that matter).

Upon reading the article at the bookstore, my first reaction was a mixture of dismay and even shock.

For example Craig writes, "1. The universe began to exist." - as a premise (not even his most absurd premise).

Really? There are a lot of assumptions here. We really don't know that this is the case do we.

Perhaps, in accordance with conservation laws, the universe 'always' existed in one form or another.

I don't need to tell anyone reading this that we still have a lot of work to do with the Standard Model and that the nature of time, space, matter and energy is not fully understood.

This does not give us permission to make stuff up! Define universe Mr. Craig ! What is time? We don't know.

We can move forward without absolute knowledge but lets be careful and do it in a disciplined fashion.

Furthermore, we don't need science to blow holes in Craig's ridiculous assertions and baloney.

Didn't Bertrand Russell expose the logical flaws in all of these weak arguments many years ago (Why I am not a Christian) ?

Apparently we are not progressing very rapidly in our collective consciousness as a species (schools are not helping).

In any case, thank-you for your response to my original comment, I appreciate it.

Everyone I know is more interested in the hockey score and drinking beer (maybe they're onto something).

Good magazine, good forum.

PS - no formal training in philosophy (my apologies to the experts and veterans)

GROUNDED wrote:I think you are absolutely correct and well said, might I add.

My comment was emotionally driven, somewhat reactionary, a bit short sighted, and not really intended to support a rigorous comprehensive position; you were right to correct me - just venting - sorry about that.

After all, if we didn't have people like Craig or magazines like PN, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

Good can come from bad, Gaia from primordial chaos (just an allegory Mr. Craig) , enlightenment from darkness etc.

I'm just a bit despondent about the state of philosophy in the world today in general.

- the education system in our schools that fail to teach critical thinking skills
- the susceptibility of the general public to religion
- even the general lack of philosophical training demonstrated by some of the worlds leading scientists

This is my first time on this forum (or any other forum for that matter).

Upon reading the article at the bookstore, my first reaction was a mixture of dismay and even shock.

For example Craig writes, "1. The universe began to exist." - as a premise (not even his most absurd premise).

Really? There are a lot of assumptions here. We really don't know that this is the case do we.

Perhaps, in accordance with conservation laws, the universe 'always' existed in one form or another.

I don't need to tell anyone reading this that we still have a lot of work to do with the Standard Model and that the nature of time, space, matter and energy is not fully understood.

This does not give us permission to make stuff up! Define universe Mr. Craig ! What is time? We don't know.

We can move forward without absolute knowledge but lets be careful and do it in a disciplined fashion.

Furthermore, we don't need science to blow holes in Craig's ridiculous assertions and baloney.

Didn't Bertrand Russell expose the logical flaws in all of these weak arguments many years ago (Why I am not a Christian) ?

Apparently we are not progressing very rapidly in our collective consciousness as a species (schools are not helping).

In any case, thank-you for your response to my original comment, I appreciate it.

Everyone I know is more interested in the hockey score and drinking beer (maybe they're onto something).

Good magazine, good forum.

PS - no formal training in philosophy (my apologies to the experts and veterans)

G,
Good start. There are too many posters whose sole object seems to be that of justifying whatever position they've adopted.

Except for an introductory post-grad course taken while my first philosophy book was being edited and printed, I've no formal training either. I did some reading and thinking. I'd be interested to know what you've read, and source of your interest.

It is interesting that you seem to doubt the notion that the universe had an origin, yet seem to be fond of the "standard model." This is not the thread for a detailed conversation on physics and cosmology, yet I'm curious about your method of sorting ideas.

A few notes, that might best be discussed elsewhere so as not to hijack this thread.

You wrote, "- the education system in our schools that fail to teach critical thinking skills."

Much of our educational system teaches bunk. Were it to teach critical thinking skills, students might apply those skills to the bunk. Many are already doing so.

"- the susceptibility of the general public to religion"

2. I'd add atheism to that short list. It is an equally uninformed belief system.

"- even the general lack of philosophical training demonstrated by some of the worlds leading scientists."

The study and application of science is hard work and requires a much higher level of intelligence than the study of philosophy. Over time, science discards its faulty theories and does not require students to learn them, except as brief historical footnotes. Science can do that because it recognizes faulty theories.

Philosophy, however, cannot distinguish one half-assed theory from another, and requires that its students memorize all of them, no matter how incompetent the theory. Scientists don't have time for that shit.

You'll find upon extracurricular study that many notable physicists have written worthwhile and intriguing philosophical essays. You probably won't find them listed as requirements in any philosophy curriculum. (For the same reasons that elementary schools do not teach critical thinking.)

I'd propose the opposite of your complaint. How is it that philosophers imagine that they have useful ideas about the universe without comprehending the physical principles that make the universe work?

Your appreciation of conservation principles suggests that you know some physics. Good!

Your comment, "This does not give us permission to make stuff up!" suggests that you are very young. If we don't have permission to make stuff up, does that leave us only with permission to get every idea right, first time?

In the absence of a God in whom you do not believe, who grants whatever permission we might have? I believe in the concept of personal liberty and will not thrive in an environment wherein I cannot invent freely, mistaken or right-on. Do you really feel otherwise?

And in the interest of full disclosure, through most September and December Sundays I am much more interested in the play and outcome of Packer football games than philosophy.

Greylorn;

Wow, I think I just wandered into a boxing ring with a heavyweight who's come out swinging (I'm a lightweight) !

You might just be able to teach me a lesson - and that's what I'm here for - expansion of my understanding - bring it on !

First, a few preliminary points regarding my earlier statements:

- none were offered as comprehensive, rigorous arguments (or even grammatically correct ones )
- any statement that you or I or anyone makes is intrinsically flawed in some respect and therefore open to random critique
- only tautologies are non-contestable but they don't contain a lot of value (risk/reward ratio is unity at best)
- the best dialogues happen when there is a common context, so that the peripherals & basics don't need to be spelled out
- next, the common goal has to be to stay focused so that progress can be made along some chosen line of thought
- finally, good dialogues happen when there is an honest, mutual spirit of discovery and egos are checked at the door
- also, my knowlege of physics, mathematics, logic, metaphysics etc may be (ok, is) inferior to yours - thats a given
- but in some respect I believe that the answer lies within the implied boundaries of the question and is therefore accessible
- don't know if I making any sense, but I'll be attempting to get to the cake and not be bitching about the icing so much
- everyone of these statements is open to argumentation, if we are just here for argumentation sake, that would be sad
- good mental exercise in rhetoric but not particlularly progressive
- ultimately, I want to find out why you believe in God and have I missed something in my own search for truth
- if we stay focused, I'm sure that I will leave this forum with an expanded metaphysics, epistemology or something
- thankyou for the conversation

2-I think you are right about scientists being more intelligent, with the condition that intelligence is raw processing power in mathematical and visual reasoning; the mathematics of string theory or quantum mechanics is way beyond most philosophy students I'm guessing (not all obviously); I think where scientists go astray is in lacking a broader context and a multi-disciplined approach - one of the things that bugs me a lot is that they can crunch Schroedinger's equation but that they can't see the silliness of the multi-world interpretation (MWI) of QM; then they sell magazines that admit they don't know what time or space are (humility and hubris are out of balance), they can see the trees sometimes but not the forest.

3-I think you misinterpreted my statement about 'making things up'. Imaginering and creativity are foundational and essential mental processes; then we take our hypotheses and put them to the test; I was referring to making-things-up that are not consisent with observable data.

4-As a part-time artist who loves abstract expressionism, I am a big believer in the right to 'free' expression as I gather you are too (I just believe that free expression involves unconcious algorithms - another whole realm for debate).

5-I love sports too; just prefer to play rather than watch; football combines explosive action with chess like strategy; basketball tends to put me to sleep (not an optimally tuned skill/challenge ratio as evidenced by the ridiculous scores).

6-As for personal freedom - outside the realm of legalities - I suspect that 'free will' is a contradiction in terms and a very effective illusion of the mind; not unlike the way are brains automatically invert the images incident on our retinas.

7-Can you describe for me, how you define or conceive of God and why? To date, I have no need of that hypothesis.

Best regards,

GROUNDED wrote:Greylorn;

Wow, I think I just wandered into a boxing ring with a heavyweight who's come out swinging (I'm a lightweight) !

You might just be able to teach me a lesson - and that's what I'm here for - expansion of my understanding - bring it on !

First, a few preliminary points regarding my earlier statements:

- none were offered as comprehensive, rigorous arguments (or even grammatically correct ones )
- any statement that you or I or anyone makes is intrinsically flawed in some respect and therefore open to random critique
- only tautologies are non-contestable but they don't contain a lot of value (risk/reward ratio is unity at best)
- the best dialogues happen when there is a common context, so that the peripherals & basics don't need to be spelled out
- next, the common goal has to be to stay focused so that progress can be made along some chosen line of thought
- finally, good dialogues happen when there is an honest, mutual spirit of discovery and egos are checked at the door
- also, my knowlege of physics, mathematics, logic, metaphysics etc may be (ok, is) inferior to yours - thats a given
- but in some respect I believe that the answer lies within the implied boundaries of the question and is therefore accessible
- don't know if I making any sense, but I'll be attempting to get to the cake and not be bitching about the icing so much
- everyone of these statements is open to argumentation, if we are just here for argumentation sake, that would be sad
- good mental exercise in rhetoric but not particlularly progressive
- ultimately, I want to find out why you believe in God and have I missed something in my own search for truth
- if we stay focused, I'm sure that I will leave this forum with an expanded metaphysics, epistemology or something
- thankyou for the conversation

2-I think you are right about scientists being more intelligent, with the condition that intelligence is raw processing power in mathematical and visual reasoning; the mathematics of string theory or quantum mechanics is way beyond most philosophy students I'm guessing (not all obviously); I think where scientists go astray is in lacking a broader context and a multi-disciplined approach - one of the things that bugs me a lot is that they can crunch Schroedinger's equation but that they can't see the silliness of the multi-world interpretation (MWI) of QM; then they sell magazines that admit they don't know what time or space are (humility and hubris are out of balance), they can see the trees sometimes but not the forest.

3-I think you misinterpreted my statement about 'making things up'. Imaginering and creativity are foundational and essential mental processes; then we take our hypotheses and put them to the test; I was referring to making-things-up that are not consisent with observable data.

4-As a part-time artist who loves abstract expressionism, I am a big believer in the right to 'free' expression as I gather you are too (I just believe that free expression involves unconcious algorithms - another whole realm for debate).

5-I love sports too; just prefer to play rather than watch; football combines explosive action with chess like strategy; basketball tends to put me to sleep (not an optimally tuned skill/challenge ratio as evidenced by the ridiculous scores).

6-As for personal freedom - outside the realm of legalities - I suspect that 'free will' is a contradiction in terms and a very effective illusion of the mind; not unlike the way are brains automatically invert the images incident on our retinas.

7-Can you describe for me, how you define or conceive of God and why? To date, I have no need of that hypothesis.

Best regards,

G,

Don't bullshit me. You didn't wander into this ring. And it's not a ring, but a back alley engagement that could be between potential antagonists, or between potential friends, who have not quite figured out their relationship yet.

I'd killed an hour writing a reply to your comments, erased in two mysterious keystrokes. This is an unstable platform. So I'll summarize.

You make a lot of sense and propose a reasonable conversational agenda which depends upon us finding a common focus of discussion. We can start with the God-concept since that is the only point of focus that you mentioned. Or elsewhere, if you prefer.

Just don't pretend to leave your ego at any door. That's like giving your pistol to the crooked sheriff before entering a bar full of his sleazy cronies. You're too smart for that. So if you enter an engagement w/o a pistol/ego, I'll have to assume that you're packing a Derringer in your boot and a slide gun in your sleeve, meaning that I can't trust you. Open carry works for firearms and egos.

Your main issue seems to involve the notion of God. That is because you disbelieve in the same God in which religionists disbelieve. Their creator-concept was invented millennia ago by men who believed that the entire visible universe revolved around a flat earth, and is, of course, mistaken. It is to your credit that you disbelieve in that God. I sure as hell do not.

I'm tempted to propose that you check out my books, but think that given your apparent intelligence, you start with Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." Then read the criticisms that fellow atheists have mounted on that book, and follow up with "The Edge of Evolution." Keep your already open mind, open even wider. Don't filter the information through your beliefs, please.

Behe differs from the run of mill creationists in that he is really not one of them. He's an honest scientist despite his personal beliefs, and does not, at least not in public, claim that his personal God has had anything to do with the marvels of microbiological engineering that his books nicely describe.

Then perhaps you and I can have more conversations. Get to work. Your time here is longer than mine.
G

GROUNDED wrote:Greylorn;

Wow, I think I just wandered into a boxing ring with a heavyweight who's come out swinging (I'm a lightweight) !

You might just be able to teach me a lesson - and that's what I'm here for - expansion of my understanding - bring it on !

First, a few preliminary points regarding my earlier statements:

- none were offered as comprehensive, rigorous arguments (or even grammatically correct ones )
- any statement that you or I or anyone makes is intrinsically flawed in some respect and therefore open to random critique
- only tautologies are non-contestable but they don't contain a lot of value (risk/reward ratio is unity at best)
- the best dialogues happen when there is a common context, so that the peripherals & basics don't need to be spelled out
- next, the common goal has to be to stay focused so that progress can be made along some chosen line of thought
- finally, good dialogues happen when there is an honest, mutual spirit of discovery and egos are checked at the door
- also, my knowlege of physics, mathematics, logic, metaphysics etc may be (ok, is) inferior to yours - thats a given
- but in some respect I believe that the answer lies within the implied boundaries of the question and is therefore accessible
- don't know if I making any sense, but I'll be attempting to get to the cake and not be bitching about the icing so much
- everyone of these statements is open to argumentation, if we are just here for argumentation sake, that would be sad
- good mental exercise in rhetoric but not particlularly progressive
- ultimately, I want to find out why you believe in God and have I missed something in my own search for truth
- if we stay focused, I'm sure that I will leave this forum with an expanded metaphysics, epistemology or something
- thankyou for the conversation

2-I think you are right about scientists being more intelligent, with the condition that intelligence is raw processing power in mathematical and visual reasoning; the mathematics of string theory or quantum mechanics is way beyond most philosophy students I'm guessing (not all obviously); I think where scientists go astray is in lacking a broader context and a multi-disciplined approach - one of the things that bugs me a lot is that they can crunch Schroedinger's equation but that they can't see the silliness of the multi-world interpretation (MWI) of QM; then they sell magazines that admit they don't know what time or space are (humility and hubris are out of balance), they can see the trees sometimes but not the forest.

3-I think you misinterpreted my statement about 'making things up'. Imaginering and creativity are foundational and essential mental processes; then we take our hypotheses and put them to the test; I was referring to making-things-up that are not consisent with observable data.

4-As a part-time artist who loves abstract expressionism, I am a big believer in the right to 'free' expression as I gather you are too (I just believe that free expression involves unconcious algorithms - another whole realm for debate).

5-I love sports too; just prefer to play rather than watch; football combines explosive action with chess like strategy; basketball tends to put me to sleep (not an optimally tuned skill/challenge ratio as evidenced by the ridiculous scores).

6-As for personal freedom - outside the realm of legalities - I suspect that 'free will' is a contradiction in terms and a very effective illusion of the mind; not unlike the way are brains automatically invert the images incident on our retinas.

7-Can you describe for me, how you define or conceive of God and why? To date, I have no need of that hypothesis.

Best regards,

G,

Don't bullshit me. You didn't wander into this ring. And it's not a ring, but a back alley engagement that could be between potential antagonists, or between potential friends, who have not quite figured out their relationship yet.

I'd killed an hour writing a reply to your comments, erased in two mysterious keystrokes. This is an unstable platform. So I'll summarize.

You make a lot of sense and propose a reasonable conversational agenda which depends upon us finding a common focus of discussion. We can start with the God-concept since that is the only point of focus that you mentioned. Or elsewhere, if you prefer.

Just don't pretend to leave your ego at any door. That's like giving your pistol to the crooked sheriff before entering a bar full of his sleazy cronies. You're too smart for that. So if you enter an engagement w/o a pistol/ego, I'll have to assume that you're packing a Derringer in your boot and a slide gun in your sleeve, meaning that I can't trust you. Open carry works for firearms and egos.

Your main issue seems to involve the notion of God. That is because you disbelieve in the same God in which religionists believe. Their creator-concept was invented millennia ago by men who believed that the entire visible universe revolved around a flat earth, and is, of course, mistaken. It is to your credit that you disbelieve in that God, as do I. However there is an interesting, physics-consistent and verifiable alternative.

Describing my unique creator-concept and the justifications for it needs a book, not a forum thread. That work is already done, elsewhere.

I'm tempted to propose that you check out my books, but think that given your apparent intelligence, you start with Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." Then read the criticisms that fellow atheists have mounted on that book, and follow up with "The Edge of Evolution." Keep your already open mind, open even wider. Don't filter the information through your beliefs, please.

Behe differs from the run of mill creationists in that he is really not one of them. He's an honest scientist despite his personal beliefs, and does not, at least not in public, claim that his personal God has had anything to do with the marvels of microbiological engineering that his books nicely describe.

Then perhaps you and I can have more conversations. Get to work. Your time here is longer than mine.
G