Originally posted by Spacemonkey7
It makes no difference to me what you are,
But it wasn't I who wrote:
If you were a hindu i wouldn't mind your advice, but since there are so many bible thumping X-ians here, the repetition gets on my nerves. Maybe next time you can pretend to be a Muslim, you know add a little variety?
Since the so-called advice refers to a quote from Aquinas, it follows that you wouldn't have objected if I'd posted it as a Hindu or a Muslim. But you would (and did) object since I was Christian - regardless of whether what I posted had merit or not.
Clearly it makes a difference to you what I am. You've just contradicted yourself.
You don't need my objectivity to help approve of your belief system, surely? I simply choose not to give it, why am i such a bastard you ask?
I don't ask why you're a "bastard". I simply asked why you would defend science and then go on to blatantly disregard one of the most fundamental principles of science - engaging in ad hominem instead.
You gave me a dead philosopher with dead philosophy, then put science on the same pedastal. Science is not a faith, it is the objective pursuit of truth within our tangible reality.
What is "objective"? What is "truth"? What is "reality"? How do we know it's "tangible"? How do we know the heuristics science employs does actually bring us to a knowledge of that tangible reality? Further, how many scientists actually prove or validate the results and conclusions of other scientists? Is this not faith?
Far from being a dead philosophy, Aristotelianism (and Thomism, which is based on it) is alive and well in every scientific discovery we make today. It is not a coincidence that Aristotle himself was the first true scientist of the Western world.
You can try to imagine science in a world dominated by Platonist, Idealist or Skeptical thought.
We've moved on since Bacon,
But not past Bacon. Do you recognise the following method:
1. Observing empirical data
2. Analysing data
3. Formulating a hypothesis
4. Testing the hypothesis through observation and experimentation
Do you have a background in either philosophy or science?
I was referring to Bacon's work in natural philology. You've taken my hindu comment out of context, it's context was bringing in the matter of other faiths and using that as not caring what Thomas Aquinas the Christian has to say. I find your comments comparing science to religion comical, but i'm not going to try and change your mind. Aside from that there's nothing more to discuss, that hasn't already been said.
Originally posted by Spacemonkey7Rubbish!
I was referring to Bacon's work in natural philology. You've taken my hindu comment out of context, it's context was bringing in the matter of other faiths and using that as not caring what Thomas Aquinas the Christian has to say. I find your comments comparing science to religion comical, but i'm not going to try and change your mind. Aside from that there's nothing more to discuss, that hasn't already been said.
Bacon's work in natural philology never even entered into the discussion - I explicitly cited him in his capacity as a philosopher.
Let's suppose I did actually take your Hindu comment out of context. Then your rejection of my quote from Aquinas was solely because of - what, Aquinas is a Christian? The same argument I made about objectivity applies to Aquinas as well.
Further, that you find my observation regarding the application of faith in science "comical" means neither that it is illogical nor that it is false. You need to demonstrate either.
Hence, to repeat my question - do you have a background in either science or philosophy?
Originally posted by lucifershammerROLF. I'm not interested in Christian fundamentalism, when i think Francis Bacon i think natural philology, but i didn't say so, sorry my bad he does deserve credit for contributing to inductive method (p.s. screw you Macauley). I don't have a degree in philosophy, though i am getting tertiary education where biology and anatomy plays a part. Still i don't suppose you're going to whip out your 'internet credentials' now, blow me away with a degree?
Rubbish!
Bacon's work in natural philology never even entered into the discussion - I explicitly cited him in his capacity as a philosopher.
Let's suppose I did actually take your Hindu comment out of context. Then your rejection of my quote from Aquinas was solely because of - what, Aquinas is a Christian? The same argument I made about objec ...[text shortened]... her.
Hence, to repeat my question - do you have a background in either science or philosophy?
I'm just not interested in discussing philosophy or spirituality with fundies, a theory is a theory, not a religion in science. We don't pull things out of thin air, so they can be subject to change with relevant infromation, you can get the last word in now.
Originally posted by Spacemonkey7No one's asking you to be interested in Christian "fundamentalism". I'm not even sure where you got that from.
ROLF. I'm not interested in Christian fundamentalism, when i think Francis Bacon i think natural philology, but i didn't say so, sorry my bad he does deserve credit for contributing to inductive method (p.s. screw you Macauley). I don't have a degree in philosophy, though i am getting tertiary education where biology and anatomy plays a part. Still i ...[text shortened]... r, so they can be subject to change with relevant infromation, you can get the last word in now.
To dismiss Aquinas' philosophy in the off-hand manner that you did suggests one of two things - either you know so much about it that you think it's untenable, or you know very little about it. Your "St. Thomas ... [was] born ... [in] the dark ages ... that's all anyone needs to know" comment suggested the latter - but I wanted to be sure.
Whip out my 'internet credentials'? LOL. Not sure what that means, but it does sound funny.
That you're not interested in discussing philosophy or spirituality with "fundies" (from your posts, it appears that you consider every practising Christian a fundie) simply reiterates my point - you reject arguments based on who posits them, not on their intrinsic merits. This is just bias - pure and simple. It's also ad hominem - a logical fallacy.
Read my post again - I never said anything equating theories to religion in science. You're attacking a strawman (another logical fallacy). What I wrote dealt with the trust (faith) that exists between scientists so they do not always verify or validate each other's results or conclusions before using them to build their own theories or experiments.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI make no attempt to hide my predjudice (my post here should attest to that)
No one's asking you to be interested in Christian "fundamentalism". I'm not even sure where you got that from.
To dismiss Aquinas' philosophy in the off-hand manner that you did suggests one of two things - either you know so much about it that you think it's untenable, or you know very little about it. Your "St. Thomas ... [was] born ... [i ...[text shortened]... ther's results or conclusions before using them to build their own theories or experiments.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=25264&page=2
my perspective is as simple as this,
What use does an atheist have for philosophy drawn from a Christian perpective and ethics drawn from a Christian framework?
Sorry if you're not a fundamentalist, i saw that sig, pic and jumped the gun, the djbeckers, blindfaiths, & Collettis put me into door knocker mode. If it makes you feel any better i'm usually much more beligerent to fundamentalists in real life than on the net.
Originally posted by Spacemonkey7
I make no attempt to hide my predjudice (my post here should attest to that)
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=25264&page=2
Well, at least you're honest about it.
What use does an atheist have for philosophy drawn from a Christian perpective and ethics drawn from a Christian framework?
The true philosopher and the true scientist do not reject ideas or theories based on where they come from, but on their merits. No one rejects Mendel's works on genetics because he was an Augustinian monk, nor Copernicus because he was a church canon, nor Blaise Pascal because he was a theologian - the list could go on.
Especially when it comes to philosophy, the student of philosophy has an obligation to study and understand the key works and developments of philosophers before him - whether he agrees with their views or not.
I'm sorry, but I see little qualitative difference between your prejudice and those of the fundamentalists you so despise.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI am not sure whether philosophy is not suited as a tool for the search of god(s). What i know is that it is not suited as a tool to proove gods existance. Also it is not the proper way to discuss dogma. In fact I believe that a religion can give you a foundation on ethics, but i am not convinced that it is not possible to learn about them without using religion. For the development of ethics i am however convinced that philosophy is not only best suited, it is probably the only way. Religion has nothing to do with development of the ethics. A new value that is against the previous ones can not be incorporated in to the Christian dogma. The Christian doctrine development has stopped for many years now and cannot move forward and incorporate values that correspond to current needs. There have been attempts however to be more inclusive by all churches but have largely failed. Religion and especially Christianity and Islam is not an space of free thought it is just in my opinion a ideology replicating organism that gets ideas from other fields in order to be more efficient in prosylitising. However it is not possible to do this any more as it seems it has reached saturation.
I might have been a bit snappish in my post - I apologise.
Neither Aquinas nor I think that philosophy is not suitable for studying ethics (indeed, ethics is a branch of philosophy!) However, I do think that philosophy, in itself, is insufficient to develop a complete, non-arbitrary, universal code of ethics. If you wish to follow this train ...[text shortened]... and causes of things and reality. You can contrast this with, for instance, Plato, Kant or Hume.
As for my Christian background and traumatic experiences, you will not be impresed at all since i grew up in a "good" time that i could say my opinion without beeing burnt and that the only consequence i had to suffer from the cristian fanaticism is to have to go to chuch even if i was conciously against it. The traumatic experience is not personal, it is collective and mine personal whenever i have a walk in Athens and see the Parthenon, the temple to the olympian Zeus and the temple of Apollo in my home town of Delphi, destroyed with such hatred, monuments that are nowdays recognised regardless of ones beliefs as masterpieces of art. When I read about what the crusaders have done to Constantinople, when they were burning and raping for days and that statues of unimaginable beuty were minted for their metal to make coins, then i become furious and I will promise you that I will never forgive them. However I will not commit any of your atrocities or the muslim atrocities that like yourselfs embraced the Hellenic civilistion and then perverted it for their own use and attacked it with violent means, when it was oblious that their dogmatic fanatism could not stand up against logic and reason and proper "logos" of Plato (the "word" as you say in your scripts in a frequent example of plagiarism). Both of you betrayed this civiisation in the worst way by burning and censoring books the peek beeing tha burning of the library of Alexandria and the robbery from christian monks of most of ancient greeces valuable works. So it is not personal the traumatic experience it is collective and since you have the boldness to asking me about my personal taumatic experiences i tell you this: when you say that you are a christian you should blush and lower your eyes for the crimes that you have commited against humanity. Thank you for the ethics referneces I will study them.