What Have You Read?

[secondtimearound]

Yup, I listed the authors I've read.

Some were good.

Some, like Craig and Strobel, were not, hence the delineation.

The topic - as you should well be aware - is what reading we've done about the arguments from the other side. Strobel's, like it or not, comprise part of those arguments. I've had enough Christians recommend him to me, and I may as well look at the bad end of things. And lest we forget, I've already stated that I think Strobel is far worse than Craig.

Get over it now. The fanboyism is getting tiresome.

Variant's already pointed out why your logic was faulty.

I didn't expound on my claim immediately because I gave you credit enough to figure it out on your own.

Well, initially, at any rate.

I am in the wrong, if anything, I insulted Strobel. I have a habit of rushing to conclusions and in the process come out looking silly. I'm dissappointed in myself and offer you an apology. I went looking for a fight tonight and I thank God that He has shown me my fault in this and convicted me of it. There is no excuse for my actions. This is not how Jesus wants His people to act. Humble defense, not hard-headed non-sense. I am sorry to you and to Variant.

 

[secondtimearound]

I am pointing out pettyness.

Is it by definition petty to point out pettyness?

I think your argument fails formally and informally.

Agreed. My apologies to you Variant.

 

[variant]

Agreed. My apologies to you Variant.

No problem. We all have our moments.

 

[secondtimearound]

No problem. We all have our moments.

Thanks for understanding.

 

[variant]

Thanks for understanding.

Well you caught a few "barbs" from me too.

I was just short of typing out a serious escalation on atleast one occasion. So, yeah, I understand were your coming from.

 

[Gadarene]

I am in the wrong, if anything, I insulted Strobel. I have a habit of rushing to conclusions and in the process come out looking silly. I'm dissappointed in myself and offer you an apology. I went looking for a fight tonight and I thank God that He has shown me my fault in this and convicted me of it. There is no excuse for my actions. This is not how Jesus wants His people to act. Humble defense, not hard-headed non-sense. I am sorry to you and to Variant.

Ah, you're fine. I didn't exactly respond calmly or kindly each time. I'm sorry to you as well.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So here is couple of guys who by our standards are geniuses and yet they cannot see the error of their ways. If they can't, then what chance does the layman have? Think about it.

Except that they have good scientific reason to back up their arguments. It's not an issue of philosophy in the book, it's a scientific hypothesis. While philosophical arguments for their positions may have been refuted, the same philosophical refutations cannot be used to refute the scientific argument. It doesn't make any sense; the two fields of study treat reality in a very different manner. Philosophy deals in hypotheticals and imagination, while science deals in evidence and observation. The latter can refute the former, because it deals in objective reality, but it doesn't work the other way around.

To an extent, I agree with them - philosophy is interesting for hypothetical scenarios and unanswerable questions, but I've never heard of any problem being solved through philosophical arguments. It certainly can't tackle the statistical nature of science. Nor can it necessarily be applied to objective reality, which is why apologetics can only, at best, demonstrate the possibility of God.

 

[Gadarene]

Except that they have good scientific reason to back up their arguments. It's not an issue of philosophy in the book, it's a scientific hypothesis. While philosophical arguments for their positions may have been refuted, the same philosophical refutations cannot be used to refute the scientific argument. It doesn't make any sense; the two fields of study treat reality in a very different manner. Philosophy deals in hypotheticals and imagination, while science deals in evidence and observation. The latter can refute the former, because it deals in objective reality, but it doesn't work the other way around.

To an extent, I agree with them - philosophy is interesting for hypothetical scenarios and unanswerable questions, but I've never heard of any problem being solved through philosophical arguments. It certainly can't tackle the statistical nature of science. Nor can it necessarily be applied to objective reality, which is why apologetics can only, at best, demonstrate the possibility of God.

I'm probably biased towards the science side of things, but I view philosophy as something like proto-theoretical physics. It can come up with some interesting and indeed helpful speculations, but once reality disagrees, away the speculations must go.

That said, I'm still not entirely sure on which side of the line Grand Design comes down on. Hawking's M-theory mishmash seems quite difficult to confirm experimentally which hardly makes it that much better than philosophical speculation - for the time being at any rate.

Penrose did a much better job with his book, IMO, released around the same time....whose title eludes me.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'm probably biased towards the science side of things, but I view philosophy as something like proto-theoretical physics. It can come up with some interesting and indeed helpful speculations, but once reality disagrees, away the speculations must go.

I think of it in much the same way.

That said, I'm still not entirely sure on which side of the line Grand Design comes down on. Hawking's M-theory mishmash seems quite difficult to confirm experimentally which hardly makes it that much better than philosophical speculation - for the time being at any rate.

I'd say that the difference is the reasoning behind it. While it is pure hypothesis, it's hypothesis based upon evidenced theories and scientific knowledge. Philosophical thinking can and has come to the same conclusion, but for entirely different reasons. Neither side can claim any semblance of factual knowledge on the topic, but that doesn't make them equal, or even comparable.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The value of philosophy regarding science is in making sure that scientific thought doesn't contain any obvious logical contradictions or other conceptual errors or inadequacies. IOWs, in making sure that scientists are thinking logically.

Also, there is the philosophy of science, which has to do with validating scientific methods. IOWs, in epistemological issues underlying science.

Philosophy has authority in a very thin realm of metaphysics, such as the understanding of such words as "entity", "action", "causality", etc. But it is for Science to fill in the details with what actually exists and takes place, and that is a huge role. Philosophy does not have much to do here.

And philosophy has authority in ethics and politics, where Science founders.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

I think of it in much the same way.

I should clarify that I don't think of philosophy in quite so dismissive a way as Hawking and Mlodinov seem to, but I can't help but acknowledge its limits nonetheless.

In one sense, philosophy is freer in that it is not bound to naturalism as science is, but again, I can't see what it can really verify as true that isn't based in naturalism.

I'd say that the difference is the reasoning behind it. While it is pure hypothesis, it's hypothesis based upon evidenced theories and scientific knowledge. Philosophical thinking can and has come to the same conclusion, but for entirely different reasons. Neither side can claim any semblance of factual knowledge on the topic, but that doesn't make them equal, or even comparable.

Well, we may disagree with the conclusions reached, but a lot of the purely philosophical arguments on this topic coming from the Christian apologetics side of things also try and incorporate theories and scientific knowledge. Craig for example cites Guth-Vallenkin in his defense of Kalam. (I happen to think he gets his scientific support for his premises spectacularly wrong, but in terms of intent this seems comparable?)

 

[Gadarene]

And philosophy has authority in ethics and politics, where Science founders.

Depends on your ethics, surely? If your ethics are consequentialist then you need science to establish what the consequences of an action are.

Ok, I suppose you can't use science to justify consequentialism in the first place, if that's an example of floundering - but for implementation it's an indispensable tool.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Depends on your ethics, surely? If your ethics are consequentialist then you need science to establish what the consequences of an action are.

I've never heard of a consequentialist actually doing this. But of course you are right that a consequentialist might benefit from science, but ethical philosophy would lurk "underneath" that scientific enterprise as its foundation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

I've never heard of a consequentialist actually doing this. But of course you are right that a consequentialist might benefit from science, but ethical philosophy would lurk "underneath" that scientific enterprise as its foundation.

Sure, one couldn't justify it from first principles.

But as for the qualifying of whether an action causes some predefined "harm", say - I think it's possible to use science for that. It's something I try and do (I consider myself a consequentialist, and as I mentioned earlier in the posts about Hawking and Mlodinov, I'm pretty biased towards science, which is likely why I use it in this instance) although it's tough to keep applying it consistently.

 

[KCfromNC]

Aquinas, Lewis, Plantinga.

And because I refuse to put them in the same sentence, Craig and Strobel.

Dang, forgot about Plantinga. Not sure I'd put him in the first list of people, but at least he was wrong in interesting ways.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But as for the qualifying of whether an action causes some predefined "harm", say - I think it's possible to use science for that.

Yeah, you are right about that. Sam Harris argued for something similar.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

Dang, forgot about Plantinga. Not sure I'd put him in the first list of people, but at least he was wrong in interesting ways.

He has some real clunkers, but there's some good stuff in there too. By contrast I think Craig is mostly clunk (or at least what I've read of his stuff is).

I suspect I may be letting affection cloud my judgement again, I like Plantinga because he specifically got me into the free-will debate (again, like Craig, I can appreciate that even if he is a bit clunk-tastic).

 

[secondtimearound]

Ah, you're fine. I didn't exactly respond calmly or kindly each time. I'm sorry to you as well.

Thank you for accepting my apology

 

[Gadarene]

Thank you for accepting my apology

Not at all, besides I owed you one.

 

[secondtimearound]

You're a cool dude in my book Gadarene and if anything my impudence has garnered a respect for your opinion.

OK guys, I want to pose three questions to you. I will give you time to respond and it will give myself time to gather my thoughts. First, what is science? Secondly, what are the limits of science? Thirdly, what branches of science are theoretical regardless of your belief in their veracity?