← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar

Thread 7345

Thread ID: 7345 | Posts: 91 | Started: 2003-06-14

Wayback Archive

PaleoconAvatar [OP]

2003-06-14 17:09 | User Profile

[url=http://www.natall.com/pub/061403.txt]First Things First[/url]

by Kevin Alfred Strom

American Dissident Voices Broadcast of June 14,2003

Welcome to American Dissident Voices. I'm Kevin Alfred Strom.

My program last week, in which I discussed White identity as the necessary basis for everything we do, generated quite a bit of mail from readers. Although most mail was favorable, several writers did express concern about my discussion of religion.

Because I said that we must think of ourselves as White people, and that we should put race -- what we actually are -- higher in our scale of values than religion -- what we believe -- some writers took me to task for being non-Christian and some took me to task for being anti-Christian, and accused me of wanting to eradicate Christianity from a future White society.

I can't really reassure those who worry that I am a non-Christian, though I appreciate their concern for my soul. I believe that we live in a world of matter and energy, and that there is no other world outside the world of reality, and that the divine-- the true and therefore supremely good -- lies not in ancient religious writings, which are often mistaken, nor on another 'plane' of existence, which doesn't exist, but within the reality of the past, present, and especially the future, and is discoverable by the scientific method applied by the minds of the best of our evolving race.

Most importantly, I believe that the divine path is also the path of the upward development of our race. And I also believe that the current limitations on our knowledge are not limits or faults of the scientific method, but are instead the current limits of the human condition and the human brain, which even among our best minds is but a millimeter above the primordial swamp on a journey to the stars. And I further believe that the best, most racially-conscious Christians agree with me on these last two and most important points. They may couch it in religious terms -- a journey to God instead of a journey to the stars; respect for God's will versus respect for Nature's laws -- but both they and I understand that our uniquely beautiful and creative race must survive and progress if our lives are to have any meaning at all.

As for those who think that the future White state envisioned by the National Alliance would persecute Christians, nothing could be further from the truth. The National Alliance does not dictate the religious beliefs of its members, though none may be Jewish in genes or beliefs. There are National Alliance members who profess Christianity. They are Christians who put their race first, and set aside differences in religion for the sake of racial survival. The National Alliance unites into one community those who want to restore the traditional racial basis of society. We also want to go beyond the vision of racial preservation of our forefathers. Based on what we have learned about race in the modern era, we believe we can and should enter an era of racial progress.

The National Alliance, like its founder Dr. William Pierce, recognizes that one of the great needs of our race is for freedom -- freedom to inquire, to study, to question, to know through one's own independent quest for truth. We want to build a society fit for White men and women to live in, one that is in full accord with all our needs. And that must be a society that, to the maximum extent possible compatible with racial survival, grants freedom of conscience and freedom of inquiry to its citizens. Freedom of conscience includes freedom of religion.

Would we use -- or allow -- the power of the state to be used to suppress religion? No, for the reasons of freedom of conscience outlined above, we would never do that. And further, the history of the 20th century gives us such horrifying and recent examples of the results of such anti-religious fanaticism that they can never be forgotten. We remember the destruction and looting of the churches, and the wanton butchery of clerics, nuns, and worshippers which occurred in the Soviet Union and in so-called Republican Spain, in which an anti-religious mania was inflamed by the Communists as a cover for the Jewish destruction of the existing White society, the killing of thousands of White Russians and Spaniards, and the replacement of a native ruling class with an alien one.

Would we shut down the charlatans and hucksters of the TV evangelism racket, who prey on the innocent and trusting less-educated members of our race? Yes we would, and so would any decent White Christians if they or we controlled the television and radio airwaves as the Jews do today.

Any racialist would know that Jerry Falwell and his ilk, who purposely and maliciously foster a loyalty among their White followers to Israel and the Jews, are undisguised traitors to their people; and their treason and deception, in a sane country that intended to survive, would not be tolerated for even one second.

Just listen to Falwell in an interview he gave to CBS [ [url=http://tinyurl.com/e1b0]http://tinyurl.com/e1b0[/url] ]:

"It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel's only safety belt right now... There are 70 million of us. And if there's one thing that brings us together quickly it's whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel."

In April 2002, even that faithful servant of the Jews, President Bush, expressed his opinion that it would be good if Israel withdrew its tanks, and stopped using them to kill Palestinians in their own towns on the West Bank. What did Falwell do? He sent an outraged letter to the White House which was followed by a rallying of his flock, who immediately flooded the President with 100,000 emails protesting this shocking infringement of the Jews' right to keep and bear arms and kill the Gentile dogs with impunity. Bush decided the tank question wasn't so important after all.

Falwell continued to expand on his favorite theme and First Commandment: "There's nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter... I really believe when the chips are down Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time."

According to Christian Zionist John McAteer in the same article, "God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. ...Every grain of sand between the Dead Sea, the Jordan River, and the Mediterranean Sea belongs to the Jews." Not a word about any land -- anywhere -- belonging by right to White people or any other people, including Christian people. These liars have deceived our people so that they and their wealth and their work and the blood of their sons and daughters are totally in the service of the Middle Eastern parasite. As I said, no people could tolerate such deception and destruction, and no racially conscious White person, Christian or non-Christian, should have to tolerate it for an instant. Suppressing treason and suppressing religion are two totally different things.

Would we allow any religion to have state power? No, the history of the West since the Christian era has included many massacres of White people by White people in the name of religion -- even more than the massacres of Whites by Jewish Communists, even though the latter were larger in scale. One thinks of the Thirty Years' War, the Crusaders versus the Greek Christians, and many others. Allowing one sect political power over all the others and over non-believers is a formula for repression, resentment, and possibly, if the wrong sect comes to power, the ultimate stifling of the greatest hope for the future of our kind in the universe, the free inquiry of science and the application of its discoveries to ensure our racial survival and progress.

A sincere racialist Christian, whose work I genuinely admire and who I consider to be a man of high integrity and a long-time friend, told me recently that his vision of a future White state would be a Christian state in which the Bible would be the only law and in which no non-Christian philosophy could be promoted -- on pain of death. I think his zeal has (temporarily, I hope) blinded him to reason.

First, I would point out to him that his brand of racialist Christianity, though it is undoubtedly truer to White Western traditions than are most churches today, is a tiny and despised sect among Christians as a whole, and would be vigorously opposed in any future Christian state. The beliefs of most Christians about the "only law" would be diametrically opposed to his. His fellow racialist Christians might find themselves among the first to undergo the "pain of death" for wrong beliefs if such state power was given to anyone in the name of religion. And I would further point out that the genie of free inquiry has been released in our society since the Renaissance, and its benefits are so enormous, both practically and spiritually, that very few people, religious or non-religious, are willing to give them up. Any attempt to suppress freedom of religion and freedom of thought will instantly have as its implacable and passionate enemies millions of the best White minds, many of them men and women with their hands on the levers of power through their positions as educators, technicians, and scientists. Imposing rigid religious dogma -- or rigid anti-religious dogma -- is a complete political and practical non-starter in the West, and all efforts to do so on the part of well- or ill-intentioned Whites are utterly wasted efforts. We do not have time for wasted efforts, and we strongly oppose any attempts to impose religious uniformity on our people.

How would a future religion-based state prevent its 'elders' from having a new 'revelation' and completely changing the principles on which the state was founded? That's what happened to the Mormon Church a few years ago. Their doctrines had long favored White people almost exclusively. Some of their religious writings discussed this explicitly. With minuscule exceptions, only Whites were proselytized and only Whites could be leaders of the Church. But one day a 'new revelation' occurred and the leaders of the church magically discovered that the old interpretation of sacred scripture was wrong and they declared that, overnight, their racial policy was to be reversed. Thereafter non-Whites could become church leaders and non-White countries were to become the focus of missionary efforts.

A similar thing happened to the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa. That church had long supported the freedom and independence of the Afrikaner people who made up its membership. It was a bulwark of White racial survival and the survival of White civilization on the dark continent. It fully supported the Apartheid or 'separate development' policy of the South African government, which was an absolute necessity for White survival there. Despite all the economic pressures of the Jews (who control the financial establishment of the West) to destroy White South Africa, as long as the Dutch Reformed Church stood firm, White South Africa survived. Despite the assassination of South Africa's great leader Dr. Verwoerd in 1966, as long as the Dutch Reformed Church stood firm White South Africa survived. Despite the institution of Jewish television programming in South Africa in 1975, as long as the Dutch Reformed Church stood firm White South Africa survived. Despite the fact that the Jewish Oppenheimer family was long the most powerful economic entity in South Africa, as long as the Dutch Reformed Church stood up for apartheid, White South Africa survived. Despite the screaming, spitting, and 24/7 vilification of South Africa for decades by the Jewish media in the West, and the resultant institution of crippling state sanctions on that country which went on for many years, as long as the Dutch Reformed Church supported White survival, South Africans did not bend and they maintained their freedom and independence. But as soon as the leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church had a 'new revelation,' and declared that the teachings of their church had been wrong for 400 years and that the races were equal after all, the South African people gave up their country voluntarily and voted for a new constitution which guaranteed them slavery, savagery, and murder on a scale that boggles the mind, and which also guarantees their extinction as a people unless a radical change in consciousness occurs there soon.

Now it really does not matter much if the 'new revelations' that occurred in the Mormon Church and the Dutch Reformed Church were the results of naive faith, creeping secularism, outside pressure, or bundles of Jewish cash. The fact is they occurred. And the only thing that could possibly have stopped them from occurring was if the leaders of those churches and of those societies had put race first, and made racial survival a non-negotiable principle that could never be changed.

Making religion the first principle of a society entails a great risk to the race, since the religions vying for state power in our age are all based on an interpretation of ancient writings which are, to put it mildly, subject to a wide range of interpretations.

But, to be fair to religion, making anything except race the highest value of your society is dangerous. Making economic principles -- whether of the egalitarian socialist or rapacious capitalist variety -- your highest value is a danger to the race. The state bureaucrats who thrive under international socialism love dependent people who always vote to give the bureaucrats more power -- and who is more dependent, and politically dependable, than the Black and Mestizo underclass? The rapacious capitalists love cheap labor and a dumbed-down consumer class which is very susceptible to mass marketing techniques. Who fits those profiles better than the same underclass beloved of the bureaucrats? Who ships factories to China's and Mexico's slave labor pens, and who brings non-Whites to work in their chicken-rendering plants and agribusinesses by the millions? Yes, basing your society on economic principles can be fatal to your people, too.

We must make racial survival and racial progress the two most important principles of the state. Our race's very nature requires freedom of conscience and therefore freedom of religion. And our racial progress depends on freedom of inquiry.

What we who care about the survival of our race should be doing is putting race first at all times, and making all of our efforts count in showing our fellow Whites the necessity of standing together. White Christians should not disparage the publication of explicitly non-Christian racialist books or articles, and non-Christian racialists should not attack racialist Christians who are sincerely raising the racial consciousness of their flocks. And we should all put our shoulders to the wheel and sacrifice until it hurts in the cause of building a White community which will some day gain the power to secure a free and independent state exclusively for the benefit and interests of White people. And such a state will of necessity be one that allows freedom of thought and conscience on matters of religion. Without such a state, we all die, and our children suffer and disappear into the enslaved and degraded masses of the Jewish global plantation.

We must begin where the founding fathers of the United States left off, and make the racial basis of our society even more explicit than they did. Racial preservation and racial progress must be made the first principles of our Constitution, and those principles must not ever be subject to amendment. No 'revelation,' no sentiment, nothing must ever be allowed to threaten the survival of our people.

Of course, a Constitution is just a piece of paper. It means nothing without a strong community dedicated to its principles, and willing to die rather than see it overthrown. We are building that community in the National Alliance. Please join us.

Kevin Alfred Strom

2003-06-15 03:26 | User Profile

I want to thank the moderator/owner and the many members who welcomed me to the board last week. I have been very busy debunking a recent disinformation campaign launched against the National Alliance, and also with my regular duties, so I haven't had time to write again here until now.

I did want to mention that some of the very good questions, comments, and criticisms from the folks here at Original Dissent inspired me to address several points in this week's show. So thank you for that, too.

With all good wishes,

Kevin. [url=http://www.kevin-strom.com/]http://www.kevin-strom.com/[/url] [url=http://www.revilo-oliver.com/]http://www.revilo-oliver.com/[/url]

Texas Dissident

2003-06-17 19:13 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Jun 14 2003, 12:09 * *I believe that we live in a world of matter and energy, and that there is no other world outside the world of reality, and that the divine-- the true and therefore supremely good -- lies not in ancient religious writings, which are often mistaken, nor on another 'plane' of existence, which doesn't exist, but within the reality of the past, present, and especially the future, and is discoverable by the scientific method applied by the minds of the best of our evolving race. **

I suppose the vaunted 'scientific method' may be adequate in the task of, say, classifying bug-types and such, but in matters of ultimate or eternal truths, I do not think it is valid and only leaves me, as an existing individual, groping about quite literally in the dark. My mind is instantly filled with thoughts of epistemological trap-doors, pitfalls and huge question marks.

but both they (Christians) and I understand that our uniquely beautiful and creative race must survive and progress if our lives are to have any meaning at all.

Philippians 3:7-11

7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

God's love for us is what gives meaning to our lives. For Christians, nothing can replace that for upon it everything of value depends.

Despite the disagreements, I do thank Mr. Strom for his well-written, respectful and courteous article that attempts to build bridges, instead of merely tearing down. I can certainly respect that.

NeoNietzsche

2003-06-17 20:38 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jun 17 2003, 13:13 -->

QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Jun 17 2003, 13:13 )

<!--QuoteBegin-PaleoconAvatar@Jun 14 2003, 12:09 * *I believe that we live in a world of matter and energy, and that there is no other world outside the world of reality, and that the divine-- the true and therefore supremely good -- lies not in ancient religious writings, which are often mistaken, nor on another 'plane' of existence, which doesn't exist, but within the reality of the past, present, and especially the future, and is discoverable by the scientific method applied by the minds of the best of our evolving race. ** I suppose the vaunted 'scientific method' may be adequate in the task of, say, classifying bug-types and such, but in matters of ultimate or eternal truths, I do not think it is valid and only leaves me, as an existing individual, groping about quite literally in the dark. My mind is instantly filled with thoughts of epistemological trap-doors, pitfalls and huge question marks.** Tex, The scientific method is much more than merely taxonomical in "classifying bug types". Your grasp of its essence has evidently been arrested at the point of the Classical notion that science is basically no more than a dictionary or a taxonomical chart. In fact, science is most fundamentally involved with noting patterns in nature, such that our experience of the past allows us to formulate that experience for use as a rational guide for our actions in the future. When you take a value-free intelligence test, you are being measured on your ability to recognize patterns. And the most intelligent people, on average, make the best scientists, where such is their vocational inclination. You question the "validity" of science in dealing with what you call "ultimate or eternal truths". Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that such things exist? What basis is there for dismissing the scientific method from engagement with truths of any description, other than in your disappointment with the failure of absolutist value judgments to emerge from disciplined investigations? Yes, we are groping in the dark in regard to certain questions which arise amidst our sentiments, and children fill that terrible void with all sorts of cartoonish imaginings. Intellectually mature individuals recognize that whereof one does not know...one simply does not know, and that the suspension of knowing is stressful, but nevertheless the more provident path, in avoiding fatuous and counter-productive activity. There are few right ways to deal with matters unfamiliar and poorly understood - but an infinite number of wrong ways based upon childish imaginings. Texas Dissident 2003-06-17 21:55 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 17 2003, 15:38 * *Your grasp of its essence has evidently been arrested at the point of the Classical notion that science is basically no more than a dictionary or a taxonomical chart. ** No, I just realize its limitations and in the greater scope of things, I believe they are vast. In fact, science is most fundamentally involved with noting patterns in nature, Subject, of course, to the scientists' own interpretations and biases. **such that our experience of the past allows us to formulate that experience for use as a rational guide for our actions in the future. ** Are we humans always rational? Is it possible to 'live' in objective rationality? Wouldn't it be infinitely better to utilize an 'existential' guide? You question the "validity" of science in dealing with what you call "ultimate or eternal truths".  Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that such things exist? Where is it indicated, dearest NN, in other than your mere sentiments, that such things don't exist? What basis is there for dismissing the scientific method from engagement with truths of any description, other than in your disappointment with the failure of absolutist value judgements to emerge from disciplined investigations? None, but it doesn't disappoint me. I expect nothing more from it than what it is. Again, I don't dismiss the scientific method from engagement with truths of any description. It's perfectly fine as a tool in classifying bugs, mammals, chemistry and the like. There are few right ways to deal with matters unfamiliar and poorly understood - but an infinite number of wrong ways based upon childish imaginings. Childish imaginings in your opinion, of course. :) Always a pleasure, my friend. Paleoleftist 2003-06-18 00:21 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 17 2003, 14:38 * ** Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that such things exist? ** Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that the real world exists? Prove to me, beyond possible doubt, the wrongness of Solipsism, or admit that the axioms of any worldview, including yours and mine, predate science and cannot but be accepted as a given. Which opens the door, of course, for the possibility of religion. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 17:54 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 17 2003, 18:21 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 17 2003, 18:21 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 17 2003, 14:38 * ** Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that such things exist? ** Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that the real world exists? Prove to me, beyond possible doubt, the wrongness of Solipsism, or admit that the axioms of any worldview, including yours and mine, predate science and cannot but be accepted as a given.** Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that the real world exists? It is indicated in my observations, supported by those of others, which are distinct from our sentiments. Please discipline yourself to this vital distinction between facts and values, which persists despite post-modernist attempts to eliminate it. If you wish to play the epistemology game, we will say that the past existence of "objective" reality is an operational hypothesis upon which the further development of that "reality," whatever its "authentic" character, can be more accurately anticipated than is the case with any other model. In short, the world acts "as if" it were independent of our sentiments and as if a consensus on its character can be arrived at by those without radical organic deformities. There is no "proof," such as you would have, that an elaborate conspiracy has not been arranged to broadcast the illusion of this circumstance into your brain - so Ockam's Razor is serviceable as an economy, but is not really necessary - the circumstance, as perceived and anticipated, is the same in either case. For the "axioms" (as you call them) of experimental science are themselves the mere product of experience (however bizarrely or economically conceived overall) and so do not "predate" science but are a part of it. Which opens the door, of course, for the possibility of religion. A trite observation which is not being contested. The question would be with regard to the coherence and correspondence with replicable observation, even granted its meaningfulness, of any theological proposition(s). Paleoleftist 2003-06-18 18:03 | User Profile NN: Unlike the real Nietzsche, you fall into the trap of Sensualism. Brush up on your philosophy. I particularly suggest Hume (who was an enemy of religion, but managed to avoid your naive mistakes). NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 18:22 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 17 2003, 15:38 * Your grasp of its essence has evidently been arrested at the point of the Classical notion that science is basically no more than a dictionary or a taxonomical chart.* No, I just realize its limitations and in the greater scope of things, I believe they are vast.< Again, a "greater scope" not shown to exist outside of sentiment. In fact, science is most fundamentally involved with noting patterns in nature, Subject, of course, to the scientists' own interpretations and biases.< Your unfamiliarity showing again, in that you fail to qualify your remark with the recognition that constant review and replication serve as a corrective to these imperfections. **such that our experience of the past allows us to formulate that experience for use as a rational guide for our actions in the future. ** Are we humans always rational? Is it possible to 'live' in objective rationality? Wouldn't it be infinitely better to utilize an 'existential' guide?< No, no, and no. To the extent that one chooses to behave rationally, it makes sense to adopt that orientation which has demonstrated its efficacy in facilitating the appropriate choice of means toward obtaining desired ends. You question the "validity" of science in dealing with what you call "ultimate or eternal truths".  Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that such things exist? Where is it indicated, dearest NN, in other than your mere sentiments, that such things don't exist?< In their absence to this point. You are welcome to produce your candidates for such status, and we can test them for their qualifications in this regard. What basis is there for dismissing the scientific method from engagement with truths of any description, other than in your disappointment with the failure of absolutist value judgments to emerge from disciplined investigations? None, but it doesn't disappoint me. I expect nothing more from it than what it is. Again, I don't dismiss the scientific method from engagement with truths of any description. It's perfectly fine as a tool in classifying bugs, mammals, chemistry and the like.< You contradict yourself: "...but in matters of ultimate or eternal truths, I do not think it is valid."/"I just realize its limitations and in the greater scope of things, I believe they are vast." There are few right ways to deal with matters unfamiliar and poorly understood - but an infinite number of wrong ways based upon childish imaginings. Childish imaginings in your opinion, of course. :)< Foundationless imaginings such as those to which children are given, in fact. Always a pleasure, my friend.< Doubly so for me, good buddy. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 18:29 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Jun 18 2003, 12:03 * NN: Unlike the real Nietzsche, you fall into the trap of Sensualism. Brush up on your philosophy. I particularly suggest Hume (who was an enemy of religion, but managed to avoid your naive mistakes).* I'm calling your bluff, PL. Produce Nietzsche and Hume, in referenced quotes, on and to the point of my alleged error. BTW, if you are relying upon Nietzsche or Hume for epistemological rectitude, you are in for a sad surprise. Paleoleftist 2003-06-18 18:44 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Jun 18 2003, 12:29 --> QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Jun 18 2003, 12:29 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Paleoleftist@Jun 18 2003, 12:03 * NN: Unlike the real Nietzsche, you fall into the trap of Sensualism. Brush up on your philosophy. I particularly suggest Hume (who was an enemy of religion, but managed to avoid your naive mistakes).* I'm calling your bluff, PL. Produce Nietzsche and Hume, in referenced quotes, on and to the point of my alleged error. ** I´m not bluffing. Nietzsche made a clear statement about Scepticism being essentially true, as a theory. Of course, that leaves us without a practical worldview that is ontologically supported. Nowhere is N. in disagreement with the notion that both religion and "scientific materialism" (or positivism, or whatever you support in this regard) can not possibly be proven. As to Hume (and Kant) their entire work circles around this proposition. Do you seriously question this? Paleoleftist 2003-06-18 18:56 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 12:29 * ** Produce Nietzsche... ** Beyond Good and Evil [about non-sceptical philosophers]: “they pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the self-evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic: while what happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an ‘inspiration,’ generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event” Now this is true for the "realist" EVERY BIT AS MUCH as for the "idealist". The funny thing is: I agree with N. on this, and you don´t. :rolleyes: NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 19:19 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 18 2003, 12:56 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 18 2003, 12:56 ) ou<!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 12:29 * ** Produce Nietzsche... ** Beyond Good and Evil [about non-sceptical philosophers]: “they pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the self-evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic: while what happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an ‘inspiration,’ generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event” Now this is true for the "realist" EVERY BIT AS MUCH as for the "idealist". The funny thing is: I agree with N. on this, and you don´t. :rolleyes:** I too agree with N. to the point of his observation, which is irrelevant to this discussion. You would make it relevant by inserting your own opinion, which is not his. His explanation for the inspiration of the man of science is elsewhere and otherwise in BGE. Try again. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 19:35 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 18 2003, 12:44 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Jun 18 2003, 12:44 ) QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Jun 18 2003, 12:29 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Paleoleftist@Jun 18 2003, 12:03 * NN: Unlike the real Nietzsche, you fall into the trap of Sensualism. Brush up on your philosophy. I particularly suggest Hume (who was an enemy of religion, but managed to avoid your naive mistakes).* I'm calling your bluff, PL. Produce Nietzsche and Hume, in referenced quotes, on and to the point of my alleged error. ** I´m not bluffing. Nietzsche made a clear statement about Scepticism being essentially true, as a theory. Of course, that leaves us without a practical worldview that is ontologically supported. Nowhere is N. in disagreement with the notion that both religion and "scientific materialism" (or positivism, or whatever you support in this regard) can not possibly be proven. As to Hume (and Kant) their entire work circles around this proposition. Do you seriously question this?** Nietzsche makes a single, brief, and mistaken statement to this effect in BGE. He was at pains to avoid allowing science to perform as the antithesis to religion, and he overstated his case. Hume sought a complete rationale for knowledge, failed to find it, and mistakenly concluded that we, in effect "know" nothing. Paleoleftist 2003-06-18 20:22 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 13:19 * ** Try again. ** I don´t need to. I have already won the argument. :) Paleoleftist 2003-06-18 20:26 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 13:35 * ** Nietzsche makes a single, brief, and mistaken statement to this effect in BGE. He was at pains to avoid allowing science to perform as the antithesis to religion, and he overstated his case. Hume sought a complete rationale for knowledge, failed to find it, and mistakenly concluded that we, in effect "know" nothing. ** So, what you are saying is: 1) You are right on this, and everybody else is wrong, including Nietzsche. :rolleyes: 2) You believe there is a complete rationale for knowledge, but wouldn´t share it with us. :lol: NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 20:36 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 18 2003, 14:22 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 18 2003, 14:22 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 13:19 * ** Try again. ** I don´t need to. I have already won the argument. :) ** This was your "argument": "NN: Unlike the real Nietzsche, you fall into the trap of Sensualism. Brush up on your philosophy. I particularly suggest Hume (who was an enemy of religion, but managed to avoid your naive mistakes)." You now regard your reference to Nietzsche's and Hume's mistaken/trivial Skepticism as a "win," after being warned against relying upon them. Congratulations on your "victory". NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 20:59 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 18 2003, 14:26 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 18 2003, 14:26 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 13:35 * ** Nietzsche makes a single, brief, and mistaken statement to this effect in BGE.  He was at pains to avoid allowing science to perform as the antithesis to religion, and he overstated his case.  Hume sought  a complete rationale for knowledge, failed to find it, and mistakenly concluded that we, in effect "know" nothing. ** So, what you are saying is: 1) You are right on this, and everybody else is wrong, including Nietzsche. :rolleyes: 2) You believe there is a complete rationale for knowledge, but wouldn´t share it with us. :lol:** 1) No, indeed. The many past advocates of logical positivism and operationalism, having once-for-all articulated the basics of the proper foundations of the sciences, stand with me. All this rigor, of course, is now out of fashion, since it denies the heart's desires of so many lesser intellects. Who's your favorite self-indulgent post-modernist? 2) I do not believe that there is presently, or necessarily ever will be, a complete rationale. My point of course, to judge from my explanation of "objectivity," would be that such is not needed in order to have knowledge - unless you naivelydefine knowledge as involving completeness, as did evidently Nietzsche and Hume, after the classical fashion of the pre-modern philosopher. Texas Dissident 2003-06-19 18:19 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 13:22 * *In their absence to this point.  You are welcome to produce your candidates for such status, and we can test them for their qualifications in this regard. ** NN, my underlying point here is that you are entering the arena with your own presuppositions. Namely, that 'scientific' observation and testing are the only valid means of knowing truth. While I'm willing to admit that 'science' (definition?) is valid for what I would label as natural phenomenon, it is a useless tool for knowledge acquisition of the higher, eternal or supernatural by its very own definition. Your counter may be that there is no supernatural because we cannot know it via the scientific method, but against this I state that based on your presupposition of valid means of acquiring knowledge you cannot disprove it either. Now we could go further into epistemological issues and how one becomes 'rational' or 'objective' to begin with, but perhaps we should go slow so I don't become too confused. After all, I'm a product of public schooling. ;) madrussian 2003-06-19 18:28 | User Profile I am another fan of scientific method. That's the best humans came up with for discovering the truth. It's based on: Building a theory explaining ALL accumulated body of evidence. Reproducability of measurements, consitituting evidence. Independent confirmation of measurements (done by different groups in different locations, derived from qualitatively different experiments with different approaches). Unlike a religion, faith in anything is constantly challenged, and breakthroughs happened when empirical evidence suggested that the at the time current theories were wrong. And often, based on theories, predictions are made, later to be confirmed by experiments. madrussian 2003-06-19 18:31 | User Profile Tex, You do realize there is not a SINGLE evidence for the existance of God? Not saying that there is no God, but isn't believing that your particular version of what is God is the true one, unlike the zillion of other versions, all based on nothing but superstition and charlatans putting down their speculation and "visions" in writing? Texas Dissident 2003-06-19 18:51 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 19 2003, 13:31 * You do realize there is not a SINGLE evidence for the existance of God?* Is there any evidence for the non-existence of God? but isn't believing that your particular version of what is God is the true one, unlike the zillion of other versions, all based on nothing but superstition and charlatans putting down their speculation and "visions" in writing? God entered our world and time, incarnate in the historical man Jesus of Nazareth, performed miracles, directly proclaimed belief in himself was the "only way" to eternal life, was crucified and resurrected from the dead in front of numerous eye-witnesses who documented each event. That's what separates the real from the pretenders. madrussian 2003-06-19 19:04 | User Profile ** Is there any evidence for the non-existence of God? ** There is plenty of evidence of success of scientific method, not relying on existance of any God. And the documentation for existance of any kind of God, be it G-d, God or Allah, is pretty contradictory and shaky. ** God entered our world and time, incarnate in the historical man Jesus of Nazareth, performed miracles, directly proclaimed belief in himself was the "only way" to eternal life, was crucified and resurrected from the dead in front of numerous eye-witnesses who documented each event. That's what separates the real from the pretenders. ** The pretenders have all kinds of documentation too. It all comes down to faith. Paleoleftist 2003-06-19 20:11 | User Profile NN: I do not mean to discourage you, but your philosophical ignorance makes it sometimes a bit hard to debate you. It´s not simply that your arguments are wrong, they rest on so many wrong assumptions -which you do not recognize as such- that even pointing them all out is quite a chore. :( NeoNietzsche says: The many past advocates of logical positivism and operationalism, [color=blue] a large number of which were Jews with an open anti-Christian agenda, -read up on the Vienna Circle and Popper, who invented "pluralism"- [/color] having once-for-all articulated the basics of the proper foundations of the sciences, stand with me. [color=blue]Congrats! :) One good thing to say about the Logical Empirists/Positivists: Whatever their merits may or may not be, they do not -quite- stand with you. They were cautious enough to always include in the small-printed an insurance clause, stating that they were only talking about empirical-reality-as-perceivable, as opposed to making any ontological or metaphysical statements. If we give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their insurance at face value, they are not in disagreement with me, and do not help your position. They are, however, in strong disagreement with Nietzsche, who disliked positivism. :rolleyes: [/color] Paleoleftist 2003-06-19 20:31 | User Profile NeoNietzsche says: All this rigor, of course, is now out of fashion, [color=blue]NN, you are a living testament of philosophical rigor being out of fashion! [/color] since it denies the heart's desires of so many lesser intellects. [color=blue] No, the main reason why philosophical rigor is out of fashion is that the quality of education has declined so much that the great thinkers of the past are simply not understood any more. Nietzsche himself is not one of the most exalted of the thinkers mentioned above, but he might serve as a peripheral example. [/color] NN then asks: Who's your favorite self-indulgent post-modernist? [color=blue] None, because I do not mix up legitimate Scepticism with the post-modernist ideology. Nietzsche wouldn´t make that mistake, either. McDonald does make this mistake once or twice, and I suppose this is where you got it, and this is one of the 10% or so weaknesses of CoC which I have mentioned in another thread. Bear in mind, however, that McDonald is a natural scientist, not a philosopher of science, which are two entirely different disciplines, a fact that is overlooked not only by McDonald, but by nearly all of his colleagues. In short, about every competent scientist believes his knowledge also makes him a competent philosopher of science, a belief that is totally unfounded. :) [/color] Paleoleftist 2003-06-19 20:59 | User Profile NeoNietzsche then goes on to say: I do not believe that there is presently, or necessarily ever will be, a complete rationale. [color=blue] I agree with you on this! Hallelujah!! [/color] My point of course, to judge from my explanation of "objectivity," would be that such is not needed in order to have knowledge - unless you naivelydefine knowledge as involving completeness, as did evidently Nietzsche and Hume, after the classical fashion of the pre-modern philosopher. [color=blue]Calling the entire collective of classical philosophers "naive" is rich!! :lol: If I didn´t know better, I would say this is an attack on the foundations of European culture in the worthy tradition that is discussed by McDonald. :D Of course I do know better, namely that you are merely being ignorant. :lol: That said, it is of course true that everything depends upon how you define "knowledge". If you say that "knowledge is whatever strikes me as being expedient at the current moment", then your position is not only defendable, sort of, no, you are also in perfect agreement with Deconstructionism. :) On the other hand, if you were as truly rigorous as Plato was when he defined knowledge as "that which is certain" then it is clear that it is dubious if there is true knowledge outside the field of Mathematics. There is an in-between position naturally, which would include as "knowledge" such hypotheses as are made plausible by repeatable empirical observation, and not contradicted by any known facts. This is a perfectly viable viewpoint, but in this case, there can never be any "scientific knowledge" that contradicts religion, because no one is claiming that the nature of religion is that of being a "scientific hypothesis", and more importantly because, by this very definition of scientific knowledge, it can never stretch into the theological, or even merely ontological, realm. In short, trying to use natural science as an "argument" against religion is a classic picture-book strawman. :) [/color] Paleoleftist 2003-06-19 21:04 | User Profile *Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 19 2003, 13:04 * ** There is plenty of evidence of success of scientific method, not relying on existance of any God. ** Ditto. See above. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-19 21:59 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jun 19 2003, 12:19 --> QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Jun 19 2003, 12:19 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 13:22 * *In their absence to this point.  You are welcome to produce your candidates for such status, and we can test them for their qualifications in this regard. ** NN, my underlying point here is that you are entering the arena with your own presuppositions. Namely, that 'scientific' observation and testing are the only valid means of knowing truth. While I'm willing to admit that 'science' (definition?) is valid for what I would label as natural phenomenon, it is a useless tool for knowledge acquisition of the higher, eternal or supernatural by its very own definition. Your counter may be that there is no supernatural because we cannot know it via the scientific method, but against this I state that based on your presupposition of valid means of acquiring knowledge you cannot disprove it either. Now we could go further into epistemological issues and how one becomes 'rational' or 'objective' to begin with, but perhaps we should go slow so I don't become too confused. After all, I'm a product of public schooling. ;)** NN, my underlying point here is that you are entering the arena with your own presuppositions.  Namely, that 'scientific' observation and testing are the only valid means of knowing truth. My position is not that observation and testing are necessarily the only valid means of knowing - you may well be privy to information by revelation, or otherwise, that is valid in your personal experience (as is the familiar claim of Christians). But unless you can demonstrate this "truth" to others for observation and testing, your truth will never have, by proper definition, the status of a public and universal verity, and the legitimate suspicion will be that, failing such a demonstration, your belief is self-delusional or merely sentimental, even though shared by many another. While I'm willing to admit that 'science' (definition?) [pattern recognition and formulation] is valid for what I would label as natural phenomen[a], it is a useless tool for knowledge acquisition of the higher, eternal or supernatural by its very own definition. This is incorrect. Science notes patterns in all phenomena - though patterns, by definition, involve replications. If a strange phenomenon is not replicated for the noting of patterns, it remains a mere collage of data. But science records data, replicated or otherwise, thus science acquires knowledge of all phenomena, natural and the so-called "supernatural" (i.e., the un- or yet-to-be explained, as well as that which may be unexplainable in principle). But you continue to write whereof apparently you do not know, in reference to "higher, etc.," if other than merely private experiences are involved. So I welcome, again, your production for examination of these elements you tout. For science is, admittedly, a public enterprise, dealing in communicable knowledge - so it excludes, by definition, not the "higher" in the way of knowledge, as you allege - but merely the private and intrinsically untrustworthy. Your counter may be that there is no supernatural because we cannot know it via the scientific method, but against this I state that based on your presupposition of valid means of acquiring knowledge you cannot disprove it either. You mistake my counter, as explained above, and misunderstand that mine is not the burden of proof/disproof regarding public knowledge of any phenomena. My contention is not that there is no "supernatural" - I simply ask that you bring it forward, if such does exist, for public examination if you wish to claim for it the status of public knowledge. The public cannot have confidence in your "knowledge" and grant it status as such unless they can experience it, either for themselves or via trusted intermediaries. Now we could go further into epistemological issues and how one becomes 'rational' or 'objective' to begin with, but perhaps we should go slow so I don't become too confused.  After all, I'm a product of public schooling.  ;) Much of modern epistemology deals with the clarification of issues. Thus rationality and objectivity have much to do with knowing whereof one writes and thinks when using words of variable and ambiguous connotation. Valley Forge 2003-06-19 22:48 | User Profile **And the documentation for existance of any kind of God, be it G-d, God or Allah, is pretty contradictory and shaky. ** On the contrary, there is plenty of historical and philosophical evidence that God exists. There is the Argument for the Unmoved Mover (Aristotle) There is the Argument from First Cause (Aquinas) There is the Argument from Contingency (Aquinas) There is the Argument from Design (Paley) Finally, there is also the evidence of Jesus' life (His miracles were actually witnessed by human beings; Muhammed, in contrast, claimed God spoke to him in a cave.) madrussian 2003-06-19 23:36 | User Profile There is an unconfirmed evidence there was someone who called himself Jesus. And there is unconfirmed evidence there are UFOs. And there are countless other legends. It's all in the distant past, there is no corroboration, there is no need to turn to the theory of there being a God. It comes down to whether you want to believe or not. Philosophical arguments are usually flawed and contain impresize logic and false paradoxes. Compared to the rapid progress in science, all based on rigorous principles, theology and religious arguments are all on the kindergarten level. Texas Dissident 2003-06-20 00:08 | User Profile *Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 19 2003, 18:36 * ** Compared to the rapid progress in science, all based on rigorous principles, theology and religious arguments are all on the kindergarten level. ** I think we have a winner in the "Atheist Hubris" award! Pardon me if I'm not impressed, madrussian. Your belief in the omnipotence of science and what it can reveal is nothing but a leap of faith, also. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-20 01:39 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Jun 19 2003, 14:11 * NN: I do not mean to discourage you, but your philosophical ignorance makes it sometimes a bit hard to debate you. It´s not simply that your arguments are wrong, they rest on so many wrong assumptions* -which you do not recognize as such- that even pointing them all out is quite a chore.  :( NeoNietzsche says: The many past advocates of logical positivism and operationalism, [color=blue] a large number of which were Jews with an open anti-Christian agenda, -read up on the Vienna Circle and Popper, who invented "pluralism"- [/color] having once-for-all articulated the basics of the proper foundations of the sciences, stand with me. [color=blue]Congrats!  :) One good thing to say about the Logical Empirists/Positivists: Whatever their merits may or may not be, they do not -quite- stand with you. They were cautious enough to always include in the small-printed an insurance clause, stating that they were only talking about empirical-reality-as-perceivable, as opposed to making any ontological or metaphysical statements. If we give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their insurance at face value, they are not in disagreement with me, and do not help your position. They are, however, in strong disagreement with Nietzsche, who disliked positivism.  :rolleyes: [/color]** NN: I do not mean to discourage you, but your philosophical ignorance makes it sometimes a bit hard to debate you. It´s not simply that your arguments are wrong, they rest on so many wrong assumptions -which you do not recognize as such- that even pointing them all out is quite a chore.  :( ** I believe that we will find that our difficulty rather involves your chronic inability to accurately characterize a perspective which resists your own. NeoNietzsche says: The many past advocates of logical positivism and operationalism, [color=blue] a large number of which were Jews with an open anti-Christian agenda, -read up on the Vienna Circle and Popper, who invented "pluralism"- [/color] having once-for-all articulated the basics of the proper foundations of the sciences, stand with me. [color=blue]Congrats!  :) Their agenda was served by correct perspectives - as is the case, in varying degree, with all agendas. Your argument appears to be that they were Jews with an agenda, therefore they were (and I am) wrong. While we thus have reason for caution, your argument does not follow otherwise. One good thing to say about the Logical Empirists/Positivists: Whatever their merits may or may not be, they do not -quite- stand with you. They were cautious enough to always include in the small-print an insurance clause, stating that they were only talking about empirical-reality-as-perceivable, as opposed to making any ontological or metaphysical statements. Please quote me making an ontological or metaphysical statement. It seems to have escaped you that I earlier made precisely the point about empirical-reality-as-perceivable. If we give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their insurance at face value, they are not in disagreement with me, and do not help your position. Since you have mischaracterized my position, you are in error. ** They are, however, in strong disagreement with Nietzsche, who disliked positivism.  :rolleyes: ** On this obvious point we are agreed. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-20 02:17 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Jun 19 2003, 14:31 * NeoNietzsche says: All this rigor, of course, is now out of fashion, [color=blue]NN, you are a living testament of philosophical rigor being out of fashion! [/color] since it denies the heart's desires of so many lesser intellects. [color=blue] No, the main reason why philosophical rigor is out of fashion is that the quality of education has declined so much that the great thinkers of the past are simply not understood any more. Nietzsche himself is not one of the most exalted of the thinkers mentioned above, but he might* serve as a peripheral example. [/color] NN then asks: Who's your favorite self-indulgent post-modernist? [color=blue] None, because I do not mix up legitimate Scepticism with the post-modernist ideology. Nietzsche wouldn´t make that mistake, either. McDonald does make this mistake once or twice, and I suppose this is where you got it, and this is one of the 10% or so weaknesses of CoC which I have mentioned in another thread. Bear in mind, however, that McDonald is a natural scientist, not a philosopher of science, which are two entirely different disciplines, a fact that is overlooked not only by McDonald, but by nearly all of his colleagues. In short, about every competent scientist believes his knowledge also makes him a competent philosopher of science, a belief that is totally unfounded.  :) [/color]** NeoNietzsche says: All this rigor, of course, is now out of fashion, [color=blue]NN, you are a living testament of philosophical rigor being out of fashion! But your evaluation has no basis in any present demonstration of competence in providing such. No, the main reason why philosophical rigor is out of fashion is that the quality of education has declined so much that the great thinkers of the past are simply not understood any more. Nietzsche himself is not one of the most exalted of the thinkers mentioned above, but he might serve as a peripheral example. Last point first: Nietzsche, the "peripheral" great thinker, is completely inadequate in terms of the philosophical "rigor" to be maintained - he was notoriously so - and he made a point of being so. The "great thinkers" of the past have been abandoned because they were epistemologically naive in their preoccupation with absolutes and ontology, the "rigorous" discussion of which reduces to nonsense. In authentic scientific problems, no one refers to Kant or Hume - science basically does without epistemological controversy - but when a problem does arise, Popper gets mentioned in some contexts, Mach arises in Relativity discussions, and Ayer gets a rare reference, where Heisenberg and other scientists proper are not doing their own work. ** NN then asks: Who's your favorite self-indulgent post-modernist? [color=blue] None, because I do not mix up legitimate Scepticism with the post-modernist ideology.[/color]** Good for you. Nietzsche wouldn´t make that mistake, either. McDonald does make this mistake once or twice, and I suppose this is where you got it,... ** Nietzsche did combine Scepticism and post-Modernist perspectives, under the most popular interpretations of his work [what cave have you been in?], and a definitive dissent from that interpretation cannot be made in consequence of the lack of rigor previously mentioned. The suspicion that you had made the "mistake" was a natural one, and I was unaware that M. had made it. madrussian 2003-06-20 02:29 | User Profile *Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jun 19 2003, 17:08 * ** I think we have a winner in the "Atheist Hubris" award! Pardon me if I'm not impressed, madrussian.  Your belief in the omnipotence of science and what it can reveal is nothing but a leap of faith, also. ** Not so much of an atheist as a fan of science and scientific way of thinking. And what science can reveal is demonstrated every day. I have yet to see the second coming (and the first for that matter) or any deviation from the cold laws of the nature. Please, some evidence of the supernatural. :sm: NeoNietzsche 2003-06-20 02:49 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Jun 19 2003, 14:59 * ** NeoNietzsche then goes on to say: I do not believe that there is presently, or necessarily ever will be, a complete rationale. [color=blue] I agree with you on this! Hallelujah!! [/color] My point of course, to judge from my explanation of "objectivity," would be that such is not needed in order to have knowledge - unless you naivelydefine knowledge as involving completeness, as did evidently Nietzsche and Hume, after the classical fashion of the pre-modern philosopher. [color=blue]Calling the entire collective of classical philosophers "naive" is rich!!  :lol:  If I didn´t know better, I would say this is an attack on the foundations of European culture in the worthy tradition that is discussed by McDonald.  :D  Of course I do know better, namely that you are merely being ignorant.  :lol: That said, it is of course* true that everything depends upon how you define "knowledge". If you say that "knowledge is whatever strikes me as being expedient at the current moment", then your position is not only defendable, sort of, no, you are also in perfect agreement with Deconstructionism.  :)  On the other hand, if you were as truly rigorous as Plato was when he defined knowledge as "that which is certain" then it is clear that it is dubious if there is true knowledge outside the field of Mathematics. There is an in-between position naturally, which would include as "knowledge" such hypotheses as are made plausible by repeatable empirical observation, and not contradicted by any known facts. This is a perfectly viable viewpoint, but in this case, there can never be any "scientific knowledge" that contradicts religion, because no one is claiming that the nature of religion is that of being a "scientific hypothesis", and more importantly because, by this very definition of scientific knowledge, it can never stretch into the theological, or even merely ontological, realm. In short, trying to use natural science as an "argument" against religion is a classic picture-book strawman.  :)  [/color] ** My point of course, to judge from my explanation of "objectivity," would be that such is not needed in order to have knowledge - unless you naivelydefine knowledge as involving completeness, as did evidently Nietzsche and Hume, after the classical fashion of the pre-modern philosopher. [color=blue]Calling the entire collective of classical philosophers "naive" is rich!!  :lol:  If I didn´t know better, I would say this is an attack on the foundations of European culture in the worthy tradition that is discussed by McDonald. [/color] I would call it a "correction" of the foundations, which I regard as defective/distorted in more than one respect. You seem to be unaware that it is a commonplace of scientific epistemology that logical positivism, by implication, dismisses classical philosophy/metaphysics/ontology as naive nonsense, disclaimers/"insurance" to the contrary notwithstanding. Right or wrong, I am amongst a multitude in this regard. ...but in this case, there can never be any "scientific knowledge" that contradicts religion, because no one is claiming that the nature of religion is that of being a "scientific hypothesis", and more importantly because, by this very definition of scientific knowledge, it can never stretch into the theological, or even merely ontological, realm. In short, trying to use natural science as an "argument" against religion is a classic picture-book strawman.  :) All claims are properly examined for their meaningfulness, coherence, and correspondence with reality, where they purport to be of universal validity. Fundamentalists, and Creationists in particular, have long been claiming that their religion is consistent with science and natural history. Campion Moore Boru 2003-06-20 02:54 | User Profile MR: I'd be interested if you have read Fyodor, and what you thought of his themes in Crime & Punishment, The Prince (Idiot), and The Possessed (Devils). Is Man a beast ( a la Skinner), a sum of cells and experience? Or is there something more? What is the scientic formula for determing the beauty of a flower anyway? madrussian 2003-06-20 03:09 | User Profile Since Fyodor was on the list of compulsory reading material in school (Crime and Punishment, to be exactly), I didn't touch it since then. Believing that science and the spiritual is incompatible, or that science rejects the spiritual, is wrong. Or that existence of God and science is incompatible is wrong too. Belief in the dogmas the way they are written and presented, to the letter, however, is hardly compatible. Science means critical thought applied to everything. Scientists may be soul-searching much more than the dogmatic religious persons, who already know the deal and are fat and hypocritical. Campion Moore Boru 2003-06-20 03:21 | User Profile I probably didn't explain myself well. I can't speak for Tex (who although is a good man and stand up guy is still a heretic ;) ), but I believ it is a catatrophic error to apply science, the indisputibly best tool for understanding the material to the immaterial, or spiritual. Beauty is a spiritual abstract. Truth, at its very core, connotes the spiritual. Man, while made of blood and matter, is at his heart, a spiritual being. Of course I don't want to be interpreted as prosletyzing. At the grave risk of sounding tres cliche, I'd say the greatest evidence of the Creator is ..... Oneself. madrussian 2003-06-20 03:36 | User Profile You change the subject from whether any one religion is the true word of God to the last letter to whether science can comprehend the essense of the spirit and soul. I am fascinated by that subject too. Humans will eventually possess the knowledge to built a robot that in terms of behavior would be practically indistinguishable from a human. What constitues conciousness and self-awareness as a living being possessing free will? Science is moving in into this area, as more genetic studies and studies into how the brain works are done. Frankly, I don't see how science can explain the spirit of a human (or an animal for that part). Will the humans lose their humanity if it manages to do so? NeoNietzsche 2003-06-20 13:56 | User Profile Nietzsche's Scepticism, from BGE: 14 It is perhaps just dawning on five or six minds that physics, too, is only an interpretation and exegesis of the world (to suit us, if I may say so!) and not a world-explanation; but insofar as it is based on belief in the senses, it is regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as more - namely, as an explanation. Eyes and fingers speak in its favor, visual evidence and palpableness do, too: this strikes an age with fundamentally plebian tastes as fascinating, persuasive, and convincing - after all, it follows instinctively the canon of truth of eternally popular sensualism. What is clear, what is "explained"? Only what can be seen and felt - every problem has to be pursued to that point. Conversely, the charm of the Platonic way of thinking, which was a noble way of thinking, consisted precisely in resistance to obvious sense-evidence - perhaps among men who enjoyed even stronger and more demanding senses than our contemporaries, but who knew how to find a higher triumph in remaining masters of their senses - and this by means of pale, cold, gray concept nets which they threw over the motley whirl of the senses - the mob of the senses, as Plato said. In this overcoming of the world and interpreting of the world in the manner of Plato, there was an enjoyment different from that which the physicists of today offer us - and also the Darwinists and anti-teleologists among the workers in physiology, with their principle of the "smallest possible force" and the greatest possible stupidity. "Where man cannot find anything to see or to grasp, he has no further business" - that is certainly an imperative different from the Platonic one, but it may be the right imperative for a tough, industrious race of machinists and bridge-builders of the future, who have nothing but rough work to do. 15 To study physiology with a clear conscience, one must insist that the sense organs are not phenomena in the sense of idealistic philosophy; as such they could not be causes! Sensualism, therefore, at least as a regulative hypothesis, if not as a heuristic principle. - What? And others even say that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be the work of our organs! It seems to me that this is a complete reductio ad absurdum - assuming that the concept of a causa sui is something fundamentally absurd. Consequently, the external world is just the work of our organs - ? 16 There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for example, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer put it, "I will"; as though knowledge here got hold of its object purely and nakedly as "the thing in it self" without any falsification on the part of either the subject or the object. But that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a contradictio adjecto. I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free our selves from the seduction of words! Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself: When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, "I think," I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an "ego," and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking - that I know what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps "willing" or "feeling"? In short, the assertion "I think" assumes that I compare my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further "knowledge," it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me. In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the case at hand, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, truly searching questions of the intellect; to wit: "From where do I get the concept of thing? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an ego, and even of an ego as cause, and finally ego as the cause of thought?" Whoever ventures to answer the metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of intuitive perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that at least, is true, actual, and certain" - will encounter a smile and two question marks from a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken; but why insist on the truth?" [Here it is in a nutshell: searching for Platonic certainty and winding up with Humean absurdity.] Okiereddust 2003-06-20 15:31 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 19 2003, 18:28 * *I am another fan of scientific method. That's the best humans came up with for discovering the truth. It's based on: Building a theory explaining ALL accumulated body of evidence. Reproducability of measurements, consitituting evidence. Independent confirmation of measurements (done by different groups in different locations, derived from qualitatively different experiments with different approaches). Unlike a religion, faith in anything is constantly challenged, and breakthroughs happened when empirical evidence suggested that the at the time current theories were wrong. And often, based on theories, predictions are made, later to be confirmed by experiments.** I was trying to follow your method MR. Your philosophy seems strongly influenced by at least an attitude strongly similar to the Soviet era atheist doctrine of "scientism", a varient of empiricism. God ipso facto does not exist because he cannot be measured in a test tube. I thought the epitomy of this line of fatuous propaganda was when one of the early cosmonauts went into space and said "I didn't see God up there". I think this generalized scientism was part of the Marxist ideology's general opposition to idealism. This was the basis of its opposition to Freudianism and psychoanalysis, that it was a form of idealism. For instance, the existence of the human subconscious can be subjected to the same sort of critique as that of God. It can not be seen heard or felt, it must only be inferred. (As vcan any mental construct, such as the conscious itself). For this reason Soviet psychology leaned I think toward behaviorism. In America behaviorism was epitmized by B.F. Skinner's book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Separate and apart from MacDonald's strictures against psychoanalysis, this critique of idealism is rather crude. There are all sorts of things that can't really be completely to scientific categories. As you note, one of the biggest ones is that of man himself, one I think you allude to. Behavioristic psychology, as with all methods of determinism, has one glaring fault - it also explains away the objectivity of the observer, in fact the observer himself. (Re : C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man). And without the objective observer, there can be no behavioristic psychology, or science, in the first place. Scientism, aspiring to make science the putative destroyer of religion, has only proceeded to destroy itself. madrussian 2003-06-20 16:29 | User Profile Scoffing and pulling all kinds of irrelevant crap is a non-argument. Science is honest about things it still can't yet explain. Pulling out a book and insisting, without any credible evidence, that it's the truth (unlike those other guys' truth that are flase, unlike mine), is ridiculous. If there is God, science is the most likely thing that will discover it, not some desert people 2,000 years ago. :lol: NeoNietzsche 2003-06-20 16:35 | User Profile Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jun 20 2003, 09:31 * I was trying to follow your method MR.  Your philosophy seems strongly influenced by at least an attitude strongly similar to the Soviet era atheist doctrine of "scientism", a varient of empiricism.  God ipso facto* does not exist because he cannot be measured in a test tube. ** A fair reservation regarding pre-modern objections to religion. Modern epistemology, rather, does not so much deny that "God exists" as much as it asks for a clarification of the putative meaning of the phrase, so that we might devise a means of determining its truth value, test tube or otherwise. This clarification is the problem in the modern context - for "God" (rather than the now operationally-defined objective observer) evaporates when meaningfully characterized. Typically, "God" is transformed into some variant of "he is more than we can imagine" (i.e., in some sense, infinite), which trivializes his "existence" into Pan-theism even if it is conceded that such is the case. Okiereddust 2003-06-20 18:07 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 20 2003, 16:35 * A fair reservation regarding pre-modern objections to religion.* You use pre-modern and modern. I understand your categorizations, but most historians would use the terms "modern" and "postmodern". The meaning in any sense is understood. Modern epistemology, rather, does not so much deny that "God exists" as much as it asks for a clarification of the putative meaning of the phrase, so that we might devise a means of determining its truth value, test tube or otherwise. This clarification is the problem in the modern context - for "God" (rather than the now operationally-defined objective observer) evaporates when meaningfully characterized.  Typically, "God" is transformed into some variant of "he is more than we can imagine" (i.e., in some sense, infinite), which trivializes his "existence" into Pan-theism even if it is conceded that such is the case.** Actually I thought modern epistomology to some extent (at least theological epistomology, although Schaeffer thinks there is little difference between modern "theological" and secular thought any more), under the influence of Heidegerian mysticism, had deliberately abandoned the search for this clarification of the term "God" and chosen to leave it undefined (the so-called "philisophical other). This is what is called "the upper story" God. Francis Schaffer pointed out that really this "God" undefined and mystified, is still for all intents and purposes for these theologians a dead God, as you note. (Ref: Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There) NeoNietzsche 2003-06-20 19:20 | User Profile Originally posted by Okiereddust+Jun 20 2003, 12:07 --> QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jun 20 2003, 12:07 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 20 2003, 16:35 * A fair reservation regarding pre-modern objections to religion.* You use pre-modern and modern. I understand your categorizations, but most historians would use the terms "modern" and "postmodern". The meaning in any sense is understood. Modern epistemology, rather, does not so much deny that "God exists" as much as it asks for a clarification of the putative meaning of the phrase, so that we might devise a means of determining its truth value, test tube or otherwise. This clarification is the problem in the modern context - for "God" (rather than the now operationally-defined objective observer) evaporates when meaningfully characterized.  Typically, "God" is transformed into some variant of "he is more than we can imagine" (i.e., in some sense, infinite), which trivializes his "existence" into Pan-theism even if it is conceded that such is the case.** Actually I thought modern epistomology to some extent (at least theological epistomology, although Schaeffer thinks there is little difference between modern "theological" and secular thought any more), under the influence of Heidegerian mysticism, had deliberately abandoned the search for this clarification of the term "God" and chosen to leave it undefined (the so-called "philisophical other). This is what is called "the upper story" God. Francis Schaffer pointed out that really this "God" undefined and mystified, is still for all intents and purposes for these theologians a dead God, as you note. (Ref: Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There)** I may be rusty on my terminology, but I refer to logical positivism/empiricism/atomism, operationalism, "Popperism" as "modern" and universalist or non-relativist. I identify relativist, historicist, contextualist epistemologies as "post-Modern". Humean and Nietzschean Scepticism is thus "pre-modern" according to this arrangement (having been based upon the classical search for certainty and completeness, which (relatively) recently ended in absurdities avoided by "modern" epistemology based upon mere contingency). I do not insist upon this terminology - I recite it merely in order that my references be understood. Yes, modern epistemology has seemingly abandoned clarification of the term "God," presumably since its own proper role is to ask for such rather than to supply it, and since there seems to be no satisfactory clarification to be had, in principle (the closer you get to an abstract deity, the more he retreats as such). Campion Moore Boru 2003-06-20 19:23 | User Profile *Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 19 2003, 21:36 * ** You change the subject from whether any one religion is the true word of God to the last letter to whether science can comprehend the essense of the spirit and soul. I am fascinated by that subject too. Humans will eventually possess the knowledge to built a robot that in terms of behavior would be practically indistinguishable from a human. What constitues conciousness and self-awareness as a living being possessing free will? Science is moving in into this area, as more genetic studies and studies into how the brain works are done. Frankly, I don't see how science can explain the spirit of a human (or an animal for that part). Will the humans lose their humanity if it manages to do so? ** I misunderstood your subject then not to be what denomination is correct, to whether or not Science is the ultimate arbitrer of "reality." Call my criticisms of science in its abortive applications to some fields analgous to Heisenberg's principle. As to your predictions that science will unltimately create droids indistinguishable from Humans, I disagree. Science cannot construct what it does'nt understand, or perhaps more aptly, cannot measure. madrussian 2003-06-20 19:49 | User Profile ** As to your predictions that science will unltimately create droids indistinguishable from Humans, I disagree. Science cannot construct what it does'nt understand, or perhaps more aptly, cannot measure. ** You overestimate the intelligence of, say, a Freaker :lol: I think human reactions are much simpler than you think, and are not impossible to reproduce. The most amazing thing is the fast development of a baby. Adults are almost robots, doing the same routine over and over again. As to whether science is omnipotent, that's the best tool and methodology for discovering the truth (and converging on it). Shaking your book at someone shaking other book is kindergarten. I can only justify it when it "good for your people". When it serves to put you to sleep, it's counter-productive. Bring back the traditional nationalist intolerant anti-semitic Church! Campion Moore Boru 2003-06-20 19:59 | User Profile A. You can't bring FReeps in, we're talking about devloped Humans; B. Human Reactions can be reproduced, but not in a thoroughly Human way until you can develop AI that thinks creatively; C. I've never disagreed that Science is the best tool for understanding the material world. It is undoubtedly so. Of course the scientific method was fully developed during the 'superstitious' Christian middle/dark ages- and the popular movement against it was/is the pagan/Orientalist "Romantic" movement in its many crystal/new age permutations today; D. I'm a member of that Church. I do think a droid Noachide is possible. Once you remove the requirement of logical, coherent statements or replies, a robotic Rat or Heretic is certainly possible. madrussian 2003-06-20 20:08 | User Profile Creativity is the hardest brain activity, and very few people actually can create anything. What passes for sophistication is only a learned behavior. Why do you think it took so long to invent the wheel? What some people mistake for creativity is actually association and pattern recognition, an occupation the humans are very good at. Whether you want it or not, "scientific method" is the only method you can use to discover anything, the spiritual world included. I don't see any inherent problem between searching for existence of God and being a scientist. Campion Moore Boru 2003-06-20 20:14 | User Profile *Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 20 2003, 14:08 * ** Creativity is the hardest brain activity, and very few people actually can create anything. What passes for sophistication is only a learned behavior. Why do you think it took so long to invent the wheel? What some people mistake for creativity is actually association and pattern recognition, an occupation the humans are very good at. Whether you want it or not, "scientific method" is the only method you can use to discover anything, the spiritual world included. I don't see any inherent problem between searching for existence of God and being a scientist. ** As to your last sentence, neither do I. Though I think your label of creativity is a few deviations too high. I'm not speaking of composing La Traviatta, or engineering the transistor. I was merely speaking in the reactional sense of Human interchange and conversation. Exchange in this sense with a droid would be maddening, as it would essentially involve talking to a wall: a library of canned responses, and an avoidance of the "point" of the interchange. Hence my reference to Rat and Heretic. Campion Moore Boru 2003-06-20 20:15 | User Profile As an aside, you you admit the limitations of science? The application of Heisenberg's discovery in, say, a more "metaphysical" sense? MadScienceType 2003-06-20 20:42 | User Profile As an aside, you you admit the limitations of science? If he doesn't, I will. Science is simply an attempt to understand the basis of observed phenomena for which we have no explanation. If you can't observe IT, then you can't possibly understand IT, though that's a far cry from saying IT doesn't exist. Nobody observed atoms before Rutherford did his gold foil trick, but atoms certainly existed. I think God exists. The fact that the universe tends toward entropy (chaos), yet life, gravity, matter and light exist, as opposed to energy just evening out until the universe is uniform, argues that there is some force bringing order to the whole deal. Whether or not you want to call that force God or not is up to you. Could be God's laws aren't the Ten Commandments, but the laws of thermodynamics. It's not that you shouldn't break them, you simply can't. Maybe God is the ultimate scientist and we simply one of his many ongoing experiments. That would explain his non-interference in Earthly matters, as any intervention would contaminate the results. I don't think you offend God by not worshipping Him. Why would he need you to? (though a sincere thanks for the hard work might be in order) Rather, you disappoint Him by being an uninteresting subject of study. Back to human science; it's fascinating! It's really like sneaking a peek at God's lab notebook. The level of design and complexity is amazing. The mistake comes in when we think that because we've read a page or two, we know all the answers and don't need Him anymore. madrussian 2003-06-21 00:10 | User Profile *Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@Jun 20 2003, 13:15 * ** As an aside, you you admit the limitations of science? The application of Heisenberg's discovery in, say, a more "metaphysical" sense? ** Are you talking about Heisenberg principle? I am not familiar with what the philosophers pondered on the subject, so I am no help when it comes to discussing their laymen interpretation of physical phenomena. As far as limitations of science, what do you mean? Explanation of supernatural? What supernatural? madrussian 2003-06-21 00:13 | User Profile Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 20 2003, 14:02 * Since the supernatural is outside the realm of science (it can neither be measured nor observed), I rather doubt that science can "discover" a God or prove His existence. The best that science can do is to discover anomalies in the physical world which are not only inexplicable in terms of physical law, but VIOLATE physical law.* If God manifests his presense by creating anomalies, then he's observable. So far every deviation from current theories were explained by biulding a more comprehensive and unified theory. If God exists but there is absolutely no manifestation, anomalies or open presense (second coming, armageddon) he may as well not exist. Valley Forge 2003-06-21 01:06 | User Profile **If God manifests his presense by creating anomalies, then he's observable. ** Many things can be shown to exist that are not observable in any way. Consider mathematical and logical truths, for example. Does knowing that 2+2=4 depend on observation? If so, what observations does it depend on? Or, what about human consciousness? It cannot be observed, and its effects can't be measured, but most people would agree that human consciousness is something that exists. I could keep going with these types of examples, but I'm sure you get the point. Texas Dissident 2003-06-21 01:24 | User Profile *Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 20 2003, 15:08 * ** Whether you want it or not, "scientific method" is the only method you can use to discover anything, the spiritual world included. ** Is this absolute testable and/or verified by science? Granted, I'm no scholar but this strikes me as a philisophical claim. Patrick 2003-06-21 03:52 | User Profile "Whether you want it or not, "scientific method" is the only method you can use to discover anything, the spiritual world included." Actually... .....Scripture validates that which is science, when it addresses such; much speculation occurs, however, regarding the "spiritual", and will persist unto the end of this age... As far as validating Scripture, one needn't "prove" the existence of God when His Word declares, and the evidence of said declaration manifests before one's eyes; that which we labor under, (the ones Franco insists upon naming), was prophesied long ago, beginning with Amos, 6:14, but Scripture is replete with mention... it is the age-old repetition of the Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau tale; it comes because we are disobedient... Our Father wasn't so much declaring "punishment", as He was "consequence", but we still don't listen; we enjoyed for some time the blessings of the first fourteen verses of Deuteronomy, 28, and we now have the curses from verse fifteen, onward, to contend with, simply due to our obstinate, stiff-necked and hard-hearted rebellion... .....We shouldn't be surprised when this happens; it was promised... It's The Law; and it was promised by The One who cannot lie... "Lest ye repent, ye will all, likewise perish"... Sooo, what are we doing wrong? BTW... .....Science percieves not that which is spiritual; it will be lucky to recognize it after the fact... madrussian 2003-06-21 18:58 | User Profile Actually there are theories about that. But reducing the presense of God from the direct manifestation of 2,000 years ago to simply a Creator who did his job billions years ago and now no longer interested in that project anymore is already going a long distance from just shaking a book :D Paleoleftist 2003-06-21 22:25 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 19 2003, 19:39 * ** It seems to have escaped you that I earlier made precisely the point about empirical-reality-as-perceivable. ** That has indeed escaped me. I´d rather say you are now in full retreat toward a safer defense position. And you are a bit late with this, like your hero usually was. :hit: But let´s say we are -and have always been! :rolleyes: - in agreement about what natural science is: a set of non-contradictory hypotheses about reality-as-perceived that allow us to make reliable predictions about our future perceptions at least some of the time. If so, then we are to return to my earlier post, which you have yet to refute: [color=blue] Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that the real world exists? Prove to me, beyond possible doubt, the wrongness of Solipsism, or admit that the axioms of any worldview, including yours and mine, predate science and cannot but be accepted as a given. Which opens the door, of course, for the possibility of religion. [/color] [And with an ominous "Click!" the time loop closes, and the dreaded Nietzschean eternal recurrence of the same is put in motion.] :ph34r: Paleoleftist 2003-06-21 22:29 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 19 2003, 20:49 * ** Right or wrong, I am amongst a multitude in this regard. ** I wonder what Nietzsche would have had to say about this argument. :afro: Paleoleftist 2003-06-21 22:41 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 19 2003, 20:49 * ** All* claims are properly examined for their meaningfulness, coherence, and correspondence with reality, where they purport to be of universal validity. ** Who said anything about universal validity? I cannot prove -nor can anybody!- the "universal validity" of anything, except Formal Logic. My arguments in favour of Christendom are five: I: It has proven to be adaptative in many circumstances. II: Western Civilization is built upon it, at least to a large degree. III: That European Christianity has survived so long indicates that it fits us. IV: There is no serious competition. V: I like it. Okiereddust 2003-06-21 23:19 | User Profile Originally posted by AntiYuppie+Jun 21 2003, 18:49 --> QUOTE* (AntiYuppie @ Jun 21 2003, 18:49 ) <!--QuoteBegin-madrussian@Jun 21 2003, 00:13 * ** If God manifests his presense by creating anomalies, then he's observable. So far every deviation from current theories were explained by biulding a more comprehensive and unified theory. If God exists but there is absolutely no manifestation, anomalies or open presense (second coming, armageddon) he may as well not exist. ** One could argue that the singularity associated with the universe at time "zero" is just such an anomaly. Explaining how physical laws could have arisen outside the bounds of space and time, and how there is no meaningful equation of state at time zero implies some kind of entity or "unmoved mover" that exists outside of the material world (one is also tempted to think along similar lines with the interpretation of the universe as finite but unbounded). I am not saying that any sort of anthropomorphic deity, much less the tribal deity of the Israelites is implied by any of this, simply that modern science has no means of understanding what, if anything, exists "beyond" or "before" space and time.** AY, its sound like you have been conversant with some of the new cosmological theories of people like Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, Robert Jastrow, and Richard Swineburne. These academics ranging from physicists and astronomers to cosmological philosophers, have made the rather startling conclusion, from a philosophy of science standpoint, that the universe's creation can not be explained purely from the laws of physics, but ultimately point to the necessity of an intelligent creator. To anyone acquainted with cosmology, Madrussian's seeming assertion that "there is absolutely no manifestation, anomalies or open presense in the structure of the universe", that "so far every deviation from current theories were explained by building a more comprehensive and unified theory", (in a scientifically sound way) is sort of a cartoonish carcicature of science. It might be made by someone who has studied science superficially, say in high school or a couple of college courses, but is a mistake not commonly by serious students of science. People who study the more speculative work of even atheist cosmologists like say Hawking or Carl Sagan soon realize that there work goes far beyond the boundaries of science (which deals with the observable) and quickly delves into the sort of unverifiable speculation only associated with philosophy/religion. To say there are > "absolutely no manifestation, anomalies or open presense in the structure of the universe" just reveals either a basic ignorance of or indifference to the limitations of science. I read once Bill Gates saying some rather laughable things about what computer programmers where going to be able to do in artificial intelligence. Maybe its just an occupational hazard of the field, a somewhat megalomaniacal attitude that everything in the universe can be programmed and/or reproduced by the pproper computer code. This from the guy who created Windows, the most God-awful creation ever to hit the world of computer code. madrussian 2003-06-21 23:42 | User Profile Okie, No offense, but much of what you say is wishful thinking and speculative interpretation of what others may have said. Scientists are the most godawful atheists, irrespective of their rank. The ones on the interface with the laymen press may skirt about the issues and talk down to the interviewers. Phylosophy is one of the most useless fields because it's built on nothing but speculation and fuzzy logic, not supported by the need to explain the world rigorously. Okiereddust 2003-06-22 00:18 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 21 2003, 23:42 * *Okie, No offense, but much of what you say is wishful thinking and speculative interpretation of what others may have said. ** You're making your own speculative jump here, I'd say. Scientists are the most godawful atheists, irrespective of their rank. The ones on the interface with the laymen press may skirt about the issues and talk down to the interviewers. You pretty much sound like a representative from the American's United Against Church and State etc here. People who are pursuing their own ideological agenda's, not looking at the latest facts. You aren't accurate in general about scientists, especially in physics and other areas that are forced to deal with the new cosmology. Surveys of the scientists in general show that the majority of scientists in fact believe in God. As you go up the ladder, say among leading scientists on the national academy of sciences, it is true they become strongly atheistic. The same way as you work your way up the ladder of the ACLU, from nominal believers at the bottom to pretty much agnostic at the top. Also, of course, as you work your way up the ladder, the dynamic becomes highly political and personal disproportionately Jewish. Phylosophy is one of the most useless fields because it's built on nothing but speculation and fuzzy logic, not supported by the need to explain the world rigorously. You know, you are sounding like the caricaturial character Alosha out of Brother's Karamozov "Philosophy is All Rot". Actually, it is well known to any student of the history of science that the peculiar mentality and social attitude produced by Christianity was inescapable for the creation of science. Why? Because Christianity compeled men to seriously examine the physical world and observe it carefully, rather than just mechanically impose their own mental prejudices on it. Without such an attitude of fallibility, and the need to periodically examine our prejudices, we get dialogues such as yours. madrussian 2003-06-22 00:43 | User Profile ** Why? Because Christianity compeled men to seriously examine the physical world and observe it carefully, rather than just mechanically impose their own mental prejudices on it. Without such an attitude of fallibility, and the need to periodically examine our prejudices, we get dialogues such as yours. ** Scientific method is the one that "seriously examine[s] the physical world and observe[s] it carefully, rather than just mechanically impose[s] their own mental prejudices on it.". You swapped science and a religion :D And science, incidentally, is the one that is always open to the current theories being wrong and is constantly challenges them with experiments. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-22 01:10 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 21 2003, 16:25 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 21 2003, 16:25 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 19 2003, 19:39 * ** It seems to have escaped you that I earlier made precisely the point about empirical-reality-as-perceivable.  ** That has indeed escaped me. I´d rather say you are now in full retreat toward a safer defense position. And you are a bit late with this, like your hero usually was. :hit: But let´s say we are -and have always been! :rolleyes: - in agreement about what natural science is: a set of non-contradictory hypotheses about reality-as-perceived that allow us to make reliable predictions about our future perceptions at least some of the time. If so, then we are to return to my earlier post, which you have yet to refute: Where is it indicated, in other than your mere sentiments, that the real world exists?** [From previous post: It is indicated in my observations, supported by those of others, which are distinct from our sentiments. Please discipline yourself to this vital distinction between facts and values, which persists despite post-modernist attempts to eliminate it. If you wish to play the epistemology game, we will say that the past existence of "objective" reality is an operational hypothesis upon which the further development of that "reality," whatever its "authentic" character, can be more accurately anticipated than is the case with any other model. In short, the world acts "as if" it were independent of our sentiments and as if a consensus on its character can be arrived at by those without radical organic deformities. There is no "proof," such as you would have, that an elaborate conspiracy has not been arranged to broadcast the illusion of this circumstance into your brain - so Ockam's Razor is serviceable as an economy, but is not really necessary - the circumstance, as perceived and anticipated, is the same in either case. For the "axioms" (as you call them) of experimental science are themselves the mere product of experience (however bizarrely or economically conceived overall) and so do not "predate" science but are a part of it.][Emphasis added for self-indulgently sloppy readers.] Of course, the Platonic "real" world or Kantian "noumenous" world may or may not exist. My "sentiment" in that regard is that I don't care. Thanks for this imbecilic diversion from the original point made to Brother Tex. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-22 01:19 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 21 2003, 16:29 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 21 2003, 16:29 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 19 2003, 20:49 * ** Right or wrong, I am amongst a multitude in this regard. ** I wonder what Nietzsche would have had to say about this argument. :afro:** There would be nothing to say in this regard by Nietzsche, or anyone else, in that the observation was in simple contradiction of what seemed to be your impression that my position was singularly my own. This had nothing to do with the merit of my stance. What would your third-grade English teacher say about your inability to understand the immediate implication of a simple proposition written in your own language? :unsure: NeoNietzsche 2003-06-22 01:28 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 21 2003, 16:41 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Jun 21 2003, 16:41 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 19 2003, 20:49 * ** All* claims are properly examined for their meaningfulness, coherence, and correspondence with reality, where they purport to be of universal validity. ** Who said anything about universal validity? I cannot prove -nor can anybody!- the "universal validity" of anything, except Formal Logic. My arguments in favour of Christendom are five: I: It has proven to be adaptative in many circumstances. II: Western Civilization is built upon it, at least to a large degree. III: That European Christianity has survived so long indicates that it fits us. IV: There is no serious competition. V: I like it.** I can think of one immediate argument against Christianity. Okiereddust 2003-06-22 02:44 | User Profile *Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 22 2003, 00:43 * ** > ** Why? Because Christianity compeled men to seriously examine the physical world and observe it carefully, rather than just mechanically impose their own mental prejudices on it. Without such an attitude of fallibility, and the need to periodically examine our prejudices, we get dialogues such as yours. ** Scientific method is the one that "seriously examine[s] the physical world and observe[s] it carefully, rather than just mechanically impose[s] their own mental prejudices on it.". You swapped science and a religion :D ** You are the one swapping science and religion. You observations about science are a blindfaith, unsupported by any objectivity. Even NeoNietzsche questions your philosophy here. In regard to the physical world, I was talking about historical evidence. Remember, the scientific method did not create men, men created the scientific method, to serve certain limited ends of men, (and I would argue, of the consciousness that created men). Science thus is only a tool of man. It relies on men to tell us about science. It in turn can really say, on a profound level, very little about men. It can be used to assimilate data on a few things, but ultimately of course relies on man to draw the conclusions. You, like all people confining themselves to the scientific method, can tell us a little about the battles of mankind and thetrenches they were fought in, but little about the blood that runs through them. **And science, incidentally, is the one that is always open to the current theories being wrong and is constantly challenges them with experiments. ** If you believe that, I've got a bridge in New York I think you'd be interested in. Science, remember, is only as good as the objectivity and reliability of the observer. Your belief in the omnipotence of verifiable science requires an unverifiable belief in the omnipotence of man. madrussian 2003-06-22 03:27 | User Profile Who's talking about omnipotence? My point is the scientific method is the best tool (and chance) humans have for discovering the truth. The subjectivity factor in the scientific method is maximally reduced. In direct contrast to religions which are based on the visions and superstitions of some individuals thousands years ago. Best but not perfect, compared to obviously flawed subjective faith-based approach. And as for spirituality, feed and clothe a man enough and he will lose almost all of his spirituality. Spirituality is a biological response of a tortured mind in a conflicted situation. Science -- finding that the hypothesis that the Earth was orbiting the Sun best fit the experimental data. Religion -- burn the heretic. Okiereddust 2003-06-22 05:36 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 22 2003, 03:27 * Who's talking about omnipotence?* You were. Whether you want it or not, "scientific method" is the only method you can use to discover anything,** the spiritual world included......... My point is the scientific method is the best tool (and chance) humans have for discovering the truth. The subjectivity factor in the scientific method is maximally reduced.** No, your point was science was the only means of discovering truth. In other words science is the truth, i.e. os omnipotent, i.e. God. **And as for spirituality, feed and clothe a man enough and he will lose almost all of his spirituality. Spirituality is a biological response of a tortured mind in a conflicted situation  ** In other words man is a clever pig, ne'c'est pa?. This sounds very Marxist. A little remedial reading is in order. Above all, the conservative counterrevolution will come to nothing if it dispenses with its first and most basic principle, the affirmation of a transcendent order. There will be no liberation from the tyranny of the managers and their anti-traditional principles without what can only be called a religious vision. Transcendence must break in upon us, as it has broken in upon our ancestors, and grant us the knowledge by which we may live in accord with it. The conservative counterrevolution is in need of the gift from above by which traditional life may be renewed and restored. It cannot be forgotten that it will be a gift, and not something that we can manufacture for ourselves. Tradition is lifeless unless the knowledge of the transcendent order upon which it is founded is woven into the most basic understanding of the world as a whole; and this understanding, which is as mysterious and worthy of piety as what it knows, can never be fully grasped and mastered, let alone abstractly formulated and inculcated. (See my signature) Texas Dissident 2003-06-22 08:59 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 21 2003, 22:27 * The subjectivity factor in the scientific method is maximally reduced.* But we live in the subjective, mr. *The way of objective reflection turns the subjective individual into something accidental and thereby turns existence into an indifferent, vanishing something. The way to the objective truth goes away from the subject, and while the subject and subjectivity become indifferent, the truth also becomes indifferent, and that is precisely its objective validity, because the interest, just like the decision, is subjectivity. The way of objective reflection now leads to abstract thinking, to mathematics, to historical knowledge of various kinds, and always leads away from the subjective individual, whose existence or nonexistence becomes, from an objective point of view, altogether properly, infinitely indifferent... But to be an individual human being is not a pure idea-existence either. Only humanity in general exists in this way, that is, does not exist. Existence is always the particular; the abstract does not exist. To conclude from this that the abstract does not have reality is a misunderstanding.... Philosophy explains: Thinking and being are one...but thinking and being are one in relation to that whose existence is essentially a matter of indifference because it is so abstract that it has only thought-existence. God does not think, he creates; God does not exist, he is eternal. A human being thinks and exists, and existence separates thinking and being, holds them apart from each other in succession. What is thinking? It is thinking where there is no thinker. It ignores everything but thought, and in its own medium only thought is. Existence is not thoughtless, but in existence thought is in an alien medium. What does it mean, then, in the language of abstract thinking to ask about actuality in the sense of existence when abstraction expressly ignores it?—What is concrete thinking? It is thinking where there are a thinker and a specific something (in the sense of particularity) that is being thought, where existence gives the existing thinker thought, time, and space.... Instead of having the task of understanding the concrete abstractly, as abstract thinking has, the subjective thinker has the opposite task of understanding the abstract concretely. Abstract thinking turns from concrete human beings to humankind in general; the subjective thinker understands the abstract concept to be the concrete human being, to be this individual existing human being.... Indeed, what is an existing human being? Our age knows all too well how little it is, but therein lies the specific immorality of our age. Every age has its own;the immorality of our age is perhaps not lust and pleasure and sensuality, but rather a pantheistic, debauched contempt for individual human beings.... Just as in the desert individuals must travel in large caravans out of fear of robbers and wild animals, so individuals today have a horror of existence because it is godforsaken; they dare to live only in great herds and cling together en masse in order to be at least something. ...and every human being who has passion is always somewhat solitary; it is only drivelers who are swallowed up in social life...* S. Kierkegaard (from [u]Concluding Unscientific Postscript[/u]) Texas Dissident 2003-06-22 09:01 | User Profile Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jun 22 2003, 00:36 * ** No, your point was science was the only means of discovering truth. In other words science is* the truth, i.e. os omnipotent, i.e. God. ** Indeed it was. Yeoman's work, Okie. Our friend madrussian needs a good dose of Schaeffer, or even Lewis. :) NeoNietzsche 2003-06-22 12:36 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jun 22 2003, 03:01 --> QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Jun 22 2003, 03:01 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Okiereddust@Jun 22 2003, 00:36 * ** No, your point was science was the only means of discovering truth.  In other words science is* the truth, i.e. os omnipotent, i.e. God. ** Indeed it was. Yeoman's work, Okie. Our friend madrussian needs a good dose of Schaeffer, or even Lewis. :)** Unfortunately and discouragingly, much vague language is being tossed about here to no possibility of a meaningful resolution. My own point, in the midst of this, would be that what I refer to as "modern" (not * post-Modern) epistemology dwells not so much on the means of discovering truth, but rather on what we mean* when we speak and write of something as putatively being the truth. Discussions of metaphysics and ontology, for example, are not really false - they are mere nonsense neither true nor false - thus they are empty of meaning other than in their emotive implications. Philosophers allow themselves to revise vocabularies and to attach novel connotations to words therein - while developing elaborately self-deceptive strings of propositions leading to desired conclusions, as witness S.K.'s waste of our reading time, above. Dr. William Sargant long ago wrote a book based on his experience and experiments, which some of you may recall as Battle for the Mind, wherein he discussed the "conversion" process resulting from brain-washing, various forms of stress administration, drug effects, and religious and ideological indoctrination. He noted that, in the most immediate form of induction and recovery from conversion, through drug administration, the subject may experience the sense of having acquired profound insights while under the influence, and will immediately record these insights only to find the record of these profundities nothing but gibberish upon recovery. So, to the extent that truth (empirical-reality-as-perceived-in-common) is to be held as something other than mere personal sentiment, the products of conversion do not qualify as such. So, while authentic in their sensation, the senses of Sin-and-Salvation, the Love of God, etc., represent nothing more than this sensation, if one is to properly speak of the "truth" in this regard. Therefore, we acknowledge that "Sin" and "Love" exist in some sense (the emotive qualities thereof even having some denominationally-common currency), while being careful to understand this limited sense in which it is meaningful to speak of this as being true. madrussian 2003-06-22 16:35 | User Profile Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jun 21 2003, 22:36 * No, your point was science was the only means of discovering truth.  In other words science is* the truth, i.e. os omnipotent, i.e. God. ** Not so fast, my friend :D :D :D The starting point is that the science is the best of the currently existing methods (science + religion) of discovering the truth. Now that you fixed the set of what can be used for truth-searching, and dissmissed one, you are left with the only. Capisce? No, I don't buy the logical jump from "the best" to it being equivalent to truth blah blah blah. There is a tool, and there is a subject. ** In other words man is a clever pig, ne'c'est pa?.  This sounds very Marxist. ** You are fond of slurs, aren't you? Pigs are pretty smart too (even more so than Freakers, perhaps). Religion is mental masturbation within a dogma. Science is open-ended. To me, religion is a social construct, which may be useful for promoting the behavior benefitial for the survival and advancement of "your people", because it's a dogma (and only when it stays dogmatic enough to preserve its role) with a set of rules promoting family and cohesion, making your people more immune to the subversion and propaganda from the enemies. Okiereddust 2003-06-22 17:31 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian+Jun 22 2003, 16:35 --> QUOTE (madrussian @ Jun 22 2003, 16:35 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Okiereddust@Jun 21 2003, 22:36 * No, your point was science was the only means of discovering truth.  In other words science is the truth, i.e. os omnipotent, i.e. God.* Not so fast, my friend :D :D :D The starting point is that the science is the best of the currently existing methods (science + religion) of discovering the truth. Now that you fixed the set of what can be used for truth-searching, and dissmissed one, you are left with the only. Capisce? No, I don't buy the logical jump from "the best" to it being equivalent to truth blah blah blah. There is a tool, and there is a subject.** Let's look at your words again. Whether you want it or not, "scientific method" is the only method you can use to discover anything, the spiritual world included......... You didn't say "the best". You said the only. Capisce? Touchee. > ** In other words man is a clever pig, ne'c'est pa?.  This sounds very Marxist. ** You are fond of slurs, aren't you? Pigs are pretty smart too (even more so than Freakers, perhaps).** . Well whether you decide to take umbrage at the metaphor or defend it, the basic piggish truth remains. Pigs are indeed smart, I'm sure indeed smarter than some freakers. That doesn't change a basic aspect noted in their character, that of a glutonous desire for food to the exclusion of all else, a word which is a well established term for human's with the same characteristic, rather universal in any culture dealing with swine. Mother sows habit of eating their young is rather universally noted as both a biologically odd characteristic and an apropriate meaphor for some humans with predilictions for similar behavior. (BTW an established biblical metaphor, re: "casting one's pearls before the swine." It may be 2000 years old, but pigs, and by your own admission many humans haven't changed much). A slightly more refined nature of the term is "philistine". Tell me how such differs from your description of human nature? **And as for spirituality, feed and clothe a man enough and he will lose almost all of his spirituality. ** In other words, food is the only fixed aspect of man's character. Some of the early Marxists actually adopted this as one of their watchwords. The American Wobblies, whenever a speaker got too esoteric, would let loose with the cry of "food, bread" "food, bread". Religion is mental masturbation within a dogma. Science is open-ended.  To me, religion is a social construct, which may be useful for promoting the behavior benefitial for the survival and advancement of "your people", because it's a dogma (and only when it stays dogmatic enough to preserve its role) with a set of rules promoting family and cohesion, making your people more immune to the subversion  and propaganda from the enemies. Actually postmodernists would say all truth is a social construct Texas Dissident 2003-06-22 19:30 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 22 2003, 11:35 * *The starting point is that the science is the best of the currently existing methods (science + religion) of discovering the truth. ** Is this absolute scientifically testable and/or verified? Religion is mental masturbation within a dogma. Actually, it would be adherents to scientism that are mentally masturbating. I am not a machine and neither are you. Even if you do hold such a debased image of yourself. madrussian 2003-06-22 20:00 | User Profile Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jun 22 2003, 10:31 ** You didn't say "the best".  You said the only. Capisce?  Touchee. ** This is what I said to make it clear for you: ** The starting point is that the science is the best of the currently existing methods (science + religion) of discovering the truth. Now that you fixed the set of what can be used for truth-searching, and dissmissed one, you are left with the only. Capisce? No, I don't buy the logical jump from "the best" to it being equivalent to truth blah blah blah. There is a tool, and there is a subject. ** ** Tell me how such differs from your description of human nature? ** Pigs don't know about the scientific method? ;) :lol: madrussian 2003-06-22 20:09 | User Profile *Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jun 22 2003, 12:30 * ** Is this absolute scientifically testable and/or verified? ** Like I wrote before: ** Science -- finding that the hypothesis that the Earth was orbiting the Sun best fit the experimental data. Religion -- burn the heretic. ** ** Actually, it would be adherents to scientism that are mentally masturbating.  I am not a machine and neither are you.  Even if you do hold such a debased image of yourself. ** I'd say someone who operates within a dogma is more machine-like. Your search for the truth has finished a long time ago (you've found it, right :lol:) Okiereddust 2003-06-22 20:53 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 22 2003, 20:09 * *Like I wrote before:...... ** Can you provide any evidence of intelligent thought or analysis in these posts? (By the scientific method, of course? :P) The dialogue acts more like that from a computer, programmed by a rather bad computer I might add. And one which right now seems caught in a loop. :huh: madrussian 2003-06-22 21:09 | User Profile Don't be a pig :lol: Campion Moore Boru 2003-06-22 23:33 | User Profile Right. Heisenberg's uncerttainty principle which posits, I believe, that certain sub-atomic principles cannot be measured without altering them in an effort to observe them. Extrapolate. madrussian 2003-06-22 23:53 | User Profile *Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@Jun 22 2003, 16:33 * ** Extrapolate. ** There is mathematical language describing the state of a particle, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is just a general property of such wave functions. Incidentally, Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics was that "God doesn't play dice". Quantum mechanics is probably the first theory in physics that describes the world as more than just a collection of mechanical objects with deterministic behavior. Without the feedback from experiments, there is no way people would converge on seomthing so profound and philosophically puzzling as quantum mechanics. Religion just doesn't have a mechanism to do anything like that. Okiereddust 2003-06-23 00:18 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 22 2003, 21:09 * Don't be a pig  :lol:* With sows around like you, I can understand why one wouldn't want to be a piglet :P NeoNietzsche 2003-06-23 01:26 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jun 19 2003, 12:51 --> QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Jun 19 2003, 12:51 ) <!--QuoteBegin-madrussian@Jun 19 2003, 13:31 * You do realize there is not a SINGLE evidence for the existance of God?* Is there any evidence for the non-existence of God? but isn't believing that your particular version of what is God is the true one, unlike the zillion of other versions, all based on nothing but superstition and charlatans putting down their speculation and "visions" in writing? God entered our world and time, incarnate in the historical man Jesus of Nazareth, performed miracles, directly proclaimed belief in himself was the "only way" to eternal life, was crucified and resurrected from the dead in front of numerous eye-witnesses who documented each event. That's what separates the real from the pretenders.** But neither is this "real" - it is merely a profession of faith in the historicity of preconceived and inwardly-fabricated cartoons (a term which I use reluctantly for lack of a suitable alternative). 1) "God entered our world and time, incarnate in the historical man Jesus of Nazareth,..." This presupposes a knowledge of the nature of "God" yet to be qualified as such, if this proposition has any meaning at all. 2) "...Performed miracles,..." There is no surviving record of the observations of an individual qualified to certify that the "miracles," such as were supposedly performed by Yeshua bar/ben Yusef, the Nazorene, were not other than the familiar magic tricks of the day. 3) "...directly proclaimed belief in himself was the "only way" to eternal life,..." A claim compromised by its service in the Pauline invention of another savior faith, and contradicted by the attitude of the surviving Nazorene community, which did not attribute divinity to their brother, Yeshua. 4) "...was crucified and resurrected from the dead in front of numerous eye-witnesses who documented each event." Again, no one competent/qualified to certify the events as characterized. madrussian 2003-06-23 02:44 | User Profile Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jun 22 2003, 17:18 * With sows around like you, I can understand why one wouldn't want to be a piglet :P* But the problem is... you behave like one :lol: Okiereddust 2003-06-23 03:05 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian+Jun 23 2003, 02:44 --> QUOTE (madrussian @ Jun 23 2003, 02:44 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Okiereddust@Jun 22 2003, 17:18 * With sows around like you, I can understand why one wouldn't want to be a piglet :P* But the problem is... you behave like one :lol:** I detect a "same to you but more of it" loop. :y MR, you really need to reprogram your PC, its making you look silly :sm: madrussian 2003-06-23 03:15 | User Profile It appears Il Ragno was right about you :dung: Okiereddust 2003-06-23 04:46 | User Profile Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 23 2003, 03:15 * :dung:* :dung:? Hey porky, you realize that's a swinean compliment? :lol: Texas Dissident 2003-06-23 07:56 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 22 2003, 20:26 * But neither is this* "real" - . ** Not with your presuppositions, NN. It will never be. it is merely a profession of faith in the historicity of preconceived and inwardly-fabricated cartoons (a term which I use reluctantly for lack of a suitable alternative) Cartoons or not, I've never claimed otherwise. It is a question of faith. One either believes, or they don't. But that Christ the magician must have been something. Mass hallucination of five thousand folks imagining they were eating fish and bread. Among them even bitter enemies like the Pharisees. He coulda made a fortune in Vegas. One wonders why he didn't pull a rabbit out his top hat to avoid an excrutiatingly painful beating and death on a cross. But I guess in our wise, modern historically objective hindsight it was all part of a grand conspiracy to delude white folks. :clown: :lol: :1eye: :blink: NeoNietzsche 2003-06-23 12:33 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jun 23 2003, 01:56 --> QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Jun 23 2003, 01:56 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 22 2003, 20:26 * But neither is this* "real" - . ** Not with your presuppositions, NN. It will never be. it is merely a profession of faith in the historicity of preconceived and inwardly-fabricated cartoons (a term which I use reluctantly for lack of a suitable alternative) Cartoons or not, I've never claimed otherwise. It is a question of faith. One either believes, or they don't. But that Christ the magician must have been something. Mass hallucination of five thousand folks imagining they were eating fish and bread. Among them even bitter enemies like the Pharisees. He coulda made a fortune in Vegas. One wonders why he didn't pull a rabbit out his top hat to avoid an excrutiatingly painful beating and death on a cross. But I guess in our wise, modern historically objective hindsight it was all part of a grand conspiracy to delude white folks. :clown: :lol: :1eye: :blink:** Tex, On the first point, I again wish to impress you with the fact that the "presuppositions" argument is a false crutch for the believers. Science and its method are completely the products of our experience disciplining the coordination and refinement of the growing human senses. We come into the world with slight perceptual biases other than those of our appetities, and the multiplicity of our senses serves to correct our infantile impressions of the world as those various senses are coordinated by experience of our interaction with it (in avoidance of the Solipsism which Paleoleftist fears). Our maturing experiences next involve recognition that repetitive past perceptual experience becomes the basis of our conceptualization (combination of perceptions) of anticipated future experience, and even that our proper judgment as to what to have faith in is likewise conditioned by outward experience rather than mere inward sentiment. Thus a-theism and faith do not stand on the same ground of having presuppositions amongst which to choose. While it is true that many an "atheist" fills the void with another faith (Humanism, Buddhism, Communism), the precedent void is nevertheless that which our non-sentimental observation of the world finds as our context. And you did "claim otherwise": You wrote of the crucial incidents as having happened "...in front of numerous eye-witnesses who documented each event. That's what separates the real from the pretenders." The reader is immediately given to understand by this remark, that the putative historicity, i.e., evidentiary basis, of the faith is a fundamental aspect of its justification. I would think that you have had sufficient experience with even modern journalism to know that the reportage of events is subject to many an error. Yeshua may well have multiplied the fish-and-bread as depicted, or the event may have been enhanced in the later telling of a savior's tale. We do and will not know, for lack of competent contemporary first-hand observers' reports having survived. [Have you even so much as a well-founded judgment as to whether Uri Gellar can bend spoons other than by a magic trick?] Yeshua lived amidst the expectation of Messiah - and died, as did many another, after being seized while working toward the fulfillment of that dream.