BBC Blog Network

User Profile

logica_sine_vanitate

Listed below are comments made by logica_sine_vanitate between Sunday, 25th October 2009 and Friday, 27th November 2009 (17 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

36 Arguments for the Existence of God 10:19pm on 27 Nov 2009 "This is a good example of the Fallacy of Wishful Thinking. Our wishes for how the world should be need not be true; just because we want there to be some realm in which perfect justice applies does not mean that there is such a realm."

I find it interesting that those who subscribe to an epistemology of empiricism "start with where they are" and work outwards to construct a theory of reality. They start with their experience of the material world and then make the assumption that this is all that exists. Technically this is actually a leap of faith and also (technically) an example of the fallacy of wishful thinking. They justify this assumption by placing the burden of proof on their intellectual opponents (but on what logical basis are they able to do this?)

But let us start with where we are. Do we accept that there is such a thing as "injustice"? I think most people would say that we do have an inbuilt sense of both justice and injustice. But we cannot claim that any action is "unjust" without appealing to a standard of "justice", which therefore defines that which is not just. And this standard - like all standards and measuring rods - must be perfect (if this were not so, then the concept of "justice" would have to contain within itself some measure of "injustice" - which is nonsensical). If "injustice" exists, then logically "justice" must exist - and "exist" means precisely that: as an objective reality independent of any particular human mind.

If this is not true then justice becomes merely subjective, and subject to the whims and fancies of particular individuals and / or cultures. If the philosophy of materialism is true, then this perfect standard of justice must have derived from matter itself. But where in matter do we find such a concept? How can the organisation of matter (or should I say the self-organisation of matter) produce this perfect standard of justice? If materialists claim to believe in justice then there is a burden of proof on them to answer this question.

Here is an example of subjective justice. According to the philosophy of materialism the process of natural selection produced a particular group of people in Germany called The Nazis. They had their idea of "justice", which most of us (I hope all of us) would find utterly abhorrent. But in what way were their ideas "unjust" according to the philosophy of materialism? Matter, being impersonal, has no opinion about such moral claims.

The reality of justice does indeed imply that there is a realm of perfect justice. It is evidence that there is a reality outside of matter - a realm which objectively exists - which is characterised by perfect justice. If this realm does not exist, then justice does not exist. Any concept of justice which does exist (if this realm does not exist) is merely subjective, and any particular idea of justice is no more valid than any other - so therefore Nazi justice is just as "valid" as anti-Nazi justice. My argument cannot be refuted until such time as someone proves that the concept of "perfect justice" derives from the properties of matter itself (I wait with bated breath....).

The alternative is to deny that "justice" is a valid concept at all, and there go all ideas about law and morality. Without this validation, a justice system could only be implemented on the understanding that "there is no such thing as objective justice", and thus all laws would be imposed hypocritically and tyrannically without recourse to reason (how can you appeal to reason when reason tells you that justice has no objective validity?).

So the above-mentioned argument is not so fallacious after all. While it may not be a "proof" of the existence of the God of a particular religion, it does prove that the anti-religious, atheistic and materialistic philosophy is false.
Chomsky on religion and the ethics of war 10:12pm on 01 Nov 2009 I notice that there is a discussion here about sports not played much in the USA, and the implication that somehow American sports are superior to those played in "soft" old Europe.

Perhaps Marcus would like to have a go at rugby - a game with hardly any padding and certainly no helmets (unlike the American version of "football"). And the game doesn't stop with a tackle - have you ever seen a scrum, ruck or maul, Marcus??

I was brought up playing that sport. "Padding and helmets?!" You gotta be joking!! (BTW, I'm actually quite an admirer of the NFL, so no disrespect intended to that great sport.)

Talking about cricket - we use a really really HARD ball. I mean it can kill (and has done so quite a few times - and I was nearly seriously injured at school with one). Any decent batsman would have no problem facing a baseball pitcher. It would be a cakewalk.

So all this utter tripe about the Americans being "hard" and Europeans "soft" may turn on the deluded directors of the APA (American Propaganda Agency, a.k.a. Hollywood), but in the real world....

As for "soccer", it's no more "effeminate" than golf, basketball or tennis. So I don't really know what you're talking about (and I suspect neither do you).

Just get over your anti-European prejudice will you; it's not that hard ya know...
Atheists reach out to agnostics 9:23pm on 01 Nov 2009 PK & Helio ...

"Crackpot" here again...

Since I am fed up with rewriting my posts I will just lift something I wrote somewhere else (not on W&T).

Here it is...

"You [referring to an atheist I was debating with] wrote about not trusting "unverified truths". By what means is a concept verified to be true in your philosophy? Presumably by the empirical method, dependent on observation and experimentation. Naturalism depends on the validity of empiricism. The problem that I have with empiricism is that the fundamental claim of empiricism, namely, that "knowledge can only derive from sense experience", cannot itself be verified empirically. There is no experience that we can have within nature that requires us to believe that "knowledge can only derive from sense experience". This is a premise brought to experience, not derived from experience.

Therefore there is a contradiction at the heart of naturalism.

It is possible that some naturalists may object to the idea that naturalism depends entirely on empiricism, as they would claim that we possess innate ideas that we can validly bring to experience. The problem with that, however, is that (according to naturalism) nature has been the source of those innate ideas, which could only have developed within the human mind as a result of the psychological reinforcement of a pattern of experiences of the evolving human organism, seeking to survive within the process of natural selection. All such ideas would simply be devices to enable a certain animal to survive and tell us nothing about "objective truth".

Within this philosophy, any truth claim can only be verified pragmatically, and on this basis even belief in God could be verified if it helps some people achieve their goals. Religious people have every right to claim that their goals are as valid as the non-religious person's goals, and therefore the means to achieve those goals become valid also - this is the implication of pragmatic verification. Naturalistic epistemology, being entirely pragmatic, as I have argued, cannot therefore condemn religious beliefs, yet the philosophy of naturalism, being materialistic, of course must exclude religious beliefs: it is a complete contradiction.

So I find it strange that naturalists claim to be committed to "truth", and often accuse those who are not naturalists of abandoning "truth" in favour of "experience". Yet, as I have argued, the epistemology of naturalism is built entirely on the foundation of experience (what, after all, is sense perception if it is not experience?)"

I would also like to add to this post concerning the drive to survive within natural selection which (allegedly) produces innate ideas. There is nothing in nature (left to its own devices) that demands that any system or organism should survive rather than die. This is a law which is being "read back" into nature. Since nature is blind, life and death are meaningless concepts - all reality is simply reducible to the movement of atoms, molecules, bosons etc. So therefore the innate ideas resulting from natural selection (which are fashioned to aid survival) cannot reflect objective reality, and therefore tell us nothing about "truth".

It is for this reason that I reject the philosopy of naturalism, materialism - or whatever you wish to call it - which undergirds atheism. Why? Because it can offer no logical basis for any truth claim. It fails therefore at the very first hurdle epistemologically.

Helio talks about "starting where we are now" and working outwards, but you still have to have a valid basis from which to work. To suggest that you don't is simply naive - or to use Helio's favourite word: jejune.
Atheists reach out to agnostics 1:59pm on 29 Oct 2009 PK -

Calling someone a crackpot doesn't count as scientific evidence - something the atheists on this blog don't seem to have worked out yet (but yet again that seems to be the only tactic they can resort to).

If you had actually bothered to read my post - instead of being so irrational and emotional - you would have seen that I was not offering to present any evidence, but rather making the point that if evidence is presented by those scientists it should be considered IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. And it was the prejudiced imposition of philosophical presuppositions that Galileo objected to. Try to read someone's words with a bit of logical care - if you are able, that is.

Crackpot or not, I have been arguing clearly and logically that naturalism does not fulfil logical epistemological criteria, and I have noticed that you and your ilk have failed consistently to answer this argument. And the reason you have not is because you cannot.

So insult me as much as you like. The more childishly you behave, the more you demonstrate the falsity of your own misguided philosophy.
Atheists reach out to agnostics 11:28pm on 28 Oct 2009 #17 -

Re: Scientific Conference Refuting Evolution - St. Pius V University, Rome

Will the evidence of the sedimentologist, the geneticist, the two physicists and the geophysicist (all who appear to be qualified scientists) be seriously considered by the scientific establishment in the spirit of true scientific enquiry?

And the answer to that is: no.

If their evidence does not accord with the theory of evolution, then they will be excommunicated according to the magisterium of the scientific Curia - i.e. according to their dogmatic catechism which must never be questioned. The scientific establishment appears to be subsuming science under a particular philosophy (naturalism). This is the very accusation the rationalist free-thinkers levelled at the Church - science had to play second fiddle to a particular philosophy (theism).

Oh, the irony of it all. Galileo will be turning in his grave!
Atheists reach out to agnostics 10:41pm on 27 Oct 2009 I am really struggling with my agnosticism about the authorship of this article "Atheists reach out to agnostics".

I feel so sure that it must be the product of an intelligent mind - I have such a strong feeling that there must be someone "out there" responsible for the order and meaning within those words; but perhaps the "rationalists" are right? Perhaps the article really was just the product of randomly chosen scrabble tiles?

I mean, how could any logical, rational human being be so stupid and ridiculous as to imagine that such an article could conceivably have been written by an intelligent mind? Of course the words are randomly and blindly assembled! Goodness me, it is soooooo obvious! Anybody can see that. How could anyone be so primitive as to doubt it?!

I really must give up this agnosticism lark and finally come to my senses and see the glory and beauty of total chaos and mindlessness.

Yes! Oh joy, I have at last seen the light! That randomly assembled bunch of atoms and molecules called the revered professor D really is infallible. I am now absolutely certain that this article could definitely not have been the result of intelligent thought.

Ah, freedom at last....
Creationist leader to visit Northern Ireland 11:11pm on 26 Oct 2009 #120 - PeterKlaver -

Sorry to butt into your conversation with Bernard, but I notice that you have appealed to an argument from experience.

So I will answer your question according to my own personal experience:

Yes, I am sure of the reality of God.

Now are you going to dispute the reality of my own personal experience?

Or perhaps you would explain away my experience by saying that it was purely "natural" and that I am deluded. In that case, you would have to provide reasons to justify that conclusion, by proving that a naturalistic explanation is the only logically permissible explanation.

But then you would first have to justify logic itself from a naturalistic / empirical perspective. How are you going to do that?

Empiricism, by the way, is based on experience - the experience of sense perception. And the philosophy of naturalism depends on the empirical method. Therefore naturalism is based on experience - in essence no different, therefore, from religious faith.
Chomsky on religion and the ethics of war 11:47pm on 25 Oct 2009 "While Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens challenge the claim that religion has made any constructive contribution to the world..."

Is it not interesting that one of the things the BNP was condemned for was stating that "Islam is a wicked faith".

The papers were full of it.

But yet when Dawkins et al dismiss ALL religion and religions as useless and evil - in effect, condemning the views of all believers - we hear not a peep of criticism from the media or the political establishment. In fact, the media are not slow to lend their support in promoting such a viewpoint.

If the former viewpoint is to be condemned as a form of fascism, then the latter view should suffer the same treatment.

I think such logical and moral inconsistency is called cognitive dissonance.

By the way... I don't regard any critique of any viewpoint as "fascism". And I also reiterate that I am not a supporter of the BNP - I am merely pointing out a serious inconsistency in our contemporary media culture: it's vile to call any particular religion evil, but perfectly acceptable to call all religions evil.

Mad logic!
Chomsky on religion and the ethics of war 10:06pm on 25 Oct 2009 Marcus -

I think you would agree with the article, and the "fame" distinction is not one of Chomsky's definitions.

Vertical fame: Luciano Pavarotti - he was famous for what he was good at: singing. Period.

Horizontal fame: Barbara Streisand and Bono giving lectures on public policy: i.e. famous for one thing (singing) and deluding themselves into thinking they can be famous for something else.

The writer of the article puts Mr Chomsky firmly in the second category.

His so-called expertise: linguistics (which is dubious, as you have rightly pointed out); his conceit: geopolitics.

BTW - you compare Europe with a certain form of animal waste. It is quite good fertilizer, ya know, so perhaps some good can grow in this neck of the woods!
Chomsky on religion and the ethics of war 9:24pm on 25 Oct 2009 Marcus -

We may have our differences re theism / atheism, but on this particular topic I happen to agree with you (broadly speaking).

Take a look at this article concerning Noam Chomsky: http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=831

I particularly like the reference to the distinction between "vertical and horizontal fame".

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

logica_sine_vanitate