BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Bernards_Insight

Listed below are comments made by Bernards_Insight between Thursday, 26th November 2009 and Tuesday, 1st December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Creationist leader to visit Northern Ireland 3:59pm on 01 Dec 2009 One thing at a time folks; I've been busy moving house this last week. An absolute nightmare, in case any of you are wondering.

PeterK;

"That coming from the man who will accept the far out extrapolation from human experience to the birth of the universe and call that evidence"

Actually, I extrapolate from the human "grasping/imposition" of intelligible reality to the intelligible nature of that reality.

I repeat; you have no grounds to assert such a thing as entirely irrational reality. Given that, I think one can be justified in speaking only of intelligible reality. It is contradictory to posit unintelligible reality. As such, an extrapolation from intelligibility to "intelligible reality" is wholly justified. If there is any "reality" outside of the intelligible, well, neither you nor I can say ANYTHING about it. It is irrelevant to our argument (how can UNINTELLIGIBILITY be relevant to any argument?)

"The only thing you seem to put forward is the rather useless extrapolation from human experience to the birth of the universe.2

Not at all. I haven't been talking about the "birth" of the universe, but about its intelligible existence. As such, the extrapolation from "intelligibility" to "intelligible reality" is perfectly justified. Again, if you've any comments to make about unintelligible reality, I'd like to see you try to make them.

And not, as you do, claim rationality as your own without any basis in solid evidence, based merely on human experience that doesn't do much good in areas that aren't anything like our human experiences."

Can you speak about anything in the universe that isn't somehow derived from our human experience? would it help if I assert that the objects of human experience are all there is, and that you are totally unwarranted in claiming the existence of anything else?

What areas are so unlike human experience that they cannot be intelligibly thought or conceived? Can you think of any?

In short, my arguments aren't based on the minimum "human experience" as if I think everything must be just how we think it is. My arguments are based on the intelligible foundation of making any claims about reality at all. A claim about reality, or that something exists, or is such and such, must be an intelligible claim, otherwise it is empty.

So, although I am not using human intelligibility to define the universe, I'm using it to question any seemingly intelligible claim that you are making. Now, intelligible claims can be judged on the basis of human intelligibility. That is how we judge whther something is intelligible or not. Or perhaps you're claiming that your explanation is not intelligible?

"the relative uselessness of human experience in exotic areas came up a few times already."

What about the uselessness of human intelligibility? Are you suggesting that things exist that are totally, in principle, unintelligible? If so, how can you intelligibly suggest that they exist?

To the mentioning in my previous post you replied

"you're discussing a situation where there is analysis of experimental data. You have none."

Say the experimental data is the following proposition; "Everything that I can possibly affirm about the word is, in principle, intelligible.".

Now, this is quite obviously experiemental. It is easy to see how it could be falsified. All you have to do is experience something that is, in principle, unintelligible. Care to attempt this experimental falsification?

"So no data and just human experience"

Isn't human experience "data"?

"that is no good for what you apply it to."

Given that I'm applying "human experience" to "the object of human experience" (i.e., the universe), this is total nonsense.

"As to why the counter-intuitive nature of some of the physical world is counter-intuitive you ask

"How do you know?"

As I said already, read the links I provided to Graham, for instance."

I'm assuming those links were intelligible then, yes?

"Now the key issue is how good a basis human experience is for making statements about things that are not amenable to human experience."

What is not amenable to human existence? Why do you assert that such a thing exists, given, by definition, no experience of it?

"And at the end of your posts there were a few lines about the causality discussion. But I still don't see any argument in that why it would at some not be obvious anymore to ask the question 'What caused that?'."

I'm sorry you've spent so little time on the substantial part of my argument. I can only suggest you read it again in light of the above.

Grokes, if you don't mind holding fire for a bit, I will definitely reply. This more specific discussion about "intuition" science and metaphysics seems like it may be quite fruitful, but I'll need to take some time over it.

Cheers
Don't label me ... 3:27pm on 26 Nov 2009 Nice story RJB.

Incidentally, I'm not so naive as to think priests are free to express whatever they want. Belonging to an organisation - any organisation - generally means towing the line of that organisation...otherwise why join?

I don't think priests have their thoughts controlled though. I'm not sure that's possible.

Priests are, of course, restricted in many many ways. So are politicians, policemen, judges etc. Some roles carry responsibilities to an organisation.

Anyway, I'm not sure how this is about labelling anymore. are you suggesting that the church is wrong to "label" priests as priests?

:)
Don't label me ... 2:27pm on 26 Nov 2009 Ah, I'm with you there.

I thought you were suggesting that the Church "labels" kids by "forcing" them to wear uniforms, when in fact the rationale behind this is a wish to avoid labelling, so the humanists should be happy. and I thought you were saying that churches "label" clerics by making them wear clerical garb, thus restricting their freedom of thought. Which is obviously nonsense.

I'm with you on the extreme clericalism though.
Don't label me ... 1:16pm on 26 Nov 2009 Graham, you're obviously not hip with the kids :)

Or, should I say, the aging hippies.
Don't label me ... 1:15pm on 26 Nov 2009 RJB, loved the story about Jerry Fish. great band too.

I think you lose it a bit towards the end though.

"the school uniforms (UNI-FORM) imposed on children by Churches"

What? Lots of schools, faith and non-faith have school uniforms. The (quite persuasive) argument is generally that it prevents children being "labelled" because of their clothes - as poor, etc. I remember my own school banning "non-uniform" days one year because it leds to children being bullied because of the clothes they were wearing.

I don't know where you get the idea that uniforms are imposed by churches to turn us all into automatons, I really don't. Quite ridiculous.

I'm fairly sure the "communion white" is optional. In fact, in my primary school they began making children wear their school uniforms (oh no!) for their first communion, for the same reason as above. there was thought to be an unhealthy element of competition, and it led to children being bullied because they couldn't afford the most expensice clothes. the Catholic church certainly didn't try to enforce the "communion white" then!

Clerical wear is the traditional garb of clergy. I hardly think that wearing it somehow stunts the clergy's freedom of thought. If their old enough to have decided to join the clergy, donning the traditional garb is hardly a problem. What about university graduation robes, I suppose they stunt our free-thinking too?

Honestly RJB, I really don't get where you're coming from here. The first part of the story was very good though - shows that people can label others in all sorts of ways. While it may be insulting, and may even reflect divisions, it certainly doesn't stunt our ability to think in any way whatsoever. I'm sure Jerry Fish has got over it.
Don't label me ... 12:09pm on 26 Nov 2009 Helio;

"You can't have freedom *of* religion without the option of freedom *from* religion"

Absolutely.

the question is, who are you suggesting DOESN'T have that freedom? and why not? Because they're parents brought them to mass? Because they were taught about Christianity in school more than about other faiths?

Is this stuff REALLY a curbing of freedom, or is it just the normal, run-of-the-mill human and societal influence, which is always there, but which is not binding or coercive?
Creationist leader to visit Northern Ireland 11:58am on 26 Nov 2009 Peter;

"What you say seems ok when looking at things from the point of view of our everyday experience. But that is not what things were like in the very early stages of the universe"

But again you're taking causality to be temporal. The temporal "beginning" of the universe does not seem as important as its "existence".

I am not trying to extrapolate our everyday experience to the beginning of the universe - I am extrapolating our everyday experience of existing things to form a notion of "existence and its conditions".

"So fine to apply reasoning to apples falling from a tree, not so fine to attach great certainty to it in areas where it is of little use without verification from observations"

But it is the "existence" of the apples falling from the tree, and the tree, and everything else, that I am inquiring into.

The temporal "beginning" of the universe may be important, but that only deals with the conditions under which the universe as we know it took shape. If asking about the "existence" of things, anything, it is reasonable to extrapolate from the existence of things now.

I am asking about "existence", not "temporal beginnings" - about how any tempiral beginnings, intermiediate stages or up-to-date complex entities can "exist" at all.
Don't label me ... 11:40am on 26 Nov 2009 And by the way, I think the fact that I have to ask these questions shows that the ad campaign is not a "jolly good one". It's not at all clear what exactly it means?

I'm still not sure how we label children. So far you've given a load of examples of "division", which correspond to certain "labels" - but ANYTHING corresponds to certain "labels". You haven't shown that the deivision is caused by "labelling". You can't because you haven't actually said what actions constitute labelling.

What am I doing, and how is that causing division?
Don't label me ... 11:37am on 26 Nov 2009 Brian, thinking about it, the blunt message is fine.

No, let's not label our children.

But who is it aimed at? Who is labelling these children? Do you have a particular type of person in mind, or a particular type of label?

What, exactly, should we STOP doing? And I don't want one of your speeches. What am I doing that I should stop doing? What should Peter stop doing? or Graham? or Helio?

What should YOU stop doing?

I suspect most people would say they don't label their children. Very few people would admit to keeping their children's minds under control. Is this poster aimed at those few people who do that?

I suspect, rather, it's saying that most of us do it without knowing? Do I label my child without knowing? What should I stop doing?

If nothing, who is doing what?
Creationist leader to visit Northern Ireland 10:54am on 26 Nov 2009 Grokes;

"As I have said before, what we know, or what we think we know is no indicator of what we could learn in the future."

Yet again, this is just another case of "Maybe". AS Peter has said earlier, my reasoning is rational and intelligible, but maybe it's wrong. Maybe it is. it doesn't seem wrong. There's nothing irrational about it. it's a cohesive explanation.

"And anyway, quantum vacuums are nothing in the sense most would understand he term"

No they're not. they're quantum vacuums. Do you know what you mean when you say that something is "nothing". Remember that the real is the intelligible. quantum vacuums are intelligible entities. whether they exist or not is up to the quantum physicists. but to say "X is nothing" is contradictory. It's not nothing. It's X.

"but particles zip in and out existence in them all the time."

So, not from nothing then?

"In one (intelligible) theory of the universe, the sum total of the energy of it (and matter is only energy in a different form) is zero. So the universe could be just one big ball of nothing."

Although energy may well be mass, it is not "existence" or "intelligibility". Whether or not the sum energy in the universe is zero has no bearing on the existence of all of the things in the universe. Or are you actually now saying that the universe doesn't exist?

"As ever in science, the jury is out."

On whether the universe exists or not, I think the jury is very much in, otherwise there would be no science.

"because the creation of the universe and all its physical laws, its intelligibility if you must, would be enough to sustain it"

I'm not sure where you get this from. How does the universe sustain itself when every entity depends on a prior entity. Aren't you now just saying stuff?

The universe doesn't sustain itself. There is absolutely no reason to think that it does, given that nothing in it is self-sufficient. An series of contingent things does not equal necessity, no matter how far you stretch the series.

«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

Bernards_Insight