Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 08-24-2002, 10:38 AM

Poor C.S. Lewis. Trying to reconcile rationalism with mysticism is like having bees living in your head.

Starboy

Vorkosigan · 08-24-2002, 02:33 PM

But I do believe his objection works better in terms of philosophical issues: there is no reason to believe that evolutionarily acquired intellects should be able to apprehend abstract truth.

Why not? Please explain how evolution cannot create creatures that can comprehend abstractions.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich · 08-24-2002, 02:50 PM

Comprehending abstractions is a way of modeling one's circumstances. And more successful modeling of one's circumstances has survival value, since it enables one to make more successful decisions.

So the ability to do such modeling could be selected for it it (1) can emerge and (2) does not have too high a metabolic cost.

And science is a systematic process for such circumstance-modeling.

Starboy · 08-24-2002, 04:06 PM

Oh yeah lpetrich, scientists have to beat off the women with a stick!

diana · 08-24-2002, 06:51 PM

But I do believe his objection works better in terms of philosophical issues: there is no reason to believe that evolutionarily acquired intellects should be able to apprehend abstract truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by "apprehend abstract truth." If you mean "consider abstract ideas," I wonder if you have reason to believe evolutionarily acquired intellects should not be able to do this?

d

luvluv · 08-27-2002, 05:11 PM

Well, sure they could consider abstract ideas, but there is no reason to believe that any of these abstract ideas is objectively true. Our abstract ideas are just products of the way we think, which is just a product of the trillions of accidents that formed our brain. There is no reason to believe our abstract ideas are true.

Bree · 08-27-2002, 07:54 PM

Define 'abstract' please.

Doubting Didymus · 08-27-2002, 08:55 PM

Warning: contains Narnia spoilers.

Is anyone else here totally offended by The Last Battle?

Apart from the unforgivable portrayal of arab people, particularly of their horrible demon - god, was anyone here a little upset by the fact that, at the end, all the narnian chidren are mangled corpses in a horrific train accident, apparently because Azlan needed them to work out his problems for him?

Somehow, the fact that they all went to narnia - heaven is not much consoloation to me. Does anyone else feel sorry for Susan, who was the only one to survive the wreck? Think about it: Peter and Edmund and Lucy, all dead. Their parents (and Susans): dead. Cousin Eustace: dead. Whats-his-name from the magicians nephew: dead.

Not just dead, I should add, but VERY dead. Horrific mangled bloody deaths, and Susan is left in the lurch. Not particularly uplifting in my opinion.

Also, would it be accurate to say that, after thousands of years of not showing his furry face, or giving the narnians the smallest reminder of his existence, he rocks up and shuts the world down because his name is being used in vain by poor downtrodden slaves under the yoke of nasty sinful godless dirty arabs?

Am I missing something, or does he condemn to unknown horrors whomever in the land happens to dislike the grandiose theatrical bugger? Who wouldn't?

Albion · 08-27-2002, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Does anyone else feel sorry for Susan, who was the only one to survive the wreck?

And yet, somehow, we're encouraged to rather despise her. And I'm sure it's skillfully enough written that a lot of kids will do exactly that without even stopping to think about her or the poor nonbelievers on that train.

I hated that message that once you're a good Christian, death is the best thing that can possibly happen. Especially death that has quite so much collateral damage associated with it (but the bad guys deserve what's coming to them and let's not give it any thought). Dangerous, dangerous message. I wonder what he'd have thought of 9/11.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-24-2002, 10:38 AM	#21
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Poor C.S. Lewis. Trying to reconcile rationalism with mysticism is like having bees living in your head. Starboy

08-24-2002, 02:33 PM	#22
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	But I do believe his objection works better in terms of philosophical issues: there is no reason to believe that evolutionarily acquired intellects should be able to apprehend abstract truth. Why not? Please explain how evolution cannot create creatures that can comprehend abstractions. Vorkosigan

08-24-2002, 02:50 PM	#23
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Comprehending abstractions is a way of modeling one's circumstances. And more successful modeling of one's circumstances has survival value, since it enables one to make more successful decisions. So the ability to do such modeling could be selected for it it (1) can emerge and (2) does not have too high a metabolic cost. And science is a systematic process for such circumstance-modeling.

08-24-2002, 04:06 PM	#24
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Oh yeah lpetrich, scientists have to beat off the women with a stick!

08-24-2002, 06:51 PM	#25
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	But I do believe his objection works better in terms of philosophical issues: there is no reason to believe that evolutionarily acquired intellects should be able to apprehend abstract truth. I'm not sure what you mean by "apprehend abstract truth." If you mean "consider abstract ideas," I wonder if you have reason to believe evolutionarily acquired intellects should not be able to do this? d

08-27-2002, 05:11 PM	#26
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Well, sure they could consider abstract ideas, but there is no reason to believe that any of these abstract ideas is objectively true. Our abstract ideas are just products of the way we think, which is just a product of the trillions of accidents that formed our brain. There is no reason to believe our abstract ideas are true.

08-27-2002, 07:54 PM	#27
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	Define 'abstract' please.

08-27-2002, 08:55 PM	#28
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Warning: contains Narnia spoilers. Is anyone else here totally offended by The Last Battle? Apart from the unforgivable portrayal of arab people, particularly of their horrible demon - god, was anyone here a little upset by the fact that, at the end, all the narnian chidren are mangled corpses in a horrific train accident, apparently because Azlan needed them to work out his problems for him? Somehow, the fact that they all went to narnia - heaven is not much consoloation to me. Does anyone else feel sorry for Susan, who was the only one to survive the wreck? Think about it: Peter and Edmund and Lucy, all dead. Their parents (and Susans): dead. Cousin Eustace: dead. Whats-his-name from the magicians nephew: dead. Not just dead, I should add, but VERY dead. Horrific mangled bloody deaths, and Susan is left in the lurch. Not particularly uplifting in my opinion. Also, would it be accurate to say that, after thousands of years of not showing his furry face, or giving the narnians the smallest reminder of his existence, he rocks up and shuts the world down because his name is being used in vain by poor downtrodden slaves under the yoke of nasty sinful godless dirty arabs? Am I missing something, or does he condemn to unknown horrors whomever in the land happens to dislike the grandiose theatrical bugger? Who wouldn't?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.