Freethought & Rationalism Archive

capnkirk · 04-19-2004, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

Actually, mythology is not fiction, as you would probably know if you had studied either theology or literature. They are two different literary genres.

That is sidestepping Biff's point.

Quote:

Also, it is perfectly possible to be logical when starting from unproven or false premises. To insist that it is not is to misunderstand the nature of logic.

Logic is the means to TEST the premise. To hold the premise inviolate in spite of logical refutation is what is illogical.

Quote:

Logic is abstract; it need not be concerned with first principles. Instead, it is based on deriving theories from whatever principles one chooses.

Sorry, but logic is not based on "deriving theories from whatever principles one chooses." Logic is: A tool to evaluate whatever theories one chooses and it is ruled by its own inviolate set of principles. That is a very different understanding indeed.

capnkirk · 04-19-2004, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

Thus fiction is "intentionally invented", whereas mythology is not (as far as anyone knows).

Are you arguing that "pious fraud" does not constitute "intentionally invented"? That's pretty thin ice!

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Naked Ape · 04-19-2004, 08:36 AM

Questions for Tyler Durden:

What would you say about a degree in Phlogiston-ology, if the theory of Phlogiston (not widely accepted these days) had enough fans and they started dispensing degrees for expertise in the convoluted notions that were built on top of this ostensibly false notion, would is become as credible or non-make believe as theology?

Chiropractic is another field that dispenses pieces of paper to indicate that the holders of same have completed a course of study on the topic. Does the existance of these diplomas add to the truth of the chiropractic subluxation theory over the claimed falsehood(according to chiropractic) of immunization? Please note that I am not suggesting that chiropractic diplomas are dead simple to obtain, I am suggesting that they are not indicative of the underlying state of reality.

Does the existance of organizations willing to dispense sheepskins validate the subject matter of said diplomas?

Are you claiming that the subject matter of a theology degree validated because these degrees are difficult to obtain?

Cheers,

Naked Ape

capnkirk · 04-19-2004, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManM

If someone studies the history of alchemy, they have academic merit when discussing the history of alchemy. You may think the field is hogwash, but you should still respect the opinions of those in that field when they are in their domain.

I will grant that he may be qualified to speak on the history of alchemy, but that is of little value if he claims to be an alchemist. So this argument seems to be a bit of a strawman.

Quote:

If you are interested in learning about Islam, you would go to an Islamic theologian, not a Baptist one. Theologians are specialists and should be recognized as such.

This is another strawman argument insofar as the issue is not one of learning about what Islamics believe, but of evaluating whether those beliefs have a rational basis. I sould submit that neither the Islamic nor the Baptist theologian can provide an unbiased, objective answer to that question.

Quote:

The problem is that you do not understand the difference between the theologian and the student of religious studies. The theologian studies a highly specialized subset of religious studies. In their field of study, they should be given the credit they are due.

I thought that what we were trying to do here was to determine just what credit is due. I give them major credit for knowing what they believe, while at the same time giving those beliefs no credit at all. Somehow that distinction has gotten blurred along the way.

Quote:

A theologian discussing his subject will run circles around a person with a degree in religious studies. You only devalue them because they specialize in a subject you disagree with.

Of course! A theologian has an advanced degree in running (or more properly, "talking") circles around people and concepts. I have no respect for a person who needs/chooses to talk in circles to keep from having to face an unpleasant reality, be theologian or politician.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

capnkirk · 04-19-2004, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

Historical novelists intentionally invent incidents and characters, which they set against a historical background. Homer did not "invent" Achilles. Achilles was a character in many, many stories which pre-date Homer, and he quite likely was a real person. Same with King Arthur. Same with Moses. In that, they are all quite different from Prince Andrei, or Scarlett Ohara. Even if we assume that the characters never really existed (which I would not assume), they were still not the "inventions" of one author, but evolved over generations, as a sort of collective invention of many authors.

THAT is a distinction without a difference. That there may be a kernel of truth in a myth does not reclassify it as non-myth. Whether that kernel exists is irrelevant to the mythical value of the tale.

And there probably was a real person that Scarlett O'Hara was based on, or maybe she was a composite of several people that the author actually knew. (This would be a case where the kernel of truth wasn't the obvious candidate, so one cannot presume to know the kernel in a myth without external evidence.) Does that make her any more or any less fictional?

BDS, you are straining at a gnat while you have a camel looking out your navel. It appears that you are now only trying to protect the claim in your personal profile...and it's too late for that.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

capnkirk · 04-19-2004, 09:41 AM

BDS:

What makes you think that the "literary" definitions of myth, legend, fiction, history, and the like are universally accepted by other disciplines? An anthropoligist would likely disagree with you on the definition for myth and legend, an engineer uses a different definition for fiction. You have amply demonstrated that an expert in one field is indeed expert in that field, but at the same time appear to be equivocating to avoid the points made by others by straining over semantics. Perhaps you should spend a little more time trying to understand the sense of the point being made rather than trying to divert the debate into the nuances of the definitions used by your colleagues.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

capnkirk · 04-19-2004, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDS

Good grief. So "intellectual achievement" is defined strictly by utility, according to Dawkins. I suppose he derides philosophers, too.

Of course he's dead wrong when he claims that, "The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything." Let's see: the theological treatise "The Hammer of the Witches", written in the late 15th century, which led directly to the European witch craze of the 16th and 17th centuries didn't affect anything? Tell that to the 500,000 witches who were executed.

Now, you are grasping at straws! Though you are correct in an absolutist sense, yours is a pyrrhic victory (no pun intended). Unless you support the burning of witches? Your example is also a fitting case-in-point for demonstrating the implicit recklessness in considering a degree in theology anything but a degree in propagating make-believe as truth.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

capnkirk · 04-19-2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugo Holbling

As you well know, you have multiple formal debate challenges awaiting you to back up this kind of empty rhetoric. Are you inclined to back up your bluster, or do you still prefer to hide here?

Debating the 'philosophers' on the Philosophy forum is as pointless and fruitless as debating a theist on theism, so unless you just can't find any other wall to bang your head against, there's no reason to go there. This old engineer is too real-world, applications minded to have much interest in debating age-old questions that no matter who wins, there is no practical application for the knowledge. I haven't even lurked there in over a year. If you think I'm dissin' you guys...you're right! You're just a bunch of high horsepower engines in cars whose wheels don't touch the ground. You sit around gunning your engines and all you do is spin your wheels. So don't line up any formal challenges for me. I'm telling you up front, they will be summarily ignored.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Godot · 04-19-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnkirk

Debating the 'philosophers' on the Philosophy forum is as pointless and fruitless as debating a theist on theism, so unless you just can't find any other wall to bang your head against, there's no reason to go there. This old engineer is too real-world, applications minded to have much interest in debating age-old questions that no matter who wins, there is no practical application for the knowledge. I haven't even lurked there in over a year. If you think I'm dissin' you guys...you're right! You're just a bunch of high horsepower engines in cars whose wheels don't touch the ground. You sit around gunning your engines and all you do is spin your wheels. So don't line up any formal challenges for me. I'm telling you up front, they will be summarily ignored.

With such wisdom and certainty as you have displayed, I fervently hope that you have eschewed the title of freethinker. Certainly, one who is so adamantly convinced of the correctness of their position has no need to consider other viewpoints.

Hugo Holbling · 04-19-2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnkirk

Debating the 'philosophers' on the Philosophy forum is as pointless and fruitless as debating a theist on theism, so unless you just can't find any other wall to bang your head against, there's no reason to go there.

Debating the 'engineers' on any forum is as pointless and fruitless and debating a theist on theism, so unless you just can't find any other wall to bang your head against, there's no reason to go there.

Quote:

This old engineer is too real-world, applications minded to have much interest in debating age-old questions that no matter who wins, there is no practical application for the knowledge.

Maybe if you didn't deal in empty dismissals, you'd realise that philosophy does have applications after all - not least the unavoidable philosophical presuppositions involved in engineering like any other endeavour. There's no need to justify that, of course, since we're dealing in assertions only here.

Quote:

I haven't even lurked there in over a year.

Indeed, and without you i've had to scale my presence down also. Who wouldn't? I miss your input so much - won't you please come back?

Quote:

You're just a bunch of high horsepower engines in cars whose wheels don't touch the ground. You sit around gunning your engines and all you do is spin your wheels.

I thought we sat around with books, saying the same things over and over but getting nowhere? How would you hear me over the engine?

Quote:

So don't line up any formal challenges for me. I'm telling you up front, they will be summarily ignored.

Well, i'm not stupid all the time: i know when i'm beat. What a wonderful post - i feel thoroughly chastised and will give up philosophy for engineering forthwith.

:notworthy

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

04-19-2004, 08:36 AM	#73
Naked Ape Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Winnipeg Posts: 1,780	Questions for Tyler Durden: What would you say about a degree in Phlogiston-ology, if the theory of Phlogiston (not widely accepted these days) had enough fans and they started dispensing degrees for expertise in the convoluted notions that were built on top of this ostensibly false notion, would is become as credible or non-make believe as theology? Chiropractic is another field that dispenses pieces of paper to indicate that the holders of same have completed a course of study on the topic. Does the existance of these diplomas add to the truth of the chiropractic subluxation theory over the claimed falsehood(according to chiropractic) of immunization? Please note that I am not suggesting that chiropractic diplomas are dead simple to obtain, I am suggesting that they are not indicative of the underlying state of reality. Does the existance of organizations willing to dispense sheepskins validate the subject matter of said diplomas? Are you claiming that the subject matter of a theology degree validated because these degrees are difficult to obtain? Cheers, Naked Ape

04-19-2004, 09:41 AM	#76
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	BDS: What makes you think that the "literary" definitions of myth, legend, fiction, history, and the like are universally accepted by other disciplines? An anthropoligist would likely disagree with you on the definition for myth and legend, an engineer uses a different definition for fiction. You have amply demonstrated that an expert in one field is indeed expert in that field, but at the same time appear to be equivocating to avoid the points made by others by straining over semantics. Perhaps you should spend a little more time trying to understand the sense of the point being made rather than trying to divert the debate into the nuances of the definitions used by your colleagues. __________________ Enterprise...OUT.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.