Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-14-2002, 07:55 PM | #21 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
|
Quote:
|
|
07-14-2002, 08:35 PM | #22 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: small cold water flat
Posts: 471
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Mathews:
.... Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and William Shakespeare were ignorant of reality, ..." Now why does that phrase taken out of context not suprise me ? Did you pick 3 of the greatest minds at random or was it because they were so far ahead of their time ? OR.....??? |
07-14-2002, 09:02 PM | #23 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indus
Posts: 1,038
|
Umm, this forum is being turned into a theology one?
David I suspect that all of the claims that atheists make regarding their accurate and complete knowledge of reality correspond to the shadows in the cave, and that the light corresponds to that one great mystery which is God. Why do you "suspect" that the light corresponds to "god", why cant be truth, that truth which doesnt require blind faith and instead requires an inquiring and mind? And I wonder which atheists you are referring to when you talk about claims about "accurate and complete knowledge of reality"? Do theists like yourself make such claims ? Anyhows... 1. When you say reality, what do you mean? 2. Do you think that this particular reality of yours is complete and inclusive. 3. Which "reality" is correct? Yours or the other umpteen religions' or science. If you think the other religious realities are not "false" as you stated above, then is your reality "false"? Or you think given that all of us view the world around us through our "personal" glasses, we should just continue to respect each others' glasses ? Does this just stop at respect or one should inquire about others' glasses and try to share and understand various viewpoints so that we all can "try" to view through the same glasses? |
07-15-2002, 06:02 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 812
|
I think that the only thing that is false is the dichotomy between science and religion, as they certainly can co-exist. Better said, a belief in the existence of God can strenghten one's so-called intuitional outlook or perspective regarding the history/development behind natural science and what it all means to us.
That said, what *is* dichotomious is the aprior/aposterior. In that regard, modal logic has no value whatsoever in proving the (non) existence of a Being known as God. Nor does it prove or disprove the nature of my/our existence. David Mathews: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> |
07-15-2002, 08:00 AM | #25 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
|
Quote:
At least you could state once in a while that, "Hey, you make I good point, I honestly can't refute your position, much as I'd like to." joe |
|
07-15-2002, 04:32 PM | #26 | |||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: st. petersburg
Posts: 622
|
Hello phaedrus,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sincerely, David Mathews |
|||||||||
07-15-2002, 04:56 PM | #27 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: st. petersburg
Posts: 622
|
Hello thefugitivesaint,
[uote] To even assert the premise of ones nonexistence is a joke. To ask whether or not you "are" requires you to "be" in some form or another thus negating the very 'question' itself. The obvious fact is that regardless of whether we are all merely living within an illusion of some powerful demons construction, brains-in-vats or existing in a 'matrix' world of some sort the operational difference, to us, is nil. It would be absurd to raise ones own hands before ones own face and ask, "How do i know these are my hands or if these hands are even there?" There is no possible context in which these doubts could have meaning. As if a man were to buy several copies of the same daily paper just to verify that what the 1st copy said was indeed true. [/quote] David: While the request may sound absurd and the proof may seem pointless, I cannot automatically accept the reality of "I" as a given. I suppose that there are some circumstances in which "I" is nonexistent, for example the identity that "I" possess in a dream may seem authentic within the context of the dream but once I have woken up it would be counterproductive to count these memories of dreams as recording actual events in my life. In what sense can anyone say that "I" exists? I believe only in a subjective sense. Quote:
The objective reality exist outside and inside us, but the subjective reality is purely and exclusively an abstract concept of the mind. I think it presumptuous on our own part to assume that our subjective reality actually corresponds in any way with the objective reality. Simply stated, too many things are occurring in the Universe every second for us to keep up with even 1% of what is actually happening. There are six billion humans on the Earth, more people are born and die every day than we will ever know in our lifetime. All six billion perceive the Universe in some manner which is different than myself. It would be foolish for me to assume that my view of reality is correct, complete and better than anyone else's. Quote:
Science is also active, with thousands of pages of new research published every year. I suppose that scientists may keep up with their discipline for a limited time, but soon enough the flood of data will engulf him/her. Quote:
Quote:
Sincerely, David Mathews |
||||
07-15-2002, 05:36 PM | #28 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hoboken, NJ USA
Posts: 177
|
Quote:
--slacker |
|
07-15-2002, 09:35 PM | #29 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indus
Posts: 1,038
|
David
That is just a suspicion on my own part. Reasons for the suspicion? Those atheists who make such a claim. For example, an atheist who made an argument such as God cannot exist because I cannot perceive God might fall under that classification. Ahh, then it shouldnt be a generalisation. Well the atheist who has made such an argument is not claiming "complete and accurate knowledge", he/she is basing the argument based on "current" evidence. You might argue saying that God is beyond evidence and is grounded in faith, but you cant win the argument, since the argument is based on "evidence", that empirical evidence which has helped science establish itself as one of the more successful metanarratives. Everyone is entitled to their own belief system, only when one tries to sell it to others or impose, the argument starts. "Reality" in my view is all that exist, whether known/unknown, perceived/unperceived, comprehended/incomprehensible to humankind You say all that exists and then add qualifiers like unknown, unperceived...etc. Isnt that an inconsistency? How can unknown and unpercieved exist? I don't believe that any human view of reality is complete and inclusive. My reality is not "false" just incomplete. Ok, then you must think your version of reality is privileged? (otherwise you wouldnt subscribe to it right?) If yes, then why do you think this reality of yours is privileged? What about the islamic version or hindu version or buddhist version or the scientific version, do you think they are more incomplete compared to your version? We should try to look through each others' glasses, walk in each others' shoes and develop some appreciation for viewpoints which are contrary to our own I would believe that most atheists have already looked through the theistic glasses and walked in religious shoes and then developed an appreciation for the non-theistic version They cant appreciate "faith", they prefer the inquiring mind without the trappings of a religious framework. I dont know how you approach religion, but doesnt having faith in a book or entity "limit" the inquiry, since the boundary is drawn? JP |
07-16-2002, 03:29 AM | #30 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: st. petersburg
Posts: 622
|
Hello phaedrus,
Quote:
Presumably, x-rays existed for millennia although man did not know nor perceive their existence. Quote:
Sincerely, David Mathews |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|