Text 3868, 130 rader
Skriven 2006-07-15 11:34:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4341.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <ftgbb2ddup0evl172hee5orr4mek7jihil@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <6kcja25biildpfpg76nqu9gc3lt89qld2s@4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:43:43 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:8s96b29uoch8ttihq4r4l8rk6rk85j7shm@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 10:56:43 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fvhva21hrtqgbmb0u6fir0qno5hjik9a3n@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 19:41:39 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> A. I don't believe in inherent rights: rights are granted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Goodie for you.  Luckily our founding fathers believed differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Argumentum ad verecundiam: our founding fathers also believed that
>>>>>> leeching cures disease.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not exactly apples to apples; one was a philopsohy, the other was the
>>>>>level of "science" at the time.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that both philosophy and science have advanced since that
>>>> time (and that much of what was once considered the province of
>>>> philosophy is now the province of science -- "natural philosophy" --
>>>> instead). And I don't think you'd find support for the concept of
>>>> inherent rights among contemporary thinkers.
>>>
>>>I consider philosophy the search for "Why?" rather than "How?" and I'm not
>>>certain it's advanced.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the distinction here. I want to know "why"
>> the sky is blue and things fall down rather than up. And science does
>> that. I want to know why we exist, and to an extent I would never have
>> believed possible science does that as well, explaining as it does why
>> something can come from nothing, indeed /has/ to come from nothing;
>> which leads me to believe that the distinction between something and
>> nothing, between existence and nonexistence, is a local rather than a
>> global one, important in the minds of men but not of angels or of God.
>
>"Why" a sky is blue is more accurately rephrased "How does the sky appear 
>blue?"
>
>The "Why?" questions imply meaning, How implies technique, ability,or 
>knowledge.  "Why are we here?"  "Why is it wrong to kill?" "Why is it wrong 
>to treat <pick your favorite oppressed class> like crap?  Why can't I do 
>whatever I want to do?  Why do I feel guilt for some actions?

I don't think I would make that distinction. To me, the question "Why
are we here?" is no different than the question "Why is the sky blue?"
It's not that I don't see your point or the distinction you're making,
but rather that I discarded what I regard as the illusion of purpose
many years ago. It seems to me sort of a pathetic fallacy thing -- an
attempt to endow nature with human motivations. Even in the case of
good and evil, I'm inclined to take the Jeremiahesque view (remember
the lecture about fractals?).

And, you know, some people get upset at the prospect of being without
purpose or meaning, but I haven't found that it makes any difference:
there's still good and bad, there are still things to be done, whether
I view myself as a child of God or a dance of energy-absorbing
molecules.

>Science is the Latin word for knowledge.  Knowledge isn't philosphy, 
>although unless you're an idealogue it will certainly play a major part. 
>Unless you're brainwashed, people have each have an individual philosophy. 
>Science isn't that subjective.

I think there's a substantial difference between the term "a
philosophy" and "philosophy." True philosophy seeks -- at least, did
before the post-modernists -- objectivity. It seeks to answer natural
and moral questions in a logically rigorous way. By way of contrast,
an individual philosophy implies the subjectivism of imperfect and
incomplete knowledge. Which is to say that Insofar as Kant disagreed
with Hume it's because he thought Hume was wrong, not because he
thought they had personal philosophies of action.

>Science can't answer why you should be nice to the person you meet on the 
>street that you're unlikely to ever see again.

Two questions: Should you? And can't it? The first seems to me
uncertain from a philosophical perspective: you take it for granted
that you should, and philosophers can provide a fairly elegant
framework for the criteria you would use, but I don't think that
modern philosophers, or most philosophers after Nietzsche, would take
it for granted that you should.

>From a scientific perspective, the problem would in large measure boil
down to the role of cooperation in evolution.

>  Science can't measure 
>whether I look at my life as being a good or wasted life.

Again, can't it? At the very least, it could ask (and I'm sure
psychologists have).

> It doesn't matter 
>how much scientific knowledge is accumulated, it won't be able to address 
>those questions.  If it can't be expressed in numbers, it's not science.

I would argue that philosophy can be expressed in numbers, that
anything can be expressed in numbers. As a physicist, forget which
one, once observed, mathematics is formalized thought. It's probably
not an overstatement to say that the universe is made up of numbers.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                                                                               
                                   
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)