problem with empiricism
Moderator:Metacrock
-
- Posts:36
- Joined:Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location:Southwestern U.S.
- Contact:
Why focus so much on Russell's ethics? He isn't remembered for his ethical thought, he's remembered for his contributions to logic, the philosophy of language, and (to a lesser extent) epistemology.
If you don't like the phrase "founders of analytics philosophy" in regard to Russell, replace it by "forerunners of logical positivism." Most philosophers remember him as both.
What's the "true" definition of religion?
If you don't like the phrase "founders of analytics philosophy" in regard to Russell, replace it by "forerunners of logical positivism." Most philosophers remember him as both.
What's the "true" definition of religion?
Scientology is a dangerous cult.
Re: problem with empiricism
Why focus so much on Russell's ethics? He isn't remembered for his ethical thought, he's remembered for his contributions to logic, the philosophy of language, and (to a lesser extent) epistemology.
Because not only was he more societally impactful in his work on Ethics, hellping to shape the policies of numerous social engeneers thereafter, it is also a very easy vehicle to show his Psycological sttae.
I have problems with soem of his other thoguths as well, but not all. All of it, it seems, centes around himself though.
Excet th emore abstract ideas f his, which can be useful, but by no means are always right.
If you don't like the phrase "founders of analytics philosophy" in regard to Russell, replace it by "forerunners of logical positivism." Most philosophers remember him as both.
But his Philosophy is still rooted often in self-justification, and attemtos at ratioanlising hsi own positions by False pretence, even in his writting that is said ot be Anylitical.
THis leads me to disturst him.
Unliek Aquinas, Russel coudl not seperat ehimself form himself. Aquinas, who you htink of as Dishoenst, at leats didn't make everyhign abotu himself.
What's the "true" definition of religion?
I'm surprised you don't know.
Religion coems ormt he compound latin, Re, menaign again, and Legion, to bind, or to connect.
Religion is thta which connects us to our world, and to each other. It is simply the world view in which we operate under, and means by which we intepret data to make sence of our world.
Thus, Religion is not "Beleiving in God", its any framework of reality we possess.
Humanists where quiet aware of this in the former days, the ealry 20th Century see's Humanism declarign tiself a Religion, in fact. Only when the later Humanisst decided ot be direclty Critical of Christianity di dhtye move he Emphaiss to attakcing "Religion" to sound as if its not just Christaisn they are ogign after, and to soudn as if they are fundamentlaly diffeent. But as with the unfortunate redefinition of the ord Faith, which nwo seems to mean to most peopl "Beleif withotu evidence", the definition fo Religion is inadequate. Especially if you want ot study the earlier writers on it.
Because not only was he more societally impactful in his work on Ethics, hellping to shape the policies of numerous social engeneers thereafter, it is also a very easy vehicle to show his Psycological sttae.
I have problems with soem of his other thoguths as well, but not all. All of it, it seems, centes around himself though.
Excet th emore abstract ideas f his, which can be useful, but by no means are always right.
If you don't like the phrase "founders of analytics philosophy" in regard to Russell, replace it by "forerunners of logical positivism." Most philosophers remember him as both.
But his Philosophy is still rooted often in self-justification, and attemtos at ratioanlising hsi own positions by False pretence, even in his writting that is said ot be Anylitical.
THis leads me to disturst him.
Unliek Aquinas, Russel coudl not seperat ehimself form himself. Aquinas, who you htink of as Dishoenst, at leats didn't make everyhign abotu himself.
What's the "true" definition of religion?
I'm surprised you don't know.
Religion coems ormt he compound latin, Re, menaign again, and Legion, to bind, or to connect.
Religion is thta which connects us to our world, and to each other. It is simply the world view in which we operate under, and means by which we intepret data to make sence of our world.
Thus, Religion is not "Beleiving in God", its any framework of reality we possess.
Humanists where quiet aware of this in the former days, the ealry 20th Century see's Humanism declarign tiself a Religion, in fact. Only when the later Humanisst decided ot be direclty Critical of Christianity di dhtye move he Emphaiss to attakcing "Religion" to sound as if its not just Christaisn they are ogign after, and to soudn as if they are fundamentlaly diffeent. But as with the unfortunate redefinition of the ord Faith, which nwo seems to mean to most peopl "Beleif withotu evidence", the definition fo Religion is inadequate. Especially if you want ot study the earlier writers on it.
-
- Posts:36
- Joined:Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location:Southwestern U.S.
- Contact:
Re: problem with empiricism
That's certainly not what I mean by "religion." When I say or write "religion," I'm referring to an anthropological entity, to any of several semi-uniform systems of beliefs about ultimate, transcendent truth.
Scientology is a dangerous cult.
Re: problem with empiricism
But who, in the end, lacks this?
Look at Humanism. Most Humanists thse days declare that they have no religion. But the Humanist Manifesto declared Humanism a religion and certainly they understood it as a Religion.
Although Humanism declared that they where naturalists, concerend with the material world, and seeing no evidence of anythign beyind it, thy still saw themseles as Religious.
They also discuss Philoosphies thast undergird life.
Although the beleifs contaiend in Humanism are not Transcendant int he manner that they go beyond the natural, material world by which most Humansist claim composes the whole of the Universe, it still speaks of the essoteric and transcendant vLue and meanign of the thigns in life.
In a sence, it too is Transcendant, for it transcends our mundane life into a rich tapesty of ideas.
It is, however, nderstood as a religion because it functiosn int he same way other Relgiosn do. I am a Christian, thus I use Christianity to understand the world around me. Humanists use Humanism to understand their world.
UI interpret the world along CHristian lines, they intepet it along Humanist lines.
The worldview I have adopted defines how I see things, how I understand things, and how I behave, and the basis of my motivaiton and action i formed along tis Ideals. The same is true of Humanism.
Of coruse, my actions are also formed along other things that have affected my Psycology, and I have not always lived up to the Ideal I claima s my own, but this is true of the Humanisst as well.
But both Humanism and Christianity serve the same role int he lives of those following these respective Faiths.
Now look at other Atheists. EVen if they ae not Humanists, do they have anyhting that they use to interpet the world aroudn them and htta forms the basis for how they see things? Do they have any way to make sence of their world? They do itf their htinkign is n any way Coherant, and this means they have a Religion to. Everyoen does. In fact, you need somethign liek this. You need some asic framework which helps you intepet the world and understand it. Otherwise, you'd not be able to interpet the world aroudn you in a coherant manner. You need soem way to make all the htigns you see and feel and hear and expeirnce make sence.
WHich is what Religion does.
Knowign this, then, when I hear a Humanist, or another Ahtest hwo has adipted some Ohilosophy or other, say he doens't have a religion, I knw it is not true. They think it is, of ocurse, but, ti snot. It also helps them continue in a Misiudnerstanding, as if somehow, Religious people do not think with Logic and Reason.
They use Religion as a Substitute for Logic and Reason.
This Misconception, of ocurse, lends to their own atitude, thinkign thatthey use Logic, reaosn, and Scinece, whereas Blind Faith is used by the Religious, and is thus oposite.
They see Religion as somethign whollys eperate form what they have, and htus never consider that teir htinkign is analogous on a PSycological level, and the same mechanisms apply. OT them, instead, its all diffeent and they think compelltey indepenantly of Relgioon.
But int he end its just a set of underlying mechanisns which creates a Unifiing basic understandign of the owrld, and helps us understand it, and cnnects us to it.
THe only sorts who an truly say they have no rleigion are severe Autistics, and some forms of Psychotic, or those who cannot think coherantly.
Otherwise, everyone has a religion, and it boisl down to how you see the wold and what you htnk s in it.
Look at Humanism. Most Humanists thse days declare that they have no religion. But the Humanist Manifesto declared Humanism a religion and certainly they understood it as a Religion.
Although Humanism declared that they where naturalists, concerend with the material world, and seeing no evidence of anythign beyind it, thy still saw themseles as Religious.
They also discuss Philoosphies thast undergird life.
Although the beleifs contaiend in Humanism are not Transcendant int he manner that they go beyond the natural, material world by which most Humansist claim composes the whole of the Universe, it still speaks of the essoteric and transcendant vLue and meanign of the thigns in life.
In a sence, it too is Transcendant, for it transcends our mundane life into a rich tapesty of ideas.
It is, however, nderstood as a religion because it functiosn int he same way other Relgiosn do. I am a Christian, thus I use Christianity to understand the world around me. Humanists use Humanism to understand their world.
UI interpret the world along CHristian lines, they intepet it along Humanist lines.
The worldview I have adopted defines how I see things, how I understand things, and how I behave, and the basis of my motivaiton and action i formed along tis Ideals. The same is true of Humanism.
Of coruse, my actions are also formed along other things that have affected my Psycology, and I have not always lived up to the Ideal I claima s my own, but this is true of the Humanisst as well.
But both Humanism and Christianity serve the same role int he lives of those following these respective Faiths.
Now look at other Atheists. EVen if they ae not Humanists, do they have anyhting that they use to interpet the world aroudn them and htta forms the basis for how they see things? Do they have any way to make sence of their world? They do itf their htinkign is n any way Coherant, and this means they have a Religion to. Everyoen does. In fact, you need somethign liek this. You need some asic framework which helps you intepet the world and understand it. Otherwise, you'd not be able to interpet the world aroudn you in a coherant manner. You need soem way to make all the htigns you see and feel and hear and expeirnce make sence.
WHich is what Religion does.
Knowign this, then, when I hear a Humanist, or another Ahtest hwo has adipted some Ohilosophy or other, say he doens't have a religion, I knw it is not true. They think it is, of ocurse, but, ti snot. It also helps them continue in a Misiudnerstanding, as if somehow, Religious people do not think with Logic and Reason.
They use Religion as a Substitute for Logic and Reason.
This Misconception, of ocurse, lends to their own atitude, thinkign thatthey use Logic, reaosn, and Scinece, whereas Blind Faith is used by the Religious, and is thus oposite.
They see Religion as somethign whollys eperate form what they have, and htus never consider that teir htinkign is analogous on a PSycological level, and the same mechanisms apply. OT them, instead, its all diffeent and they think compelltey indepenantly of Relgioon.
But int he end its just a set of underlying mechanisns which creates a Unifiing basic understandign of the owrld, and helps us understand it, and cnnects us to it.
THe only sorts who an truly say they have no rleigion are severe Autistics, and some forms of Psychotic, or those who cannot think coherantly.
Otherwise, everyone has a religion, and it boisl down to how you see the wold and what you htnk s in it.
-
- Posts:36
- Joined:Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location:Southwestern U.S.
- Contact:
Re: problem with empiricism
Most religion (I mean that in my sense, not yours) is opposed to reason. Paul himself said that reason denies faith.
I don't think it's useful to define "religion" to mean something like "worldview."
I don't think it's useful to define "religion" to mean something like "worldview."
Scientology is a dangerous cult.
Re: problem with empiricism
Most religion (I mean that in my sense, not yours) is opposed to reason.
No its not. In fact, Christianity is bult upon a foundaiton of Rational thought, and in case you hadn't noticed reason plays a vital role in both the NEw TEstament and int he works of the Early Churhc Fathers.
Judaism also has a storngg relianc eupon Reason. ISlam isn't exaclty shy aboutit.
Buddhism is also heavy on it.
And so is Humanism.
Paul himself said that reason denies faith.
No he didn't, and the Apostle Paul urged us to use Reason.
If you want to make htis argument, you'll have to provide a quote.
Otherwise, a few of my own.
2:15. From the KJV. ( I grant other translations do not use htis termenology. However, other verses are equivolent no matter which translaiton is used.)
This same Paul entered often into Public debated with the GReeks and JEws, using reason.
In other Epistles Paul actually says that those who did not beleive him but studied matters for themselves where wise, the Bereans.
Paul in Corinthians and in I beleive Ephesians also speaks of hte need tp think clealry and precicley aboutthe matters at hand, thoguh off the top of my head I don't knwo the references Ill find if you'd like.
But Paul didn't say that Reason denies Faith.
Not only does Paul the Aposlte not say that Reason denies Faith, other Bible verses from both Testaments speak in oposition to this rathe rigregarious arument, such as Proverbs Chapter 4, or 5, or else the Gospels where JEsus exhorts us to reason and learning.
I'm sorry, but your claim is rather a steroype, that Faith is simplybeleivign iwhtotu evidnece, and denies reaosn.
And I see no evidence at all for your earlier claim.
I don't think it's useful to define "religion" to mean something like "worldview."
But that is what Religion is. Thats all it ever meant.
No its not. In fact, Christianity is bult upon a foundaiton of Rational thought, and in case you hadn't noticed reason plays a vital role in both the NEw TEstament and int he works of the Early Churhc Fathers.
Judaism also has a storngg relianc eupon Reason. ISlam isn't exaclty shy aboutit.
Buddhism is also heavy on it.
And so is Humanism.
Paul himself said that reason denies faith.
No he didn't, and the Apostle Paul urged us to use Reason.
If you want to make htis argument, you'll have to provide a quote.
Otherwise, a few of my own.
- 2 TimothyStudy to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2:15. From the KJV. ( I grant other translations do not use htis termenology. However, other verses are equivolent no matter which translaiton is used.)
This same Paul entered often into Public debated with the GReeks and JEws, using reason.
-Acts 18:4.And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
In other Epistles Paul actually says that those who did not beleive him but studied matters for themselves where wise, the Bereans.
Paul in Corinthians and in I beleive Ephesians also speaks of hte need tp think clealry and precicley aboutthe matters at hand, thoguh off the top of my head I don't knwo the references Ill find if you'd like.
But Paul didn't say that Reason denies Faith.
Not only does Paul the Aposlte not say that Reason denies Faith, other Bible verses from both Testaments speak in oposition to this rathe rigregarious arument, such as Proverbs Chapter 4, or 5, or else the Gospels where JEsus exhorts us to reason and learning.
I'm sorry, but your claim is rather a steroype, that Faith is simplybeleivign iwhtotu evidnece, and denies reaosn.
And I see no evidence at all for your earlier claim.
I don't think it's useful to define "religion" to mean something like "worldview."
But that is what Religion is. Thats all it ever meant.
-
- Posts:36
- Joined:Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location:Southwestern U.S.
- Contact:
Re: problem with empiricism
You may be write on that point--I couldn't find the passage I was thinking of.ZAROVE wrote:No he didn't, and the Apostle Paul urged us to use Reason.
My larger point, however, is that the majority of religious folk (at least in the west) carry motivation to believe that's fundamentally unreasonable.
It's never meant that to me, nor to my dictionary.But that is what Religion is. Thats all it ever meant.
Scientology is a dangerous cult.
Re: problem with empiricism
ZAROVE wrote:
No he didn't, and the Apostle Paul urged us to use Reason.
You may be write on that point--I couldn't find the passage I was thinking of.
I know I'm right on that point.
My larger point, however, is that the majority of religious folk (at least in the west) carry motivation to believe that's fundamentally unreasonable.
This includes Atheists, though.
That hardly means one cannot find Rational discussion within any of the congtexts f the given religion.
But that is what Religion is. Thats all it ever meant.
It's never meant that to me, nor to my dictionary.
If you study religion, you iwll realise swiftly that it is nothign but a codified Philosophy that helps you to understand the world aroudn you. You will also see that those who claim not to be religiosu have the same mechanism, but just operate under different basic tenets.
That said, there is no real difference between your beleifs and mine in wht function they play in our lives. Both of us have soemthign by which we understand our world, and base our decisions. Callign mine Religion and yours somethign else really doesn't make sence, given that they are in the end the same. It is also far less accurate to pretend that those hwo are rleigiosu liek me somehow have a great divide in how we approahc htings as thos enonreligiosu folsk liek you, since I thinkit has become availiouly clear that we both have a Mechansim to help us understand the world that surroudns us.
- unred typo
- Posts:125
- Joined:Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:03 pm
- Location:Undisclosed location in the eastern USA
Re: problem with empiricism
I have occasionally run into this used as an argument to prop up some fool notion that cannot be supported logically in religious discussions. The verses that are used are usually misquotes of these:"Quizalufagus"ZAROVE wrote:
No he didn't, and the Apostle Paul urged us to use Reason.
You may be write on that point--I couldn't find the passage I was thinking of.
1 Corinthians 1:19-21
1 Corinthians 3:18-2019For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
In some people’s minds, the ‘wisdom of the world’ is any human logic that proves their point to be a fallacy. As you can see by the verses themselves, this is not the case, but since it is a common mantra, I can see where you would get that impression.18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
The truth will stand with you but man-made doctrines will melt away like cowards in the battle.
Re: problem with empiricism
this was a good thread. Let's do this one
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief