The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

Bristol Palin, Sarah Palins daughter, and abstinence spokeswoman has just announced that she is pregnant with her second child and she is still not married.

So much for promoting abstinence and no sex before marriage!

No doubt this will be another excuse for an "I'm being persecuted" whinge from her twit of a mother. Now THERE is the epitome of American anti-intellectualism!

[J70]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Been thinking a little about this. Like I said, I am far from a philosopher, and your "how do we know what we perceive as truth or fact or reality is in fact so" is not an easy question.

You brought it up to challenge my assertion that science and materialism is a more valid and vital lens through which to view the world than religion or any other world view. Your challenge is in the form that "how can we know what science tells us is true or fact?"

I'm not convinced that is actually relevant though. As Omaghjoe also said (I think!), we have to have a starting point, a baseline from which to operate in processing the world in which we live. We all operate on the basis that the things we sense are real (and yes, this can occasionally fail e.g. mental illness). If I drive the wrong way down a one way street or I fire a gun into a crowd, the chances are that a real person can get hurt. If I jump into a roiling current, I'm probably going to drown. If my child is sick, I take them to a doctor for treatment. If my child misbehaves, I correct them and try to teach them. If I don't treat my child, educate my child or teach it proper behaviour, bad outcomes are more likely. These decisions are all based on logic and accumulated experience and knowledge, both personal and societal, with no appeal to supernaturalism or mysticism required. And given that the same processes of thought and confidence in our perceptions have given rise to the development of spiritualism and religion, except without the physical evidence and process of confirmation and validation, why should they be elevated to the same plane of authority? Are you really saying that some nomad looking at the sky 3,000 years ago, wondering where it all started, and due to the limits of knowledge attributing it all to some unseen, magical, intelligent force, that his views should carry the same weight as that of modern day science where predictions are made and tested empirically? If you are saying that anything and everything is fair game and equally valid, then I don't know what to say to that. Good luck with the witch doctor I guess!

[dec]

Supreme Court rules that same sex marriage is legal nation wide.

[J70]

Supreme Court rules that same sex marriage is legal nation wide.

And the hits keep on coming!

[The Iceman]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Been thinking a little about this. Like I said, I am far from a philosopher, and your "how do we know what we perceive as truth or fact or reality is in fact so" is not an easy question.

You brought it up to challenge my assertion that science and materialism is a more valid and vital lens through which to view the world than religion or any other world view. Your challenge is in the form that "how can we know what science tells us is true or fact?"

I'm not convinced that is actually relevant though. As Omaghjoe also said (I think!), we have to have a starting point, a baseline from which to operate in processing the world in which we live. We all operate on the basis that the things we sense are real (and yes, this can occasionally fail e.g. mental illness). If I drive the wrong way down a one way street or I fire a gun into a crowd, the chances are that a real person can get hurt. If I jump into a roiling current, I'm probably going to drown. If my child is sick, I take them to a doctor for treatment. If my child misbehaves, I correct them and try to teach them. If I don't treat my child, educate my child or teach it proper behaviour, bad outcomes are more likely. These decisions are all based on logic and accumulated experience and knowledge, both personal and societal, with no appeal to supernaturalism or mysticism required. And given that the same processes of thought and confidence in our perceptions have given rise to the development of spiritualism and religion, except without the physical evidence and process of confirmation and validation, why should they be elevated to the same plane of authority? Are you really saying that some nomad looking at the sky 3,000 years ago, wondering where it all started, and due to the limits of knowledge attributing it all to some unseen, magical, intelligent force, that his views should carry the same weight as that of modern day science where predictions are made and tested empirically? If you are saying that anything and everything is fair game and equally valid, then I don't know what to say to that. Good luck with the witch doctor I guess!

My point was J70 as a proclaimed firm naturalist you can't even understand or point out how you even came up with all of this. And you have to agree that it is meaningless. The result of electro chemical farts in your brain.
So either you change your world view and decide you are no longer a naturalist, because to be so and still argue so vehemently your points on every thread would seem pointless (especially on this one) OR you continue to be a naturalist and freely admit that everything you have to say carries no more weight than any of us....

[J70]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Been thinking a little about this. Like I said, I am far from a philosopher, and your "how do we know what we perceive as truth or fact or reality is in fact so" is not an easy question.

You brought it up to challenge my assertion that science and materialism is a more valid and vital lens through which to view the world than religion or any other world view. Your challenge is in the form that "how can we know what science tells us is true or fact?"

I'm not convinced that is actually relevant though. As Omaghjoe also said (I think!), we have to have a starting point, a baseline from which to operate in processing the world in which we live. We all operate on the basis that the things we sense are real (and yes, this can occasionally fail e.g. mental illness). If I drive the wrong way down a one way street or I fire a gun into a crowd, the chances are that a real person can get hurt. If I jump into a roiling current, I'm probably going to drown. If my child is sick, I take them to a doctor for treatment. If my child misbehaves, I correct them and try to teach them. If I don't treat my child, educate my child or teach it proper behaviour, bad outcomes are more likely. These decisions are all based on logic and accumulated experience and knowledge, both personal and societal, with no appeal to supernaturalism or mysticism required. And given that the same processes of thought and confidence in our perceptions have given rise to the development of spiritualism and religion, except without the physical evidence and process of confirmation and validation, why should they be elevated to the same plane of authority? Are you really saying that some nomad looking at the sky 3,000 years ago, wondering where it all started, and due to the limits of knowledge attributing it all to some unseen, magical, intelligent force, that his views should carry the same weight as that of modern day science where predictions are made and tested empirically? If you are saying that anything and everything is fair game and equally valid, then I don't know what to say to that. Good luck with the witch doctor I guess!

My point was J70 as a proclaimed firm naturalist you can't even understand or point out how you even came up with all of this. And you have to agree that it is meaningless. The result of electro chemical farts in your brain.
So either you change your world view and decide you are no longer a naturalist, because to be so and still argue so vehemently your points on every thread would seem pointless (especially on this one) OR you continue to be a naturalist and freely admit that everything you have to say carries no more weight than any of us....

Meaningless in terms of what? In comparison to what?

Are you seriously saying that no one is ever right about anything?

[omaghjoe]

Fair point J70  it is a little pointless, but sure is is not great criac discussing things that there is no right or wrong or even any answer to? Anyway I think at least this little exercise demonstrates that anything and everything is possible, we just ultimately don't have a clue. In fact the reality is we probably arent capable of understanding our reality. Do you think a suck cow is capable of thinking all this that we do? Course not, so are why we so arrogant to belief that we can understand why we are here and what here really is?

But moving on a little yes we do need a starting point for building a society that we can all springboard everything else from. So is the physical realm really a good place to start considering that society isn't really a physical thing in itself? Morals and Principles are surely the base point of any society, so these are what we should use. Tradition has been the distributor. but then what should the morals and principles be and more importantly who should be their keeper? Religion in practically every society in history has been the traditional keeper of these, however in modern society this would offend secularists. Constitutions and laws attempt to do something similar, but they dont govern how we think, feel and communicate with each other which is really where society is acted out, so who should hold these standards? Of late the press has by default been moving in on this territory as we have demonstrated in the past few pages, and we have pretty much agreed that this is a bad thing. So if not religion and if not the press, should it be Politicians? Lawyers? And if none of these then who? Who or what should be the keeper and driver of societies principles?

However I suspect we probably dont have an answer to that either, so lets move on and assume that our ultimate goal is society that is at peace and happy then the only way to achieve this is by working together and understanding our fellow man, not opposing and vilifying his belief system whether it be theist our naturalist rather we should be finding the common ground.

I don' find the role religion played through history in shaping morality and society, for better or worse, offensive at all. Its a fact.

But today, I just don't think its necessary and, operating in our normal real world where we can actually sense things and make judgements and comparisons, its often detrimental.

This may be a bit simplistic and not fully thought through, for now, but don't society, laws and so on now provide a pretty structured framework built around the golden rule type of idea? Most people don't go around wondering "what would Jesus do?" before acting or saying something. You know what's right, what's wrong. You know what will hurt someone and what won't. Sometimes you'll get caught and pay the legal penalty or get box in the face in return. If we all turned into unbelievers, would things really change? Will Iceman decide to go out and hit someone over the head with a hammer because he is suddenly not concerned about divine judgement? Are all the people who break rules and laws and cheat and steal and murder unbelievers?

I wasnt saying that secular people are offended by the the church's past role rather that they would be offended if it was afforded this role nowadays

Why would you think a moral keeper is not necessary? Because we actually have one... Now to safe guard our morals we have the press calling for mock outrage at every turn? In a way the freedom they have been afforded (or demanded) coupled with the unquestionable power they wield is akin to the church's traditional role in Western society. The difference is the church's ultimate aim was to spread the word of God, although its own actions did not always match its teachings while the press's ultimate aim is to sell news particular in our capitalist system.

In my opinion at least we cannot rely solely on science to upkeep society as it doesnt actually focus on non-physical things (which is what society is) and is sometimes so fluid that we cannot use it as a complete basis anyway. As the source of knowledge of all things physical (if anything really is ) it should be a major contributor of course, but we cant be solely reliant on it.

I am pretty sure that no laws or constitution are directly based around the golden rule and something as vague as that needs legs. An obvious flaw in it would be for soldiers, who prepared to die and prepared to kill, so its a good start but needs further expansion. But it doesnt really answer my question about who should uphold this ideal and how should it be spread.

Tho I think you are basically saying like I said that tradition should be the distributor of morality, as it is at the moment and always has however what should be the keeper? certainly not the press IMO.

Its true that a box in the face or night in the slammer might stop us from doing wrong things but why is it considered wrong in the first place? Evolutionary social psychology? How we're made? or what we are taught? Or a combo of the three? IMO opinion how we behave and interact is from the bottom up, from inside us. Our laws attempt to implement these standards that are deep within us from a top down approach but they dont govern our actions.

Also nothing can really explain some standards we have like:
Why do we feel bad when we do wrong to others even tho it may have been for selfish reasons?
Why is there good and bad in the first place?
Why are we still tempted by bad things even tho we know its wrong and their consequences?

Anyway this has diverged from society to a personal level, but then again I guess that is where society is ultimately held.


As regards Iceman, you never know.... he is into UFC afterall (joke Iceman!)

[omaghjoe]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Been thinking a little about this. Like I said, I am far from a philosopher, and your "how do we know what we perceive as truth or fact or reality is in fact so" is not an easy question.

You brought it up to challenge my assertion that science and materialism is a more valid and vital lens through which to view the world than religion or any other world view. Your challenge is in the form that "how can we know what science tells us is true or fact?"

I'm not convinced that is actually relevant though. As Omaghjoe also said (I think!), we have to have a starting point, a baseline from which to operate in processing the world in which we live. We all operate on the basis that the things we sense are real (and yes, this can occasionally fail e.g. mental illness). If I drive the wrong way down a one way street or I fire a gun into a crowd, the chances are that a real person can get hurt. If I jump into a roiling current, I'm probably going to drown. If my child is sick, I take them to a doctor for treatment. If my child misbehaves, I correct them and try to teach them. If I don't treat my child, educate my child or teach it proper behaviour, bad outcomes are more likely. These decisions are all based on logic and accumulated experience and knowledge, both personal and societal, with no appeal to supernaturalism or mysticism required. And given that the same processes of thought and confidence in our perceptions have given rise to the development of spiritualism and religion, except without the physical evidence and process of confirmation and validation, why should they be elevated to the same plane of authority? Are you really saying that some nomad looking at the sky 3,000 years ago, wondering where it all started, and due to the limits of knowledge attributing it all to some unseen, magical, intelligent force, that his views should carry the same weight as that of modern day science where predictions are made and tested empirically? If you are saying that anything and everything is fair game and equally valid, then I don't know what to say to that. Good luck with the witch doctor I guess!

My point was J70 as a proclaimed firm naturalist you can't even understand or point out how you even came up with all of this. And you have to agree that it is meaningless. The result of electro chemical farts in your brain.
So either you change your world view and decide you are no longer a naturalist, because to be so and still argue so vehemently your points on every thread would seem pointless (especially on this one) OR you continue to be a naturalist and freely admit that everything you have to say carries no more weight than any of us....

Meaningless in terms of what? In comparison to what?

Are you seriously saying that no one is ever right about anything?

Yeah I did say that J70 but I think you missed that point that I was trying to make with it

We have to have a baseline to start from so we should concentrate on what we agree on to form that base-point, not denigrate belief systems that go deeper than that the point of agreement.

Theist believe there is a God, which they say can't be physically proved to exist.
Naturalist say there is only the physical but then the deepest roots of this says that nothing is actually physical anyway.

Both are flawed for want of a better word, the most likely scenario is that we are incapable of understanding the here and now, so why pick holes in opposing methods of understanding this great unknown, esp when it only causes division. We have to bring them both to the level where they merge and work from there. No point going into where they diverge as it is mostly irrelevant to how we interact, but we should be aware of and understanding of the belief system that each has, esp when we have frequent interactions with someone from that belief system.

[The Iceman]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Been thinking a little about this. Like I said, I am far from a philosopher, and your "how do we know what we perceive as truth or fact or reality is in fact so" is not an easy question.

You brought it up to challenge my assertion that science and materialism is a more valid and vital lens through which to view the world than religion or any other world view. Your challenge is in the form that "how can we know what science tells us is true or fact?"

I'm not convinced that is actually relevant though. As Omaghjoe also said (I think!), we have to have a starting point, a baseline from which to operate in processing the world in which we live. We all operate on the basis that the things we sense are real (and yes, this can occasionally fail e.g. mental illness). If I drive the wrong way down a one way street or I fire a gun into a crowd, the chances are that a real person can get hurt. If I jump into a roiling current, I'm probably going to drown. If my child is sick, I take them to a doctor for treatment. If my child misbehaves, I correct them and try to teach them. If I don't treat my child, educate my child or teach it proper behaviour, bad outcomes are more likely. These decisions are all based on logic and accumulated experience and knowledge, both personal and societal, with no appeal to supernaturalism or mysticism required. And given that the same processes of thought and confidence in our perceptions have given rise to the development of spiritualism and religion, except without the physical evidence and process of confirmation and validation, why should they be elevated to the same plane of authority? Are you really saying that some nomad looking at the sky 3,000 years ago, wondering where it all started, and due to the limits of knowledge attributing it all to some unseen, magical, intelligent force, that his views should carry the same weight as that of modern day science where predictions are made and tested empirically? If you are saying that anything and everything is fair game and equally valid, then I don't know what to say to that. Good luck with the witch doctor I guess!

My point was J70 as a proclaimed firm naturalist you can't even understand or point out how you even came up with all of this. And you have to agree that it is meaningless. The result of electro chemical farts in your brain.
So either you change your world view and decide you are no longer a naturalist, because to be so and still argue so vehemently your points on every thread would seem pointless (especially on this one) OR you continue to be a naturalist and freely admit that everything you have to say carries no more weight than any of us....

Meaningless in terms of what? In comparison to what?

Are you seriously saying that no one is ever right about anything?

In the naturalist world everything just is. Thats it.
It just is.

Maybe our understanding of naturalism is different. But I dispute you are really a naturalist. Maybe a cultural naturalist. a naturalist with a 'but'...

[Hardy]

It's the confusion of the question of how with the question of why. The naturalist doesn't assert there is nothing but the material world. He asserts that the material world is all we KNOW and (at least partially) understand - the how of things. He asserts that we do not (yet?) possess the capability to understand the reason(s) for the existence if the universe, if there are any - the why of things.

The theist attributes both the how and the why to supernatural (i.e. non naturalist) intervention. But there is no basis at all in anything we KNOW for those assertions. He might as well speculate that it's all down to th cosmic teapot.

That which is asserted without proof may clearly be rejected without proof or even comment.

[omaghjoe]

It's the confusion of the question of how with the question of why. The naturalist doesn't assert there is nothing but the material world. He asserts that the material world is all we KNOW and (at least partially) understand - the how of things. He asserts that we do not (yet?) possess the capability to understand the reason(s) for the existence if the universe, if there are any - the why of things.

The theist attributes both the how and the why to supernatural (i.e. non naturalist) intervention. But there is no basis at all in anything we KNOW for those assertions. He might as well speculate that it's all down to th cosmic teapot.

That which is asserted without proof may clearly be rejected without proof or even comment.

Hardy!!!!!

Whats goin on??

Have you turned philosopher?

Welcome, welcome..... although we appear to have lost Muppet

I'll get back to you later

[muppet]

It's the confusion of the question of how with the question of why. The naturalist doesn't assert there is nothing but the material world. He asserts that the material world is all we KNOW and (at least partially) understand - the how of things. He asserts that we do not (yet?) possess the capability to understand the reason(s) for the existence if the universe, if there are any - the why of things.

The theist attributes both the how and the why to supernatural (i.e. non naturalist) intervention. But there is no basis at all in anything we KNOW for those assertions. He might as well speculate that it's all down to th cosmic teapot.

That which is asserted without proof may clearly be rejected without proof or even comment.

Hardy!!!!!

Whats goin on??

Have you turned philosopher?

Welcome, welcome..... although we appear to have lost Muppet

I'll get back to you later

I am not interesting in being so easily labeled, put in a pigeon hole and then dismantled.

I save my philosophy for around pint number 6, when everything is so much clearer.

[omaghjoe]

Ah the old ego Muppet, it can get the better of the best of us. Repent! Repent!

You don't even have to use your own philosophy Muppet, you don't even have to have one, we arent trying to out do each other. I am just trying to demonstrate a few things, open people's mind a little more. Anyway this shit is way to impractical to use as your own personal philosophy.

[muppet]

Ah the old ego Muppet, it can get the better of the best of us. Repent! Repent!

You don't even have to use your own philosophy Muppet, you don't even have to have one, we arent trying to out do each other. I am just trying to demonstrate a few things, open people's mind a little more. Anyway this shit is way to impractical to use as your own personal philosophy.

And you point to my ego?

Joe you are simply a contrarian. No matter what anyone posts you gently (most of the time) disagree and put up a smilie. What is the point?

[omaghjoe]

Ah the old ego Muppet, it can get the better of the best of us. Repent! Repent!

You don't even have to use your own philosophy Muppet, you don't even have to have one, we arent trying to out do each other. I am just trying to demonstrate a few things, open people's mind a little more. Anyway this shit is way to impractical to use as your own personal philosophy.

And you point to my ego?

Joe you are simply a contrarian. No matter what anyone posts you gently (most of the time) disagree and put up a smilie. What is the point?

I don't believe in taking a view point based on an initial or gut reaction (apart from sports, music or food) and then working backwards with facts to try and prove my viewpoint.

But to answer your question it is to gain information and further understanding of subject areas and have a bit o craic. You?