| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Leon wrote: | | In the 19th C the Bible was disqualified as an arbiter of scientific judgement. And a good thing. But then everything in it was relegated to the realm of fantasy: scientific positivism become fanaticism. In recent years I've read that Socrates never existed, that the Hebrews never existed, they were just an international collection of escapees from Egyptian slavery who then invented a previous unified history, now Jesus and Mohammed are out the window, of course Atlantis never existed since Aristotle's time, the Trojan War never happened until Schliemann came along, the figures of classical mythology never existed, I suppose you'll tell me that Zoroaster never existed, how about Gautama Buddha and Lao Zu? they don't have much possibility of having existed as things are going. |
That is an adequate summary. Yes.
| How dull things must have been in antiquity! |
Precisely. Antiquity was invented so the past would not be so dull.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
As Ishmael opines, It is a an AE doctrine that given a choice between dull and spicy the latter always wins in academia because the professional practitioners have lecture hours to fill and books to sell, and the PP's are the final arbiter of 'truth'. This is the reason for the relative success of, for instance, physics'n'chemistry, because, by contrast, they make a fetish of simplicity (via the scientific method) and eventually simplicity equals truth and this provides a sure foundation for the development of the subject itself.
In the 'observational' subjects eg history and astronomy, peer review ensures spicy overcomes dull and simplicity/truth rarely get a look-in. And so hobbled, they never get to take off. However they are immensely successful in all other ways because of their 'spicy tales' and this gives them the illusion of intellectual success.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As Ishmael opines, It is a an AE doctrine that given a choice between dull and spicy the latter always wins in academia |
Concerning the question of Atlantis, and especially the extremely spicy theory, which I've outlined in the Matters Arising thread, that it was destroyed by atomic weapons, your doctrine is faulty: academia throws up its hands in horror at the suggestion. "A prehistoric world civilisation with advanced technology comparable to that existing today? Impossible! An island in the middle of the Atlantic? Mystical nonsense!"
Will you defend orthodox dogma in this case because the theory is too spicy? Or will you look at the evidence presented and refute or accept according to its degree of coherence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Leon wrote: | | ...somebody must have done it, otherwise how could you possibly get a mass movement on the go? |
How about mass movement = mass movement? That looks like it will work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Leon wrote: | | Will you defend orthodox dogma in this case because the theory is too spicy? |
No. But that is a good reason to doubt your particular alternative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| And what's spicy about the idea that Plato had a teacher named Socrates? or that a guy named Yeshua, a common name if I'm not mistaken, went about preaching and was crucified? - it happened all the time. |
Leon, bold new ideas are invariably invented by dull people who stay at home watching Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman on their digiboxes, and who die comfortably of old age in their beds. However, later on, when their ideas are pitched into the outside world by slightly crazed people with beards, these Great Founders have to be dressed up into people who died for their ideas, and other faintly alarming notions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Leon, bold new ideas are invariably invented by dull people who stay at home watching Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman on their digiboxes, and who die comfortably of old age in their beds. However, later on, when their ideas are pitched into the outside world by slightly crazed people with beards, these Great Founders have to be dressed up into people who died for their ideas, and other faintly alarming notions. |
Whether invariably or not, the original point being argued is whether these slightly crazed people with beards, specifically Jesus and Mohammed, existed or not - not whether everything that has been written about them is true. (Which is of no interest to me, by the way. I'm an agnostic, fanatically opposed to religion and atheism, which are two sides of the know-it-all coin.)
In fact I don't know whether J & M the post-Judaic fanatics existed or not. I simply say, given all those stories about them, that I see no reason to suppose they did not. Ishmael offers none, but tells me I haven't looked very hard. It's his bloody notion, let him provide the reasons, evidence, facts, data, grounds, demonstrations, hearsay, citations, quotations, affidavits and depositions.
But if one can make a true sentence saying that slightly crazed people with beards pitched the bold new ideas of dull people into the outside world, it follows logically that they did in fact exist. ("Dull people" with "bold new ideas"? funny combination: are you a dull person who stays at home etc. and a polymath genius? I do have the impression that you have bold new ideas. Dull geniuses must certainly be a rare breed.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| religion and atheism, which are two sides of the know-it-all coin. |
A common error. To believe a set of fanciful notions is not at all the equivalent of not believing in that same set of fanciful notions. I don't believe the Moon is made of green cheese but I decline to place myself on the same coin as those who do. (And that was my position before we actually found what the Moon was made of.)
Agnosticism is strictly for muppets since while it is agreed that there is the possibility that God exists, you have to make your mind up on the evidence available. The "don't know" position is reserved for times when the evidence is finely balanced not when there is no evidence for something yet we cannot finally rule it out.
I know atheists are fairly noisome people but you have to learn to hold your noise in the pursuit of AE truth. Atheism is the only proper AE position since we take it as axiomatic that doubt attaches to all things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religion and atheism are both the pretence of knowing the unknowable. There is no evidence.
I don't take proper positions. The proper position outside these pages is not to listen to people like you. If I do, it's because I find what you say of great interest, I haven't subscribed unconditionally to your every utterance. Why do I have to be a conformist with respect to your religious position?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Applied Epistemology is against all -isms |
Thankfully that was a slight exaggeration.
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Atheism is the only proper AE position. |
To think otherwise would be an indication that the thinker has failed to apply fundamental Applied Epistemological critique.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Applied Epistemology is against all -isms |
I have no objection. It's your contradiction, you deal with it.
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Atheism is the only proper AE position. |
Thanks for trying to steer me along the path of righteousness, Chad, but I'm not a fundamentalist either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Leon wrote: | | Thanks for trying to steer me along the path of righteousness, Chad, but I'm not a fundamentalist either. |
This is indeed a good thing Leon, since fundamentalisms is not one of the exceptions I have so far come across to no-isms rule... (they being atheism and alcoholism.)
Unfortunately, I'm not as untainted as yourself. In addition to the two exemptions mentioned above I have still not managed to divest myself of all traces of fundamentalism, especially in the areas of logical thought and application of the scientific method... (Probably the legacy of an engineering background.)
I have tried to analyse both sides of an unequal argument, without coming to the conclusion that one is fundamentally correct and the other is complete and utter bollocks, but so far this is a knack that has totally eluded me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The theology ('knowledge of God' etymologically ... 'knowledge of the unknowable' in my terms) in and around the sacred scriptures of all religions is of course absolute bollocks. So also that of Dante, despite which the Commedia remains the most beautiful single poetic work known, equalled in quality only by the works of Shakespeare, who was probably an atheist.
There is no argument, unequal or otherwise. There is no evidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mediaeval Illuminists said that God is a Light at the centre of the Universe, which radiates being eternally.
The Hindus say that the Universe came forth when the Cosmic Egg opened.
Modern science says that the universe was produced by the Big Bang.
All these are imaginings. The last two are probably based on the same evidence of cosmic expansion, which the Indians would have inherited from the high-tech antediluvian civilisation. The only difference between them is that one is 'theological' and the other 'scientific'. So if you're a Hindu believer, you believe the second and reject the third, and if you're a scientific atheist you believe the third and reject the second.
But until astronomers can see to the end of the universe and determine positively that it's finite, the Big Bang remains a mere logical deduction, logical as far as it goes, but in essence as speculative and theological as the other two. Of the first it can be said that it is the most beautiful of the three, which is probably why Dante was an Illuminist, and not a Hindu or a Bigbanger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, the best explanation for the existence of life is design by an intelligent agent. It is this conclusion that should be the correct 'AE position', since it is based on the current state of knowledge. Of course, to propose the possibility of a future alternative explanation that does not require a designer is not unreasonable, but to dogmatically assert this belief as the only 'correct position', is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
