Thoughts in a Haystack

So the person who gets outraged when theology is called science lets it pass without comment when it is called philosophy huh?
 

Theology has always been a branch of philosophy.

And I object to Coyne's mixing up his philosophy with science too.
 

Really? What next? Theology as a branch of science?
 

Well . . . a lot of scientists seem to enjoy trimming things up with Ockham's razor. ;-)

Same Ockham, btw.

-- pew sitter
 

Theology as a branch of science?

No, because the methodology is different.

In his follow-up Fincke makes a distinction between "theology" (that which uses the Bible or the presumed authority of holy men as evidence) and philosophy that deals with the logical consequences of concepts. I'm not so sure I agree, though he didn't lay out his distinction in detail. I don't see how the source of the premises is particularly important and would consider the working out of the logical consequences of the existence of an omniscient being philosophy even if the source of the premise was the Bible. Of course, simply saying "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it, is not philosophy.
 

The Bible can surely be the source of a premise, but not of its authority. If something true or hypothetically interesting is in the Bible we can philosophically analyze it independently for its merits. But saying it is from the Bible offers no more inherent credibility than saying anyone else said it.

Philosophy of God and Philosophy of Religion are subsets of Philosophy but Theology is its own thing which employs philosophical concepts but works within premises whose only authority comes from theological traditions which claim them. (That's why I think theology is a pseudo-discipline that should properly be replaced with studies of the Philosophy of Religion, History of Religion, Psychology of Religion, Sociology of Religion, Anthropology of Religion, Religious Literature, etc. Much contemporary theology of academic credibility actually is these things instead of good old fashioned believing theology.)
 

Thanks for the clarification.

I take your point but think it may be difficult at times to sort one out from the other, as, perhaps, in the case of Aquinas.
 

Ha, funny you should say that as it's basically Thomas Aquinas whose distinctions I am thinking of.
 

I, too, suffered under the gentle ministrations of Jesuits but I'm afraid that my memory of Aquinas is, after all these years, too vague to be certain of the connection.
 

@John
No, because the methodology is different.
Ah but unless you believe Philosophy is just about making stuff up - you have to answer how the particular question (can we have free will if an omniscient being exists) has commonality with philosophy.
As always you seem to miss the motivation behind why someone would fund such a study.

@Camel with hammers
That's why I think theology is a pseudo-discipline that should properly be replaced with studies of the Philosophy of Religion, History of Religion, Psychology of Religion, Sociology of Religion, Anthropology of Religion, Religious Literature, etc
So where in this neat division does the study of the attributes of God fall(and hence the consequences)? e.g. omnipotence / omniscience / omnibenevolence?


Should we have similar divisions for e.g. for Can superman mate with Lois Lane?
 

Ah but unless you believe Philosophy is just about making stuff up - you have to answer how the particular question (can we have free will if an omniscient being exists) has commonality with philosophy.

Philosophy is about working out of the logical consequences of various concepts. As I've explained and Dan Fincke has explained, it doesn't matter where those concepts come from. Omnipotence / omniscience / omnibenevolence are all concepts that humans can conceive of (unless you are claiming that they only can come from revelation by god) and the working out of the consequences are within the bounds of philosophy, either as an interesting execise or for what light they may shed on our concepts of time and causation.

As always you seem to miss the motivation behind why someone would fund such a study.

What difference does it make? The link with Templeton was prominently (even proudly) revealed ... just as an honest scientist reveals that his/her research is funded by a drug company. Peer review will then take care of its academic worth.
 

P.S. I would classify Niven as doing philosophy there, though of a very lighthearted sort.
 

@John
Philosophy is about working out of the logical consequences of various concepts. As I've explained and Dan Fincke has explained, it doesn't matter where those concepts come from.

Well then does God know both the position of a particle and its momentum accurately?
The logical consequence of omniscience is yes.
Which violates Heisenbergs principle.
It is trivial to work around this by attributing some property to God (e.g. God *sees* using different mechanisms than us), as long as you are willing to make up stuff.
If you want to call the above "Philosophy" you taint a perfectly valid discipline.

The reason Niven and other unrealistic hypothetical's work is because no one use's them to justify the hypothetical. That is explicitly not the case with the example cited.

What difference does it make?
Motivation doesn't make a difference?
Would it be valid philosophy to consider how an omnipotent God could create the earth 6000 years ago and still look as if it evolved?
If this is peer reviewed philosophy (note that the same general exceptions can be made or the above question as you could for the omniscient one), would you agree with it being taught in school?
 

It is trivial to work around this by attributing some property to God

Um, that was Dan's point. It's also something that won't be taken seriously in academic philosophy. So what's your complaint? That Templeton is wasting its money?

Motivation doesn't make a difference?

Not when it is disclosed for all to see. It's the hidden motivations that are the problem. And, sometimes at least, drug companies fund good research. That's why, even beyond good rational practice, you and Coyne will have to wait to see if Templeton is wasting its money until after Todd actually produces some result.

Would it be valid philosophy to consider how an omnipotent God could create the earth 6000 years ago and still look as if it evolved?

Of course. That is precisely why scientists, theologians and philosophers of science all roundly condemned Gosse's Omphalos. How else would you reject it, except by working out the logical consequences?

... would you agree with it being taught in school?

If it was peer reviewed academic philosophy being taught in a philosophy course, why not? Are the only things to be taught in school those that Gnus agree with? Am I supposed to like that any more than the idea that the only things to be taught in school are those theists agree with?
 

It's also something that won't be taken seriously in academic philosophy.
Really? But God being out of space time continuum or able to see all of time is taken seriously?
Can't have it both ways can you? Can an omniscient being see both the position and momentum of a particle. yes or no? Please provide an answer that will be taken seriously in academic circles so I may know the difference betweens a layman's trivial answer and the serious academic answer.

That Templeton is wasting its money?
Nope - It's Templeton's money and they can waste it as they want.

The point is that you/david et al. are arguing on principle that anything , including unrealistic hypotheticals could have some philosophical value which is true.

Except in the real world you don't have to read every single ID paper before you can predict how the next ones are going to go , nor does it take a genius to figure out why Templeton is funding this particular question or how it's going to be used and what the value of this is.

if Templeton is wasting its money until after Todd ..
I'm sure if someone can demonstrate proof of an omniscient being Ill hear of it.

How else would you reject it, except by working out the logical consequences?
Please tell me how would you reject anything related to an omnipotent being?

Are the only things to be taught in school those that Gnus agree with?
You keep making these accusations when I don't remember implying such things.

I asked if you would agree for this to be taught in school in a philosophy course . You can say 'yes'. I can then forward it to the discovery institute to change their tack to use philosophy instead of science.
 

But God being out of space time continuum or able to see all of time is taken seriously?

Sigh. If you can't be bothered to read the links, there's little point in responding to you. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel over and over again simply because you're too stubborn and too interested in “gotcha” points to even acknowledge other people's arguments.

The point is that you/david et al. are arguing on principle that anything , including unrealistic hypotheticals could have some philosophical value

Um, DAN just said the exact opposite above. Would you like to come back when you've recovered your reading skills?

Please tell me how would you reject anything related to an omnipotent being?

Um, I just gave you an example … Omphalos.

Except in the real world you don't have to read every single ID paper before you can predict how the next ones are going to go

So that's the Gnu skepticism? … I don't need no steenkin evidence! …

It is perfectly right and proper to be skeptical … even dismissive ... of anything that comes out of the Discovery Institute because it has a track record of lying and political manipulation. I am unaware of anything like that from Templeton. But to apriori dismiss the possibility that anyone remotely associated with the DI could do actual science is not skepticism … its prejudice … literally, making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so rationally.

You keep making these accusations ...

But why even ask whether academically peer-reviewed philosophy could be taught in a philosophy class? It's like questioning whether academically peer-reviewed science can be taught in a science class. The only people I know who do that are creationists out to have only their views taught.

I can then forward it to the discovery institute to change their tack to use philosophy instead of science

Don't bother, I've been telling them that for years.

And yes, ID was and is perfectly respectable … if threadbare … philosophy.
 

@John
Addressing only the places where you have attempted to make arguments instead of implied insults

But to apriori dismiss the possibility that anyone remotely associated with the DI could do actual science is not skepticism … its prejudice …
The equivalent analogy is not someone remotely associated with DI , its someone who is being funded by DI to perform a study about evolution /probability.
It's the combination of Templeton plus the subject at hand that causes the prejudice (and yes ofcourse I am prejudiced about the DI , conservative republicans , sarah palin et al, aren't you?).


But why even ask whether academically peer-reviewed philosophy could be taught in a philosophy class
Because philosophy is unlike maths and science . It is possible to have complete different answers which are valid (Is capital punishment moral?).
The follow up question of course is , If ID is perfectly respectable philosophy as you say and can be taught (hypothetically) - whats prevents a suitably inclined philosophy teacher using to raise doubts about what is taught in a science class? (Im sure as a lawyer you too can figure out ways to do this easily).
 

Addressing only the places where you have attempted to make arguments instead of implied insults

The arguments had already been made, you just ignored them, so I ignored you.

The equivalent analogy is not someone remotely associated with DI , its someone who is being funded by DI to perform a study about evolution /probability.

You ignored the crucial step of showing how Templeton has a remotely similar track record to the DI.

But even on your premise, is it justified to assume apriori that the work done will have no scientific merit? On what rational basis?

If ID is perfectly respectable philosophy as you say and can be taught (hypothetically)

Not hypothetically, it can be taught. Indeed, I can't imagine how you'd teach the history of biology without covering it.

whats prevents a suitably inclined philosophy teacher using to raise doubts about what is taught in a science class?

Ah! So no doubts about science are to be allowed? Are we now to prevent the teaching of religion since, after all, that might raise doubts about what is taught in a science class. Who exactly is going to enforce this?

What we object to here in the US, under our peculiar Constitution, is mislabeling philosophy or religion as science with the motive of advancing religion. And that only applies to public grade schools and high schools.

As long as the teacher/school board fairly teaches the arguments for and against ID, there is no problem.

(Im sure as a lawyer you too can figure out ways to do this easily).

Yep. It's called staying within constitutional bounds.
 

@John
You ignored the crucial step of showing how Templeton has a remotely similar track record to the DI.
I deleted the links from the previous comment thinking no point.
For me the evidence is John Horgan, Elaine Ecklund's study conclusions v/s the raw data, Some posts on salty current's blog on the organizations that Templeteon funds and just about every statement that comes from Templeton winners.
That tells me what the conclusion of this philosophical question will be and what it will be used for , so much so that the how becomes irrelevant. (The equivalent i can think of is Biologos articles which try to demonstrate that Adam and Eve can be literal without directly contradicting any known scientific facts - these too can have philosophical merit but knowing what they are being used for makes me against such endeavors)

is it justified to assume apriori that the work done will have no scientific merit?
Scientific merit? Do you mean philosophical merit? I already told you , for me motivation matters.

On what rational basis?
In an ideal world , none.
In the real world with limited resources such things go under the category called 'experience'.

Indeed, I can't imagine how you'd teach the history of biology without covering it.
You are mixing up stuff now. History is different. I don't have a problem with a lot of categories
that David mentioned. The only one I take issue with is the attributes of God and consequences thereof. There is no rational reason to assign omnipotence or omniscience to God is there? As well as every single attribute is essentially made up.
Note also the question of free will is not purely a philosophical one , it is also a scientific one.

Ah! So no doubts about science are to be allowed?
For someone who makes accusations of reading comprehension you aren't much better yourself , are you?

What we object to here in the US, under our peculiar Constitution, is mislabeling philosophy or religion as science with the motive of advancing religion.
Sure. But Im just exploring the consequences of your views.

As long as the teacher/school board fairly teaches the arguments for and against ID, there is no problem.
But that "fairly" is the crux of the matter.
The question usually asked is "should ID be taught in school?"
not "should ID be taught fairly in school?". There are a bunch of implied assumptions that the first question makes including that ID won't be taught fairly.
 

"In the real world with limited resources such things go under the category called 'experience'."

Interestingly, millions of people around the world claim they experience a personal relationship with their god.

I guess now I have to accept that as rational evidence.
 

Scientific merit? Do you mean philosophical merit?

I said "on your premise" of DI funded science.

I already told you , for me motivation matters.

So it rational for a theist to reject apriori Coyne's biological work because he has a motive of advancing atheism?

The only one I take issue with is the attributes of God and consequences thereof.

But you can't teach the history of natural theology without discussing the attributes people attributed to God and the consequences thereof.

There is no rational reason to assign omnipotence or omniscience to God

But there are several reasons, as have already been explained, to consider what time, free will and other concepts we already have would be like if we had the perspective of an omnipotence and/or omniscience being. If nothing else, exploring it logically might demonstrate that the concept of such a being is incoherent.

For someone who makes accusations of reading comprehension you aren't much better yourself

Well, then, help me out. What have I ever said that would lead you to possibly think that I would find a philosophy teacher raising doubts about science is a bad thing? ... after all the times I've quoted Hume on the problem of induction? If you are asking it that way for rhetorical effect, please don't act surprised when you get rhetorical effect back.

But that "fairly" is the crux of the matter.

Which goes for all of government. Life's a bitch that way. We actually have to work to keep our government honest. If we're lucky we may succeed some small percentage of the time. But if we stop government from doing anything that might be done wrong, we'd have no government at all and, despite what some people might think, that would not be a good thing.

The question usually asked is "should ID be taught in school?"

I usually find it to be "should ID be taught in public school science classes?"

But I can make distinctions between different scenerios and chew gum at the same time.
 

@John
I said "on your premise" of DI funded science.
In matters related to evolution - yes I can apriori make that call. Just as I can apriori be certain that Coyne is not going to be the Templeton prize winner for the next few years.

On other scientific issues investigated by DI, perhaps not , but I would tend to think that they are doing it just to gain credibility for their other endeavors (bias again).

This is no different from discrediting a witness by showing that the witness has lied previously (even if it would be a logical fallacy to assume he is currently lying).
In an ideal world , I wouldn't have to disagree. In the real world this is normal (notably politics - Do you need Herman Cain to spell out the exact details of his flat tax plan before you can conclude who profits?).

So it rational for a theist to reject apriori Coyne's biological work because he has a motive of advancing atheism?
I would think a theist could justifiably be biased against Coyne's philosophy. His biological work however has science's inbuilt protections so no. Again I have atleast shown my reasons for bias against templeton beyond their views are different from mine.

But you can't teach the history of natural theology without discussing the attributes people attributed to God and the consequences thereof.
Not the same thing. History would describe what has happened. It doesn't try to make the facts fit the theory. You cant attribute omnipotence to a God and keep looking around for excuses to explain the world's state - especially as it needs you to keep adding more unknowns. How is this any different from Adam and Eve being literal and various excuses being made to explain that problem. It could still be valid philosophy but if it is going to be used to justify a literal Adam and Eve (instead of examining the consequences of such a scenario) then why would you support such philosophy ?

The reading comprehension was related to doubts about evolution being encouraged - given how controversial a topic it is. At no point did I imply that students must be taught that science is infallible or that doubts about scientific theories be suppressed.
You keep trying to make this as to what the law allows or doesn't allow(should be fairly straightforward in most cases) - which isn't an area that interests me whereas I'm trying to evaluate good or bad. A philosophy teacher trying to undermine theories because of his beliefs is not a good thing(legal or otherwise).

"should ID be taught in public school science classes?"
Phrase it that way if you want. There is still no fairly - everyone knows it wont be fair. thats bias and prejudice.
However I would still say school. There are certain things that I expect something that calls itself a school to do. (private schools are well within their legal rights to teach creationism or that women are inferior or any other crap they want - I dont have to support it or say there might still be some value there)

I also remember a comment from your previous blog related to the non debate of Dawkins and Craig.
"I can't imagine a more sterile intellectual exercise. "

Isnt that an apriori bias speaking?

But I can make distinctions between different scenerios and chew gum at the same time.
This possibly pop cultural reference/phrase is not one im familiar with :(
 

I'm losing interest (and I'm sure there will be more to deal with re my latest post on Coyne). For what it's worth:

In matters related to evolution - yes I can apriori make that call.

The issue isn't what you will do but the rational basis for what you do. You've given none, except for "experience," which is nothing more than "I know it when I see it," which is exactly the same reason theists give for their beliefs.

I would tend to think that they are doing it just to gain credibility

I said you have every right to be skeptical, even dismissive (i.e. you have no duty to read or evaluate the research) but you have no warrant to conclude it is without scientific merit either.

This is no different from discrediting a witness by showing that the witness has lied previously (even if it would be a logical fallacy to assume he is currently lying).

Exactly! It is an irrational short-cut used in the law because there must be a decision in real time now. Why do you need to leave logic behind in Todd's case? There is no need, except perhaps in your emotional commitment to your beliefs, not to suspend judgment until Todd produces his results, if any.

I'm trying to evaluate good or bad. A philosophy teacher trying to undermine theories because of his beliefs is not a good thing(legal or otherwise).

[Shrug] You have every right to express your beliefs as to what is right and wrong as do theists. Your beliefs in that regard do not have, and should not have, any more weight than theirs. It is only in the legal sphere where we can decide who, if anyone, can use the government to support their views.

"I can't imagine a more sterile intellectual exercise. "

Isnt that an apriori bias speaking?

I certainly have biases. Any rational person knows that about themself ... though it can be difficult to realize just what they are from the "inside". But that's the very reason one should suspend judgment, or at least acknowledge that there may be other possible judgments, until you have more facts, such as the actual results of Todd's postdoc.

This possibly pop cultural reference/phrase

Sorry. Early morning humor. Someone who can't walk and chew gum at the same time is very limited in their thinking/abilities. I hope I'm not and I hope you aren't either.
 

@John
I'm losing interest
Fair enough.

Last words on this post from me
It is an irrational short-cut used in the law because there must be a decision in real time now
Amusing! So the law is irrational when it does things you don't agree with.

until you have more facts, such as the actual results of Todd's postdoc.
The topic in question is flawed. I could grant omniscience as a premise. Free will - not so much.
Combine that with every single Templeton funded study about God will conclude that everything about the Judeo-Christian God is in complete harmony with all known facts make this a sterile exercise in my opinion. This however is not a comment on the student, his sincerity or anything else related to the student.

I certainly have biases.
And you feel that bias is justified. So the only thing in question is , is it reasonable to be biased about Templeton funded studies. I gave you my examples - you have never stated what you think. Horgan's example is pretty much what one would expect when large sums of money are involved with an organization that has a stated agenda.
 

So the law is irrational when it does things you don't agree with.

No, it is irrational because it employs, as you point out, a logical fallacy. Sometimes we use such techniques to achieve certain ends but, just because we do, doesn't magically transform the technique into something rational. In other words, you can rationally choose to be irrational. But you are still being irrational.

This however is not a comment on the student, his sincerity or anything else related to the student.

Then it is only fair to wait until he produces something before declaring that what he will do is unphilosophical nonsense.

And you feel that bias is justified.

Well, if I'm aware of my bias, then I don't think it is justified. If I'm not aware of it, I may feel it is justified but feelings are not rational. After all, theists generally feel that their beliefs are justified.

Horgan's example is pretty much what one would expect ...

If you mean this article, I wouldn't remotely put the Templeton Foundation in the same class as the DI or even a political lobbyist. I certainly wouldn't reject out of hand everything that anyone who ever took a Templeton junket or honorarium said about religion and science (or I'd have to reject Horgan's article!). I can see being skeptical about Templeton-funded work but the proper skeptical response is to closely check the results. It is not skepticism to apriori reject something because we are suspicious ... that's closer to denialism.
 

yeezy
chrome hearts online store
nike react
golden goose outlet
off white nike
supreme
yeezy 500
kyrie shoes
jordans
nike sb dunks