Einige Probleme
I began a little debate with Bob a number of months back on the merits of current scientific practice, particularly in terms of how they are now and how he would like them to be. Sadly, the conversation ended prematurely, but I'm still curious as to whether or not answers exist for the following points:
1) Are there any cases where falsifiability is insufficient on its own as an indicator of whether or not something is scientific?
2) According to Bob, we possess the faculties of reason that we use to form rational arguments because a god instilled them in us. Thus, presumably, all of our arguments that are critical in regards to the existence of a god are a little ironic in nature because this god is responsible for our being able to rationally form such arguments in the first place. My thoughts on the matter are, of course, that this claim is unfalsifiable, and so quite useless as an argument. When we are born, we have no innate knowledge of a god's existence (unless that knowledge exists during the period when we are unable to articulate it and vanishes before that ability develops, which is an ultimately useless supposition); we must be told of this god before we can believe in it. To understand the concept of said god and form a belief in it, we employ our reason. Now, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility that a god is responsible for the aforementioned faculties, but it is impossible to tell unless one is able to spot or deduce this god while it is in the act of endowing someone with said faculties. Is there anything the matter with my line of thinking on this matter?
3) Is there a special definition of the word "hate" that Christian bloggers are using when they indicate that non-believers hate their god? It's really not possible to hate something that you believe doesn't exist in the traditional sense as far as I understand it (Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury), but that particular accusation gets bandied about a lot and I'm curious as to whether I'm missing something there.
Those are some of my curiosities for now.
1) Are there any cases where falsifiability is insufficient on its own as an indicator of whether or not something is scientific?
2) According to Bob, we possess the faculties of reason that we use to form rational arguments because a god instilled them in us. Thus, presumably, all of our arguments that are critical in regards to the existence of a god are a little ironic in nature because this god is responsible for our being able to rationally form such arguments in the first place. My thoughts on the matter are, of course, that this claim is unfalsifiable, and so quite useless as an argument. When we are born, we have no innate knowledge of a god's existence (unless that knowledge exists during the period when we are unable to articulate it and vanishes before that ability develops, which is an ultimately useless supposition); we must be told of this god before we can believe in it. To understand the concept of said god and form a belief in it, we employ our reason. Now, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility that a god is responsible for the aforementioned faculties, but it is impossible to tell unless one is able to spot or deduce this god while it is in the act of endowing someone with said faculties. Is there anything the matter with my line of thinking on this matter?
3) Is there a special definition of the word "hate" that Christian bloggers are using when they indicate that non-believers hate their god? It's really not possible to hate something that you believe doesn't exist in the traditional sense as far as I understand it (Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury), but that particular accusation gets bandied about a lot and I'm curious as to whether I'm missing something there.
Those are some of my curiosities for now.
Labels: Religion
posted by Ubersehen | 03:49
1 Comments:
I know I'm not the one who should be addressing these points, but:
1) I think falsifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being scientific. In order to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. But being falsifiable does not automatically grant the property of being scientific.
2) I'd have to see how Bob argued this to judge it. I can see both unfalsifiability and circularity being problems with this line of reasoning.
3) Agreed. It seems a lot of the people you speak of have this belief that everyone "knows" that God exists, and "knows" that saying we don't believe in Him makes Him sad, so saying one doesn't believe is a hateful act. This isn't so much a fallacy or anything...it's just plain wrong. No, really, seriously, we don't believe he exists.
The weird thing is, their belief in God is as perplexing to us as our disbelief is to them, yet we don't accuse them of faking a belief in God. Though I must admit it's tempting sometimes.
Post a Comment
<< Home