quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Stalwart Steve was all like:
But at least they're alive.
Exactly.
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
As Isaac Asimov said later in his life, it's really atheism that's the logical position. There is nothing, scientifically speaking, that can logically be used as evidence for the divine.
It's just as fucked-up retarded to think that the physical can be used as evidence of (or against) the divine--metaphysical--as it is to try to use one's metaphysical beliefs to explain anything about the physical world.
The natural sciences offer no proof for or against belief, as they rightly have not a damn thing to do with it. Hell, that should be painfully obvious by looking at the names--what could the physical way of coming-to-know (science) have to do with that which is beyond the physical (metaphysin) With the natural sciences, one chooses to either accept or deny any given thing based on a plenitude of data. With metaphysics, one must either believe or not believe in a complete vacuum of data with which to help one make his decision.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Vorbis squealed:
It's just as fucked-up retarded to think that the physical can be used as evidence of (or against) the divine--metaphysical--as it is to try to use one's metaphysical beliefs to explain anything about the physical world.The natural sciences offer no proof for or against belief, as they rightly have not a damn thing to do with it. Hell, that should be painfully obvious by looking at the names--what could the physical way of coming-to-know (science) have to do with that which is beyond the physical (metaphysin) With the natural sciences, one chooses to either accept or deny any given thing based on a plenitude of data. With metaphysics, one must either believe or not believe in a complete vacuum of data with which to help one make his decision.
That's sort of silly. . .and ultimately makes my point and contradicts your earlier one. The natural sciences support only an atheist position on metaphysics, since there's zero evidence for anything metaphysical.
Belief is, by definition, irrational. So it's sort of silly to say that the natural sciences support agnosticism, unless you're misuing the word. The one and only position justified by natural sciences is atheism, since rational methods cannot be used to come to irrational conclusions; an irrational conclusion is either the product of faulty logic or is, by definition, simply counterintuitive rather than truly irrational.
Edit: in case this was your point--it's not that the physical is being used as evidence against the divine, but rather that one cannot rationally believe in something in the absence of proof, therefore the natural sciences cannot be used to justify agnosticism and must lead to atheism if one follows the methodology. That's why it's silly to claim the natural sciences support agnosticism, or that faith is the product of rational processes. People looking for proof of their beliefs are on a fool's quest, and rational people need point only to the absence of proof rather than trying to disprove religion. Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 01-21-2008 at 04:24 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Bloodsage wrote:
That's sort of silly. . .and ultimately makes my point and contradicts your earlier one. The natural sciences support only an atheist position on metaphysics, since there's zero evidence for anything metaphysical.Belief is, by definition, irrational. So it's sort of silly to say that the natural sciences support agnosticism, unless you're misuing the word. The one and only position justified by natural sciences is atheism, since rational methods cannot be used to come to irrational conclusions; an irrational conclusion is either the product of faulty logic or is, by definition, simply counterintuitive rather than truly irrational.
Edit: in case this was your point--it's not that the physical is being used as evidence against the divine, but rather that one cannot rationally believe in something in the absence of proof, therefore the natural sciences cannot be used to justify agnosticism and must lead to atheism if one follows the methodology. That's why it's silly to claim the natural sciences support agnosticism, or that faith is the product of rational processes. People looking for proof of their beliefs are on a fool's quest, and rational people need point only to the absence of proof rather than trying to disprove religion.
Science, being rendered unable to speak about metaphysics, can only say, "I don't know." If it attempts to say that there is nothing beyond the physical, then it is arrogantly over-exerting itself. Now, should one take up the natural sciences as a belief-system in themselves and be quite certain that the only way anything can be known (and thus the only things that can be known) is physically, then I'll admit you might be right about where science leads man.
And I'm not quite sure you're using the word correctly, because it seems that you're using "believe" in a rather self-contradictary way. You said, "one cannot rationally believe in something in the absence of proof," which seems quite silly to me. I cannot choose to believe or not believe in something that can be proven--I can only choose to acknowledge or deny it. Belief is limited to the realm of what cannot be proven. It wouldn't be an act of faith to believe in Christ if there were corroborating historical records. It'd be an act of sanity.
Careful also with your use of irrational. There's more than just one form of logic, unless you are ironic enough to believe the natural sciences to contain the entirety of existence within their scope. And if that is the case, then this discussion has dead-ended--we're arguing in two completely different worlds.
I will be the FIRST at your doorstep with a hammer and nails.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan wrote this stupid crap:
You better pray a Catholic president never gets elected.I will be the FIRST at your doorstep with a hammer and nails.
There will be others?
quote:
Vorbis said this about your mom:
There will be others?
Three. The others will be on red, black and pale horses, respectively.
quote:
Greenlit had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Three. The others will be on red, black and pale horses, respectively.
So that would mean Parce is Pestilence?
Atheist: "There's no such thing as god, religion is a hoax, and when you die, you're dead. That's all there is to it." An atheist specifically disbelieves any form of religion, and refutes the possibility of a metaphysical realm. Atheism is a belief system in and of itself, in which anything that cannot be proven cannot exist. Actions taken by an atheist have purely physical motivation, typically related either to personal gain or avoiding consequences.
Agnostic: "Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't. For now, it doesn't really matter either way. If there's an afterlife, I'll find out when I get there." Most agnostics have a live-and-let-live perspective when it comes to religion. Rather than choosing a religion based on speculation, they've decided to wait for definitive proof either for or against the metaphysical. Typical agnostics may still abide by the more reasonable moral codes found in religion, if only as a precaution.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Vorbis absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Science, being rendered unable to speak about metaphysics, can only say, "I don't know." If it attempts to say that there is nothing beyond the physical, then it is arrogantly over-exerting itself. Now, should one take up the natural sciences as a belief-system in themselves and be quite certain that the only way anything can be known (and thus the only things that can be known) is physically, then I'll admit you might be right about where science leads man.And I'm not quite sure you're using the word correctly, because it seems that you're using "believe" in a rather self-contradictary way. You said, "one cannot rationally believe in something in the absence of proof," which seems quite silly to me. I cannot choose to believe or not believe in something that can be proven--I can only choose to acknowledge or deny it. Belief is limited to the realm of what cannot be proven. It wouldn't be an act of faith to believe in Christ if there were corroborating historical records. It'd be an act of sanity.
Careful also with your use of irrational. There's more than just one form of logic, unless you are ironic enough to believe the natural sciences to contain the entirety of existence within their scope. And if that is the case, then this discussion has dead-ended--we're arguing in two completely different worlds.
Apologies for an accidental misuse of the word "believe" given the context of the discussion. The sentence should properly say that nothing can be said to exist in any meaningful sense in the absence of physical proof.
As for your assertion that science is somehow arrogantly overstating its case by not admitting the possibility of magic, elves, the FSM, or divinity, that's crossing the streams. A logical no-no. One cannot say, "I have no proof against the existence of X phenomenon, therefore I must admit the possibility that it exists." That's irrational. The correct statement is, "I cannot say that something exists in the absence of any proof."
By definition, faith is belief without proof. If there were proof, we'd be talking about science and reason rather than faith and religion. That's why it's a huge party foul when people start trying to prove their faith. It can't be done, because the two systems do not use compatible methodologies.
In a metaphysical sense--and I dislike the word in discussions like this one, because it's too tempting for people to pull out semantic rambling as you did as some sort of proof of similarity in concepts, when there really isn't any--one can never say, "X exists," because one is discussing faith and reality has nothing to do with it. One can only say, "X faith has Y tenet."
So, contrary to what you say, the only basis for arguing the existence of something is natural science with its attendant logic. And within that logic, only positive proof is allowed, so the statement, "X exists unless you can disprove it," is nonsense.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
A sleep deprived Bloodsage stammered:
As for your assertion that science is somehow arrogantly overstating its case by not admitting the possibility of magic, elves, the FSM, or divinity, that's crossing the streams. A logical no-no. One cannot say, "I have no proof against the existence of X phenomenon, therefore I must admit the possibility that it exists." That's irrational. The correct statement is, "I cannot say that something exists in the absence of any proof."
That, however, is not the case of my argument. Science is functioning quite properly by not admitting the possibility of magic, elves, the FSM, or active-divinity. The physical world follows the laws of (no-shit) physics, and is thereby contained, described, and understood. My contention that there is a metaphysical level of existence does not require that science (and its attendant logic) admit it. Rather, it require the admission that science is unable to say anything about it aside from "it doesn't exist within the scope of my study, and it would be irrational to claim it does."
That could just be that I'm slightly squeamish about dismissing all but the past two-hundred years of human thought.
Edit: Granted, metaphysical discussions are incredibly frustrating to the empiricist, as they cannot be resolved by any means of experimentation. However, some sort of progress has taken place over the past 2400 years--and the same history demonstrates more than a passing interest in the subject. Though I suppose you could adopt the Comtean view that humanity has just finally reached maturity by shaking off religion and philosophy, but that would require a fundamental change in mankind that has, thus far, no evidence put forward for it. Vorbis fucked around with this message on 01-22-2008 at 03:25 PM.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Vorbis gently hums:
That, however, is not the case of my argument. Science is functioning quite properly by not admitting the possibility of magic, elves, the FSM, or active-divinity. The physical world follows the laws of (no-shit) physics, and is thereby contained, described, and understood. My contention that there is a metaphysical level of existence does not require that science (and its attendant logic) admit it. Rather, it require the admission that science is unable to say anything about it aside from "it doesn't exist within the scope of my study, and it would be irrational to claim it does."That could just be that I'm slightly squeamish about dismissing all but the past two-hundred years of human thought.
I've highlihted the problem. One simply cannot say those words without invoking the rules and logic of the natural sciences and becoming bound by those rules of evidence and proof.
Hell, I'm a big fan of philosophy myself, but one has to be very careful not to cross the streams between the rules of science and the logic of metaphysics. The task is doubly hard, since many of the rules of reasoning--though not evidence--are the same or similar.
Existence is by definition the purview of science. Nothing can be said to exist unless governed by those rules of evidence and logic. When someone says, "God exists," it's perfectly logical to respond, "Prove it," and invoke the scientific method; that response is no longer appropriate if someone says, "I have faith that God exists." Likewise, one can logically discuss the internal mechanisms of a metaphysical construct using most of the trappings of logical thought, with no need to prove anything to scientific standards. Ironically, an irrational construct can be logical--that's the basis of metaphysics.
It's not that all but the last century of human thought must be dismissed, but rather that we more clearly understand the fundamental differences between imagination and physical reality and are therefore able to apply the proper toolset to each.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
So quoth Bloodsage:
Existence is by definition the purview of science. Nothing can be said to exist unless governed by those rules of evidence and logic. When someone says, "God exists," it's perfectly logical to respond, "Prove it," and invoke the scientific method; that response is no longer appropriate if someone says, "I have faith that God exists." Likewise, one can logically discuss the internal mechanisms of a metaphysical construct using most of the trappings of logical thought, with no need to prove anything to scientific standards. Ironically, an irrational construct can be logical--that's the basis of metaphysics.
Perhaps I'm not studied enough, but I haven't seen any convincing argument for such a definition of existence. Though that does get to the heart of our disagreement.
[non sequitur: I still find it ironic that, in your .sig, Satan is telling the rest of the demons what a bunch of tools they all are. He at least fell to reign, they fell to just serve elsewhere.]
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Vorbis absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Perhaps I'm not studied enough, but I haven't seen any convincing argument for such a definition of existence. Though that does get to the heart of our disagreement.[non sequitur: I still find it ironic that, in your .sig, Satan is telling the rest of the demons what a bunch of tools they all are. He at least fell to reign, they fell to just serve elsewhere.]
If we don't leave existence in the realm of science, we have the absurdity that nothing can be said not to exist, making science essentially meaningless. Magic? Can't prove it doesn't exist, so have a nut. FSM? Can't prove it doesn't exist, so have a nut. Et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.
In my view, and I'll admit I'm quoting no one but myself, that's the very distinction between science and metaphysics. To turn your phrase around, I've never seen a good argument to blur that distinction. It's simply not possible to assert--meaningfully--the existence of something without resort to science. One can use the language and logic of metaphysics and philosophy to discuss the various systems of faith and belief, but must always avoid the questions of existence or one opens oneself up to the strictures of scientific proof.
Hope that makes sense.
Edit: on the .sig thing, I like Milton's Satan for a variety of reasons. Got a perfect grade on a paper in college that argued that the only character in Paradise Lost who embodied all the qualities we admire in humanity was Satan. Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 01-22-2008 at 04:19 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Cuba:
Edit: on the .sig thing, I like Milton's Satan for a variety of reasons. Got a perfect grade on a paper in college that argued that the only character in Paradise Lost who embodied all the qualities we admire in humanity was Satan.
I'd kinda like to read that.
[Edit: Paradise Lost, not Bloodsage's college paper. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 01-23-2008 at 07:05 AM.
]
quote:Does this help?
Pvednes needs to hitch a ride with a Vogon constructor fleet.
I've had a look at it, and can truthfully say that I'd kinda like to have read it.[Edit: Paradise Lost, not Bloodsage's college paper.
]
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Cool Hand Luke squealed:
I'd kinda like to read that.
It's not particularly engaging, since it is still an English paper, but I was able to find it. BTW, reading 20-year-old dot matrix print is a pain in the ass.
Written for English 461 and dated October 22, 1987:
"The Inhuman Attraction of Paradise Lost"
Dr. Johnson's accusation that the reader of Paradise Lost "finds no transaction in which he can be engaged, beholds no condition in which he can by any effort of imagination place himself" is, superficially, true. The action of the poem takes place at such a level, and is of such a scale, that the human mind, should it seriously attempt to appreciate the action, would fall hopelessly short. Where Dr. Johnson errs, though, is when he assumes that, because the action is at its heart incomprehensible, it must be written in a similar manner.
Dr. Johnson's error stems from two assumptions on his part: that Milton's language, and expression of events, has to be on a level with the action in order to correctly describe it; and that, because the action is of inhuman (perhaps super-human is a more apt term) proportion, the reader is automatically excluded from participation. He gives Milton absolutely no credit for being able to bridge the gap between accurate representation of the action and limited human comprehension of heavenly goings-on.
As a case-in-point, let us examine the actions of Satan in Book I. If Dr. Johnson is correct, we should find 1) we lack understanding of the magnitude of the situation in which he has been cast by a war we do not comprehend, and 2) we cannot sympathize or identify with this creature who was once a favored archangel in God's host. Our analysis must take place on two levels, though, for not only must we consider our ability to understand, and become caught up in, the action, but we must determine whether or not we can empathize with, or put ourselves in the place of, Satan as he wakes to find himself in Hell.
The actual expulsion from Heaven is one of those actions that we must simply read and accept without real understanding:
quote:
. . .Him the Almighty Power
Hurled headlong flaming from th' ethereal sky
With hideous ruin and combustion down
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In adamantine chains and penal fire,
(Milton Book 1, lines 44-48)
This scene, while full of powerful imagery, is rather too removed from ordinary experience for the reader to fully appreciate. How can we, mere mortals, encompass such concepts as "bottomless perdition" and "adamantine chains and penal fire," except as shadowy inklings of the actual things?
But what of Satan's reaction upon waking up and realizing what had happened? he says,
quote:
[Let us] There rest, if any rest can habour there;
And reassembling our afflicted powers,
Consult how we may henceforth most offend
Our enemy, our own loss how to repair,
How overcome this dire calamity,
What reinforcement we may gain from hope,
If not, what resolution from despair.
(Milton 1, 104-191)
Is this not a very understandable, a very human, reaction to a bad situation? Even more, does not, for all his infernal qualities and demonic attributes, Satan inspire a kind of pity and admiration in us as readers for not giving up in the face of insurmountable odds? Do we not, as human beings, look up to those who refuse to submit to ill fate, and who fight the unfightable?
On the literal level of the action in this scene, Dr. Johnson is entirely correct--we, as readers, are not capable of truly empathizing with a being who has known war with God and has been punished by having himself and his army cast from Heaven into "bottomless perdition" This approach is too intellectual, though, and denies the realities of the mechanics of reading. A reader is not likely to stop after reading the above passage and say, "Gosh, Satan's just been kicked out of Heaven and is trying to rally his troops--I wish I knew what it was like to lose Perfection so I could empathize." The thought process is much more likely to be one of, "I know he's evil, but he's just gone through a lot and is taking it well--I have to admire his fortitude."
What Milton has done, and what Dr. Johnson gives him no credit for, is to relate not only the actual happenings, but to give us some insight into the psyches of the major players. While we may not be able to comfortably deal with an entity whose shield is like the moon and whose spear is like a pine tree (1, 285-293) except as an abstraction, we are most certainly able to understand the emotions that prompt remarks like "The mind is its own place, and in itself/Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven" (I, 234-5), and "To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:/Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" (I, 261-2). The remarks, though made in reference to a situation that is beyond human understanding, spring from emotions that are only too familiar to most of us: rationalization in the face fo adversity, and ambition coupled with refusal to submit. It is to Milton's credit that he is able to express the incomprehensible in such human terms.
Dr. Johnson, in making his accusation, has fallen into the trap of usinng the absolute when he says "the reader finds no transaction. . .beholds no condition. . .[emphasis mine]," etc. Finding even one example of compelling action or moving emotion in the poem immediately invalidates Dr. Johnson's entire statement. By showing that we can indeed not only understand but empathize with Satan's emotional state upon waking to find himself in Perdition, and can see that his words reflect very human reactions in making the best of a bad situation, Dr. Johnson's criticism is automatically relegated to that particular perdition reserved for intellectual foppery.
Paradize Lost would not hold the fascination it does for readers of many different time-periods and literary persuasions if it was entirely uncompelling as anything other than an exercise of mental gymnastics on the part of the author. While the action and emotions portrayed are, at their most abstract levels, incomprehensible to mortals, Milton has succeeded in representing them in such a manner that readers can actually sympathize with, empathize with, and to some degree understand, the thought processes of beings like Satan.
The attraction that we as readers feel for the characters in the poem arises from a kindred emotion to the one that got Satan thrown out of Heaven: the wish to be more than we are, to partake of things beyond our station. Milton plays upon that in the character of Satan, and that is what links us with him. On a grand scale, Satan embodies human emotions and ambitions, and provides the story with an inhuman (in form but not content) attraction for the reader.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I myself wouldn't ostracize or exorcise someone who can order an airstrike on my house.
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Mr. Parcelan liberally with Old Spice!
Bloodsage, would you prefer to be ostracized or exorcised?
Or eroticised?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Vorbis absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
actually, you'd need an appropriately dispensed chaplain to exorcise him.
Damn! And our chaplain dispensor is fresh out, and it's hell finding the refills around here!
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
Damn! And our chaplain dispensor is fresh out, and it's hell finding the refills around here!
ba-ZING!
that one actually gave me a headache.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Vorbis absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
ba-ZING!that one actually gave me a headache.
Sorry--that was pretty terrible on several levels. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Vorbising:
It's just as fucked-up retarded to think that the physical can be used as evidence of (or against) the divine--metaphysical--as it is to try to use one's metaphysical beliefs to explain anything about the physical world.
Whoa wait, I get sick of politics for a few days and come back to check up on this thread and I miss this?
Can you name a single faith that believes that their supreme deity doesn't interact with the physical universe in any way? Even if you could, why on earth would you worship such a being? Listening to and answering prayers and devotions is pretty much a key part of anyone's idea of a supreme being.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Maradon!!
Whoa wait, I get sick of politics for a few days and come back to check up on this thread and I miss this?Can you name a single faith that believes that their supreme deity doesn't interact with the physical universe in any way? Even if you could, why on earth would you worship such a being? Listening to and answering prayers and devotions is pretty much a key part of anyone's idea of a supreme being.
That's where the line blurs 
Isaiah 45:15 "Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel." It's fundamental to faith that God act through physical means that offer no evidence of a metaphysical cause. Otherwise, as I said, religion wouldn't be an act of faith, it would be an act of sanity--just like the acceptance of scientific truths. On that basis I deny Aristotle and Aquinas.
Perhaps that's just an odd, outdated bit of Catholic theology though.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Vorbis booooze lime pole over bench lick:
It's fundamental to faith that God act through physical means that offer no evidence of a metaphysical cause.
There are a myriad of logical problems with this.
For starters, acting though physical means and leaving no evidence is still a case of the metaphysical influencing the physical universe. Doing it discreetly doesn't mean it's not being done.
Secondly, in order to be God as portrayed by the big 3 religions, this entity must be omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. If God is to be omnipotent, though, you can't actually say that he HAS to act a certain way. He could just create a universe where he can sit around in a sarong and gators and people would still need faith to believe in him, because if he couldn't then he wouldn't be omnipotent, and if he isn't omnipotent then he isn't God.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Maradon!!
There are a myriad of logical problems with this.
remember you're discussing religion
quote:
Mr. Gainsboroughing:
remember you're discussing religion
That's precisely my point. I'm pointing out that natural law, such as logic, must apply for the metaphysical in order for it to have any point or relevance to our universe at all.
quote:
Maradon! enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
That's precisely my point. I'm pointing out that natural law, such as logic, must apply for the metaphysical in order for it to have any point or relevance to our universe at all.
Unfortunately, I leave for Rome in four hours and would prefer not to leave an argument I could not take to exhaustion. So I'll have to simply say 'ciao' and pick it up--if it comes up again--after term. Until then, I recommend that you do some serious inquiry into what exactly metaphysics is, and why it is worth study.
That is, if you're interested in having an opinion worth discussing.
Ciao bello
