/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6263976
Philosophy is never to be disregarded. That's my humble opinion

>>6263976
Philosophy is pretty brotier as long as you don't try to make a goddamn career out of it.

I think it helps put scientific findings into perspective.

>>6264028
What's wrong with being a phylosopher?

Science comes directly from philosophy. The scientific method will forever be subservient to philosophical thought and the epistemological leaps of faith it made when constructing it.

All branches of "philosophy" that are useful are called "science."

It is a tautologically true statement that "science the only process which can generate useful knowledge about the observable universe," because "science" is defined to be "the process of generating useful knowledge about the universe."

>>6264045
>The scientific method will forever be subservient to philosophical thought and the epistemological leaps of faith it made when constructing it.
>this is what philosophers actually believe

Why don't you make a different "epistemological leap of faith" - say, that gravity won't apply to you if you believe /really hard/ that it shouldn't, and try jumping off a cliff?

Science is a subcathegory of philosophy. It was even called natural philosophy untill relatively recently and as you surely remember, many of those ancient greek philosophers did a lot of work in the fields physics and biology.

>>6264071

Many of those ancient Greek philosophers believed that you didn't have to actually /look/ at things to gain knowledge, and were thus wrong about pretty much everything.

See: Plato.

>>6264045
>>6264071
Except Philosophy nowadays means studying what some dead white nigga from 50 years ago have to say about how the world works. You want to be a philosopher? Study science first and learn how the world actually works then, when you're 50, you can start musing about how the world should work.

>>6264045
I love how philosophers claim that everything is in their domain in order to not appear ridiculously out of date.
Do you seriously think that before philosophers formalised the scientific method people didn't have a clue on how to effectively know reality?

I don't deny the contributions made by philosophy and epistemologists on the subject, but to claim that science is just a spawn of the philosophers master race(lol) is just making yourself ridiculous.

>>6264074
>Plato was wrong about pretty much everything

>>6264091

Yes, he was.

It's hard to generate accurate beliefs without reality when you think that actually studying physical reality is beneath you.

>>6264093

about reality*

>>6264093

>>6264103

Not even baiting. People who actually pay attention to self-absorbed know-nothings like Plato rather than the Greeks who actually, y'know, /tested/ things (Euclid, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, etc.) are fucking stupid, and it's a good thing they confine themselves to philosophy departments so we can safely ignore them.

>>6264109
No. Please read The Republic. Not everything that happens in this world is meant to be scientifically tested.

>>6264115
>Not everything that happens in this world is meant to be scientifically tested.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

>>6264115
Such as?

>>6264115
>Not everything that happens in this world is meant to be scientifically tested.

Troll

>>6264122
Law, ethics, government and all those matters of the goddam book I'm telling you to read. Last reply.

>>6264127
Isn't that social science? And isn't ethics relative?

>>6264047
You do realize they weren't always called science? Back in the day they were fields of philosophy, we just didn't have the technology to study them in a different way. Once the field became easier to study it branched off on its own.

Philosophy is the intermediate grounds when we know a subject is worth studying, but don't have empirical means to do so. So it is in a kind of limbo. Who knows, maybe logic or ethics will be the next subjects to develop into their own fields.

>>6264127
Can you just say which "The Republic" you're referring to?
captcha: ourſelves

>>6264135
>Philosophy is the intermediate grounds when we know a subject is worth studying, but don't have empirical means to do so.

I don't really see any convincing reason to not just call this "science" and accept the fact that our confidence in the results should be somewhat middling.

>>6264127
>Isn't a utilitarian, thinks ethics, law, and government can't be objectively optimized

confirmed troll

>>6264138
Ethics are far outside the scope of science. Science has less to do with ethics than it has to do with art.

>>6264138
Because we can't do science on the subject if the subject isn't sensible. (to us at the moment)

Unless you mean to call what we deem philosophy as "science" but then that changes nothing.

>>6264137
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)
>>6264138
Who are you quoting?!!

>>6263976
This video is about trans humanism, and genetic manipulation. It also contains some philosophical implications, watch discuss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvSrg8qT0hY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

>>6264143
>Because we can't do science on the subject if the subject isn't sensible. (to us at the moment)

Sure we can, so long as by "science" you mean simply "making claims which restrict your space of anticipated experiences, and then testing them against reality."

A scientific field which is poorly-understood can still be a scientific field. The key is in the approach, not the confidence in the results.

In early times, before anyone knew the laws of gravity in rigorous detail, it would still be scientific to notice that when you drop things, they fall, and thus to make the claim "I believe that things fall."

>>6264153
It seems like we are talking about the same thing, just calling it different names.

I believe that using limited empirical data (because we are unable to use more) and following that data to a logical conclusion is using philosophy, specifically logic, you sound like you would just rather call this method science.

>>6264143
It's sensible just not testable. And the degree of uncertainty is a matter of its design.

MPhys in Physics and BPhil in Philosophy from Oxford here (large inheritance, money was never a problem). I can tell you right now that 90% of 'philosophy' is complete bullshit. All of continental philosophy is worthless. Analytic philosophy actually has, in my view, quite a lot to contribute to questions about ethics, personal identity, and maybe the philosophy of science.

However, I think that the best thing I got from philosophy was the way it made me change the way I look at things. I actually have a properly scientific world view - something I think a lot of scientists don't have, if that makes any sense.

Feynman's talk about Cargo Cult Science is probably the best example of someone far greater than I explaining it though.
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

TL;DR I think we do need philosophy, it just needs to be less of the bullshit and more of the critical/analytic thinking aspects.

>>6264207
What do you mean by
>The degree of uncertainty is a matter of its design?

>>6264221
>All of continental philosophy is worthless
TOP LEL
What a pleb.

There is more knowledge and depth in a masterpiece like "Being and Time" than in the collected works of the last 10 physics nobel lauretes combined.

You are just too stupid to grasp it, admit it.

>>6264228
Had an ex who did her PhD on Heidegger, she works at Starbucks now.

no one told an to dig an ant hill and no one taught a gorrila to use a stick to pull them out of an anthill
no one told us to make up god in place lonliness no one taught a human being to look at the world....we
just started doing it
the philosophy is that science is in our biology just as much as the mating instinct its in our modal actions to observe
>see orientation modal action
the difference in discerning modern philosophy from modern science in every way depends upon cause and effect and empirical tested logic in this way pure philosphy acoording to science is only a chain of untested hypothesis paradoxically dependent on each other.
and to philosophy science is subjective to the context in which it is either successful or not
so to draw a conclusion, it does not matter what we call it ....be it thoughts or dreams everything and anything is only as it seems

>>6264228
>There is more knowledge and depth in a masterpiece like "Being and Time" than in the collected works of the last 10 physics nobel lauretes combined.

I really hope this is bait and that you're not actually brainwashed into thinking that dude had anything of value to say.

>>6264230
Please stop posting. You're not helping those of us who are attempting to defend philosophy.

>>6264243
okay let me try it this way
>pure philosophy untested chain of hypothesis that create a paradox of infallibility based on at least one or less provable thing
>pure science cause and effect based on empiricism based on provable things
> when it is viewed it is real ....end of story
i apologize for being poetic.... dick

>>6264243
2nded

but also applicable to >>6264228

>>6264256
That's a little better.

>>6264238
You are just frustrated that Philosophy is above science and is a purer form of intellectual discovery ?

No physicist actually knows what they are doing or trying to do in their field outside of their tunnel vision which is simply a state of tool usage.
But Heidegger, who can actually THINK knows.

>When modern physics exerts itself to establish the world's formula, what occurs thereby is this: the being of entities has resolved itself into the method of the totally calculable.

>>6264228
>>6264236
#REKT
Mysides.jpg

>>6264269
>You are just frustrated that Philosophy is above science and is a purer form of intellectual discovery ?
>Philosophy
Doesn't even know the difference between a noun and a proper noun. Confirmed for troll.

God this thread went downhill fast.

>>6264266
2ned
checked doubles
>>6264238
but heidegger just said exactly what you are arguing against?

>there are people without equal skill in Science and in the Humanities posting on /sci/ right now as though their opinions actually matter

>>6264285
>>6264221
What is this guy.

I wish people actually read philosophy of science before "pondering" it. At least the well-known ones (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend).

>>6264292
How does one person with actual academic skill mean that everyone on /sci/ has it?

>>6264299
In college (biology) we took Ph. of Sc. on 1st semester, I think it was too soon. It starts to make sense after by practicing and learning, one becomes more familiar with scientific thought.

>>6264301
Touche.

>>6264299
I think philosophy of science needs a rebranding, theoretical science, foundations of science or something.

>>6264223
Morality and ethics have no other way of being objective except in reference to God. It is my opinion that His existence, while probable (considering the argument from morality we're actually discussing right now, as well as the cosmological argument), was intentionally made scientifically unprovable (ie not testable) in order to make necessary personal experience and faith. If that was not the case, one could know the fact without believing, without seeking the personal relationship and therefore not be compelled to make a choice to seek God. And yes, this means I believe atheists do in fact choose their (lack of) belief, no matter how content they may be that it's justified later on.
>inb4 >>>/x/

>>6264359
Read some Derek Parfit and come back.

>>6264299
The funniest thing happens when humanities folks take a P.o.S. class, and then try to tell hard scientists (who do experiments, not interviews) that "you can't know nuffin", and by extension claim that all of mathematics in invalid.

An odd expression of this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

>>6264359
>Morality and ethics have no other way of being objective except in reference to God

Say that to the law bitch

>>6264367
No. Make a point.

>>6264374
Which particular law are you referring to? Provide time and place coordinates.

>>6264375
>refuses to look at the philosopher who annihilates what he just said
You really cannot reason with religious people.

>>6264380
I'll call this argumentum ad librum.
Insert argument.

>>6264381
>Parfit destroys your idea of personal experience.
>Also destroys the idea that an objective moral framework must necessarily come from god.

Reasons and Persons - Part 3 - you could read it in an afternoon.

On What Matters - The entire book is summarised in the front - it'd take you an hour to read the summary tops.

>>6264379

Thomas Hobbes literally bitchslapped your worldview in the 17th century son.

First of all, even if we believed the word of god in some holy book was true, you still dont have objective morality.

This is because things can be interpreted differently, look how many different christian based sects there are because they interpret the same book differently.

Therefore you need a single leader or an agreed upon decision procedure to provide any objective laws and rules.

So you need a government/sovereign/president to interpret the holy book in order for their to be objective morality anyway. And guess what that leader can do, he can make his own rules, or democratically create rules. Those are equally objective.

>>6264383
Still no argument. Imagine if I told you to read the Agustine, or Aquinas, or the Bible, or something else. Would you? No, you would demand an argument. And so do I.
>>6264384
While I wasn't talking about the means to access the objective morality, it's funny you should describe what's necessary like that because I'm a Catholic (you know, the Pope and the Magisterium).
That said, disagreement among non-Catholics isn't exactly proof of (just an indication): One may argue the other's view is a product of his own imperfect access to the Source of morality.

>>6264394
>Still no argument. Imagine if I told you to read the Agustine, or Aquinas, or the Bible, or something else. Would you? No, you would demand an argument. And so do I.
I've read Augustine, Aquinas, and the Bible. So too has Parfit.

>>6264087
>Do you seriously think that before philosophers formalised the scientific method people didn't have a clue on how to effectively know reality?

Not him, but your question is based on a flawed understanding and thus unanswerable.

What we now know as science was considered philosophy before the early modern era. Even during then science was known as natural philosophy before it's specialization into distinct branches of their own starting around the 18th century or so.

What we consider scientists now were considered philosophers and were philosophically savvy. Even as late as the early 20th century scientists were philosophical minded. It wasn't until the Feynman's era that the CULTURAL gulf between science proper and philosophy proper widened to the point where the new generation of scientists adopted the "shut up and calculate" attitude and left philosophy altogether.

What I would garner though is that every scientist worth his salt as an intellectually minded individual is inquisitive into the philosophical aspects of his field. Feynman's quips show that while he may be dismissive of the role of philosophical activity in the practice of science proper, and he is right, but I bet you as an educated man he knows the core issues of the philosophy of science and the philosophy of physics to even come to that conclusion. Rather unlike many here who has ZERO idea what philosophy is even about to dismiss it.

>>6264397
Though I very much doubt you did (at least in their entirety), that wasn't my point, so I have to refer you back to it.

>>6264396
Feynman was actually pretty based.

>>6264370
>claim that some people who read X say stupid things
>implying all people who read X say stupid things

>>6264400
I've read the Bible in its entirety, all of Augustine's major works, and Aquinas on Aristotle and obviously Summa Theologica. (I was a massive Christfag before university).

My point is that: there is no point me parroting Parfit at length here, when you could easily read Parfit yourself. Of course that'd be too much like hard work.

>>6264394
>While I wasn't talking about the means to access the objective morality

I was explaining to you, why worldwide the laws of their countries are as objective as any law a man in a hat gives.

The law of the country you live in is objective.


I'm glad you have admitted you are a Catholic, as my entire point was that you need a man made hierarchy to provide any objective morals.

If you agree that your church and its method does that, then you have no basis to deny another religion or even a secular order of replicate the method of creating a single voice to provide objectivity.

>>6264403
Christfag attempting to get Feynman on side. Pathetic.

>>6264169

Yes, I think this is correct appraisal of the situation.

Funny how easy it is to argue over labels when there's no actual disagreement.

Cheers.

>>6264221
>All of continental philosophy is worthless

As much of an analytic person that I am, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>6264417
Gonna have to provide an example there bro.

>>6264410
The point is participating in the discussion.

>>6264109
>testing
>geometry/math plebs
>Not THE philosopher who invented Empiricism, Aristotle

>>6264423

For "having invented Empyricism," Aristotle sure formed a lot of very zealous (and wrong) opinions about things for which he had absolutely no empirical evidence.

>>6264432
Exactly. Muh-Slavery anyone?

>>6264409
>I was explaining to you, why worldwide the laws of their countries are as objective as any law a man in a hat gives.

Then you failed, I'm afraid.

>The law of the country you live in is objective.

Objectively good? No.

>I'm glad you have admitted you are a Catholic, as my entire point was that you need a man made hierarchy to provide any objective morals.

No, your argument seems to have been for the need for central authority. Btw. Jesus (not men) has created the Church, and papacy.

>If you agree that your church and its method does that, then you have no basis to deny another religion or even a secular order of replicate the method of creating a single voice to provide objectivity.

See? Central authority. I did not argue against the necessity, not even against the necessity for a worldly authority. However, to be fair I'll rephrase my point from before: the existence of objective morality is not disputed by conflicting claims to it by those with partial access.

>>6264403
>>6264394
>>6264400
>>6264397
>>6264422
>>6264379
>>6264359
>Morality and ethics have no other way of being objective except in reference to God

>inb4 >>>/x/

Hey, go spread your holy word somewhere else. This is humans talking about human affairs. When your stupid god makes a book about ethics and gives a press conference to present it, then come.

>>6264440
>stupid god
I don't have one, you do.

>>6264440
>there is no god lel
>u cant worship nuffin
*tips trilby*

>>6264448
>>6264450
I did not say there is no god. I said he has to get on our level, otherwise he has no place on this discussion.

>>6264453
And much less a faggot claiming to know anything about the holy spirit's intetions

>>6264453
You're underestimating your level. However, He did come to the material level before, did you somehow miss Christmas this year?

>>6264420
>asks for example when parent post who made the claim gave none

To make it clear, "continental philosophy" is an exclusive term invented to demarcate what is analytic philosophy from all that is not. The whole idea of there being such a thing as "continental philosophy" as if it is a monolithic, uniform style to approaching philosophy is wrong and reflects ignorance and indiscriminate hand-waving dismissal. There are acceptable contexts to use the term, but definitely not in the manner >>6264221 did.

I can write you a book on the significance of non-analytic thought, but just to make it brief I'll just leave you with questions:
Considering the span of the late 19th century (ever since the analytic school began to take shape) to today, what do you think are the philosophical schools or who are the philosophers who actively engages the public and are most influential in shaping public discourse, outlook and action? And why is that?

>>6264394
>the Bible is the only holy book
>ignoring the morals of other religions
>there aren't several deities people believe in

>>6264463
I thought you weren't posting ITT anymore.

>>6264519
Well, I'm back, so?!

>>6264539
It's just that you backtracked rather quickly...

>>6264508
What is... things that I haven't said.

>>6264576
Sorry, I meant to reply to the other poster. It appears he visits this board quite frequently as of late, and I'm a bit wary of his attempts at proselytizing.

>>6264576
You seem to imply that we receive objective morality from so deity/holy book. Even if such a deity were proven to exist, it'd have to be the right one. You could be worshipping the wrong/non-existent God for all we know, and to derive ethics from that only makes the situation worse. Also, just discussing morality isn't a point towards a God's existence.

>>6264359
Oh boy, more proselytizing! It's people like this that make me disdain religion, God the irony...

>>6264593
>"deity/holly book"
-_-
>it'd have to be the right one
indeed
>to derive ethics from [wrong/non-existent God] only makes the situation worse
Not necessarily. In that case, it's just as man-made as secular-morality. It's only worse in as much as .

Let me return to my (actual) point: Morality without God is moot - there is no right or wrong. In practice, conscience still plays a role. But in theory - the golden rule would be enforced out of selfishness, and any opportunity to profit at the expense of the other without punishment would be seized - by tipping the (delicate?) balance of power if possible. We were able to see some of that due to uncultivated consciences, and it can only happen more often as the "fumes of the dying civilizations"(Christopher Hawkins) dwindle.

>just discussing morality isn't a point towards a God's existence
Experiencing morality does.

>>6264643
i'm explaining and defending my philosophy. Don't blame your hatred of religion[sic] on that.

>>6264359
If you believe that morality cannot be objective except through God, how do you explain universal laws?

For example, in every civilization since the dawn of time there has been rules limiting killing, lying and stealing. Those rules are necessary to continue existing as a species. Without them civilization would collapse as we know it. Isn't that a form of an objective moral truth?

>>6264666
Failed to finish my third line: in as much as it doesn't match objective morality, or - were there no such thing - own wants (though calling that dissonance "bad" has no objective value).

If I didn't read I would have gone nuts long time ago, I don't understand why the people on /lit/ are so depressed.

>>6264668
I explain it as so:
Universal law is the same thing as natural law.
Natural law has its roots in objective morality.
Thus, some of the objective morality is still common.

>>6264674
You don't explain it like that, you've read it in a book and now you are pretending that you came up with it.

>>6264676
I'm not pretending I came up with the concept of natural morality. That doesn't mean it's wrong: Conscience testifies to its existence. For that reason, it was recognized outside my own Faith.

>>6264666
It's not my hatred of religion(something I don't posess), it's my hatred of proselytizing, which you (or someone equaling pestering) have been employing across the bored.

>>6263976
Philosophy isn't a science. Science is a philosophy. (Aristotle is a man, but a man is not necessarily Aristotle) There is no "battle" between the two.

There are many ways in philosophy to address the queries of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

For newfags:
Metaphysics = what's around us?
Epistemology = how do we find out?
Ethics = what do we do now?

Most science aims to answer metaphysics with a core emphasis on epistemology, and ethics featuring more prominently in psychology and sociology. Religion, religion, neglects epistemology almost completely, and focuses on the metaphysics and ethics.

Also, there is no such thing as limit to science. Science is a means of finding shit out. It's like saying "what happens when the hammer no longer hammers?" It's a fucking hammer. You hammer with it till you're sick of it. Same with science.

>>6264666
Can you pull out one proof that God exists out of your ass except for those devil's trips?

>>6264074
Yes.
>>6264078
You have no idea what philosophy is.
>>6264087
>Do you seriously think that before philosophers formalised the scientific method people didn't have a clue on how to effectively know reality?
Yes, that's kind of the point. For example, ideas of flat earth, heavier objects falling faster, and witches are some of the examples of people sucking at figuring shit out. Of course a good measure of science was done sporadically, more as an exception. But formalization of methods of discover is really the best thing since sliced bread. In fact, it's directly responsible for it.

>>6264666
Different religions have different views on morality. The God you speak of (the Judeo-Christian one) could be the wrong one. To live your life based on Him if He turns out to be false would reveal following the incorrect code of morals.

> Morality without God is moot - there is no right or wrong
Where the hell is your proof for this? If I decide to help a crying child, is it invalid because I don't believe in your God/none at all? When my friend does a kind deed for me, my thought process isn't "Thank God!" it's "gee, I have a nice fried." What kind of proof is that? It sounds as if you're implying that we should scare people (i.e. Hell as punishment) in order to be good, which in itself is a bit perverse. As for you're point about selfishness, there's an interesting concept made about an "altruism gene" in this paper http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/6/20130395.short.. You can download it for free.

>>6264706
*board

>>6264727
To their defense, shit looks flat when you look out of the window.

Science is metaphysics with testing, other branches of philosophy are always relevant.

>>6264666
>Morality without God is moot
Unless you actually mean Moot, you're absolutely full of shit.

>>6264706
Then you must hate all opined discussions.

>>6264721
You missed some of my posts. I said I think there isn't a (scientific) so that we would be compelled to search based on indications such as morality and the cosmological argument.

>>6264729
>if Jesus is not the right God, his code of morals is incorrect
Yes?
>> Morality without God is moot - there is no right or wrong
>Where the hell is your proof for this?
In that case, the definition of right and wrong would be arbitrary, and therefore objectively meaningless.
>If I decide to help a crying child, is it invalid because I don't believe in your God/none at all?
It wouldn't, as you are acting on the '[natural] law engraved in your heart'.
>[...]It sounds as if you're implying that we should scare people (i.e. Hell as punishment) in order to be good, which in itself is a bit perverse.
That is truly implied nowhere.
>As for you're point about selfishness, there's an interesting concept made about an "altruism gene"
Yes, I've heard of the selfish gene. It reduces altruism to programmed insane response. The trouble with biology is that if I claimed the point is invalid because I feel sympathy to those outside of my gene pool, you could take for granted what is a mere speculation - namely that I mistake them for my own. Likewise, if I pointed out changes of hearts in people, you could argue the gene could be timed or triggered. I cannot win this argument. I can only say that I think morality is too complex to have developed as that self-destructive gene-proliferating impulse of a variety of ant.

>>6264757
>In that case, the definition of right and wrong would be arbitrary, and therefore objectively meaningless.
Implying the interpretation of words in Hebrew and Greek and then applying them to situations that didn't exist when they were written is somehow objective.

3/10
just wanted to tell you you're retarded, and that's an objective fact because I said it in English to you.

>>6264760

>>6264738
>Science is metaphysics with testing

>>6264052
>I don't know what epistemology is

>>6264776
I read wikipedia, suck my dick

seeing /sci/ discuss religion is like hearing stoners talk about how quantum theory allows you to change the universe by thinking about it

>>6264668
That's descriptive rather than prescriptive.

>>6264757
>In that case, the definition of right and wrong would be arbitrary, and therefore objectively meaningless.
Wait, so the definition of right and wrong become arbitrary just because I ask for proof?
>It wouldn't, as you are acting on the '[natural] law engraved in your heart'.
And it seems you're enforcing your Catholic
belief on me(i.e. natural law in my heart), therefor giving appearance that since I do good, it must be due to your God. This idea, objectively speaking, is without merit. It is made on assumptions from the Catholic church. One cannot objectively say I have "natural law engraved in my heart."

>That is truly implied nowhere.
>the golden rule would be enforced out of selfishness, and any opportunity to profit at the expense of the other without punishment would be seized

>It reduces altruism to programmed insane response
Doesn't religion reduce altruism to "you have a good heart." The trouble with it lies in the fact that it is in no way subjective. If you feel sympathy for those outside of your gene-pool, it could be due to having some advantage on the savior of the situation. I think morality is too complex to be reduced to religion, especially that of the Catholic one.

>>6264492
>And why is that?
Because everyone is a "philosopher" nowadays. It is considered as a valuable attribute not a title.

>significiance of non-analytic thought
describe non-analytic thought

>>6264757
>Then you must hate all opined discussions.
Nope, I just hate the blatant "convert! convert!" that I see a specific poster (-_-) on /sci/ likes to express.

>>6264796
>>In that case, the definition of right and wrong would be arbitrary, and therefore objectively meaningless.
>Wait, so the definition of right and wrong become arbitrary just because I ask for proof?
No, I'm explaining my assertion as requested.
>One cannot objectively say I have "natural law engraved in my heart."
That is a metaphor for the real thing which is experienced by everyone.
>>That is truly implied nowhere.
>Quotes my alternative to natural law (which is also hypothetical, not that that matters) for some reason.
It still isn't implied anywhere.
>Doesn't religion reduce altruism to "you have a good heart."
Taking the quoted thing to mean a supernatural access to true good: That is not a reduction
>I think morality is too complex to be reduced to religion, especially that of the Catholic one.
This line doesn't make much sense.

>>6264809
Elaborate.

>>6264814
Oh, ok then. Can you provide objective proof of this assertion? And yes, you seem to imply that unless there is something, in this case, a God(your God), that people would not be able to morally function.
>Taking the quoted thing to mean a supernatural access to true good: That is not a reduction
But again, do we really need a supernatural being for "true good?" I find that by even implying such a thing is a reduction, that without this entity, we're doomed.

>This line doesn't make much sense.
I meant morality, which I think we can both agree is complex itself, can find a better place than organized religion, especially that of Catholicism. For if there really is a need for some deity to step in with ethics, there are better options (religiously speaking) than the Catholic teachings.

>>6264814
Apart from the egregious and arbitrary praising of God when it is not due, the unabashed attempt to court people to their religion. Is there really anything to elaborate upon?

>>6264838
>Can you provide objective proof of this assertion?
Do you find my assertion and elaboration lacking? If yes, why?
>you seem to imply that unless there is something, in this case, a God(your God), that people would not be able to morally function.
Yes, as a source of objective morality. He is necessary, as I've asserted - without Him, morality is subjective, seeing as it has no fixed point of reference, and that only the moving target could be arbitrarily set by people instead.
>I find that by even implying such a thing is a reduction, that without this entity, we're doomed.
Reduction from what more complex thing?
>I meant morality, which I think we can both agree is complex itself, can find a better place than organized religion, especially that of Catholicism. For if there really is a need for some deity to step in with ethics, there are better options (religiously speaking) than the Catholic teachings.
What place would that be? Also, may I suggest that you may be unfamiliar with Catholic teachings?

>>6264842
Only why/where you think that happened.

>>6264856
>Do you find my assertion and elaboration lacking? If yes, why?
I'd rather have evidence than just blindly taking someone's word for it. This isn't child's play we're dealing with.

>Yes, as a source of objective morality. He is necessary, as I've asserted - without Him, morality is subjective, seeing as it has no fixed point of reference, and that only the moving target could be arbitrarily set by people instead.
And now we're back to square one. People have different Gods, while others have none. Their God may set different moral standards from your, which poses the problem of which God to follow. And even with those following your God's teaching, they can/will/still create their own set of morals, whether hypocritical or not. Therefor, regardless of the presence of your or anyone else's God, people still have their own set of morals, and thus it is subjective.

I'd suggest a personal God,no God or Budhism, with the law dealing with the trouble of morals (I'd rather not have someone's religion interfere with the government). Catholicism's view on certain people in society and where their place should be is a turnoff for me, and using the concept of Hell as some sort of threat seems unnecessary, for that itself deters "true good."

>>6264539
That guy rustled my Jimmies with his religious shit

>>6264519
Answer: >>6264950

>>6264894
>Yes, as a source of objective morality. He is necessary, as I've asserted - without Him, morality is subjective, seeing as it has no fixed point of reference, and that only the moving target could be arbitrarily set by people instead.
And now we're back to square one. People have different Gods, while others have none.

My point was to prove the necessity of God. My reasons for believing Jesus is the Son of God are not included here.

>Their God may set different moral standards from your, which poses the problem of which God to follow.

Again, we all share common set of morals, due to natural laws derived from that objective morality that necessitates God.

>And even with those following your God's teaching, they can/will/still create their own set of morals, whether hypocritical or not.

Yet again, the issue of refinement of morals is a different issue from whether God is necessary for there even being good (and conversely, lack of good - evil).

>Therefor, regardless of the presence of your or anyone else's God, people still have their own set of morals, and thus it is subjective.

The extensions are subjective if one doesn't worship the true God, yes.

>I'd suggest a personal God,no God or Budhism, with the law dealing with the trouble of morals (I'd rather not have someone's religion interfere with the government).

God is either God of all or isn't a God. These suggestions are exactly the way to extend incorrectly.

>Catholicism's view on certain people in society and where their place should be is a turnoff for me, and using the concept of Hell as some sort of threat seems unnecessary, for that itself deters "true good."

Church only reiterates and clarifies teachings of Christ, Hell being one of those. As for "place of certain people in society", you could explain what you mean and we can discuss it, but you'll have to take the blame for OT :-P (alternatively, we can move this sub-discussion elsewhere)

>>6265728
>My point was to prove the necessity of God
Have you ever considered that these morals are man-made and are ascribed to a God afterwards(this goes for all religions)? What happens when people disagree with the standard's of X's God? Therefor the objective morality you try to enforce goes to waste.

>Again, we all share common set of morals, due to natural laws derived from that objective morality that necessitates God.
That simply isn't true. What Y may think is right, Z make think is absolutely immoral. This is where moral relativism comes in. Further more, this conflict tends to happen whether a deity is involved or not.

>The extensions are subjective if one doesn't worship the "true God", yes.
And you assume that to be yours? A bit close-minded if you ask me.
>God is either God of all or isn't a God. These suggestions are exactly the way to extend incorrectly.
Not really. People even have different definitions of what a God is, and it'd be quite unfair to limit that to a Western perspective. My God may have different factors than yours.

>>6265780
>Have you ever considered that these morals are man-made and are ascribed to a God afterwards(this goes for all religions)?

I have, but I rejected the idea based on commonalities. Deviations, however, are man-made. Note that this is a separate issue from whether there exists an objective morality.

>What happens when people disagree with the standard's of X's God? Therefor the objective morality you try to enforce goes to waste.

I'm not trying to enforce anything right now. I'm trying to argue for the necessity of God for the concept of good (and conversely, evil), two concepts without which morality is moot.

>>Again, we all share common set of morals, due to natural laws derived from that objective morality that necessitates God.
>That simply isn't true. What Y may think is right, Z make think is absolutely immoral. This is where moral relativism comes in. Further more, this conflict tends to happen whether a deity is involved or not.

This doesn't negate my assertion about the common core. The derivations as well as extensions (whether in the right or the wrong direction) are a different matter.

>>The extensions are subjective if one doesn't worship the "true God", yes.
>And you assume that to be yours? A bit close-minded if you ask me.

You have no reason to assume so, as you don't know the reasons for my belief.

>>God is either God of all or isn't a God. These suggestions are exactly the way to extend incorrectly.
>Not really. People even have different definitions of what a God is, and it'd be quite unfair to limit that to a Western perspective. My God may have different factors than yours.

Let me rephrase: The Prime mover either is, or isn't. We share the universe, so the Creator of mine is the creator of yours. Therefore, one either ascribes correct properties to Him, or incorrect ones in (some of)their stead. Likewise, one follows a code of morality which more or less corresponds to the objective morality. individualistic morality is useless

>>6266151
1.

Not really. If these morals are indeed manmade, then it loses it's objectivity in the first place. Plus, you're starting with an assumption and working backwards.

2.
With or without a God, people can devise moral codes. What happens when people don't believe in your God or don't believe in a God at all? Your argument becomes invalid. Again, do you have any proof showing that when a deity is removed from the situation that right and wrong no longer exist? If not, then it remains a subjective opinion.

3
It negates your assertion considering you hold a deity to be an objective measurement of morality. However, when people choose to worship a different deity, those objective measurements change. The same applies to those who don't believe in a God.

4.
The point wasn't about your reasons of your personal faith. It was assuming that the God you worship is the right one(as evidenced by your last remark).

5.
Let's say I worship a deity named K, who I declare is the ruler of the universe, the one you and I both inhabit. If her codes of morality comes into conflict with your God's, then we hit an impasse. Unless you can effectively prove that what your religion *assumes* to be the correct code of morality according to a God it *assumes* it exists, your point remain invalid. If I think, for instance, it's immoral to wear red on Wednesdays, you cannot *objectively* tell me that's wrong because your Creator said so. Most, if not all, of your argument relies on assumptions.

>>6266151
*In other words, you could be objectively wrong, and following the wrong code of ethics. Just because people aren't serving your Creator, doesn't automatically mean their morals are impartially faulty, for you're working with unproven assumptions. For instance, Hindus could think you're gravely wrong because you don't follow their God's objective morality. They could also assert that since you worship the wrong God, your Code of Ethics are incorrect. You have to realize not everyone thinks your God is the ultimate creator of the universe, and what's objectively right to them could be objectively wrong to you. Saying otherwise(this is the only true code/God, and if you don't think so, your morals are objectively wrong) is a bit condescending. Worship your God all you want, but don't assume others want to be involved.

EOD

>>6266151
P.S. Even if everyone did believe in the same God and there was only one, you'd have to go over the trouble of proving its existence, which would then affirm these moral assumptions to be true. Good luck with that.

>>6266326

>If these morals are indeed manmade, then it loses it's objectivity in the first place.

The product is subjective then, the source is still objective.

>Plus, you're starting with an assumption and working backwards.

I'm starting with an observation, making a hypothesis and arguing for it, while being open to critique. I didn't claim I had a formal and decisive proof, on the contrary, I claimed this is an indication and that the fact that that's all we have is intentional. That was my original point.

>With or without a God, people can devise moral codes.

They can devise code: Tradition, folklore. But they cannot claim it has intrinsic value in relation to good, seeing as good is subjective.

>What happens when people don't believe in your God or don't believe in a God at all?

How many times must I answer the same question?

>Your argument becomes invalid.

It doesn't, as I've explained.

>rest

For some reason, you repeatedly fail to differentiate between the necessity of a fixed point of reference for morality (ie the source of good, God) and the ability to reference it itself. I can only explain it in so many ways.

>If I think, for instance, it's immoral to wear red on Wednesdays, you cannot *objectively* tell me that's wrong because your Creator said so.

As for what I called extensions, it is imperative that we agree who God is, yes.

>>6266346
>you're working with unproven assumptions

They're not simply assumptions, they're personal experience. But as I've implied, I cannot prove my experience to you, that' s correct.

>EOD

I certainly hope so. And in the interest of that, I'm going to ignore the >>6266358 (I didn't quite get it anyway).

"But this obscurity in the profound and abstract philosophy, is objected to, not only as painful and fatiguing, but as the inevitable source of uncertainty and error. Here indeed lies the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that they are not properly a science; but arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to the understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselves on fair ground, raise these intangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chaced from the open country, these robbers fly into the forest, and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind, and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudices. The stoutest antagonist, if he remit his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice and folly, open the gates to the enemies, and willingly receive them with reverence and submission, as their legal sovereigns."
- David Hume (An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)

Some philosophy is good and useful, some is useless and crap, I especially like Hume´s description as metaphysics as "the fruitless efforts of human vanity"

>>6267900
Agreed. Hume is great.

>>6267900
ooo source?

>>6268197
nvm

a lot of scientific research is wrong

a lot of philosophy is wrong

judge both by the best it does, don't fucking nitpick philosophy without nitpicking science too

>>6264359
> Morality and ethics have no other way of being objective except in reference to God.

Justification? I don't see how this is anything other than the usual theistic dancing around the issue of ontology.

>>6264043
>dat obvious bait
well, I'll bite.
You can't make much money, and your chances of making new discoveries in your field are almost totally negligible. Your career is composed of repeating what you were told, where the other sciences can make something or contribute to making something, or do something else marketable.

>>6268214
How is most scientific research wrong? Some is, of course, but you don't end up with dozens of scientific schools, which you do in the case of philosophy. Scientific progress gets us closer to understanding profound truths about the natural world, whereas philosophers mostly repeat and reword what has already been said (>6268268)

>>6267765
>personal experience is valid objective evidence
>therefor it's not an assumption
Wrong, on the account of the first point.

>>6267765
>But they cannot claim it has intrinsic value in relation to good, seeing as good is subjective.
Yet you can because "it's unquestionably God, the end?

>>6267765
>I feel this way
>now it's objective truth
>this evades evidence on purpose

http://joshuasowin.com/archives/2008/04/06/a-fire-breathing-dragon-lives-in-my-garage-sagan/

This is why I hate philosophy.

>>6268268
Not bait and not really, I'm a scientist myself and I think that phylosophy is too underrated nowadays. Scientists on the other hand, are under extreme pressure to produce profitable results. If you look at the history of science, most groundbreaking discoveries were made by people that were in the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of itself and had little or no interest in creating technology. Higgs has stated that, under the actual scientific production standards and without all the time he had to fool around and daydream, he would've never been able to theorise the particle. Probably, Pythagoras never stopped to think about the everyday applications of his discoveries.

TL;DR., Science has become less "phylosophical" and more "technological"

>>6268285
Scientific research has reached a point where the quality of information is detrimental in proportion to its quantity. You may not have a dozen schools, but you have millions of scientists tackling eachother in order to be the first publishers of whatever they can, thousands of low impact scientific magazines, hundreds of overpriced and heavily-biased high impact magazines and an obsolete peer reviewing system that works mostly on academic partnerships/rivalries.

TL; DR: The scientific guild is not free of presumptuous cunts that publish lies.

Conclusion: High expectations around the technological use of scientific knowledge has lowered its standards to immediate profitable results. Scientists need to stop thinking in results and act more out of curiosity, like phylosophers do.

>>6268309
You are mistaking phylosophy with religion. And you really should not pay attention to that guy in particular.

>>6268293
I didn't claim it was. Or are you trolling?
>>6267765
God is necessary for objective morality. That's all I'm claiming. Nothing stronger or weaker than that. With that in mind: What is your question?
>>6268309
Your proofs hinge on experience (empiry). You assume as things such as that you exist and that this is not a simulated universe. Only on the bases of such premises (cf. philosophy of science which we're discussing here) are your conclusions true. That is, the fact that "science works" only means that the scientific method is only internally consistent. Also note that it is not your sole interface to the world.
>>6268397
bugger ye off laddy

>>6268293
Strawman (but see below).
>>6267765
God is necessary for objective morality. That's all I'm claiming. Nothing stronger or weaker than that. So - with that in mind - do you have a question or an assertion?
>>6268309
Your proofs hinge on experience (empiry). You assume things such as that you exist, that your sensory input is real, that consequences of your actions are non-virtual, etc. Only on the bases of such premises (cf. philosophy of science which we're discussing here) are your conclusions true. "Science works" in relation to those. There is also always room for philosophy and hypothesizing.
>>6268397
bugger ye off, Narcissus

>>6268293
Strawman (but see below).
>>6268297
God is necessary for objective morality. That's all I'm claiming. Nothing stronger or weaker than that. So - with that in mind - do you have a question or an assertion?
>>6268309
Your proofs hinge on experience (empiry). You assume things such as that you exist, that your sensory input is real, that consequences of your actions are non-virtual, etc. Only on the bases of such premises (cf. philosophy of science which we're discussing here) are your conclusions true. "Science works" in relation to those. There is also always room for philosophy and hypothesizing.
>>6268397
bugger ye off, Narcissus

>>6268473
>I intentionally have no evidence.
Step back and see how that sounds. You're making hypotheses and assuming them to be true and working backward. Yeah, I'd say science has the upper hand at the moment. It's more reliable than "I feel it."

>>6268489
That sounds idiotic. Good thing I never said that.
>>6264207

>>6268501
>intentionally made scientifically unprovable (ie not testable) in order to make necessary personal experience and faith.
It sounds like you're just making this up at this point.

>>6268505
#REKT >>6264359

>>6268508
What?

>>6268473
you accuse him of a strawman because he accused you of an anecdotal fallacy? not only that but your arguement has little basis in reality. pack animals don't need holy books to tell them how to work, and what were humans?

>>6268553
Einstein was a socialist and hence an idiot.

>>6268561

>>6268561
wow, your opinions and ad hominem sure have swayed me -_-

>>6268570
Einstein is a social construct created by socialists to legitimise statism..

>>6268505
You said "I" in >>6268489 , I hope you now see that it was nonsense what you claimed I said, assuming the claim wasn't a product of intentional straw-weaving.
>>6268508
>implying that wasn't my original point

Some honesty would be appreciated.

>>6268553
No, I accuse him of a strawman because he claimed I claimed something I haven't claimed (see also the friggin definition).

>pack animals don't need holy books to tell them how to work, and what were humans?
Animals work on instinct, they don't differentiate right from wrong. I also expressly claimed no book was not necessary for natural morality.

>pic unrelated

>>6268553
No, I accuse him of a strawman because he claimed I claimed something I haven't claimed (see also the friggin definition).

>pack animals don't need holy books to tell them how to work, and what were humans?
Animals work on instinct, they don't differentiate right from wrong. I also expressly claimed no book was not necessary for natural morality.

>pic unrelated

>>6270771
Then objectively prove it.Prove we need a Catholic God or right and wrong doesn't exist.

>>6268573
What brain-dead conservative retards actually believe.

>>6271926
Wat?