Comments on: Fitna–Geert Wilders’ Film Critical Of Koran

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:04:12 +0000

Neando –
I worship nothing. Science is a tool, one that works better than any other tool we have found or invented. It uses mathematics, the best language we have found.
Embedded in philosophy? Let me put it this way: I once was at a bar, and I saw two professors of philosophy get into a major fight (almost to blows) over epistemology (which, by the way, was Muslim boy’s point, but I’ll get to that in my reply to him). Since then, while I have remained open-minded about a great many things, I have determined that the vast majority of “philosophers” need to get a real job.
I’ll see one’s mysticism and raise him the Germ Theory of Disease, in other words. What works is more important than how one thinks about it. If what you are saying is that science incorporates a world-view; then, yes, we all have world-views, and so you are correct in that point. If, however, you are trying to say all world-views are equal (which is my impression of what you are saying; but others’ impressions are not always the responsibility of the speaker, so I will not try to place words in your mouth), then you are most certainly incorrect.
Muslim boy –
Your point about plague is a faulty argument, I am afraid. The scientific method was not utilized in those peoples’ minds. They were mystical thinkers. Science self-corrects, and fact-checks, which makes it the superior tool in dealing with Universe.
There is a quote, and I can’t remember who coined it (and I am not looking it up tonight, because it’s bedtime for Bonzo), but it applies here: “You may *believe* the Earth is flat. You may *believe* the Earth is round. The Earth is actually an oblate spheroid and doesn’t give a shit *what* you think . . .”
Not to be harsh, but reality intrudes upon even the deepest of “thinkers” (myself included, of course, if I may be so presumptious).

By: Neando

Neando — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:30:31 +0000

Kurt, You haven’t begun to answer my posts because I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Your reply simply reinforces my impression that you worship science, i.e., scientism. Science is always embedded in philosophy

By: muslimboy

muslimboy — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:55:39 +0000

“In the name of Allah, the All-merciful, the compasionate”

yh but kurt, science is sometimes simply theory based..
for example we use models to help illistrate what might not really be happening…
theres a limit as to how much of our science is correct…
for example, back in the days people used to believe that the plague was caused by the bad smell of the rubbish, when in fact it was caused by the rats who were there as a result of the rubbish..
hence by removing the rubbish, the disease was controled, but not because of what they believed but by coincidence something else…

the whole idea of religion is your lord giving you a path which wil help you be successful…
you may not be able to see its instant benefit, but human logic has its limits..
your lord is all-knowing and you canot question..
why does mankind have to be so ignorant as to have to physically see something to belive in its existence..
surely to see the effect of something should be enough…

i probably dont even know what im talking about, but im sure im getting somwhere…

By: Kurt

Kurt — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:51:35 +0000

Neando –
Very simply, the brain is capable of rationality. Of course it can cause nothing of itself, it must be connected to mucscles to acheive anything (speech, motion, etc.). The question “what is self” is still undetermined, but it will not be answered by philosophy. Philosophy has tried for centuries, and is no closer at this point than it was in Aristotle’s time.
Science is a collectivist activity, with fact-checking and replication demonstrable again and again, regardless of the individual observer. Your continual assertion of the “philosophical assumptions” behind science is a null issue, because the of the fact that the laws discovered from these “assumptions” work consistently across time and place.
And you can’t seriously expect a primer on the scientific method. You get that in grade school. It is well-established and, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. It works, primarily because it does *not* rely on semantic games or philosophical doubletalk.

By: Neando

Neando — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:28:01 +0000

“self-awareness (including most importantly the knowledge of one’s own mortality, which is definitely a higher-order function)”

Self awareness and the knowledge of one’s own mortality are a given, but what they are is in question. Are they the (epiphenomenal) product of the brain functions in a “bottom up” causal relation? If so, the self is merely an effect; it can cause, of itself, nothing in the world. If the self does have causal power independent of physical causes (“top down” causation), then it can “direct behaviour,” but then what is this “self”?

“And science is *the* method by which we can understand the Universe as it really is.”
What do you understand the scientific method as? Science involves a wide variety of fields of empirical investigation with appropriate methods of investigation into natural phenomena along with certain philosophical presumptions. The statement you have just made is itself philosophical and not subject to scientific investigation.

If the result of scientific investigation, which you say is “understanding the universe as it really is,” is in the end itself the product of complex physical forces, how can it be *known* to be true? How is the rational the product of the non-rational?

By: Neando

Neando — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:23:13 +0000

Korgan, what are your grounds for saying “The Golden Rule” is good and that “violence and vengeance” are bad? To derive human rights from the Golden Rule (the positive version) is circular. The Golden Rule assumes that humans have rights and dignity.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:03:13 +0000

Ah, I see that my absence has been filled with some wonderful posts . . . as to Neando, I think you miss my point. Hmmm. How to state it? Well, there are three things that call into question the slant which you seem to be coming from: self-awareness (including most importantly the knowledge of one’s own mortality, which is definately a higher-order function), self-directed behavior, and biofeedback. All are arguments against a pure behaviorist position.
And science is *the* method by which we can understand the Universe as it really is . . . many of the discoveries of science fly in the face of “common sense” and “obvious truth.”
As for the morality discussion, morality is the means by which group survival is achieved. There is no other definition which makes any logical sense whatsoever. Korgan is correct in his proposition that the Golden Rule is a fine starting point; it leads to the intersection between individual and group rights very nicely . . .

By: Korgan

Korgan — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:43:45 +0000

Re 76 and 77, religion, based on whatever violent text (quran or bible or other), cannot pretend to be a valid basis for human rights. The golden rule is a vastly better starting point for deriving human rights, and does not carry with it the violence and vengeance that are so common throughout the bible and the quran. Those two venomous books could hardly be less appropriate as a basis for human rights.

Religion is a disease of the mind. Inoculate against it with reason.

By: muslimboy

muslimboy — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:48:50 +0000

in the name of Allah, the All-merciful, the comapsionate..

Neeando, that last post was well said..

The holy Quran is an incredible book..

it analyses so many aspects of life and is truely the word of the Almighty…

By: Neando

Neando — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:47:41 +0000

Freedom?? Freedom to do what you want? What if other people’s freedoms conflict with your freedoms; will you fight them for yours? Whose laws? Common sense–how common is that? You obviously don’t think religious people can have it. Your Bill of Rights was constructed in a religious milieu. Atheism has no firm basis for human rights, as it has no firm basis for human value. If you study the history of human rights, it is evolving and no tenant is secure.