OT: Huckabee, Ughh

[dpb]

Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

How 'bout Hobbes vs Wallis?

--

[dpb]

...

It's what "knowing" means in this context I'm questioning...

For a suitable definition of "True"...my only contention all along has been in how to ascertain this truth from a purely intellectual, non-empirical methodology.

As we learned from the early Greeks, that didn't work so well when it came to understanding how stuff actually works.

OTOH, folks have continued to toss around "big ideas" since before Aristotle and we still bandy around one vs another w/ no way to ever reach a conclusion (sorta' like usenet :) ).

Interesting, entertaining, sometimes even stimulating; but hardly reaching the level of some inviolate or even demonstrable "truth"...

--

[Tim Daneliuk]

Say more -not sure where you're going ...

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Holy crap!

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Yes, it is straightforward. However a lot of people don't realize that 'establishment of religion' is a term of art, more or less an idiomatic expression.

BTW, 'respect for the rule of law' while less obscure, is also a term of art, the proper understanding of which requires more than a mere understanding of the precise meanings of the words themselves.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Hmmm, I thought that was clear to you last we exchanged barbs. I remain convinced the the IDers (the intellectuals, not the Rev. Billybob Swampwaters) are right about some things - or at least they trend that way, but excepting a couple of very narrow areas of work by Behe, they have not done a good job of putting forth a testable hypothesis - a bedrock of science. They have done a much better job of making the case that philosophical reductionism unnecessarily restricts science. But ... they haven't proposed what might replace it.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Plenty of people said that after 4 years, just not enough. As in 2004, we may see the majority of voters voting against the other candidate, instead of for 'theirs'.

[Tim Daneliuk]

And that's because emiricist/Rationalists as a group insist that you can only "know" something if it can be measured and demonstrated by their method of epistemology. It's entirely self-referential. (Not that this is bad thing, it's just unnecessarily narrow, IMHO.)

If you stipulate that: A) There is a set of True Things and B) Empiricism can only apprehend a subset of these.

Then ... It follows that there are True Things not open to the empirical method. The fact that any attempt to understand these must by non-empirical means - i.e., Non-objective, cannot be conveyed to others necessarily - doesn't mean that these are not worth pursuing or trying to understand even on just a personal/existential basis.

Once again for completeness sake: What is "demonstrable" rests entirely on your starting axioms. Science never "proves" anything, it merely demonstrates: A) Consistency with its starting points (or not) and/or B) Utility value (or not).

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Other than the fossil record and DNA...

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Tis an age-old argument.

Is man inherently good or inherently evil?

I opt for good. Most people left free to make their own decisions avoid hurting other people. People will argue and fight with each other, but it takes a believe in a higher authority (e.g. fascism, communism, or religion) to get them to unite in mass murder.

[Lew Hodgett]

After the events in Iowa last week, it is clear that "the winds of change" are blowing.

The general population is just fed up with the current situation.

As the old saying goes, "A new broom sweeps clean".

I have the distinct feeling there is going to be a lot of "sweeping" in the upcoming election.

Lew

[Tim Daneliuk]

I do not believe faith to be irrational. It may be "meta-rational" (outside reason exclusively) but it is not inherently anti-rational. I am merely pointing out that you defend your worldview with the same zeal of a true convert when you exclude the possible validity of other (meta-rational) knowledge systems. This was not meant to be an insult but an observation.

I was only trying to list the possible answers to the question you raised. (Because you asked.) I wasn't particularly arguing for any of them, though I have my own ideas on which ones are most valid. You're swinging at shadows here.

Nowhere have I asked you to "believe" anything. I've asked you to: A) Acknowledge that there are other possibilities for finding True Things outside the means of science to test and B) To quit looking down your intellectual nose at people who do not accept science as the sole source of valid human knowledge. What you personally believe is none of my business and I wouldn't presume to tell you that I know better.

You have been watching too many TV Evangelists. There are a great many people of faith who accept intelligent cause/design w/o being threatened by the current thinking in science around cosmology and evolution. Like so many steeped only in the scientific school, you seem completely unaware of the breadth of intellectual tradition and debate that takes place in various communities of faith. We are all not members of the Swampwater Baptist Church.

Incidentally, some of the most visible writers in the Intelligent Design movement affirm an old universe and the mechanisms of evolution, in whole or in part. So stop painting with the brush of partial knowledge. I'd say these people know your world WAY better than you understand theirs.

Ibid - you are boxing a shadows. Yes, there are some strict Biblical literalists to whom your argument applies. But they are hardly the only voice in the faith community, and they are not likely even the dominant voice. See, I was educated among those very people (very well educated, by the way). I disagree with their literalist position for a lot of reasons having nothing to do science (I do not read a book on auto mechanics to affirm or deny a faith tradition, nor do I do the inverse - use the Bible to understand auto mechanics.) But, and forgive me for saying this, unlike you and yours, I *understand why* they've taken the literalist position they have. It is rooted in church history going back as far as the Protestant Reformation all the way through the early 20th Century. Biblical literalism isn't some ignorant anti-science theology at it's core - though certainly there are people like that who affirm Biblical literalism. It is a survival mechanism for the orthodox among the Protestant denominations. I won't bother saying more about it here than that, but you are REALLY missing the point if you think these are the only or main voices among people of faith.

It requires faith in any of these circumstances. An infinite universe cannot be proven from within itself (cf Goedel). An infinite succession of Gods cannot be rationally demonstrated. Neither can an infinite God. We're all choosing some faith, some of us are just more up front about it than others.

Why you insist in erecting this straw man is beyond me. I am not trying to prove anything. I am trying to get you and yours to quit being so intellectually snotty to people who admit other possibilities for knowing things. In particular, your assumption that a life of faith inherently leads to irrational thought is baldly false and folks of your ilk ought to figure this out and act with a bit more decorum in the matter.

Tongue-In-Cheek. But I do think you said something like "Math? Gimme a break..." or words to that effect when we were whipping out our academic credentials.

And with that, I shall let you have the last word if your wish.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

The individual voter is free to apply such a test, or not, as they choose.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

The notion of natural rights appeals directly to a Creator only in the mind of one who believes in a Creator. Belief in a Creator is not needed to believe in natural rights. One may assume the existence of such rights as easily as one may assume the existence of a Creator.

The Framers themselves chose to sanitize the Constitution itself.

That does not show that they were not religious men. It DOES show that they wanted their nation to function independently of religion.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

While on the subject of appeasing Muslims, just weeks after Osama bin Laden was identified as the mastermind behind the bombing of the Cole:

"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

One needs to understand that a King rules by divine right. The feudal notion was that rights flowed own from above. From God to the King, from the King to the nobility, from the nobility to the commoners. By the time of the Revolution, the other nobles had been circumvented so that all Englishmen were directly subjects of the King.

Still, to rebel against the king was to rebel against God, particularly is the King in question was the supreme temporal head of the Christian Church in England. Jefferson was faced with the vexing problem of how to separate rebellion from sacrilege. His solution, drawing upon the work of the early liberals, was to do the same with the King as the King had done with the lesser nobility. He circumvented the King, declaring that each person's rights flowed to him directly from God.

Let's not forget, Jefferson was trying to convince a lot of other colonists to join in, or at least tolerate the revolution. He was not trying to convert others to his personal philosophy. Whatever that was, Jefferson' words were always crafted with deference to his audience.

[dpb]

Thought _you_ were the literate one... :)

[dpb]

That's a stretch -- Jefferson took it almost literally from Locke. Nor, do I think Jefferson had any difficulty whatsoever in thinking freedom of tyranny from the King had anything whatsoever to do w/ sacrilege. I'm not sure he would have thought there _could_ even be such a thing a sacrilege--and surely not against the Church of England.

--

[dpb]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote: ...

... I suppose not, this being the first time I've ever heard that claim.

Where is this made known widely and what does the term mean in plain English?

--

[Tim Daneliuk]

Literate, somewhat. Omniscient, no.

In digging around, I discovered that the Wallis/Hobbes debate was an Algebra v. Classical Geometry debate (For a good synopis, see:

) But, I guess I am dense; I don't see the connection to the current discussion...