Logic vs. Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-03-2017, 07:18 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:11 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 11:38 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I think I can agree to much of that but the term "god" is typically used to refer to a conscious, thinking agent that is intentionally manipulating some aspect of the universe. If you don't mean that then your choice of terms (especially when you capitalize the word which further links it to a specific god image) is misleading and if you want to get your ideas across that's not a good place to start.

I can respect and be amazed by and stand in awe of the universe and the various forces that operate within it without seeing any need to personify them or to "worship" them in any way. Labeling them as "god" only serves to add mental associations with concepts that don't apply to the thing being labeled.

ETA: You mentioned that communication can only take place when minds resonate; if I understand what you are saying, your use of "god" for natural forces is setting up something of a very different frequency in my brain that it apparently does in yours. There is no effective communication because you are triggering words that do not have the same concepts attached for me. If you have a new god concept you probably need a new word. It seems to be vaguely pantheistic/panentheistic but you are not being at all clear.

It is critical to leave the definition of God open so that each person can view God according to his own mental abilities. For people of average intelligence, it is probably best that they personify God. I can have reasonable conversations with conservative Mennonites and Muslims even if our definition of God differs because we share the same basic values which are based on the God concept. I find it almost impossible to have a conversation with members of modern culture who are either secular or modern Christian (whose concept of God is complete nonsense).

One thing that the God label adds to the forces of nature is a recognition that these forces act on human history. This is critical, and something that modern liberal culture rejects.

If you have an open mind and sufficient intelligence, then you should eventually be able to understand what I am saying even if you don't agree with it. I do agree that no one here yet understands what I am saying.

I reject pantheism because God must be CAUSE to have meaning. The forces of nature are cause, but nature itself is not.

The hallmark of all philosophical fraud is vague definition or negative definition such God is "immaterial". Precise definitions are needed if one wishes to be understood. Open or vague definitions invite one to fill in the blanks with their imaginations. This is precisely what the hucksters want. Precise definitions can be rationally scrutinized and this is what the hucksters don't want.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
07-03-2017, 07:19 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 09:33 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 08:59 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  I hate modern culture with a passion, I will enjoy watching its decline and the associated suffering of its disgusting population. {emphasis mine}

There is something horribly, tragically wrong with you if you are looking forward to other people suffering.

He also doesn't see anything wrong with a husband raping his wife. Pretty sure he's either a Poe or seriously messed up.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2017, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2017 08:43 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
Here' an example of what I mean. I've often seen people define reason as " the proper mode of thinking". This is an open definition. It leaves open what precisely is the proper mode of thinking. One could come along and say that the proper mode of thinking is to kill a goat and study it's steaming entrails under a full moon in January. Or roll the dice or sit and meditate and wait for the truth to come from some supernatural spirit by means of revelation. Or as some people have told me, to open the bible to a random page and interpret what it is trying to say.

Contrast the above definition with the Objectivist definition: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material brought in by the senses. This gives the essentials of what reason is. It gives us the task, condition and standard of reason.

Task: to identify reality. The primacy of existence is implicit. The task is to identify fact not create them.

Condition: it works with sense perception. That means it is outward looking. So the primacy of existence is implied. This tells that reason is an objective process.

Standard: integration. This means non-contradicion. So again the primacy of existence is implicit along with logic, the method of non-contraditory identification of fact, I.e., reality.

This definition meets all of the requirements of a good definition according to the objective theory of concepts.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
07-03-2017, 11:23 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(07-03-2017 06:22 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 09:05 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  Accurate in what sense? Your definition of truth here depends on your definition of accurate.
Sufficiently accurate models would have explanatory and predictive power, such that they could be put to some reliable use in the betterment of people's lives.

For example, the vast array of applied technology such as the inconvenienced electrons we are currently using to have this conversation, demonstrate the accuracy of science and the efficacy of the scientific method. I do not recall any patents being granted based on theology.

Thank God no patents are granted in theology, otherwise corporations would own religions.

I agree with your definition of truth, it has predictive power. And it is on this basis that the Old Testament makes its positions. It predicts that if the Israelites follow the principles of the Old Testament, then they will do well, and if not, then they will do poorly. This has had strong predictive power, so is true. And it goes beyond the Israelites. There was one other culture that followed the principles of the Old Testament, namely the early Protestants, and they did very well.

Another good example is the book "Sex and Culture" by Unwin, an anthropologist. He found a 100% correlation between female premarital chastity and cultural development for isolated tribes. Then he looked at history and found that all rising culture had strong female premarital chastity and most declining culture lacked female premarital chastity. This is an example of a cultural truth that can't be tested by controlled experiments, but is true indicating some force of history at work here. These are the kinds of concepts that God embodies and modern culture rejects.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(07-03-2017 11:23 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  ...
Another good example is the book "Sex and Culture" by Unwin, an anthropologist. He found a 100% correlation between female premarital chastity and cultural development for isolated tribes. Then he looked at history and found that all rising culture had strong female premarital chastity and most declining culture lacked female premarital chastity. This is an example of a cultural truth that can't be tested by controlled experiments, but is true indicating some force of history at work here. These are the kinds of concepts that God embodies and modern culture rejects.

I haven't read it so please can you enlighten us on how Unwin established causation rather than correlation.

Also, please supply the definition of 'culture'.

In Governance, culture is simply determined by the collective behaviour of individuals. So any adjective attached to the word 'culture' i.e. declining, maturing, popular or pinkish-purple simply describes a trait recognisable amongst the individuals. So what does Unwin mean by 'declining'?

Is it safe to assume that this is a subjective value judgement?

Thanks.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
07-03-2017, 11:54 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
Quote: It predicts that if the Israelites follow the principles of the Old Testament, then they will do well, and if not, then they will do poorly. This has had strong predictive power, so is true. And it goes beyond the Israelites. There was one other culture that followed the principles of the Old Testament, namely the early Protestants, and they did very well.

Did very well compared to whom?
And which Old Testament principles?

"Throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be; Not magic."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2017, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2017 01:19 PM by mordant.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(07-03-2017 11:23 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 06:22 AM)mordant Wrote:  Sufficiently accurate models would have explanatory and predictive power, such that they could be put to some reliable use in the betterment of people's lives.
I agree with your definition of truth, it has predictive power. And it is on this basis that the Old Testament makes its positions. It predicts that if the Israelites follow the principles of the Old Testament, then they will do well, and if not, then they will do poorly. This has had strong predictive power, so is true.
Please demonstrate how this was strongly predictive, and therefore true.

Please keep in mind that in order to do this you will have to demonstrate, not that the OT predicts X and then reports it later. This is not proof even if one can determine conclusively through manuscript dating that the fulfillment post-dates the prediction(s). One would need non-OT and preferably mundane secular sources (like government or business transaction records) with no skin in the game of whether or not the events (1) actually happened and (2) what the events are "supposed to" mean. In other words low probability of invented stories and high probability of accurate reporting without inserted opinion.

(07-03-2017 11:23 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  Another good example is the book "Sex and Culture" by Unwin, an anthropologist. He found a 100% correlation between female premarital chastity and cultural development for isolated tribes. Then he looked at history and found that all rising culture had strong female premarital chastity and most declining culture lacked female premarital chastity. This is an example of a cultural truth that can't be tested by controlled experiments, but is true indicating some force of history at work here. These are the kinds of concepts that God embodies and modern culture rejects.
Except that correlation is not the same as causation.

Nor is the definition of "rising culture" and "declining culture" objective. Right now for example there are people who would consider a progressively egalitarian and inclusive culture to be "rising", others who would regard it to be "declining". And people who regard an insular, closed, xenophobic culture to be rising, others consider it very much in decline.

So while JD Unwin's work you cite is well-regarded, I am suspicious that it is looking through the lens of what was known and commonly accepted four plus generations ago as a starting-point, so I would want to examine his definitions of rising and declining, and how subsequent credible research and thinking has supported or debunked his conclusions.

Not that I would particularly mind if it can be shown that sexual restraint is generally good for society; I strongly suspect that, done for the right reasons / motivations in the right contexts, it actually is. I have no personal need or desire for sexual license, nor any sort of admiration for it as such. It's just that this smells to me like overdetermined dogma; seldom is any question of what makes or breaks an entire society / culture traceable to one simple factor that one must either do or not do.

And that brings me to the final point, which is that being sexually libertine can come from a number of different motivations and in addition it is not a binary question either. Did Unwin consider the possibility that stricter sexual mores might be better for some cultures (or the same culture at particular stages) and not others? I rather doubt it. Did he control for the possibility of future cultures like ours where instant communication, information technology and rapid travel have transformed cultural norms and influences? I realize that there's danger in assuming that "the rules" don't apply to you, but there's danger in assuming that they do, too. Assuming, of course, that the proposed "rules" are even real and valid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
07-03-2017, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2017 02:32 PM by Astreja.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
I was going to question the correlation/causation factor in Unwin's work as well, but Mordant and DLJ beat me to it.

In general, though, my opinion is that a society that can be destabilized by human sexuality is on pretty shaky ground to begin with. At very least it's trapped in the lower levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, placing too much emphasis on sexual and cultural roles and not enough on self-actualization.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Astreja's post
07-03-2017, 01:03 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
FFS, I've covered this issue before.

He's not "Unwin, an anthropologist". You might as well cite "Freud, a neurologist/psychologist" as the basis for your claim, as if we've learned nothing in the field in the past century.

Unwin is a hack from a century ago, published a book on it in 1933, was never taken seriously by professionals, and is only recently coming back to light because stuff from his old book was pubished by a Men's Rights Advocate in an opinion piece in Christianity Today, then was picked up on that basis and started being pushed by far-right-wing groups like Conservapedia. He's not "Unwin, an anthropologist". You might as well cite "Freud, a neurologist/psychologist" as the basis for your claim, as if we've learned nothing in the field in the past century.

I covered the issue before, when the last guy brought it up. In case that link doesn't work, it's the discussion between me and Socialistview in the "Everybody's Wrong" thread. It's page 24 to me but will probably be page 48 to people with the normal settings... post #472.

Edit: Here's the critique of Unwin (from its day) that I originally cited in the thread, in case my attempts to link go as awry as they have in the past.

Quote:You're referring to a book written in 1933, called Sex and Culture. From an early critique of Unwin's work:

To those who are tempted to follow the uncritical acceptance of Dr. Unwin's theories contained in Mr. Fyson's letter in your July number I should like to bring to notice the following facts:
1. More than half Dr. Unwin's book is devoted to a study of eighty selected uncivilized societies.
2. This study reveals a correlation between coercive sexual restraint and complexity of religious rites.
3. At this point Dr. Unwin (on his own showing) adduces no more material.
4. By appeals to psycho-analysis, and to analogy with physical science, he then insists that the sexual restraint and the ritual complexity must have the relation of cause and effect.
5. The application and elaboration of this principle in regard to civilized societies is carried on by entirely a priori argument.
6. Only five pages are devoted to modern history and the results of sexological and other investigators into modern social conditions are neglected in toto.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
07-03-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 08:59 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  I hate modern culture with a passion, I will enjoy watching its decline and the associated suffering of its disgusting population.

Wow; you ARE a fun date!

Big Grin

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: