Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on July 28, 2020, 10:02:27 AM
-
The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.
At the risk of either blowing String theory or Multiverse theory or maybe the Courtiers reply.....
Aren't people who put forward and defend Multiverse theory and String theory committing the Courtiers reply fallacy?
I tend towards no not because these are big noise science types we are talking about but because the Courtiers reply fallacy might be a bollocks idea anyway.
What say you?
-
The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.
I'm no expert on tailoring or weaving or fashion design but I know when somebody in front of me is bollock naked.
Aren't people who put forward and defend Multiverse theory and String theory committing the Courtiers reply fallacy?
No. Why would you think they are?
-
I'm no expert on tailoring or weaving or fashion design but I know when somebody in front of me is bollock naked.
No. Why would you think they are?
Well take string theorists for example Theyve been working for decades and have fuck all to show for it. Ditto Multiverse.
Can you explain why these people arent the equivalent of being bollock naked?
-
Vlad,
The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.
What say I is, dear god but when you go full stupid/full dishonest you really don't hold back do you. That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails at all. Surely you should know this after so many times of having it explained to you?
Accordingly the rest of your effort re string theory etc has collapsed before it even got its trousers off.
-
Vlad,
What say I is, dear god but when you go full stupid/full dishonest you really don't hold back do you. That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails at all. Surely you should know this after so many times of having it explained to you?
Accordingly the rest of your effort re string theory etc has collapsed before it even got its trousers off.
Vlad: Of course, Hillside, Your quite at liberty to show how my definition is at variance with yours.
Hillside: I have done......A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away........
Perhaps you can explain why String theorists and multiverseheads are not bollock naked?
-
The league of the possibly naked.
http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/StringTheory/actors.html
-
Well take string theorists for example Theyve been working for decades and have fuck all to show for it. Ditto Multiverse.
Can you explain why these people arent the equivalent of being bollock naked?
At the moment there is no experimental evidence that string theory is "real" or that the multiverse exists. You are absolutely entitled to not believe them.
But I still don't understand why you think this has anything to do with the courtier's reply. The phenomenon that the string theorists are seeking to explain definitely does exist. The Universe is not imaginary.
-
At the moment there is no experimental evidence that string theory is "real" or that the multiverse exists. You are absolutely entitled to not believe them.
But I still don't understand why you think this has anything to do with the courtier's reply. The phenomenon that the string theorists are seeking to explain definitely does exist. The Universe is not imaginary.
No string theorists are seeking to explain strings as a fundamental phenomenon Jeremy.......that is why they are called string theorists.
-
Vlad,
Vlad: Of course, Hillside, Your quite at liberty to show how my definition is at variance with yours.
FFS. It’s not at variance with “mine”, it’s at variance (to put it mildly) with what it actually says.
Wearily: the Courtiers’s Reply is essentially an example of the fallacy of irrelevance. There’s one category of argument to do with the epistemic claim “the Emperor is naked”, and there’s another category of argument to do with the type of hat he’s supposedly wearing etc. The second set of arguments have nothing whatever to do with the validity of the first.
If, say, I asserted unicorns to be real, you complained that I had bad/no arguments to validate the claim, and I said you’re not entitled to an opinion about that because you don’t know about my additional assertions regarding what kind of oats unicorns like for breakfast, how they like their manes plaited and what colour the feathers in their wings are you presumably would see the problem with that. In case you wouldn’t though, I’ll spell it out for you again: my second set of claims WOULD BE UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THE FIRST CLAIM THAT THEY EXIST AT ALL.
I really don’t know how to make it any clearer for you.
Hillside: I have done......A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away........
Er, no.
Perhaps you can explain why String theorists and multiverseheads are not bollock naked?
Because, obviously, they’re based on known principles and then speculate plausibly from there. Unlike claims of the religious, no part of these conjectures involves “it’s magic”.
-
Well take string theorists for example Theyve been working for decades and have fuck all to show for it. Ditto Multiverse.
Can you explain why these people arent the equivalent of being bollock naked?
Only if they pull rank and dismiss relevant or pertinent questions/statements on the basis of the appropriate erudition of the questioner, then there might well be a case of using the term the 'courtier's reply'.
In exactly the same way I would not necessarily accuse theologians of the courtier's reply when it seems their attempts to show proof of the existence of God have 'fuck all to show for it'.
-
No string theorists are seeking to explain strings as a fundamental phenomenon Jeremy.......that is why they are called string theorists.
Ah, you don't understand what string theory is.
I suggest you do a little bit of research to get a basic understanding of what you are talking about.
-
Only if they pull rank and dismiss relevant or pertinent questions/statements on the basis of the appropriate erudition of the questioner, then there might well be a case of using the term the 'courtier's reply'.
In exactly the same way I would not necessarily accuse theologians of the courtier's reply when it seems their attempts to show proof of the existence of God have 'fuck all to show for it'.
I think that is a fair perspective.
Pulling rank? Isnt an expert in evolutionary science entitled to do so on a dumb ass bible belt creationist.
Or a theologian on a dumbass atheist?
-
Vlad,
I think that is a fair perspective.
Pulling rank? Isnt an expert in evolutionary science entitled to do so on a dumb ass bible belt creationist.
Or a theologian on a dumbass atheist?
No.
-
I think that is a fair perspective.
Pulling rank? Isnt an expert in evolutionary science entitled to do so on a dumb ass bible belt creationist.
Or a theologian on a dumbass atheist?
Or an atheist on a dumb ass theologian?
Or even a dumb ass atheist on a dumb ass theologian? ;)
-
The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.
At the risk of either blowing String theory or Multiverse theory or maybe the Courtiers reply.....
Aren't people who put forward and defend Multiverse theory and String theory committing the Courtiers reply fallacy?
I tend towards no not because these are big noise science types we are talking about but because the Courtiers reply fallacy might be a bollocks idea anyway.
What say you?
String theory is an attempt to explain demonstrable phenomena; whether or not it's a viable explanation, whether or not the various calculations sufficiently map to what's observed to consider it valid is up in the air at the moment, but the initial phenomenon is clearly established.
Theology (for instance) is centuries of convoluted navel gazing trying to justify acceptance of claims in the face of a complete lack of any evidence, and at times in spite of evidence to the contrary.
To claim that someone doesn't have the understanding of the underlying maths or physics to criticise a particular variant of String Theory is potentially verifiable, inasmuch as the underlying maths and physics can be verified. How do you propose to verify the underlying theology if someone points out that Transubstantiation is nonsense?
O.
-
String theory is an attempt to explain demonstrable phenomena; whether or not it's a viable explanation, whether or not the various calculations sufficiently map to what's observed to consider it valid is up in the air at the moment, but the initial phenomenon is clearly established.
Theology (for instance) is centuries of convoluted navel gazing trying to justify acceptance of claims in the face of a complete lack of any evidence, and at times in spite of evidence to the contrary.
To claim that someone doesn't have the understanding of the underlying maths or physics to criticise a particular variant of String Theory is potentially verifiable, inasmuch as the underlying maths and physics can be verified. How do you propose to verify the underlying theology if someone points out that Transubstantiation is nonsense?
O.
And several people are of the opinion that string theorising and multiverse is mere navel gazing. What is it then that leads you to believe one lot of academics is Courtier replying and the other isn't.
Theology has been a great comfort to millions and the training of priests and vicars has had a useful pastoral aspect. Scientists with the exception of medical scientists and psychologists not so although have been looked upon as priestly people conferring the blessing of the multiverse and the gift of the string onto the mere mortals.....or is that just Sheldon Cooper. Talking of which I don't suppose there can be many a string theorist whose work hasn't been suspected by colleagues of being the Kings new clothes
-
Vlad,
And several people are of the opinion that string theorising and multiverse is mere navel gazing. What is it then that leads you to believe one lot of academics is Courtier replying and the other isn't.
Theology has been a great comfort to millions and the training of priests and vicars has had a useful pastoral aspect. Scientists with the exception of medical scientists and psychologists not so although have been looked upon as priestly people conferring the blessing of the multiverse and the gift of the string onto the mere mortals.....or is that just Sheldon Cooper. Talking of which I don't suppose there can be many a string theorist whose work hasn't been suspected by colleagues of being the Kings new clothes
First, whether or not claims are comforting tells you nothing about whether they're true.
Second, theoretical physics is reason- rather than magic-based, and your bizarre mischaracterisation re conferring blessings or some such is all your invention.
Third, I explained to you where you went wrong re the Courtier's Reply. Predictably you've just ignored the correction. What do you get from this type of dishonesty?
-
To claim that someone doesn't have the understanding of the underlying maths or physics to criticise a particular variant of String Theory is potentially verifiable, inasmuch as the underlying maths and physics can be verified. How do you propose to verify the underlying theology if someone points out that Transubstantiation is nonsense?
Lord love you Outrider. Transubstantiation is hardly to theology what maths and physics is to science, you silly sausage.
-
Vlad,
First, whether or not claims are comforting tells you nothing about whether they're true.
Second, theoretical physics is reason- rather than magic-based, and your bizarre mischaracterisation re conferring blessings or some such is all your invention.
Third, I explained to you where you went wrong re the Courtier's Reply. Predictably you've just ignored the correction. What do you get from this type of dishonesty?
No I'm saying there is a real pastoral aspect of theology and people find religion often not through church going but in a more personal way and need trained help to negotiate their entry into new life. and that is true and going to be true whether Essex accountants and residents like it or not.
Theoretical physics includes quantum mechanics with it's weird action at a distance. Real theoretical physics would not presume to comment on God and the only real bit of magic i've seen suggested around here is the universe where there is only contingency. Suggested by almost everyone on here professing to be an atheist. So atheist accusations about magic can go and multiply as far as I'm concerned.
When I gave my definition of the courtiers reply Jeremy P and I suspect others recognised what I was saying immediately. If your version is at variance with mine then I suspect there is a metaphorical giant neon sign over it going
''Flannel''.
-
Vlad,
No I'm saying there is a real pastoral aspect of theology and people find religion often not through church going but in a more personal way and need trained help to negotiate their entry into new life. and that is true and going to be true whether Essex accountants and residents like it or not.
Whether religion is necessary for pastoral care is a highly dubious claim, but in any case pastoral care or not theology still has nothing to offer to justify its claims of fact. That’s the point.
Theoretical physics includes quantum mechanics with it's weird action at a distance. Real theoretical physics would not presume to comment on God and the only real bit of magic i've seen suggested around here is the universe where there is only contingency. Suggested by almost everyone on here professing to be an atheist. So atheist accusations about magic can go and multiply as far as I'm concerned.
Was that car crash of a paragraph supposed to mean something? Any weirdness is still based on reason, science is indifferent to religious claims up to the point that theologians attempt scientific legitimacy and get the science wrong (WLC, Deepak Chopra etc), and no matter how theists describe it (“mystery” etc) using “it’s magic innit” is still the end of enquiry, and it answers nothing. Apart from all that though…
When I gave my definition of the courtiers reply Jeremy P and I suspect others recognised what I was saying immediately. If your version is at variance with mine then I suspect there is a metaphorical giant neon sign over it going ''Flannel''.
As I explained to you perfectly clearly why you’d mischaracterised the CR and you just ignored the explanation, it stands. You screwed up or lied – deal with the reasons why or not as you please, but just ignoring the argument means your screw up/lie remains.
-
Vlad,
Whether religion is necessary for pastoral care is a highly dubious claim, but in any case pastoral care or not theology still has nothing to offer to justify its claims of fact. That’s the point.
Theology is not science and for some poor souls like yourselves with the bad meme of scientism that is unforgiveable.
Was that car crash of a paragraph supposed to mean something? Any weirdness is still based on reason, science is indifferent to religious claims up to the point that theologians attempt scientific legitimacy and get the science wrong (WLC, Deepak Chopra etc), and no matter how theists describe it (“mystery” etc) using “it’s magic innit” is still the end of enquiry, and it answers nothing. Apart from all that though…
As I say the only bit of magic i've seen suggested is a universe that is completely contingent. That is like a magic act where there is a rabbit but no magician ha ha ha
As I explained to you perfectly clearly why you’d mischaracterised the CR and you just ignored the explanation, it stands. You screwed up – deal with the reasons why or not a you please, but the just ignoring the argument means your screw up remains.
No I haven't. It was always merely a bit of rear guard action to cover a bit of Horses laugh fallacy and Alf Garnett behaviour which I believe is collectively referred to by Wikipedia as New Atheism.
-
Perce,
Theology is not science and for some poor souls like yourselves with the bad meme of scientism that is unforgiveable.
As there’s no relationship between what I said and scientism I’ll assume you’re just lying again to cover your tracks.
As I say the only bit of magic i've seen suggested is a universe that is completely contingent. That is like a magic act where there is a rabbit but no magician ha ha ha
Yes, I know that’s the lie you’re trying – you don’t need to repeat it. Again, theoretical physics deals with ideas and conjectures based on sound principles that may or may not turn out to be true; religion makes claims of fact and gives up with the attempt to justify them – hence “mystery”/magic.
No I haven't. It was always merely a bit of rear guard action to cover a bit of Horses laugh fallacy and Alf Garnett behaviour which I believe is collectively referred to by Wikipedia as New Atheism.
Yes you have. As again you’ve just ignored the explanation I gave you for why you’d screwed up/lied the explanation stands.
This seem to be your only MO these days – people give you arguments and you reply with pejorative terms but no counterarguments of your own. What would Jesus make of your dishonesty do you think?
-
Perce,
As there’s no relationship between what I said and scientism I’ll assume you’re just lying again to cover your tracks.
Yes, I know that’s the lie you’re trying – you don’t need to repeat it. Again, theoretical physics deals with ideas and conjectures based on sound principles that may or may not turn out to be true; religion makes claims of fact and gives up with the attempt to justify them – hence “mystery”/magic.
Yes you have. As again you’ve just ignored the explanation I gave you for why you’d screwed up/lied the explanation stands.
This seem to be your only MO these days – people give you arguments and you reply with pejorative terms but no counterarguments of your own. What would Jesus make of your dishonesty do you think?
While the courtiers reply in the story is er, a courtiers reply it is obvious that the story is not transferable to the question of whether God exists and if there should be a theology. Well whether God exists is a debate and that debate is theological.
Dismissal is not debate and surely it is obvious that only a complete moron would say that God probably doesn't exist because I cannot see him(Surely the point of the story of the Emperors new clothes).
Luckily, such morons do exist and so the argument I cannot see God therefore he probably doesn't exist has been given a whole new lease of life. The story of the Emperor's new clothes does not apply to theology. It also turns out that it is based on opinion.
It was a cheeky wee ploy to cover a cheeky wee ploy. A bit of Tottenham Chutspah .
So being a crock I don't think scientists who propose Multiverse or String theory but especially multiverses are guilty of a courtiers reply or maybe ever could be.
No, The real Courtiers replies are in the field of politics.
So all Multiverse scientists and theologians are guilty of is philosophy with some scientists perhaps rightly miffed at colleague's palming it off as science.
-
Perce,
While the courtiers reply in the story is er, a courtiers reply it is obvious that the story is not transferable to the question of whether God exists and if there should be a theology.
“It’s obvious” is not an argument, and it’s perfectly transferable as an illustration of the fallacy of irrelevance. I explained why in Reply 8, but you continue to ignore the explanation.
Well whether God exists is a debate and that debate is theological.
Four letters too many there: “logical“ is sufficient – the “theo-” adds nothing. Theologians don’t have access to special logic that ordinary logicians (or reasoning people generally for that matter) don’t have.
Dismissal is not debate and surely it is obvious that only a complete moron would say that God probably doesn't exist because I cannot see him(Surely the point of the story of the Emperors new clothes).
Straw man, and that’s not the CR argument at all. Perhaps if you bothered to read my explanation of were you went wrong in your OP you’d understand what it actually entails.
Luckily, such morons do exist and so the argument I cannot see God therefore he doesn't exist has been given a whole new lease of life. The story of the Emperor's new clothes does not apply to theology. It also turns out that it is based on opinion.
It also has fuck all to do with what the CR argument actually concerns.
It was a cheeky wee ploy to cover a cheeky wee ploy a bit of Tottenham Chutspah which led atheist autoeroticism to spike.
Have you dropped a can of alphabet soup and photoshopped it into a post again?
So being a crock I don't think scientists who propose Multiverse or String theory but especially multiverses are guilty of a courtiers reply or maybe ever could be.
That’s right, they’re not. You though are.
No, The real Courtiers replies are in the field of politics.
Did that mean something in your head when typed it?
So all scientists and theologians are guilty of is philosophy…
You can’t be “guilty” of philosophy. What you can be guilty of is philosophically wrong arguments (theology) and philosophically right arguments (science).
… with some scientists perhaps rightly miffed at colleague's palming it off as science.
So now you’ve finished throwing yourself from the tenth storey rather than from just the third, perhaps you like to start again but this time try at least to grasp what the CR actually entails. I set it out for you perfectly clearly in Reply 8. I suggest you start there.
-
You can’t be “guilty” of philosophy. What you can be guilty of is philosophically wrong arguments (theology) and philosophically right arguments (science).
.
Well let's do a short series on the great atheist scientist philosophers shall we?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
Firstly science can only speak of contingent things.
Secondly when you find someone who thinks because science only deals with contingent things there are only contingent things............You've found your Moron.
.
-
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
Second of our series of great atheist scientist philosophers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
-
And several people are of the opinion that string theorising and multiverse is mere navel gazing. What is it then that leads you to believe one lot of academics is Courtier replying and the other isn't.
Again, the fact that there's an observable phenomenon at the base of it all.
Theology has been a great comfort to millions and the training of priests and vicars has had a useful pastoral aspect.
Heroin has been a great comfort to millions.
Scientists with the exception of medical scientists and psychologists not so although have been looked upon as priestly people conferring the blessing of the multiverse and the gift of the string onto the mere mortals....
The scientists that worked on fibre-optic transmission that allows the current expanse of the internet? The scientists who unravelled nuclear power, or wind turbines, or waste treatment methods?
Talking of which I don't suppose there can be many a string theorist whose work hasn't been suspected by colleagues of being the Kings new clothes
I don't know if they fall prey to that sort of thinking about each other, they're people and they're fallible, but in my (limited) experience of scientists they tend to be as accepting of the scientific process and competing ideas as anyone else.
Lord love you Outrider. Transubstantiation is hardly to theology what maths and physics is to science, you silly sausage.
I know because even as outlandish as string theory seems it's still an attempt at an explanation for something that's real, whereas Transubstantiation is 'serious' theology that's doctrine for millions around the world to explain why something unevidenced makes immeasurable and undemonstrable changes to cheap crackers in response to a magic spell incantation liturgy cast by a sufficiently high-level wizard cleric vicar.
O.
-
And several people are of the opinion that string theorising and multiverse is mere navel gazing. What is it then that leads you to believe one lot of academics is Courtier replying and the other isn't.
String theory and the multiverse are hypotheses about the nature of the Universe. Theology is hypotheses about the nature of God.
You don't need to know anything about string theory to dispute the existence of the Universe. You don't need to know anything about theology to dispute the existence of God.
Even if you just want to dispute the existence of the strings and the eleven dimensions, you don't need to know anything about string theory: it's for the string theorists to bring evidence to support their claims and present it in a way that you understand.
-
Perce,
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
Second of our series of great atheist scientist philosophers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
So anyway, back to your mischaracterisation in your OP of the Courtier's Reply and my correction of it in Reply 8 that you still haven't addressed. Should I take it that you're adopting your standard MO of evasion. lying, irrelevance and insult while you make good your escape rather than ever engaging openly with an argument that undoes you?
A simple "yes" will do fine.
-
Perce,
So anyway, back to your mischaracterisation in your OP of the Courtier's Reply and my correction of it in Reply 8 that you still haven't addressed. Should I take it that you're adopting your standard MO of evasion. lying, irrelevance and insult while you make good your escape rather than ever engaging openly with an argument that undoes you?
A simple "yes" will do fine.
Your definition doesn't fit.
Here it is.o
Dawkins. Theology is Utter bollocks
Well you haven't studied theology and what you have said about it shows ignorance.
Myers. He doesn't have to study it to know its bollocks.
Problem The King was naked. Prove theology is bollocks.
They could see with their wee methodological materialist eyes that the King was naked.........How does Dawkins know theology is bollocks?
-
Vlad,
Your definition doesn't fit.
Here it is.o
Dawkins. Theology is Utter bollocks
Well you haven't studied theology and what you have said about it shows ignorance.
Myers. He doesn't have to study it to know its bollocks.
Problem The King was naked. Prove theology is bollocks.
They could see with their wee methodological materialist eyes that the King was naked.........How does Dawkins know theology is bollocks?
Do you know, to this day I still have never worked out whether you have just enough intelligence to understand some arguments at least but choose to lie about them nonetheless, or whether you simply cannot grasp even a simple point in logic and so post this type of gibberish because you think you save face that way.
Either way I corrected your mistaken/dishonest OP back in Reply 8 and still you’ve shown no sign of understanding it, let alone of trying to argue against it. It’s simple though, even for you:
1. Various foundational arguments are attempted to demonstrate that “god(s)” exist(s). You do not need to be a theologian to make those arguments, and nor do you need to be a theologian to falsify them. And, so far at least, all such arguments – the kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the fine tuning argument, the objective morality argument etc are trivially easy to dismantle. In other words, on the basis of the arguments attempted to justify the claim ”god(s)” made so far, the equivalent to “but the Emperor is naked” is a legitimate response.
This isn’t theology though; it’s just the functional application of reason and logic.
2. There are also though theologians from all faiths who make their various claims and assertions about the characteristics of the various gods in which they happen to believe: whether and how they intervene in response prayer and to sacrifices; whether they’re cruel or kind or vengeful; that they care about about who goes to bed with whom and with what they do when they get there etc.
3. For ease reference, let’s call the former set of foundational arguments “Category 1 arguments", and the second set of attributional arguments “Category 2 arguments”.
Still with me? Good.
4. Now sometimes what happens is that, when reasoning people falsify correctly the Category 1 arguments, certain other people will say that their reasoning is inadmissible not because of anything do with the Category 1 arguments they've falsified, but rather – and you might want to hang on to your hat here if the lightbulb does finally go on – because they’re insufficiently versed in the Category 2 arguments even though the Category 2 arguments have absolutely fuck all to say to the validity or otherwise of the Category 1, foundational arguments for the initial claim “god(s)”.
And that Mr slipperier than a Swarfega bath of eels Vlad is what the Courtier’s Reply is actually about.
So there you go. You now have no excuse whatsoever to evade, lie about, misrepresent, duck and dive or generally fuck around as is your standard MO whenever the Courtier’s Reply is raised again.
You’re welcome.
-
Your definition doesn't fit.
Here it is.o
Dawkins. Theology is Utter bollocks
Citation needed.
Well you haven't studied theology and what you have said about it shows ignorance.
Myers. He doesn't have to study it to know its bollocks.
Problem The King was naked. Prove theology is bollocks.
They could see with their wee methodological materialist eyes that the King was naked.........How does Dawkins know theology is bollocks?
The problem with theology is it is a house built on sand. Nobody knows if the object of its study even exists. That's how we know to dismiss it.
-
Citation needed.The problem with theology is it is a house built on sand. Nobody knows if the object of its study even exists. That's how we know to dismiss it.
But nobody knows if the multiverse or string theories exist. Should we dismiss those?
Reasons for theology
1: There are sufficient numbers that want it.
2: There is no case against it raised that isn’t retracted
3: There is the pastoral aspect of theology. People have had an experience which is partly resolved , managed and directed by its study and consideration. You no longer need to get on board.
4: As well as pastoral impacts, Theology has had a vast influence on Western philosophy and science.
While the contribution of so called New Atheists beside it is......perhaps a bit more than graffiti more a bit of vandalism.
-
Perce,
But nobody knows if the multiverse or string theories exist. Should we dismiss those?
False analogy – hypotheses about a multiverse and string theory are:
1. Based at least on known principles
2. In principle investigable if ever we had the tools and means to do it
3. Posited as possible answers (that’s the “hypotheses” part). They are not asserted to be facts
Theology on the other hand is:
1. Based on no known logical principles
2. Non-investigable - “faith” is all it has, and there’s no means to investigate faith claims
3. Posited as fact – the premises (“god” etc) and the conclusions (also “god” etc) are the same things, and we’re just supposed to take theologians’ assertions as true because they (or their “holy” books) say so
Then again, you knew all this already didn’t you.
Reasons for theology
1: There are sufficient numbers that want it.
2: There is no case against it raised that isn’t retracted
3: There is the pastoral aspect of theology. People have had an experience which is partly resolved , managed and directed by its study and consideration. You no longer need to get on board.
4: As well as pastoral impacts, Theology has had a vast influence on Western philosophy and science.
While the contribution of so called New Atheists beside it is......perhaps a bit more than graffiti more a bit of vandalism.
2 is clearly bollocks, and none of these “reasons" tell you a single thing about whether any of theology's claims and assertions are actually true.
Which is rather the point I’d have thought.
-
Perce,
False analogy – hypotheses about a multiverse and string theory are:
1. Based at least on known principles
2. In principle investigable if ever we had the tools and means to do it
3. Posited as possible answers (that’s the “hypotheses” part). They are not asserted to be facts
Theology on the other hand is:
1. Based on no known logical principles
2. Non-investigable - “faith” is all it has, and there’s no means to investigate faith claims
3. Posited as fact – the premises (“god” etc) and the conclusions (also “god” etc) are the same things, and we’re just supposed to take theologians’ assertions as true because they (or their “holy” books) say so
Then again, you knew all this already didn’t you.
2 is clearly bollocks, and none of these “reasons" tell you a single thing about whether any of theology's claims and assertions are actually true.
Which is rather the point I’d have thought.
Hillside, I will try to get round for a more thorough dissection of this post.
For the time being it’s not methodological materialism versus God it is Philosophy, pastoral studies, theology and methodological materialism........the philosophy could be yours.
Lastly for now Vis a vis retraction, yes I admit hyperbole there but what atheist, when the going gets tough, does not retreat to atheism is merely the lack of belief in God/s?
-
Vlad,
Hillside, I will try to get round for a more thorough dissection of this post.
Rather than do that, why not:
1. Address my explanation of where you went wrong re the CR; and
2. Try at least to understand why scientific hypotheses and theological claims of fact are not in same epistemological category.
For the time being it’s not methodological materialism versus God it is Philosophy, pastoral studies, theology and methodological materialism........the philosophy could be yours.
Irrelevant gibberish. Rather than attempt terms you don’t understand, why not try at least to respond in plain terms to what’s actually been explained to you?
Lastly for now Vis a vis retraction, yes I admit hyperbole there but what atheist, when the going gets tough, does not retreat to atheism is merely the lack of belief in God/s?
First, it’s not a “retreat” – that’s what atheism is.
Second, your problem with the CR isn’t one of hyperbole. Your problem is that you don’t understand (or choose to misrepresent) the basic thrust of the argument. In plain terms I set out for you in Reply 30 what the CR is actually about – you should retract your OP not because of your hyperbolic language, but because you got that wrong.
-
Vlad,
Rather than do that, why not:
1. Address my explanation of where you went wrong re the CR; and
OK It’s shite........addressed enough for you?
Theology and the kings new clothes is bad analogy, category error, argument from disbelief and horses laugh. Anything else you need or will that do to be getting on with?
-
But nobody knows if the multiverse or string theories exist. Should we dismiss those?
Yes if you like.
Reasons for theology
1: There are sufficient numbers that want it.
Sufficient numbers of what? People? I would say that very few people want theology. Lots of them want religion, but that's not the same thing.
2: There is no case against it raised that isn’t retracted
The major case against theology is that it is the study of something that is almost certainly imaginary. I don't think that case has been retracted.
3: There is the pastoral aspect of theology. People have had an experience which is partly resolved , managed and directed by its study and consideration. You no longer need to get on board.
You are conflating religion and theology.
4: As well as pastoral impacts, Theology has had a vast influence on Western philosophy and science.
So have alchemy and astrology. Modern chemistry and astronomy grew out of them. It hasn't stopped them from being bollocks though.
-
Yes if you like.
Now that is consistency.
Although unlike you I think we should consider them but under the title philosophy ditto God.
-
Vlad,
OK It’s shite........addressed enough for you?
You couldn't do it could you. Not even once. No matter how persistently wrong you are and no matter how often you're corrected, you'll never, ever have the wit or the honesty to deal with problems you give yourself.
Replies 8 & 30 explain clearly what the CR actually entails. If you can't or won't deal with that, that's a matter for you. Until you either muster a refuting argument of your own or retract your OP though the only thing that's "shite" here is your OP.
-
Vlad,
Theology and the kings new clothes is bad analogy, category error, argument from disbelief and horses laugh. Anything else you need or will that do to be getting on with?
Either deal with the correction you've been given or don't. Just lying and evading doesn't help you though.
-
Vlad,
Either deal with the correction you've been given or don't. Just lying and evading doesn't help you though.
Yes I have I believe I conceded that of course what the courtier said in the story was fallacious and there are examples of it in politics. It is also true that commenting on something you don’t know about can also be fallacious. Dawkins well and truly falls into the second category.
Even atheists such as the courageous and philosophically trained Michael Ruse said as much.
-
Although unlike you I think we should consider them but under the title philosophy ditto God.
Why are you obsessed with labels? Why do you need a title? In any case, did you not know that all of science is a branch of philosophy? In fact, Newton, great scientist though he was, lived before the term "science" was coined. He would have called himself a "natural philosopher".
-
Yes I have I believe I conceded that of course what the courtier said in the story was fallacious and there are examples of it in politics. It is also true that commenting on something you don’t know about can also be fallacious. Dawkins well and truly falls into the second category.
Even atheists such as the courageous and philosophically trained Michael Ruse said as much.
What comment on theology has Dawkins made that is incorrect?
-
Vlad,
Yes I have I believe I conceded that of course what the courtier said in the story was fallacious and there are examples of it politics. It is also true that commenting on something you don’t know about can also be fallacious. Dawkins well and truly falls into the second category.
So close – but then you fell in a heap again. “Commenting on something you don’t know about” isn’t what the CR is about. Try reading Replies 8 & 30 to understand why. If I said “leprechauns are real and here’s why”, you identified my reasons as false, and I replied, “but your opinion is worthless because you don’t have my detailed knowledge of leprechaunal ways and doings gleaned from years of study of the holy leprechaun texts” then you’d understand what the CR is actually about. And if ever you did do that, maybe you’d finally understand that the CR isn’t about a “...bad analogy, category error, argument from disbelief and horses laugh” at all.
Even atheists such as the courageous and philosophically trained Michael Ruse said as much.
I assume you’re attempting a joke here right?
-
Yes if you like.
Sufficient numbers of what? People? I would say that very few people want theology. Lots of them want religion, but that's not the same thing.The major case against theology is that it is the study of something that is almost certainly imaginary. I don't think that case has been retracted. You are conflating religion and theology.So have alchemy and astrology. Modern chemistry and astronomy grew out of them. It hasn't stopped them from being bollocks though.
What parts of alchemy and astrology remain in chemistry and astronomy if they are evolved from them.
God being almost certainly ( isn’t that a peculiar phrase? )imaginary is a belief isn’t it?
-
Vlad,
So close – but then you fell in a heap again. “Commenting on something you don’t know about” isn’t what the CR is about. Try reading Replies 8 & 30 to understand why. If I said “leprechauns are real and here’s why”, you identified my reasons as false, and I replied, “but your opinion is worthless because you don’t have my detailed knowledge of leprechaunal ways and doings gleaned from years of study of the holy leprechaun texts” then you’d understand what the CR is actually about. And if ever you did do that, maybe you’d finally understand that the CR isn’t about a “...bad analogy, category error, argument from disbelief and horses laugh” at all.
I assume you’re attempting a joke here right?
No Dawkins is the Joke.
-
What parts of alchemy and astrology remain in chemistry and astronomy if they are evolved from them.
Who says any part has to remain? Has anything useful at all ever evolved out of theology?
God being almost certainly ( isn’t that a peculiar phrase? )imaginary is a belief isn’t it?
I think it's fair to say that the Christian version of God does not exist just based on the fact that the concept of the Christian god is incoherent.
-
Vlad,
So close – but then you fell in a heap again. “Commenting on something you don’t know about” isn’t what the CR is about. Try reading Replies 8 & 30 to understand why. If I said “leprechauns are real and here’s why”, you identified my reasons as false, and I replied, “but your opinion is worthless because you don’t have my detailed knowledge of leprechaunal ways and doings gleaned from years of study of the holy leprechaun texts” then you’d understand what the CR is actually about. And if ever you did do that, maybe you’d finally understand that the CR isn’t about a “...bad analogy, category error, argument from disbelief and horses laugh” at all.
From someone who keeps coming up with variable definitions of Leprechauns from little men to indistinguishable from Abrahamic divinity you are on dodgy grounds about not knowing about Leprechauns.
You therefore make the same sort of philosophical blunders as Dawkins and put up the same limp excuses.
-
Vlad,
I assume you’re attempting a joke here right?
Less of a joke more of a ruse.
-
From someone who keeps coming up with variable definitions of Leprechauns from little men to indistinguishable from Abrahamic divinity you are on dodgy grounds about not knowing about Leprechauns.
How would you know? What are your credentials in leprechaunology?
-
Who says any part has to remain? Has anything useful at all ever evolved out of theology?
I think it's fair to say that the Christian version of God does not exist just based on the fact that the concept of the Christian god is incoherent.
There are a lot of views on what the Christian God is.Why alight on one which is incoherent?
-
Vlad,
Less of a joke more of a ruse.
Feeling better now? So anyway, back to your OP where you said:
“The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.”
You now know that that’s not what the CR is about at all because I’ve explained it to you (twice – Replies 8 & 30). The CR is actually about people who aren’t ignorant of a subject (foundational arguments for gods) being told their reasoning is inadmissible because they are ignorant of unrelated theological claims about the attributes of those supposed gods, even though the latter arguments have no relevance to the former.
So now all you have to do is to amend your OP to say something like: “Amendment: I now realise that my OP was fundamentally mistaken about what the CR actually entails so I hereby withdraw it.”
What’s stopping you?
-
How would you know? What are your credentials in leprechaunology?
I am one.
-
There are a lot of views on what the Christian God is.Why alight on one which is incoherent?
Which Christians don't believe that God came down from heaven and was made man to save humans from their sins? To do that, he engineered his own execution because that was the only way to circumvent a rule that he made up that sinners must die. And his execution turned out to be trickery because he came alive again after a couple of days but he fell for his own trick because Christians stayed saved.
Then there's the whole all-loving omnipotent, omniscient nonsense which is not even logically consistent. The Christian god is an incoherent mess. He makes Donald Trump seem sane.
-
Vlad,
From someone who keeps coming up with variable definitions of Leprechauns from little men to indistinguishable from Abrahamic divinity you are on dodgy grounds about not knowing about Leprechauns.
You therefore make the same sort of philosophical blunders as Dawkins and put up the same limp excuses.
Whoosh!
-
Vlad,
There are a lot of views on what the Christian God is.Why alight on one which is incoherent?
They're all incoherent.
Have you amended your OP yet? Why not?
-
I am one.
You are a leprechaunology? That doesn't make sense.
Do you mean you are a leprechaun? If so, that doesn't mean you have any credentials in leprechaunology. You wouldn't let a surgeon operate on you if their credentials were "I am a human".
-
Which Christians don't believe that God came down from heaven and was made man to save humans from their sins? To do that, he engineered his own execution because that was the only way to circumvent a rule that he made up that sinners must die. And his execution turned out to be trickery because he came alive again after a couple of days but he fell for his own trick because Christians stayed saved.
Then there's the whole all-loving omnipotent, omniscient nonsense which is not even logically consistent. The Christian god is an incoherent mess.
I don’ t believe that one can come down from an environment that isn’t spatial temporal.
His execution was inevitable given the state of humanity and its reaction to God incarnate.
His resurrection is that of a man raised by God.
Trick, yes there is theology which is not unanimous. But has God tricking the devil. God tricking himself......yes that is in theology to but also not unanimously. I have referred to it as Jesus being the cloak of Christ covering sins. Was it Wesley who wasn’t having any of this or someone else?
All loving, omnipotent omniscient. Lot of platonic ideas here again, not unanimous. Indeed some theologies replace platonic interpretations with the idea of the maximal. Whatever so called philosophical horrors Anselm is allegedly responsible for he does introduce the idea of maximality
So It looks as if the unanimity you seek isn’t quite there as a bit of theological knowledge might have informed you.
-
Vlad,
I don’ t believe that one can come down from an environment that isn’t spatial temporal.
His execution was inevitable given the state of humanity and its reaction to God incarnate.
His resurrection is that of a man raised by God.
Trick, yes there is theology which is not unanimous. But has God tricking the devil. God tricking himself......yes that is in theology to but also not unanimously. I have referred to it as Jesus being the cloak of Christ covering sins. Was it Wesley who wasn’t having any of this or someone else?
All loving, omnipotent omniscient. Lot of platonic ideas here again, not unanimous. Indeed some theologies replace platonic interpretations with the idea of the maximal. Whatever so called philosophical horrors Anselm is allegedly responsible for he does introduce the idea of maximality
So It looks as if the unanimity you seek isn’t quite there as a bit of theological knowledge might have informed you.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:28:01 PM by The Suppository of Norman Wisdom »
None of which conjectures and fancies have anything whatever to say about whether or not there's good reason to think there to be god (or gods) in the first place – hence the CR.
Have you withdrawn your OP yet?
Why not?
-
I don’ t believe that one can come down from an environment that isn’t spatial temporal.
His execution was inevitable given the state of humanity and its reaction to God incarnate.
His resurrection is that of a man raised by God.
Trick, yes there is theology which is not unanimous. But has God tricking the devil. God tricking himself......yes that is in theology to but also not unanimously. I have referred to it as Jesus being the cloak of Christ covering sins. Was it Wesley who wasn’t having any of this or someone else?
So you don't deny it's an incoherent mess.
-
Vlad,
None of which conjectures and fancies have anything whatever to say about whether or not there's good reason to think there to be god (or gods) in the first place – hence the CR.
Have you withdrawn your OP yet?
Why not?
The meet,right and correct response is No because you want it removed.
-
So you don't deny it's an incoherent mess.
I think we have done this before.
-
Vlad,
The meet,right and correct response is No because you want it removed.
No, having had your mistake explained to you and as you’re unable to refute the correction, the “meet, right and correct response” of someone with any integrity would be to withdraw their original misrepresentation.
Oh hang on though – it’s you isn’t it. Integrity? What was I thinking?
-
I think we have done this before.
And you lost last time too.
The Christian god is an incoherent, logically inconsistent concept. In fact so much so that even you admitted "there are a lot of views on what the Christian God is".
-
And you lost last time too.
The Christian god is an incoherent, logically inconsistent concept. In fact so much so that even you admitted "there are a lot of views on what the Christian God is".
No, some views of Christianity are incoherent.
We dont know enough about love because of and it's certainly not in the category of omniscience and omnipotence but hell Jeremy there isn't unanimity on what omnipotence might be.As for omniscience well I've seen convinced nee atheists declare that science has the potential to offer that.
Now if you want incoherence. Look no further than moral idealists condemn the morality of Christianity.
-
No, some views of Christianity are incoherent.
Some is enough.
We dont know enough about love because of and it's certainly not in the category of omniscience and omnipotence
Nobody said it was, but if you examine the world we live in, it's quite clear that, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent god, it doesn't love us.
but hell Jeremy there isn't unanimity on what omnipotence might be.As for omniscience well I've seen convinced nee atheists declare that science has the potential to offer that.
Do you realise that every time you say "there isn't unanimity about property X of God", you strengthen the case for the concept being incoherent.
-
Some is enough.
Nobody said it was, but if you examine the world we live in, it's quite clear that, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent god, it doesn't love us.
Do you realise that every time you say "there isn't unanimity about property X of God", you strengthen the case for the concept being incoherent.
How?
-
Vlad,
Your OP has been shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest. Why are you persisting with it?
-
Vlad,
Your OP has been shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest. Why are you persisting with it?
Just a quick suggestion Hillside. The big analysis you did on CR? Did you actually apply it to the original story to see if it fits. If it doesn't, the fact that it isn't about the courtiers reply and therefore falls at the first hurdle.
I doubt for instance if HCA didn't have obvious falsehood in mind when he wrote the story. Since God is obvious bollocks is an opinion we don't have to share or feel guilty for the non sharing, I think I may just have spent a wee bit too much time indulging you.
-
Vlad,
Just a quick suggestion Hillside. The big analysis you did on CR? Did you actually apply it to the original story to see if it fits. If it doesn't, the fact that it isn't about the courtiers reply and therefore falls at the first hurdle.
Dear god but you struggle. Are you really that dim, or are you just lying again because it gives you a thrill of some kind? I know you’ve always struggled with the concept of an analogy, but this is ridiculous. The CR isn’t actually about a naked emperor. You do understand that right?
Do you?
The CR is an ANALOGY – it’s just a useful way to illustrate the IDEA that you cannot dismiss criticisms of foundational arguments about the existence of something on the ground of insufficient information about the (supposed) attribute of that (supposed) thing. What that thing happens to be is neither here nor there.
C’mon now, even someone as unironic and intellectually limited as you should be able to grasp this at some dim level of comprehension surely.
Shouldn’t you?
I doubt for instance if HCA didn't have obvious falsehood in mind when he wrote the story. Since God is obvious bollocks is an opinion we don't have to share or feel guilty for the non sharing, I think I may just have spent a wee bit too much time indulging you.
Stop digging!
-
Vlad,
Dear god but you struggle. Are you really that dim, or are you just lying again because it gives you a thrill of some kind? I know you’ve always struggled with the concept of an analogy, but this is ridiculous. The CR isn’t actually about a naked emperor. You do understand that right?
Do you?
The CR is an ANALOGY – it’s just a useful way to illustrate the idea that you cannot dismiss criticisms of foundational arguments about the existence of something on the ground of insufficient information about the (supposed) attribute of that (supposed) thing. What that thing happens to be is neither here nor there.
C’mon now, even someone as unironic and intellectually limited as you should be able to grasp this at some dim level of comprehension surely.
Mustn’t you?
Stop digging!
Hillside, I fear you are projecting again at Golden age of Cinema proportions. My post prior to yours strongly hints at the use of the term Courtiers Reply being bad analogy. But that happens in an emergency when your emperor Dawkins having made a complete tool of himself needed a cover story.
-
Vlad,
Hillside, I fear you are projecting again at Golden age of Cinema proportions. My post prior to yours strongly hints at the use of the term Courtiers Reply being bad analogy. But that happens in an emergency when your emperor Dawkins having made a complete tool of himself needed a cover story.
If you think it's a bad analogy then you need to say why. Talking about HCA's intentions though betrays the fact that you utterly misunderstand (or lie about) what the ANALOGY entails. Again: the CR just a useful way to illustrate the idea that you cannot dismiss criticisms of foundational arguments about the existence of something on the ground of insufficient information about the (supposed) attributes of that (supposed) thing. What that thing happens to be is neither here nor there.
Suggest you start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy