BBC 1 TV News at 1300 today.

[Gordon]

And why does the ability to frame a question entail that there's actually an answer to it?

Indeed - or that the question being asked is valid in the first place.

[Hope]

Lots, but the point rather is that 26 bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords because they are bishops.

Well, perhaps you'll join the calls - often led by the Church of England itself - for its disestablishment.  That would open the doors to leaders of other Christian denominations as well as leaders of other faiths to sitting in that House.

And you're playing fast and loose here with the term "religious".

Sorry, bhs, you're the one playing fast and loose with the term 'religious'.  I was referring to all those within the British population who align themselves with one of the many religious faiths that exist throughout the world.  I WAS NOT referring exclusively to Christianity, let alone to a single form of that faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

I'm not so sure, bhs.  Or are you suggesting that the disadvantaged, the marginalised and the poor have no right to be listened to?

You're missing it. Arguments fight for their place in the sun according to their merits - whether they're logically robust and coherent etc. The difference with some religious people though is that they think they should be listened to just because their arguments are articles of faith. They really think that "but that's my faith" should be treated with special respect rather than with a "so what?".

That's the point. 

[Hope]

... , but science has a much better track record of answering "the fundamental questions about reality" than anything else we have, ...

Is this why science has such a poor track record with anything that is not purely physical?

[Shaker]

Is this why science has such a poor track record with anything that is not purely physical?

Such as what, and what methodology is there for examining it?

[Hope]

What questions would these be?

Questions such as 'Does the natural world have a purpose?'; 'Is science able to answer questions that do not relate to purely physical elements of life?'.

I'm not sure that simply suggesting that these questions are valid or not is a real response.  If anything, they sound more like avoiding the issues.

[Gordon]

Is this why science has such a poor track record with anything that is not purely physical?

Examples?

[Hope]

Such as what, and what methodology is there for examining it?

Precisely, Shakes; is there any methodology for examining and assessing the validity of the scientific method as the sole way of explaining reality?  Where is the independent methodology by which to test the pro-science claims?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Well, perhaps you'll join the calls - often led by the Church of England itself - for its disestablishment.  That would open the doors to leaders of other Christian denominations as well as leaders of other faiths to sitting in that House.

Again you miss it. That members of the HofL also happen to be christians, muslims or spaghetti-monsterists is neither here nor there provided they have the requisite skills for the job. What's being objected to though is the demand that some have their place just because they are christians etc

Sorry, bhs, you're the one playing fast and loose with the term 'religious'.  I was referring to all those within the British population who align themselves with one of the many religious faiths that exist throughout the world.  I WAS NOT referring exclusively to Christianity, let alone to a single form of that faith.

No I'm not. What does "align themselves" mean do you think? Do you mean those who actively participate in the rituals of their faith, or those who happen to tick the box on a census form once every few years but give it no further thought than that?

[Shaker]

Precisely, Shakes; is there any methodology for examining and assessing the validity of the scientific method as the sole way of explaining reality?  Where is the independent methodology by which to test the pro-science claims?

If anything that sounds exactly avoiding giving an answer to the question I asked you.

[Shaker]

Questions such as 'Does the natural world have a purpose?'; 'Is science able to answer questions that do not relate to purely physical elements of life?'.

I'm not sure that simply suggesting that these questions are valid or not is a real response.  If anything, they sound more like avoiding the issues.

It's an entirely real response, and one that you can't tackle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Questions such as 'Does the natural world have a purpose?';

Why do you think that to be a coherent question without first establishing a "something" to decide what that purpose might be?

'Is science able to answer questions that do not relate to purely physical elements of life?'.

Why do you think there are things that are "non-physical" rather than just emergent properties of the physical?

I'm not sure that simply suggesting that these questions are valid or not is a real response.  If anything, they sound more like avoiding the issues.

Yes it is. If they aren't meaningful questions, they aren't meaningful questions.

Why don't unicorns tap dance on Tuesdays? Care to answer that, or will you "avoid the issue"?

[Hope]

Again you miss it. That members of the HofL also happen to be christians, muslims or spaghetti-monsterists is neither here nor there provided they have the requisite skills for the job. What's being objected to though is the demand that some have their place just because they are christians etc

So, as I said, join the campaign to have the CofE disestablished.  With the exception of 50-odd Lords who hold their seats by right of birth - and i believe that that will die with them - the 26 Bishops (many of whom choose not the take up that right, by the way) are the only block that hold seats because of what they are, as opposed to by merit.

No I'm not. What does "align themselves" mean do you think? Do you mean those who actively participate in the rituals of their faith, or those who happen to tick the box on a census form once every few years but give it no further thought than that?

I would use the former definition; several of the reports and articles that ippy quotes would seem - by the references used within them - would seem to be talking about the latter.

[Gordon]

Questions such as 'Does the natural world have a purpose?'; 'Is science able to answer questions that do not relate to purely physical elements of life?'.

So, what method(s) would you employ to define, detect and quantify 'purpose'

I'm not sure that simply suggesting that these questions are valid or not is a real response.  If anything, they sound more like avoiding the issues.

Don't be daft - querying whether or not the question being asked is valid, as in being amenable to being investigated, is perfectly reasonable since there are possible fallacies awaiting any careless thinking.

[Shaker]

Don't be daft - querying whether or not the question being asked is valid, as in being amenable to being investigated, is perfectly reasonable since there are possible fallacies awaiting any careless thinking.

Oodles and oodles of them, Gordon

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

So, as I said, join the campaign to have the CofE disestablished.  With the exception of 50-odd Lords who hold their seats by right of birth - and i believe that that will die with them - the 26 Bishops (many of whom choose not the take up that right, by the way) are the only block that hold seats because of what they are, as opposed to by merit.

Exactly. Then perhaps we can turn to exemptions from non-discrimination laws, faith schools, special relaxations for charitable status...

I would use the former definition; several of the reports and articles that ippy quotes would seem - by the references used within them - would seem to be talking about the latter.

If the former, then in many countries the numbers are dwindlingly small and shrinking. And yes the report also refers as I understand it more to the latter, which is why it argues against the excessive influence of the C of E on the lives of the rest of us.   

[Hope]

Why do you think that to be a coherent question without first establishing a "something" to decide what that purpose might be?

I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.

Why do you think there are things that are "non-physical" rather than just emergent properties of the physical?

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that wonderfully jargonistic phrase 'emergent properties of the physical'?

Yes it is. If they aren't meaningful questions, they aren't meaningful questions.

Do you have any methodology for deciding that they aren't meaningful?

Why don't unicorns tap dance on Tuesdays? Care to answer that, or will you "avoid the issue"?

Good try at avoidance.  Do you have any evidence that they don't?  Note that I have never mentioned unicorns in any of my posts other than in response to posts that already mention them - often within quote markers, so you need to provide the proof of your suggestion.

[Gordon]

I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.

How has 'humanity' done this? Your argument here looks like a Straw Man.

Good try at avoidance.  Do you have any evidence that they don't?

The old negative proof fallacy yet again: mind you, it is your favourite!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Why do you keep putting yourself through this? Surely you can see by now that you'll keep getting eaten alive when you do?

Ah well...

I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.

That's a dubious assertion at best but, even if it were to be true it's also and argumentum ad populum - a basic logical error. Worse still, there are countless beliefs in many different "somethings" to decide on a "purpose", and none of them in any case offer a method of any kind to distinguish their answers from just guessing.

Apart from that though... 

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that wonderfully jargonistic phrase 'emergent properties of the physical'?

"Emergent property" is a standard term - a snowflake for example is an emergent property of ice crystals. Why not just look it up?

Do you have any methodology for deciding that they aren't meaningful?

Several - failure to define terms, use of non sequiturs, non-establishment of premises etc.

Good try at avoidance.  Do you have any evidence that they don't?  Note that I have never mentioned unicorns in any of my posts other than in response to posts that already mention them - often within quote markers, so you need to provide the proof of your suggestion.

Sorry, my bad - I forgot there that I was dealing with an entirely un-nuanced mind so argument by analogy founders in the face of your literalism. The point is that it's entirely possible to construct a grammatically correct question that is nonetheless meaningless. If you can just assume the supposedly "non-physical" and frame a question around it, then it would be special pleading to deny me the right just to assume tap-dancing unicorns and to frame a question around that.

It's a simple enough point I'd have thought.   

[Outrider]

Is this why science has such a poor track record with anything that is not purely physical?

Like radio, microwaves, x-rays, magnetism? Or did you mean the things outside the remit of, say, the physical realm... things which we have no reason to think actually exist...

Physics, I'll freely confess, is notoriously poor at explaining things that we have no reason to think actually exist.

O.

[Outrider]

I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.

I don't see that humanity has decided that it has a purpose - certainly not a collective one that's shared by even a majority. Individual humans select a purpose, some of those organise into collectives, but I'm not aware of any of those that are world-wide.

Even if there were, the fact that people have decided on a purpose doesn't imply that the purpose is external - they aren't necessarily 'realising' a purpose imposed on them, but rather generating one for themselves.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that wonderfully jargonistic phrase 'emergent properties of the physical'?

Complex arrangements of physical phenomena - say, brain cells - are capable of producing subtle, nuanced behaviours that seem at first blush to exceed the capacity of the components.

Do you have any methodology for deciding that they aren't meaningful?

If you're asking a question that implies a conclusion that hasn't actually been demonstrated, then you're begging the question - in that instance, your question may not be meaningful.

Good try at avoidance.  Do you have any evidence that they don't?  Note that I have never mentioned unicorns in any of my posts other than in response to posts that already mention them - often within quote markers, so you need to provide the proof of your suggestion.

Except that the question parodies theological questions - you differentiate between 'God' and 'unicorns' for what seem to be entirely arbitrary reasons. You have equal levels of evidence for both, which is just references in old books of questionable provenance, insufficient to the incredible claims made.

So far the attempts to justify treating God as a different category of claim from 'pixies', 'elves', 'brownies', 'dragons', 'unicorns' and other magical creatures haven't succeeded.

O.

[ippy]

I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that wonderfully jargonistic phrase 'emergent properties of the physical'?
Do you have any methodology for deciding that they aren't meaningful?
Good try at avoidance.  Do you have any evidence that they don't?  Note that I have never mentioned unicorns in any of my posts other than in response to posts that already mention them - often within quote markers, so you need to provide the proof of your suggestion.

"Here We Go Again_________"

ippy

[Hope]

I don't see that humanity has decided that it has a purpose - certainly not a collective one that's shared by even a majority. Individual humans select a purpose, some of those organise into collectives, but I'm not aware of any of those that are world-wide.

There are many 'purposes' that are world-wide, in so far as they are represented in every nation of the world - the push for human rights, the push for mitigation of climate change.  They may not be universal in that not every person alive agrees with them.  However, one that is probably slightly more relvant to this question is that of democracy.

Even if there were, the fact that people have decided on a purpose doesn't imply that the purpose is external - they aren't necessarily 'realising' a purpose imposed on them, but rather generating one for themselves.

I think that if a majority of hmaniy has decided on a purpose - such as those mentioned above - those will not have appeared merely by chance; they will be inherent in human nature.

Complex arrangements of physical phenomena - say, brain cells - are capable of producing subtle, nuanced behaviours that seem at first blush to exceed the capacity of the components.

Examples?  I would have to admit that, whilst I fully accept the complexity of the human brain, I've never heard of a behaviour that I have believed exceeded the capacity of the components.

Except that the question parodies theological questions - you differentiate between 'God' and 'unicorns' for what seem to be entirely arbitrary reasons. You have equal levels of evidence for both, which is just references in old books of questionable provenance, insufficient to the incredible claims made.

Except that I don't even mention unicorns in the same context as God.  I know you do so, though.

So far the attempts to justify treating God as a different category of claim from 'pixies', 'elves', 'brownies', 'dragons', 'unicorns' and other magical creatures haven't succeeded.

I've noticed, O.  Whenever you nor any of the other pixie/unicorn/elves/dragons/... claimants have mentioned them, your comments have been largely ignorted.

By the way, I can confirm that there are such beings as 'Dragons' - they attend the Dragon School in N. Oxford!!  I am, myself, an Old Dragon!!   

O.
[/quote]

[BashfulAnthony]

"Here We Go Again_________"

ippy

    A comment that could be aimed at almost every post you make!

[Outrider]

There are many 'purposes' that are world-wide, in so far as they are represented in every nation of the world - the push for human rights, the push for mitigation of climate change.  They may not be universal in that not every person alive agrees with them.  However, one that is probably slightly more relevant to this question is that of democracy.

Unfortunately not nearly enough of humanity has settled on any of those.

I think that if a majority of hmaniy has decided on a purpose - such as those mentioned above - those will not have appeared merely by chance; they will be inherent in human nature.

That's entirely possible, yes. Another possibility is that they are objectively useful in maintaining social structures and we have developed them repeatedly in parallel out of pragmatism.

Examples?  I would have to admit that, whilst I fully accept the complexity of the human brain, I've never heard of a behaviour that I have believed exceeded the capacity of the components.

Perhaps, many do - those are the properties that are described as 'emergent', things like consciousness.

Except that I don't even mention unicorns in the same context as God.  I know you do so, though.

I hadn't intended to imply that you do, just to explain why we do.

By the way, I can confirm that there are such beings as 'Dragons' - they attend the Dragon School in N. Oxford!!  I am, myself, an Old Dragon!!   

Newport has a colony of them, so I'm told

O.