Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#21

Post by foldr »

amichail wrote: post #9
unalone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts an…

What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?

Ok, before answering that question, I'd like to ask you the following question:

How much philosophy have you read?

If the answer is "none" or "very little", don't ask people here what the accomplishments of philosophy are, but go and actually _read some_ and find out for yourself.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#22

Post by amichail »

dantheman wrote: post #17
amichail wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?

Philosophy has had many accomplishments, it's where the questions first get asked. In general it's where ideas get refined and understood enough to go out and be acted upon -- before it can be science it needs to through it's philosophical stages. Heidegger, an amazing existentialist, laid out a lot of problems that AI was going to have in the 50s. http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/d... The s…

The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do.

What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#23

Post by foldr »

fnid wrote: post #19
amichail wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?

I would say Questions are the greatest accomplishments of philosophy. There are many questions out there, the meaning of life, where we came from, what happens when we die. These are philosophical questions in origin. Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer.

>Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer.

I think that's a little harsh on philosophy. Scientists don't have a monopoly on rationality. There are many areas of philosophy (e.g. moral philosophy) where scientific methods are far from sufficient (though useful), but where we still benefit from clear and rational thinking.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#24

Post by foldr »

amichail wrote: post #22
dantheman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy has had many accomplishments, it's where the questions first get asked. In general it's where ideas get refined and understood enough to go out and be acted upon -- before it can be science it needs to through it's philosophical stages. Heidegger, an amazing existentialist, laid out a lot of problems that AI was going to have in the 50s. http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/d... The s…

The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?

>The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do.

Of course it is a reasonable thing to do, e.g. "Is there any milk left in the fridge?"

I suppose you're asking whether it's reasonable to ask "deep" questions without scientific training. I think that it is -- moral questions are an obvious example -- but in any case, bear in mind that most philosophers whose work touches on scientific issues _do_ have some scientific training.

It's really not possible to consider all this at such an abstract level. If you have something against philosophy or philosophers, you'd do well to point out some concrete examples of what you're talking about, instead of engaging in this sort of generic scientistic whining.

The biggest irony here is that your views are taken almost verbatim from a philosophical movement of the early 20th century (logical positivism). One benefit of reading some philosophy is coming to a realization of how unoriginal virtually all of your ideas are, and how much they owe to the intellectual culture you were brought up in.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#25

Post by khafra »

amichail wrote: post #18
khafra wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy is sometimes considered the parent of the sciences--just about every pursuit of knowledge used to be philosophy. Once they were systematized, testable, and useful enough to stand on their own, they became sciences.

That's like saying that the major accomplishment of religion is that it led to science.

I don't disagree with that by much. Religious institutions in the past have preserved or advanced scientific discovery at times. The difference is that Philosophy consists of seeking the truth, institutionalized religion usually consists of defending the truth. Religions may spawn some scientific inquiry, but they have a lot of trouble letting their children go off and live their own lives, so to speak.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#26

Post by dantheman »

amichail wrote: post #22
dantheman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy has had many accomplishments, it's where the questions first get asked. In general it's where ideas get refined and understood enough to go out and be acted upon -- before it can be science it needs to through it's philosophical stages. Heidegger, an amazing existentialist, laid out a lot of problems that AI was going to have in the 50s. http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/d... The s…

The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do. What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?

What is scientific training? Logic & Mathematics? I was having a discussion in another thread about the demarcation of science and pseudoscience, and despite decades of trying the only definition is that works is consensus of other scientists. Most scientists believe physics is science while astrology is not.

I'd say that I don't hold philosophers or scientists or mathematicians as the ultimate questioner. I believe that they are each skilled in different areas, and are probably best at asking questions in those areas.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#27

Post by unalone »

fnid wrote: post #16
unalone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts an…

I suspect you knew this, but many religions suggest we actually are living on the back of a gigantic turtle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popula...

That's what I was alluding to. That and the Turtles All The Way Down story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#28

Post by unalone »

foldr wrote: post #15
unalone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts an…

>Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God That's just not true. There's plenty of theology which you can enter into without a prior assumption of the existence of god. The most obvious example would be arguments _for_ the existence of God! But in general, most of theology can be appreciated while taking God's existence as a hypothetical. E.g. you can consider whether or not the existence…

I have. I took a course on religion last semester. Generally, I agreed with and loved the various sociological theories—the things that tried to explain the psychological origins of religion, for instance, were fascinating. But past a certain point, I find that I lose interest. I can't entertain a debate over whether evil could exist under a good God, because I don't believe in God or in evil.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#29

Post by unalone »

isamuel wrote: post #12
unalone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts an…

I agree with the thrust of what you write. But this is wrong: "Philosophy requires no 'givens', which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it." In 1748, David Hume explained why this isn't right. Hume was a philosopher himself. The most important assumption that you must make in the natural sciences and in every brand of philosophy with which I'm familiar is causal…

Huh! I guess that shows me to be the philosophical amateur I am. I always assume causality without thinking about it. Whoops.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#30

Post by chrischen »

moss wrote: post #14
chrischen wrote: post #5

> There is no master plan. As much as I am an atheist, I still think no one can ever make that claim. He should have said, there is no evidence yet of a master plan, or there probably is no master plan. This same thing would apply to the existence of God. Unfortunately this logical fallacy (of prematurely concluding the nonexistence of something that theoretically can't be proved to not exist) beholds too many atheis…

Nothing we believe about the outside world is unassailably justified by logic alone. Even the surest statements (that the sun will come up tomorrow, for example) are based on a fallible interpretation of the evidence available at the time. That's no reason to stop making statements--it turns out a preponderance of evidence is enough, generally. It just means some of your beliefs sometimes turn out to be wrong.

What about statements like 1*1 = 1. I can be sure about that, but unsure about something like the existence of God.
Post reply on HN