Is it or isn't it?

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

If "objectivity is a myth," then why should I believe anything you say?

...nope, you've lost me on that one !

Quote:

By your definition, Heisenberg was a "naive realist."

...and that one !

Quote:

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.

(Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, 1963)

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Standards of human behavior should not be subject to hair splitting, IMHO

Let's cut right to the chase here Neo. I assume by that statement that you are inferring that the Bible is a good guide for standards of human behavior. Is that correct?

1 Reply

@fresco,

I doubt that your asseverations would seriously apply to incidents of rape, murder, and unprovoked assault.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

. . . Yea Jehovah is a homophobe...

I doubt that he fears anyone or anything, Rex.

0 Replies

@mesquite,

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
Standards of human behavior should not be subject to hair splitting, IMHO

Let's cut right to the chase here Neo. I assume by that statement that you are inferring that the Bible is a good guide for standards of human behavior. Is that correct?

That was the point of my original post. Is it or isn't it?

1 Reply

@neologist,

The bible includes many guides for standards of human behavior, as variously adopted by the various sects, cults or popes who choose to follow them.

Whether your particular exegesis includes a "good" guide all depends on who you're asking. As for me, I think yes, some parts of the bible include what I would call "good" guides for standards of human behaviour. Other parts I would call "bad" or worse.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Understood.

Since I haven't been able to trap any believers in this thread, perhaps you could liven things up by declaring a few of the 'bad guides'

Maybe then, one of them will step in.

2 Replies

@neologist,

OK, let's start with this one about to conduct warfare.

At Deuteronomy 20:10 the god decrees:

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you."

2 Replies

@neologist,

Rape, murder and unprovoked assault are "natural" behaviours which are are normally suppressed in humans by societal forces, and our cognitive understanding of empathy and consequence. In times of war this suppression tends to be suspended because empathy and consequence breaks down.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Rape, murder and unprovoked assault are "natural" behaviours which are are normally suppressed in humans by societal forces, and our cognitive understanding of empathy and consequence. In times of war this suppression tends to be suspended because empathy and consequence breaks down.

Murder is encouraged by societal forces in societies that choose it as a punishment.

1 Reply

@mesquite,

If God is everywhere, perhaps we could put him on trial in the Hague?

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
If "objectivity is a myth," then why should I believe anything you say?

...nope, you've lost me on that one !

I'm not surprised.

By saying "objectivity is a myth," you're attempting to state an objective truth. But if you're right that objectivity is a myth, then your statement "objectivity is a myth" is a meaningless assertion. On the other hand, if objectivity isn't a myth, then you can make objective statements such as "objectivity is a myth," but, on your own terms, you'd be mistaken. So either you're wrong, or else you're wrong. Either way, I don't see why I should believe anything you say.

fresco wrote:

Quote:
By your definition, Heisenberg was a "naive realist."

...and that one !

Quote:
What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
(Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, 1963)

And yet another statement of objective truth. You clearly don't understand Heisenberg. Laughing

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

...A bit boring by now Joe !

What's quite interesting with respect to this thread perhaps was that that Heisenberg was a church-goer (I seem to remember) and chose to stay in Germany during the Nazi era.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

...A bit boring by now Joe !

Your continued inability to defend your own position? Yes, I agree that's getting rather old. But then I'm sure you don't want to endanger your title as the biggest intellectual poseur on this site by actually responding to criticisms.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Sorry ! I don't find the level of your adversarial word games very interesting.

The point at issue here is whether "scripture" is "inspired by God". My contribution has been to point out that for many "believers", the answer is tautologically "yes". A secondary point I made was that "agnostics" do not understand the nature of "evidence" acceptable to "believers" because they (agnostics) cling to a concept of "objective truth". But from the point of view of "reality as a social construction" in which "truth" is agreement about "what works", I argue that agnosticism is untenable because it makes the epistemological and ontological assumption of "objectivity".

It is irrelevent whether you commune with the concept of "social reality" or not. My argument requires no defence.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Sorry ! I don't find the level of your adversarial word games very interesting.

No doubt. You can't offer a response, so you decide it's not very interesting.

fresco wrote:

The point at issue here is whether "scripture" is "inspired by God". My contribution has been to point out that for many "believers", the answer is tautologically "yes".

No, your contribution to this thread, like your contributions to every other thread, is to bang your little drum for your hobbyhorse of non-dualism. You're not a contributor, you're a nuisance and a distraction.

fresco wrote:

It is irrelevent whether you commune with the concept of "social reality" or not. My argument requires no defence.

On the contrary, your argument requires a great deal of defense. It's just that you can't offer one.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Oh dear !

1 Reply

@Eorl,

I think there is a problem with the phrase "society chooses". It may be that "murder" could be described as a societal control mechanism in some societies, but both "choose" and "punish" belong to psychology rather than sociology.

0 Replies

@fresco,

That's what I expected from you! Laughing

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Pleased to oblige !
...and your views on the "inspiration for scripture" are what ?

0 Replies

Is it or isn't it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know