The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence. — Wayfarer
You might at least acknowledge that science was deprived of any notion of purpose by religious fundamentalists who insisted that religious texts were definitive - and that science was suspect of heresy. — counterpunch
I am new - and friends (hold on now) I am Swedish (dumb and slow) so enlighten me and pardon my bad English... — Iris0
In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence. — Wayfarer
I wouldn’t acknowledge it, because I think it’s a caricature of history. As I’ve said, you hold a very one-eyed, black v white image of history but the reality is hugely more complex than you allow. — Wayfarer
That is, itself, an irrational belief. — Kenosha Kid
Answer the argument — counterpunch
It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences. — Wayfarer
It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences. — Wayfarer
The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence. — Wayfarer
WF speaks to an impoverished view of evolution — counterpunch
I can look up at the night sky, understand that all of it is pointless, that it's just physics and chemistry producing all of what I see, and I can still be in awe, without having to bullshit any of it and apply delusions upon it in order to feel a sense of meaning. — Christoffer
But (as I already suggested in another post in this thread) humans seem to experience God - have done and still do. — Iris0
And when you see their accounts on what and who - they more or less come down on one identified jewish person: Jesus. Are they all delusional and even when and if they did not ask for it - being they were muslims or jews - or secular or atheist (have seen loads of these testimonies on youtube or are they saying - WHAT? — Iris0
These testimonies do beg a question: if they are true then what? — Iris0
Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."
— baker
Not logically. One could say something like, 'There is no perfect, omnipotent God who would not allow a Holocaust." — Kenosha Kid
why would humans end up in the gutter just because their lives are meaningless and they fill them with what they know and want? — Iris0
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.