Bazza Posted February 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 1: I have read very little philosophy (even Comte), so I don't think I can answer this. I certainly haven't read enough of positivism to know if I find it adequately complete on a personal basis; I don't consider that sort of question as a general rule, and I don't trust any author enough to consider a single work to be a complete reference on anything. Frankly, I suspect that it is actually a fundamental error to think that question might have a unique, eternal answer, because human perception is so limited in scale (both physical and temporal scales) and so irremediably rooted in experience within a stunningly limited range of physical conditions that intuition will always generate a preference for familiar hypotheses even if those hypotheses are demonstrably fallacious. 2: Pretty sure it was The Course, but I would have to track down some old notes (or re-do the reading) to be certain. 3: C. Catholic voices in the US are fragmented enough now (especially with Pope Francis) that it is a mistake to think they have an actively burning desire to exterminate the scientific world view. That's even more true of Christianity in general. But the Religious Right does have that agenda, though it usually manifests itself only in questions in the observational sciences (evolutionary biology, cosmology, atmospheric sciences, epidemiology, physical anthropology, paleontology, etc.)... going after experimental sciences like chemistry only makes them appear to everyone as obvious idiots and even they know it. #1 no worries. #2 no worries. I would make an educated guess that it is the Course, and the other book i think is a one volume condensation, & Comte may have also introduced sociology in it. And if someone else referred to Comte it would more likely be his earlier works which are more popular then his later works. In the whole scheme of things, not important, I'm sure you have more important things to do than to chase down a book reference. #3 you may like to read this which i gather is a history of the politicalisation of evangelical Christianity. Yes it doesn't sound very interesting. I like it as it describes the reason for this politicalisation which was they saw the incoming rise of secular humanism as a competing worldview and opposed it. (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/22/reagans_christian_revolt_how_conservatives_hijacked_american_religion/) Some notes: #A The article refers to the "Christian consensus": "he did not mean that everybody was Christian, but rather, that 'the Christian worldview'the Christian worldview [...] were widely disseminated throughout the culture and were a decisive influence in giving shape to the culture'". Baz: clearly that has changed, the article pegs it at 1930s. #B positivism is not secular humanism. They may share overlap in common (maybe a lot of things in common) however not all secular humanists are positivists, although i surmise a high percentage are. #C not all scientists or those who are quite familiar with science are secular humanists or positivists; one can still follow science and be a Christian. A good example is a current board member who teaches chemistry at a high school. I state this as I don't want to be a pariah... ( ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 #3 you may like to read this which i gather is a history of the politicalisation of evangelical Christianity. Yes it doesn't sound very interesting. I like it as it describes the reason for this politicalisation which was they saw the incoming rise of secular humanism as a competing worldview and opposed it. (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/22/reagans_christian_revolt_how_conservatives_hijacked_american_religion/) Some notes: #A The article refers to the "Christian consensus": "he did not mean that everybody was Christian, but rather, that 'the Christian worldview'the Christian worldview [...] were widely disseminated throughout the culture and were a decisive influence in giving shape to the culture'". Baz: clearly that has changed, the article pegs it at 1930s. Bleah. Fundamentalism as a potent political force in the US goes back WAYYYYYY further than the Ray-gun era; that was merely the time when most recently they started having direct representation in the Cabinet. It drove a lot of massive stupidity in the US in the late 1800s and early 20th Century (see William Jennings Bryan as someone who rode that wave as long as he could), including Prohibition and the wave of rabid anti-Darwinism that took a serious wound (but was not killed) with the Scopes Monkey Trial. I am all but certain that it was an integral part of the political tenor of big chunks of the country well before that (Biblical arguments were used to support the continuation of slavery) but it's harder to discern back before the publication of On the Origin of Species since that in particular seems to be a lightning rod for their ire. #B positivism is not secular humanism. They may share overlap in common (maybe a lot of things in common) however not all secular humanists are positivists, although i surmise a high percentage are."Secular humanist" devolved into a perjorative label that means "it's OK to shoot this one" back around 1980. I own a lapel button that says "Secular Humanist", but I haven't worn it in years. Outside my own stomping grounds, it'd merely attract casual nastiness that I am no longer young enough to combat without recourse to WMDs. #C not all scientists or those who are quite familiar with science are secular humanists or positivists; one can still follow science and be a Christian. A good example is a current board member who teaches chemistry at a high school. I state this as I don't want to be a pariah... ( Any statement that begins "All scientists..." is guaranteed to be a false one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Yea, St. George is 80 miles to the west of us and 2000 feet lower. Yes, 2000 feet would make a big difference. I'm taking a geology course right now. Out unit last week was on sedimentary rocks and the associated formations. I'll bet you've got some pretty spectacular views nearby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 #C not all scientists or those who are quite familiar with science are secular humanists or positivists; one can still follow science and be a Christian. A good example is a current board member who teaches chemistry at a high school. I state this as I don't want to be a pariah... ( ) I'm quite certain I have no idea what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Subtler than a wizard, our Bazza ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueCloud2k2 Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Easy. There are many conceptions of God that I am aware of, even amongst Christians; so it depends which one you want to refer too. Then you are what I would classify as a One-Percenter. Cuz it seems like only 1% of the people I meet understand that God is so incredibly infinite our puny little monkey brains just can't see the whole picture. Which I think is the reason why there multiple religions that (basically) say the same thing but can't agree on some of the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 The best contemporary philosophical outlook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Bleah. Fundamentalism as a potent political force in the US goes back WAYYYYYY further than the Ray-gun era; that was merely the time when most recently they started having direct representation in the Cabinet. It drove a lot of massive stupidity in the US in the late 1800s and early 20th Century (see William Jennings Bryan as someone who rode that wave as long as he could), including Prohibition and the wave of rabid anti-Darwinism that took a serious wound (but was not killed) with the Scopes Monkey Trial. I am all but certain that it was an integral part of the political tenor of big chunks of the country well before that (Biblical arguments were used to support the continuation of slavery) but it's harder to discern back before the publication of On the Origin of Species since that in particular seems to be a lightning rod for their ire. "Secular humanist" devolved into a perjorative label that means "it's OK to shoot this one" back around 1980. I own a lapel button that says "Secular Humanist", but I haven't worn it in years. Outside my own stomping grounds, it'd merely attract casual nastiness that I am no longer young enough to combat without recourse to WMDs. Fair enough Any statement that begins "All scientists..." is guaranteed to be a false one. Fortunately mine started with "Not..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 I'm quite certain I have no idea what you're talking about. *phew* what a relief. Subtler than a wizard, our Bazza ... not just a wizard, but a zelator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemming Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Yes, 2000 feet would make a big difference. I'm taking a geology course right now. Out unit last week was on sedimentary rocks and the associated formations. I'll bet you've got some pretty spectacular views nearby. Zion, Bryce, & the Grand Canyon are nearby, so yea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Yeah but how do you feel about non-Christians being able to do right by God? Easy. There are many conceptions of God that I am aware of, even amongst Christians; so it depends which one you want to refer too. And that statement is not including those theories that come under negative theology which state that in essense God is unknowable. Negative theology is also part of the Christian tradition, i.e. it has its adherents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Yes, 2000 feet would make a big difference. I'm taking a geology course right now. Out unit last week was on sedimentary rocks and the associated formations. I'll bet you've got some pretty spectacular views nearby. I always liked the Vishnu Schist. Great name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Peacemaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Piecemaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 We call those "little kids". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Little kids: Living proof of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueCloud2k2 Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Children: God's punishment for enjoying sex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 ... that, and punishment for all the misdeeds you performed while you were a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Little kids: Living proof of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Did you falsify the data correctly? Was there enough data to publish? Was it peer reviewed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Only someone who has never been a parent would even consider asking those questions. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 touche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 In this context (discussing children), "ouchie" is more appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 So we are thinking of the children? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueCloud2k2 Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 What have the little blighters done now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.