ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 08:17 AM   #161
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,423
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Yep, it's "Going Nuclear!"
Very good article BTW, thank you for sharing.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:23 AM   #162
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,149
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Some religious apologetics is, I think, undergoing a pretty meaningful shift in how it is dealing with the concept of belief, trying to take us back to a pre-enlightment version of it.

Essentially if you notice a lot, lot of the arguments we're starting to see out of the religious apologetics is less "I'm right (or can't be proven wrong) because of Contrived Special Pleading Version Y" as it has been for so long but "I'm wrong but it doesn't matter because belief/happiness/whatever" is more important.

Again for a while now that I've been getting this itchy idea in the back of my head that certain concepts actually have been argued into a corner hard enough that the only way for them to survive is to switch to an even more anti-intellectual "Being right is over-rated, I'm factually wrong but that doesn't matter" angle.
Given the post-fact, truth-isn't-truth, alternative fact period we live in, that's something that's being given some legitimacy, in the eyes of many.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:24 AM   #163
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Very good article BTW, thank you for sharing.
You're welcome!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:25 AM   #164
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,149
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Peterson says we don't know where inspiration comes from.
Sounds like he claims to be a believer but doesn't really believe. I'm sure I can come up with a psycho-babble explanation for that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:25 AM   #165
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Given the post-fact, truth-isn't-truth, alternative fact period we live in, that's something that's being given some legitimacy, in the eyes of many.
Let's not concede facts and truth without a fight.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:26 AM   #166
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,149
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"If you devalue the entire concept of knowledge so that nobody is provably right to your standards, you save yourself from having to admit you are wrong about any specific one thing."
Yes, that perfectly encapsulates this manner of argument.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:27 AM   #167
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Hey can you come pick me up from work in 15 minutes?
You want me to drive cross-country in 15 minutes? Nobody can do that! If you could do that, you'd be omnipotent!
Dude, I'm like a mile away. If you're busy, just say so.

awesome emojis, dude!
I've never seen them before. Are they new?
:thelma: Let's try this one.
:scooby: rrrrrrrrragggggy!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:31 AM   #168
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,149
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Very good article BTW
Save for the fact that he doesn't know what a skeptic is.

He also didn't proof-read it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness


Last edited by Belz...; Yesterday at 08:32 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:35 AM   #169
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Save for the fact that he doesn't know what a skeptic is.
In the article:

Quote:
In philosophy, a "skeptic" is someone who denies we have knowledge in a given area.
Wikipedia:

Quote:
Philosophical skepticism comes in various forms. Radical forms of skepticism deny that knowledge or rational belief is possible and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters.
It's a perfectly acceptable and used definition. No need to quibble over it.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:38 AM   #170
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,149
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Let's not concede facts and truth without a fight.
I fear it's too late for that. Our own technololgy has betrayed us.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:40 AM   #171
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,149
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
In the article:

Wikipedia:

It's a perfectly acceptable and used definition. No need to quibble over it.
As you wish, but that kind of calls this whole forum's name into question.

The rest of the article is ok, although of course the 'skeptical' argument he presents is nonsense to anyone who knows anything about reason and logic.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:41 AM   #172
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Jesus, I am trying to get through the last of these debates and Jordan Peterson is now talking about "you have to go down into the void to rescue your father".

did you steal my weed?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:54 AM   #173
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As you wish, but that kind of calls this whole forum's name into question.
As with most language, it is contextual. My own understanding before I read Carl Sagan and encountered scientific skepticism, was that skepticism was of the radical kind that David Hume wrote about. I think in Hume's case it was actually a useful way of bludgeoning away ideas of God, the soul, free-will, the self and dogmatic thinking that led subsequent thinkers to having to give better arguments and rational reasons for believing what they do. He was actually engaged in a project to find out what we could know for certain. But many so-called radical skeptics are just pushing the reset button when they start losing an argument.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The rest of the article is ok, although of course the 'skeptical' argument he presents is nonsense to anyone who knows anything about reason and logic.
Sure, but it is undeniably a common form of argument for woo-slingers. I think that a certain forum member is doing this right now by arguing for telepathy.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:58 AM   #174
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,149
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
As with most language, it is contextual. My own understanding before I read Carl Sagan and encountered scientific skepticism, was that skepticism was of the radical kind that David Hume wrote about. I think in Hume's case it was actually a useful way of bludgeoning away ideas of God, the soul, free-will, the self and dogmatic thinking that led subsequent thinkers to having to give better arguments and rational reasons for believing what they do. He was actually engaged in a project to find out what we could know for certain. But many so-called radical skeptics are just pushing the reset button when they start losing an argument.



Sure, but it is undeniably a common form of argument for woo-slingers. I think that a certain forum member is doing this right now by arguing for telepathy.
Granted on both counts.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:00 AM   #175
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
No, no, no!

You cannot seriously argue that Harris's challenge to Peterson is adequately explained by Peterson's answer.
No, I am not arguing that. Peterson was not responding to Harris at that point, but to an audience member.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
The whole point is that Peterson says something that is true, but not relevant to the question.
I agree. Peterson says something that is true, but not really relevant to the question posed by Harris. That's because Peterson is responding to an interjection from the audience there, not to the question by Harris.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
He then asks whether the Bible has some significant status unlike any other book, or whether it is just old writings by human beings like ourselves.

Peterson's answer, "I think it's both!"

(He's a man of faith - Bad faith!)

Harris asks where this inspiration comes from (he is clearly asking whether Peterson is positing supernatural origin).

Peterson says we don't know where inspiration comes from.

Peterson is an intellectual charlatan.
What on earth are wrong with either of those answers? How would someone with good faith respond? How would a non-charlatan respond?

Harris agrees with Peterson that inspiration and a hierarchy of wisdom exists. Peterson sees that it is reflected in stories in the Bible like Cain and Abel. That is enough to explain Peterson's answer that the Bible has a status unlike (some) other books as well as being old writings by human beings.

Last edited by GDon; Yesterday at 09:07 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:15 AM   #176
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
No, I am not arguing that. Peterson was not responding to Harris at that point, but to an audience member.


I agree. Peterson says something that is true, but not really relevant to the question posed by Harris. That's because Peterson is responding to an interjection from the audience there, not to the question by Harris.


Peterson effectively says that he doesn't know. Isn't that reasonable?


What on earth are wrong with either of those answers? How would someone with good faith respond? How would a non-charlatan respond?
Someone with good faith would not be making portentous statements about the significance of the Bible without saying whether or not they believed it to be divinely inspired or not. Harris is just asking whether Peterson says it is or not and all Peterson seems to want to do is string along his religious acolytes while not alienating those who can't go the whole hog.

Personally, I think he is playing games. A charlatan doesn't play intellectual games.

Peterson is sometimes giving the impression that he thinks that the Bible is divinely inspired (his arguments for example that Shakespeare could not have written Cain and Abel) or that humans are divinely created (when he talks about evolution he blatantly suggests some kind of cosmic hand guiding the process). Harris is obviously trying to get Peterson to just come out and say it, but Peterson retreats back into his shell.

May I ask you what you think about the Bible? Are you a Christian?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:35 AM   #177
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Someone with good faith would not be making portentous statements about the significance of the Bible without saying whether or not they believed it to be divinely inspired or not.
Why not? A document passed down through a thousand years influenced by a search for meaning is very significant. It doesn't have to be divinely inspired by a supernatural God to have significance. I'd say the same of Homer, Lao Tzu or Hindu texts.

Keep in mind Peterson's idea of "Darwinian truth": true things are more likely to get passed along than false things, i.e. "survival of the truest". (I'm not sure I agree with Peterson on that.) The reason the Bible stories have had such an impact over thousands of years is that they speak to some deeper wisdom. That's what Peterson is arguing in that debate. He doesn't need a supernatural God to make that statement true.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Harris is just asking whether Peterson says it is or not and all Peterson seems to want to do is string along his religious acolytes while not alienating those who can't go the whole hog.

Personally, I think he is playing games. A charlatan doesn't play intellectual games.

Peterson is sometimes giving the impression that he thinks that the Bible is divinely inspired (his arguments for example that Shakespeare could not have written Cain and Abel) or that humans are divinely created (when he talks about evolution he blatantly suggests some kind of cosmic hand guiding the process). Harris is obviously trying to get Peterson to just come out and say it, but Peterson retreats back into his shell.
Peterson's response is often "I don't know" or "I need to think more about it." Certainly reasonable answers. I can understand where Peterson is coming from, and he is consistent with what he says. That consistency suggests his honesty to me.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
May I ask you what you think about the Bible? Are you a Christian?
I'm a theist, but not a Christian. I think the Bible is a wonderful time capsule of early beliefs, but it is just a collection of old stories. There was a thread I started here a few months ago where I went through what I believe and why. I happy to discuss that further there if you have any questions.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:41 AM   #178
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,423
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Given the post-fact, truth-isn't-truth, alternative fact period we live in, that's something that's being given some legitimacy, in the eyes of many.
I think it's something the religious apologists have been looking for an excuse to bring back into the conversation for a while now.

I'm from the South so I had relatives (usually some of the really, really older ones from when I was very young) who still argued under some kind of "I don't care what makes sense, what the facts or evidence show, or even what my own senses show me if it counters my faith" mentality completely openly and unapologetically. How utterly intellectually hollow this was never seem to cross their mind and this mentality, even by those who didn't share it, was largely seen as good and noble by many.

Again I really, honestly do think there is a very unorganized but very powerful push towards a "Facts don't matter, needing to be factually correct about your opinions and stances is overrated, needing to be 'right all the time' is snobbish and rude" revival in our discourse about a lot of things.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:05 PM   #179
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,883
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Jesus, I am trying to get through the last of these debates and Jordan Peterson is now talking about "you have to go down into the void to rescue your father".

did you steal my weed?
Heh, get used to it. Peterson loooooves the goddamn "rescuing your father from the belly of the whale" analogy, and comes back to it a lot in his discussions.

I think the only thing that really annoys me from Peterson is the constant hand gesture he makes when speaking, virtually at the beginning of every answer he gives, where he takes both hands, palms open, and wiggles his fingers fastly, as if trying to visually outline some kind of uncertain, mystical, magical, undefinable "thingie" kind of veil that seems to be covering every single concept he's about to talk about. It's like the official sign language for the word "woo".
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; Yesterday at 12:07 PM.
Ron_Tomkins is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:07 PM   #180
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,403
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I think the only thing that really annoys me from Peterson is the constant hand gesture he makes when speaking, virtually at the beginning of every answer he gives, where he takes both hands, palms open, and wiggles his fingers fastly, as if trying to visually outline some kind of uncertain, mystical, magical, undefinable "thingie" kind of veil that seems to be covering every single concept he's about to talk about. It's like the official sign language for the word "woo".
I think everyone in this thread would likely agree that Peterson is in dire need of a debate coach if he wants to keep it going. With Dillahunty, he looked like was going to throw up. With Harris recently, he was angrily shouting at someone in the audience.

Also, his pants were 6 inches shorter than they needed to be. Maybe that's the style in Canada.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:29 PM   #181
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,149
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I think everyone in this thread would likely agree that Peterson is in dire need of a debate coach if he wants to keep it going.
So long as he was besieged with anti-free speech students, he seemed to make sense. But the more he talks, the more foolish he looks.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:57 PM   #182
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,403
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So long as he was besieged with anti-free speech students, he seemed to make sense. But the more he talks, the more foolish he looks.
They were protecting him from himself.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:54 PM   #183
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes, that perfectly encapsulates this manner of argument.
Peterson in a nut shell.

The fact that so many people (and by "people" I mean "angry young heterosexual white dudes", that's pretty much is whole audience) take this hack seriously is pretty damn scary.

And how in the hell did this guy end up selling so many of his books to self-proclaimed "atheist skeptics"? While at the same time shoving the bible down their throats?

The mind boggles.
__________________
I am the working class.

Last edited by Lambchops; Yesterday at 07:00 PM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:57 PM   #184
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So long as he was besieged with anti-free speech students, he seemed to make sense. But the more he talks, the more foolish he looks.
Nah, he never made sense. Not on purpose, anyway.

It's not difficult to be right by accident. "A broken clock is right twice a day" and so on...
__________________
I am the working class.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:50 PM   #185
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Why not? A document passed down through a thousand years influenced by a search for meaning is very significant. It doesn't have to be divinely inspired by a supernatural God to have significance. I'd say the same of Homer, Lao Tzu or Hindu texts.

Keep in mind Peterson's idea of "Darwinian truth": true things are more likely to get passed along than false things, i.e. "survival of the truest". (I'm not sure I agree with Peterson on that.) The reason the Bible stories have had such an impact over thousands of years is that they speak to some deeper wisdom. That's what Peterson is arguing in that debate. He doesn't need a supernatural God to make that statement true.
His idea of "Darwinian Truth" is itself a complete nonsense. Remember, Peterson is coming up with an idea of a different kind of truth that is distinct from objective scientific truth. This is just a ploy to prevent the same standard of evidence applying to all aspects of human knowledge.


Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Peterson's response is often "I don't know" or "I need to think more about it." Certainly reasonable answers. I can understand where Peterson is coming from, and he is consistent with what he says. That consistency suggests his honesty to me.
He's playing a double game.


Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I'm a theist, but not a Christian. I think the Bible is a wonderful time capsule of early beliefs, but it is just a collection of old stories. There was a thread I started here a few months ago where I went through what I believe and why. I happy to discuss that further there if you have any questions.
See? It isn't hard. Except for Peterson, apparently.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:14 PM   #186
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,403
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As you wish, but that kind of calls this whole forum's name into question.

The rest of the article is ok, although of course the 'skeptical' argument he presents is nonsense to anyone who knows anything about reason and logic.
It just depends on context. "Light waves" are exciting to a physicist, but disappointing to a surfer.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:40 AM   #187
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,423
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
His idea of "Darwinian Truth" is itself a complete nonsense. Remember, Peterson is coming up with an idea of a different kind of truth that is distinct from objective scientific truth.
And this is the core of the anti-intellectual wave we're seeing ourselves in. The "standard" methodology isn't giving people the answers they want and/or have already decided must be true, so they'll invent a methodology that does.

It's 99% of the "philosophy" discussions. It's Jabba's "holistic thinking." It's the scorched earth solipsism and "Nobody knows anything" nonsense. It's how Woo Slingers have turned "You think reality exists" into basically a slur with the whole "Materialism" argument.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:54 AM   #188
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,883
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I think everyone in this thread would likely agree that Peterson is in dire need of a debate coach if he wants to keep it going. With Dillahunty, he looked like was going to throw up. With Harris recently, he was angrily shouting at someone in the audience.

Also, his pants were 6 inches shorter than they needed to be. Maybe that's the style in Canada.


So true
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:02 AM   #189
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I think everyone in this thread would likely agree that Peterson is in dire need of a debate coach if he wants to keep it going. With Dillahunty, he looked like was going to throw up. With Harris recently, he was angrily shouting at someone in the audience.

Also, his pants were 6 inches shorter than they needed to be. Maybe that's the style in Canada.
Maybe the trouser legs were an attempt to confuse his opponents. The problem with having a debate coach, is the debate coach is first going to need to know Peterson's position, and complete and utter evasion of a position so that he can smuggle in Jesus is the whole point.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:04 AM   #190
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,883
Actually, I don't know if anyone noticed, but in that last debate, Peterson is wearing a tie with Lobsters. That means he's self consciously embracing the whole "lobster meme" which dates back to the infamous interview with Cathy Newman. Who knows how much thought there may be behind his clothes, considering how he sees a deep symbolic interpretation in everything. Who knows what kinds of emotions and thoughts he's trying to convey with his choice of wardrobe, material and color.

It would go something like: "Well, historically, brown is the color of dirt. This old archetype dates back to the first men who were sculpted out of mud which is dirt with water. So by wearing brown, you're telling everyone that you're just like them. Like the earth. And the orange is like the Sun. The archetype of the Sun God is rooted deep into the human psyche, and so you know, what does it mean when we wear the color of the sun? It's a powerful message, man. It's like 'I'm bringing the Light'. And of course, Jesus is, broadly speaking, the embodiment of the light. You see, when confronted with Darkness, the only thing that gets you of there is light. And sometimes you don't find the light and it can be a Hell, man. I know it. So that's why we try to wear this archetype on our clothing"
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.