[!@#$%!]

and to complement my post above, a couple of links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Ho...ical_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_P..._consciousness

extra:

penrose on the big bang:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

"one good thing about science is that you're allowed to change your mind..."

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

, we may yet realize that 99% of what we argue about is meaningless shit, and I include personal beliefs in that.

seen iyah, I think that was the central point I made in the very beginning of this tread to begin with!

I think they should meet each other half way, the scientists should accept the gaps in their theory, and the religious folks should loosen up with all this 'they know everything about God' nonsense, nobody knows anything or everything about anything at all! We are ALL equally ignorant of true reality, we all just live in our own imaginative version of the universe,

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

that is why it will be done by private enterprise.

 

[Rob Instigator]

why not?

microbes for the awesome rock win

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ok, but when lurker said "i still dont' see how you can argue for creationism", he wasn't referring to the middle ages, he meant (i'm sure) in our current context. hence i found your posted link irrelevant.

I took him as how can you argue for creationism in philosophy.

Not contemporary philosophy, since we are talking about schools and not debate television or political books.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

and yes, creationism could be discussed in philosophy, i never "denied kids the right to expressed themselves" because "a girl made me feel bad". what the fuck! but am i IRATE about the fucking churchmongers fucking with kid's science education? fuck yes. it's an atrocity.

Sorry, that was a bad joke. And of course I dislike churchmongers attempting to manipulate the debate of creationism in order to perpetuate ignorance. Teaching their intelligent design is simply impossible even if it were allowed.

[Rob Instigator]

This is why there is only one true god and that is Mario.

 

May his blessings rain upon us in the form of magic mushrooms

Mario Liturgy

[pbradley]

Today we shall read of the parable of St. Mushroom.

It it was then said upon the Lord, "Praise be upon you, Mario. Yet your princess on high is imprisoned in another fortress."

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Not contemporary philosophy, since we are talking about schools and not debate television or political books.

i don't get this sentence. are you implying think that kids are not equipped to practice philosophy?

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i don't get this sentence. are you implying think that kids are not equipped to practice philosophy?

That is the exact opposite of what I am arguing for.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

That is the exact opposite of what I am arguing for.

you posted aquinas because

Originally Posted by pbradley

I took him as how can you argue for creationism in philosophy.

Not contemporary philosophy, since we are talking about schools and not debate television or political books.

i think your laconism is getting the best of my reading comprehension.

[Rob Instigator]

I think kids are barely equipped to handle wiping their own asses, or serving deli meat at the supermarket.

how bouts that?

shit, same goes for many adults.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I think kids are barely equipped to handle wiping their own asses, or serving deli meat at the supermarket.

hopefully not the 2 of them at the same time, or we're facing a cholera epidemic.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

you posted aquinas because



i think your laconism is getting the best of my reading comprehension.

Well first I disagree with this assumption that ancient philosophy is irrelevant to consider or discuss because it is "before the invention of electricity, before there was empirical science."

If fact I believe that considering the timeless questions discussed in antiquity have direct relevance to contemporary philosophy.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Well first I disagree with this assumption that ancient philosophy is irrelevant to consider or discuss because it is "before the invention of electricity, before there was empirical science."

i'm not saying that it's irrelevant as a tool or blueprint for certain modes of reasoning-- it is not. the study of ancient philosophy is great to see how people have grappled with questions, and to learn their methods.

but ancient philosophy dealt with many questions that are now silly and irrelevant. like the kant example i posted (or aristotle's classification of animals).

so yes, we can model certain responses to today's problems on ancient philosophy, but i don't think we can use the ready-made responses of ancient philosophy to today's problems, particularly when our sets of problems were unavailable to ancient philosophers. today's problems require their own solutions.

can you agree with this or no, and why?

[Rob Instigator]

the questions of antiquity still have relevance.

Their ANSWERS however.....

[pbradley]

Yes, but I'm talking about coming to understand today's problems in a classroom environment both in origin and as it is today. Not answering today's problems! Have you never taken a philosophy seminar course?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Yes,

ok, i'll take that as an agreement

Originally Posted by pbradley

but I'm talking about coming to understand today's problems in a classroom environment both in origin and as it is today. Not answering today's problems! Have you never taken a philosophy seminar course?

so you're talking about teaching the history of philosophy, not about practicing philosophy.

because if you're going to practice, you have to face the questions that make sense today-- and if you're going to discuss creationism, sure you can start with aristotle's first cause, but then you have to input the fact that time approaching the big bang is nothing aristotle ever imagined, and his laws of motion that justify the first cause argument do not apply to how we see the origin of the universe today-- not at all--

in the singularity from which the big bang presumably originated, there was no such thing as "time" as we understand it, and this singularity is described as a physical phenomenon, not a deity, which neutralizes the need for a deity that ancient-world first-cause begged for.

and any kid that watches science fiction today is going to know this shit and say "hey, wait a minute, aristotle's laws of motion don't apply to the big bang, and our everyday laws of causation don't apply to quantum mechanics, and his argument therefore is moot!"

and with aristotle gone, aquinas is consequently de-nutted.

aristotle would be a good mental exercise, like doing pushups, but discussing the origin of the universe, they would be better off with a paul davies text-- not because he's a better thinker, but because his information is more relevant.

let's see....
here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=C7g2WSzd6IcC&pg=PP6&source=gbs_selected_p ages&cad=0_1&sig=ACfU3U04WvlBD6CqguLrPH8emIYbWsuPN w#PPA10,M1

[!@#$%!]

ps- you will notice, reading that article i linked, how davies uses the history of philosophy in his discussion (st. augustine) as a tool for his explanation which deals with current science, not the cosmology of roman times. his problem is a different one because his problem was not possible in st. augustine's time.

his argument, funny enough (i found that article by googling him, and i hadn't read before), is an argument against the first cause. and yet, he touches on another argument already provided in the history of philosophy-- god as a lawmaker of the universe. sounds both like jewish theology (god as giver of laws) and like 17th century science-- like descartes and his heirs (newton's view of god as the watchmaker of the universe, for example.) the history of the notion of scientific laws is a peculiar one, and it's steeped in theology-- but that discussion would belong in the history or sociology or philosophy of science.

[pbradley]

Okay, we've gone too far on a tangent. My point that creationism should be addressed philosophically, I assume, is still agreeable regardless of the which texts considered.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Okay, we're gone too far on a tangent.

but i had fun!

Originally Posted by pbradley

My point that creationism should be addressed philosophically, I assume, is still agreeable regardless of the which texts considered.

yeah.