07-11-2004 04:15									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: aesthetically ordered or integrated

Religion is much more orderly than other things.

If you mean logically coherent, then we have a dispute over whether logic requires empirical proof in order to operate.

	07-11-2004 04:15									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ned, Rawls is not a socialist. He allows for private enterprise.

	07-11-2004 04:16									#33
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc You say this as if it's a bad thing.

Of course it's the way the world works, the difference is in the way it is executed

A more direct way would have been to define it as the whole "f u we're gonna do what we want" attitude, which pretty much bypasses diplomacy completely

	07-11-2004 04:17									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: If you mean logically coherent, then we have a dispute over whether logic requires empirical proof in order to operate.

You know that it doesn't. Logical truth can be defined as tautology and valid inferences as tautologies. You've done philosophy, you know this.

But again, it is besides the point. I want a principle, or set of coherent principles that provide a benchmark from which to derive specific ethical imperatives.

The conservatives must be able to do better than this. Or perhaps their views have no rational basis.

	07-11-2004 04:18									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Doesn't coherence require: a) internal consistency? b) external consistency (not violating observable facts) ?

Internal consistency is a form of coherence. To say that something must be both internally and externally consistent in order to be coherent is not necessary.

Secondly, which observeable principles does religion, such as Christianity for example, violate?

	07-11-2004 04:19									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You know that it doesn't. Logical truth can be defined as tautology and valid inferences as tautologies. You've done philosophy, you know this

For example [If (If p then q) and p] then q] is a tautology for all values of p and q (it's modus ponens).

	07-11-2004 04:19									#37
	Tired of ads?

Why does Ben bite at such poor trolls when it could have degenerated at a nice circle jerk thread with Ted and Aggie?

	07-11-2004 04:19									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Interal consistency is a form of coherence. To say that something must be both internally and externally consistent in order to be coherent is not necessary. Secondly, which observeable principles does religion, such as Christianity for example, violate?

well... take creationism for instance... do you think creationism is logical?

	07-11-2004 04:20									#39
	Support Apolyton

quote: You know that it doesn't. Logical truth can be defined as tautology and valid inferences as tautologies. You've done philosophy, you know this.

I do know this.

So that validates my point. Religion could be logical from an internal perspective, and thus qualify as coherent.

So you are the one who lacks proof for your assertion that all religious principles are incoherent.

	07-11-2004 04:20									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Secondly, which observeable principles does religion, such as Christianity for example, violate?

None. But it isn't confirmed by any of them either. But this is besides the point. Where are the general principles?

	07-11-2004 04:22									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: None. But it isn't confirmed by any of them either.

So?

Then you lack evidence that Christianity, and religious principles are incoherent.

Thus, a conservative could appeal to religious principles in Natural Law, and be equally, if not more grounded, than Liberal conceptions of justice.

	07-11-2004 04:23									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: So that validates my point. Religion could be logical from an internal perspective, and thus qualify as coherent.

No, because logical truths are tautologies and thus do not tell us anything new about the world.

The claims that God exists, that God orders morality and that there are things like natural rights, are not tautologies, because their contraries make sense.

"God does not exist" is a meaningful statement, which can be true or false. Tautologies are necessarily true. Ergo statements concerning God's existence are not tautologies.

	07-11-2004 04:25									#43
	Put an end to popups!

Interesting.

So what you say here is that Christianity makes claims about the world, that we lack the tools to investigate empirically.

That's a stroke in their favour for saying they are not only internally coherent, but externally coherent.

	07-11-2004 04:26									#44
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: That's a stroke in their favour for saying they are not only internally coherent, but externally coherent.

but we have no reason to believe.

	07-11-2004 04:26									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: well... take creationism for instance... do you think creationism is logical?

Depends on what you mean by creationism.

Are you talking about the young earthers?

	07-11-2004 04:27									#46
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Depends on what you mean by creationism. Are you talking about the young earthers?

I'm talking about the world being created in 6 days, and every human being descedents from Adam and Eve.... etc...

	07-11-2004 04:28									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: but we have no reason to believe.

Christians make some testable claims, not all of their claims are untestable.

Secondly, they offer a better explanation for things than you can find elsewhere. One of them being the formation and creation of our conscience.

	07-11-2004 04:30									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I'm talking about the world being created in 6 days, and every human being descedents from Adam and Eve.... etc...

So, does Christianity claim that the world was created in 6 days?

As for Adam and Eve, how is that logically inconsistent?

	07-11-2004 04:31									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So, does Christianity claim that the world was created in 6 days? As for Adam and Eve, how is that logically inconsistent?

I'm not talking about consistency... creationism is consistent... consistently ILLOGICAL.

And that's not even taking into account what we know now about genetics and whatnot.

	07-11-2004 04:38									#50
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why does Ben bite at such poor trolls when it could have degenerated at a nice circle jerk thread with Ted and Aggie?

Why does DinoDoc never discuss the actual topics he just chimes in with indirect cutesy peek-a-boo responses?

	07-11-2004 05:00									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Secondly, they offer a better explanation for things than you can find elsewhere. One of them being the formation and creation of our conscience.

No they do not. The argument from design has been widely considered a failure since Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was published.

A supernatural explanation for conscience requires us to multiply explanatory entities beyond need. Evolutionary psychologists can explain it more economically.

But this is besides the point. I asked Conservatives to provide principles of justice. Their manifest failure to do so is another mark of the intellectual poverty of conservatism.

	07-11-2004 05:04									#52
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Why does DinoDoc never discuss the actual topics he just chimes in with indirect cutesy peek-a-boo responses?

Because he knows that liberals will pwn him.

	07-11-2004 05:05									#53
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Agathon You know that it doesn't. Logical truth can be defined as tautology and valid inferences as tautologies. You've done philosophy, you know this. But again, it is besides the point. I want a principle, or set of coherent principles that provide a benchmark from which to derive specific ethical imperatives. The conservatives must be able to do better than this. Or perhaps their views have no rational basis.

The pursuit of efficiency could be such a principle. It could provides rules which once applied result in a state of justice.

	07-11-2004 05:06									#54
	Remove this text

Sava, religion is not necessarily incoherent.

Any moral system relies on general axioms to make specific judgments about specific states of things.

It's quite easy to make statements coherent with religious axioms, but the harder part is actually providing a reason to believe in these axioms.

Acceptable axioms are very hard to define, and religion is certainly not the best effort that has been done in that matter.

	07-11-2004 05:09									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

DinoDoc, don't be a wuss, and go discuss the foundations of your moral principles if you dare.

Aggie BAMs a lot, but more often than not that means he's already discussed the topic seriously in another thread and doesn't want to repeat himself.

	07-11-2004 05:45									#56
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The pursuit of efficiency could be such a principle. It could provides rules which once applied result in a state of justice.

It doesn't work. Efficiency at producing what? Misery?

	07-11-2004 05:52									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It doesn't work. Efficiency at producing what? Misery?

Whatever this society has chosen to produce : wars, crops, poetry, prostitution, science, or ... misery. All you need is a criterion which makes possible an assesment (wright or wrong) about any human action.

	07-11-2004 07:00									#58
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Whatever this society has chosen to produce : wars, crops, poetry, prostitution, science, or ... misery. All you need is a criterion which makes possible an assesment (wright or wrong) about any human action.

The point is that the choices about the rest does all the real work. Efficiency is at most a weak normative constraint.

A society that is extremely efficient at producing rapists doesn't really cut it as a just society.

	07-11-2004 07:04									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Then it is useless. One can construct any number of theories which are logically coherent, but give us no reason to believe them. Coherence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition in this case.

But you are also proposing coherent but unprovable theories

	07-11-2004 07:10									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: But you are also proposing coherent but unprovable theories

How so?

The point of a theory of justice is to reason from examples that people accept to first principles and then revise your examples from that. God is not a first principle that most people are going to accept, so it's useless.

We have known this since Plato, who describes this process in the Republic.