On May 20, 2015, tommy wrote:
Does philosophy exist in reality?

On May 20, 2015, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On May 19, 2015, TomBoleware wrote:

Quote:

On May 19, 2015, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On May 19, 2015, TomBoleware wrote:
I’ve seen some pretty good arguments from the young earth people about Carbon dating,

No you haven't, Tom. You've seen propaganda of the most egregious kind. The margin of error in claiming a 6,000 year old Earth is equivalent to saying that the distance from New York to L.A. is 20 feet! And that's not hyperbole either - do the math comparing 4.55 billion years to 6,000 years and you'll see for yourself.

Quote:

Just makes sense to me that nature seems to find a way to fix itself, and if for some reason something needed aging in a hurry maybe it did it.

Come to think of it, I saw a Superman movie onetime where he speeded up the earth to change time.

Tom

What could possibly need "aging in a hurry"? And why?

And you do realize there is no such thing as Superman, do you?

Ron

Now how in the world do you know what I’ve heard and what I haven’t heard?
Besides, I’m not saying I agree with it all, just that some of it makes sense to me.
I have no idea how old the earth is. I don’t think it’s as old as some think oh.

Tom, Tom, Tom. You just told us that you've "seen some pretty good arguments from the young earth people". And that it makes sense to you. But what makes what they say more credible than what actual scientists have to say? The Young Earthers will say the earth is 6,000 years old no matter what the actual evidence says, because THEY HAVE AN AGENDA! Don't you get it? They don't care about facts! The evidence for the age of the earth is overwhelming. It's not a great mystery anymore. The fields of anthropology, biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy all triangulate to a 4.55 billion year old earth (plus or minus 1%).
http://www.talkorigins.org/

And a Nobel prize and world fame is waiting for anyone to show that those calculations are wildly wrong and that the earth is 6,000 years old. Anyway, now you know how old the earth is. If I, or someone, asks you in 2 months how old the earth is you have no excuse not to tell them it's actual age. Unless of course, YOU too have an agenda.

Quote:

You are right about Superman, he is not real…....but I do know this other guy with some pretty good powers.

Tom

Spiderman?

Ron

On May 20, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On May 20, 2015, R.S. wrote:
I wonder what kind of backlash there would be if there was the same kind of push - the same continuing effort year after year - by scientists to teach science in churches. Does anybody think that would be downplayed? I think one news channel in particular would have daily conniptions over it.


Ron

Well, personally, if a church or two were teaching some science during Sunday School, I doubt anyone would complain. Now if Scientists were trying to force churches what to teach, yeah, I can see a lot of complaints. Although, if they weren't making any headway, I doubt many would make statements that, "This was causing the greatest problem in religious education today!"

I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of ignorant people think that people that go to church don't believe in science.

On May 21, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Triangulate?!

On May 20, 2015, Steven Keyl wrote:

Quote:

Serious answer: to be courageous.

"To be courageous" is a sentiment that can be applied to anyone in any field of endeavor that strives to break new ground. For example, it took courage for Copernicus to buck thousands of years of geocentrism to propose a radical way of looking at our place in the universe. This is true in astronomy, mathematics, physics, economics, music, art, writing, politics, etc.

My answer to the question "what is the purpose of philosophy?" It is to answer questions that are beyond the reach of science.

The earliest philosophers focused almost exclusively on metaphysics--the study of reality. What is real? What is the fundamental nature of being? Although there are still some interesting philosophical questions in this arena science has made leaps and bounds over the last several hundred years helping us understand the nature of reality and our place in the universe.

Philosophers were left with less to discuss in metaphysics, so there was a major shift into epistemology, the study of knowledge, which encompasses truth, belief and justification. Science invaded this realm, too, with psychology, chemistry, biology, and a much deeper understanding of how the brain works. Admittedly, science has a long way to go to fully understand the human mind but these disciplines left the philosopher with even less to ponder.

This has moved the modern philosopher into areas like logic, axiology and ethics. These branches of philosophy are rife with questions to which science has no substantive answers, or by definition, will never have substantive answers.

Chronic loneliness can be a serious, life-threatening health condition. It has been found to be associated with an increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.[34] Loneliness shows an increased incidence of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity.[35]

Loneliness is shown to increase the concentration of cortisol levels in the body.[35] Prolonged, high cortisol levels can cause anxiety, depression, digestive problems, heart disease, sleep problems and weight gain.[36]

″Loneliness has been associated with impaired cellular immunity as reflected in lower natural killer (NK) cell activity and higher antibody titers to the Epstein Barr Virus and human herpes viruses".[35] Because of impaired cellular immunity, loneliness among young adults shows vaccines, like the flu vaccine, to be less effective.[35] Data from studies on loneliness and HIV positive men suggests loneliness increases disease progression

On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron

On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron

On May 21, 2015, Steven Keyl wrote:

Quote:

On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron

You wouldn't be the best informed to make a generalization like that. Based on your clear contempt, you don't seem the type that would condescend to speak to a person of faith so how would you know what they believe?

In my own experience, science and the media spend a disproportionate amount of energy arguing with biblical literalists, whereas the overwhelming majority of theists aren't anti-science and in fact, fully embrace the value of science and technology in our lives.

On May 21, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

Quote:

On May 21, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
It seems to me that anyone who wants to know what scientists mean by the word "theory" should look at the queen of the sciences: mathematics.

I don't think we should be making gay-bashing comments about mathematics

On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On May 20, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On May 20, 2015, R.S. wrote:
I wonder what kind of backlash there would be if there was the same kind of push - the same continuing effort year after year - by scientists to teach science in churches. Does anybody think that would be downplayed? I think one news channel in particular would have daily conniptions over it.


Ron

Well, personally, if a church or two were teaching some science during Sunday School, I doubt anyone would complain. Now if Scientists were trying to force churches what to teach, yeah, I can see a lot of complaints. Although, if they weren't making any headway, I doubt many would make statements that, "This was causing the greatest problem in religious education today!"

I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of ignorant people think that people that go to church don't believe in science.

I'm not so sure about that. Heck, despite the fact that there is ZERO effort by scientists to force churches to teach science, many religious folks claim there is an ongoing "War on Christianity" in this country. And every year during Christmas time, one particular news channel dedicates a good portion of it's time to cover a supposed "war on Christmas".

I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron

On May 20, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
So, do you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion?

On May 21, 2015, Steven Keyl wrote:

Quote:

On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron

You wouldn't be the best informed to make a generalization like that. Based on your clear contempt, you don't seem the type that would condescend to speak to a person of faith so how would you know what they believe?

In my own experience, science and the media spend a disproportionate amount of energy arguing with biblical literalists, whereas the overwhelming majority of theists aren't anti-science and in fact, fully embrace the value of science and technology in our lives.

I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of ignorant people think that people that go to church don't believe in science.

On May 21, 2015, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On May 21, 2015, Steven Keyl wrote:

Quote:

On May 21, 2015, R.S. wrote:
...
I can understand why you might think that though. A lot of religious people feel threatened by facts.

Ron

You wouldn't be the best informed to make a generalization like that. Based on your clear contempt, you don't seem the type that would condescend to speak to a person of faith so how would you know what they believe?

In my own experience, science and the media spend a disproportionate amount of energy arguing with biblical literalists, whereas the overwhelming majority of theists aren't anti-science and in fact, fully embrace the value of science and technology in our lives.

I'm a theist and a mathematician. You can't get more scientific than that.

In Ron's defense, he and I speak often; he's been nothing but a gentleman.