Spirituality
25 Sep 06
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut the existence of the word 'cause' and the interpretation of the word 'cause' are not the same thing. If Acquinas is dealing with the word 'cause' in reference to God and he uses the Aristotelean interpretation, then his argument is of a particular bias to Aristotle. This does not mean that the argument of First Cause is Aristotle's alone (and consequently Acquinas'😉, but that he has interpreted the argument thus. The nature of the theory should really be free of interpretation bias to avoid this. Since it is not (nor can be due to the nature of human interpretation), Dawkins has every right to apply the Humean interpretation of 'cause' to the work at hand when dealing with the argument of First Cause. You are right that Dawkins should not claim to have refuted Acquinas' argument directly, this is poorly directed, what he should say is that the First Cause argument is open to interpretation and that Hume shows how to defeat it, since the Aristotelean interpretation of 'cause' is incomplete or in error.
[b]If you apply this notion to all pieces of writing you'll never be able to unravel any philosophical text at all, since you'll need to know; not the ideas presented, but the ideas which allowed the ideas the writer had to come into play, and so on for the previous authors (if any) of the preceeding ideas etc.
Not at all. If you look at the ex ...[text shortened]... actually understand the issues involved say about it. Perhaps read up Aristotle yourself.[/b]
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettThat we use them all the time (do we?) does not make them valid. An ad hominem argument is valid only under circumstances. The example you gave of the witness is one -- where the establishment of the fact depends entirely on the credibility of the witness.
You make the mistake of assuming that ad hominem arguments are never valid. Quite the contrary, we use them all the time. A lawyer, seeking to discredit a witness, will use ad hominem arguments to show he is not trustworthy. If you are using an appeal to authority (as with your reference to the book reviewer) we need to establish the credentials of that sup ...[text shortened]... id retard* with a proper grounding in philosophy would know this.
*abusive ad hominem.
My reference to book reviewers was not (as you mistakenly assume) a reference to authority. If you'd actually bothered to read the reviews, you would've seen that they're not merely saying "In my opinion, it's rubbish" or "I don't like it". They bring up specific points about the topic and arguments used in the book. Whether they are biased or not has nothing to do with the validity of those points and arguments. Or are you claiming it does?
So, if you want to continue with your ad hominems and abusive ad hominems, then that's your choice.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by StarrmanThe First Cause Argument (as stated by Aquinas) is in Aristotelian terms. That the word used is later given a different sense by Hume does not change the fact that the First Cause Argument remains in Aristotelian terms. If there is a similar Humean Argument (in terms of the words used), it would not be the same argument Aquinas made. If the First Cause Argument is generally used to refer to Aquinas's argument, then the Humean version should have a different name. Even if it doesn't, if Dawkins refutes the Humean version, he shouldn't claim to have refuted the First Cause Argument as a whole (he's only refuted a Humean version).
But the existence of the word 'cause' and the interpretation of the word 'cause' are not the same thing. If Acquinas is dealing with the word 'cause' in reference to God and he uses the Aristotelean interpretation, then his argument is of a particular bias to Aristotle. This does not mean that the argument of First Cause is Aristotle's alone (and conseque ...[text shortened]... eat it, since the Aristotelean interpretation of 'cause' is incomplete or in error.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhether a source is biased does not automatically mean their points are not valid, that is true. But what are the chances that an ignorant, dogmatic, superstitious, christian freak would say anything worth reading? Slim to none, I'd wager.
That we use them all the time (do we?) does not make them valid. An ad hominem argument is valid only under circumstances. The example you gave of the witness is one -- where the establishment of the fact depends entirely on the credibility of the witness.
My reference to book reviewers was not (as you mistakenly assume) a reference to autho ...[text shortened]... nt to continue with your ad hominems and abusive ad hominems, then that's your choice.
Since talking to you serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, I'll keep the ad hominems at my disposal, thank you very much.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerOkay, clarify this for me:
The First Cause Argument (as stated by Aquinas) is in Aristotelian terms. That the word used is later given a different sense by Hume does not change the fact that the First Cause Argument remains in Aristotelian terms. If there is a similar Humean Argument (in terms of the words used), it would not be the same argument Aquinas made. If the Fir ...[text shortened]... im to have refuted the First Cause Argument as a whole (he's only refuted a Humean version).
Does Dawkins tackle Acquinas' first cause argument, or the notion of First Cause?
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettBut what are the chances that an ignorant, dogmatic, superstitious, christian freak would say anything worth reading?
Whether a source is biased does not automatically mean their points are not valid, that is true. But what are the chances that an ignorant, dogmatic, superstitious, christian freak would say anything worth reading? Slim to none, I'd wager.
Since talking to you serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, I'll keep the ad hominems at my disposal, thank you very much.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes because, as I tried to get across earlier, the notion of first cause can be dealt with by arguing against it in a Humean form or an Aristotelean form or another form altogether. Arguing against Acquinas' interpretation alone, however, does indeed require a refutation of the purely Aristotelean interpretation of 'cause' and here the Humean view of 'cause' is inappropriate. The subject of the First Cause is not Aristotle's alone and there are many interpretations of its nature and therefore its refutation.
I think he actually does, but I might be wrong (I haven't read the book).
Why, is it relevant?
29 Sep 06
people there is a reason we have faith. through faith we believe in a higher power. no proof. if we had proof then everybody would believe, or better said know.
instead of giving me to read a book that dismisses without doubt the existence of god, why not watch a movie that questions some of the aspects of religion.
so watch dogma and constantine.
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by ZahlanziConstantine makes me question some aspects of film making.
people there is a reason we have faith. through faith we believe in a higher power. no proof. if we had proof then everybody would believe, or better said know.
instead of giving me to read a book that dismisses without doubt the existence of god, why not watch a movie that questions some of the aspects of religion.
so watch dogma and constantine.