The Origin of Life

Originally posted by bbarr
He doesn't need to explain those things, because he never claimed that reason could explain everything! Jesus Christ, learn how to read.

But if he cannot explain where he came and where he is going when he dies, using reason, it means his world view is above reason.

Originally posted by bbarr
whether psycholgical states are construed as the vehicle of direct perception or as an intermediary in perception.

This one could be important... 😉

Originally posted by Spexe
But if he cannot explain where he came and where he is going when he dies, using reason, it means his world view [b]is above reason.[/b]

dj didn't ask no1marauder to explain where he came from and what death holds. If that had been the question, no1marauder would have provided a view that was consonant with the evidence at his disposal. That is, the answer would have been a reasonable one, not some supernatural clap-trap about the the independence of world-views from reason. Remember, the point here isn't that all worldviews are constrained by reason (dj's isn't, for instance), but that it is not only consistent but plausible to claim that many of them are.

Originally posted by dottewell
This one could be important... 😉

Yep, but arguments from hallucination and illusion weigh in favor of the latter option.

Originally posted by bbarr
Yep, but arguments from hallucination and illusion weigh in favor of the latter option.

I guess this isn't the time to have that discussion. It's too much fun watching the main event.

Originally posted by bbarr
dj didn't ask no1marauder to explain where he came from and what death holds. If that had been the question, no1marauder would have provided a view that was consonant with the evidence at his disposal. That is, the answer would have been a reasonable one, not some supernatural clap-trap about the the independence of world-views from reason. Remember, the po ...[text shortened]... instance), but that it is not only consistent but plausible to claim that many of them are.

Is no1 not made of matter, and does the question where matter came from not entail no1's explanation of where he ultimately came from?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Is no1 not made of matter, and does the question where matter came from not entail no1's explanation of where he ultimately came from?

No more than an explanation of where my beer came from requries explaining how the universe came into existence. That's not only stupid, it is irrelevant to this conversation. Again, if one doesn't have sufficient evidence to determine where everything came from, then one ought not endorse any particular theory about where everything came from (that is, one's worldview ought to be agnostic on this issue, because one's worldview ought to be in accord with the evidence at one's disposal). Further, the whole point of a worldview, as a normative framework, is to provide guidance regarding normative questions. The normative content of the question "where did I come from" is not answered by determining where the substance that comprises my body came from; it is answered by providing an account of my personal place in the world, and determining what relation this has to how I ought to be and how I ought to act.

Originally posted by bbarr
No more than an explanation of where my beer came from requries explaining how the universe came into existence. That's not only stupid, it is irrelevant to this conversation. Again, if one doesn't have sufficient evidence to determine where everything came from, then one ought not endorse any particular theory about where everything came from (that is, one' ...[text shortened]... orld, and determining what relation this has to how I ought to be and how I ought to act.

Now, now bbarr. Wonder is the beginning of all philosophy.

The normative content of the question "where did I come from" is not answered by determining where the substance that comprises my body came from; it is answered by providing an account of my personal place in the world, and determining what relation this has to how I ought to be and how I ought to act.

Try that with an inquisitive six year-old.

Originally posted by bbarr
No more than an explanation of where my beer came from requries explaining how the universe came into existence. That's not only stupid, it is irrelevant to this conversation. Again, if one doesn't have sufficient evidence to determine where everything came from, then one ought not endorse any particular theory about where everything came from (that is, one' orld, and determining what relation this has to how I ought to be and how I ought to act.

No more than an explanation of where my beer came from requries explaining how the universe came into existence.

Your worldview does not seek to explain where your beer came from. But it does seek to explain where you came from. An explanation of where the universe came from is necessary to explain the essence of where you as a human being came from.

That's not only stupid, it is irrelevant to this conversation. Again, if one doesn't have sufficient evidence to determine where everything came from, then one ought not endorse any particular theory about where everything came from (that is, one's worldview ought to be agnostic on this issue, because one's worldview ought to be in accord with the evidence at one's disposal).

But when we seek to understand origins we do not have sufficient evidence at our disposal, and thus to truly answer the question we require a certain amount of faith, which is above reason.

Further, the whole point of a worldview, as a normative framework, is to provide guidance regarding normative questions. The normative content of the question "where did I come from" is not answered by determining where the substance that comprises my body came from; it is answered by providing an account of my personal place in the world, and determining what relation this has to how I ought to be and how I ought to act.

Your worldview is actually not that shallow. If you think about it carefully you will realise that there is more to the question of "where did I come from" than simply your individual place of birth. You would need to answer the question concerning all of mankind, whether we were created by a superior being or whether we simply evovled from a chemical soup. Both of these positions requires an element of faith which is in a manner of speaking "above reason".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Now, now bbarr. Wonder is the beginning of all philosophy.

[b]The normative content of the question "where did I come from" is not answered by determining where the substance that comprises my body came from; it is answered by providing an account of my personal place in the world, and determining what relation this has to how I ought to be and how I ought to act.

Try that with an inquisitive six year-old.[/b]

Yes, wonder is the beginning. Pure speculation, however, is not the end. For that matter, neither is pure stipulation.

I am trying, but it's not working.

Originally posted by bbarr
No more than an explanation of where my beer came from requries explaining how the universe came into existence. That's not only stupid, it is irrelevant to this conversation. Again, if one doesn't have sufficient evidence to determine where everything came from, then one ought not endorse any particular theory about where everything came from (that is, one' ...[text shortened]... orld, and determining what relation this has to how I ought to be and how I ought to act.

That's a damn fine post. dj2, you should read bbarr's post until the words sink in.

I also meant to ask you before, dj2: If one cannot arrive at satisfactory world views through careful deliberations, then why did you advise me to carefully deliberate over the written words of D. James Kennedy? That project was a waste of my time.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]No more than an explanation of where my beer came from requries explaining how the universe came into existence.

Your worldview does not seek to explain where your beer came from. But it does seek to explain where you came from. An explanation of where the universe came from is necessary to explain the essence of where you as a human being came ...[text shortened]... sitions requires an element of faith which is in a manner of speaking "above reason".[/b]

Your claim that the origin of the universe has some bearing on what our 'essence' is is an entailment of your worldview. It is certainly not a necessary component of any worldview.

If we don't have sufficient evidence to answer a question, then there is no 'truly answering the question'. There is merely the choice, which you and your ilk make, to believe something despite having no evidential grounds for it. That's just paradigmatic irrationality on your part. You can call it 'faith' if you want; that's certainly better than the definition of 'faith' you were hawking earlier, but this isn't above reason in any sense. Rather, it is merely the absence of reason dressed in vestments.

If you read my claim above, you'd have realized I wasn't talking about my place of birth. Further, on my worldview, it is irrelevant to the meaning of my life, or to the importance of what I value, or to considerations of my obligations, whether I am the result of evolution or creation. Ansering that question determines nothing of substance when it comes to questions about how I ought to be. Finally, again, there is no faith involved in the belief in evolution (unless you'd like to define 'faith' such that any belief that P based on evidence that falls short of establishing P with certainty is, to that extent, based on faith).

Originally posted by bbarr
Finally, again, there is no faith involved in the belief in evolution (unless you'd like to define 'faith' such that any belief that P based on evidence that falls short of establishing P with certainty is, to that extent, based on faith).

What other definition of 'faith' is there?

No person believes something just for the heck of it. There would always be some evidence (even if it's contentious) or internal justification for the belief.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What other definition of 'faith' is there?

No person believes something just for the heck of it. There would always be some evidence (even if it's contentious) or internal justification for the belief.

There's the word 'certainty' in there. Under such a definition, my belief that I have hands in based on 'faith' (I could possibly be a handless brain in a vat after all). Practically speaking, that would be a very silly definition of 'faith'.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What other definition of 'faith' is there?

faith
n.

Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

(A. Bierce)