Here is the full opinion of the court in yesterdays finding that ID doesn't belong in science class.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller ... er_342.pdf

A finding I agree with by the way...

galanter wrote:Rationality, first, has more than one form. Both mathematics and science are species of rationality, but they are clearly different. One uses empiricism the other couldn't care less about the measurable world.

This why your agnostic argument falls to pieces. Quantifying this God is a requirement of your argument. Otherwise you may as well say, "HxJU8AU 102" may or may not exist. Your "common definition of God" angle is totally untenable because it requires giving this God attributes and defining “it” as “something”, yet your argument is that God is beyond empiricism. As soon as you give this God attributes it disappears.

Fuck, I just disproved the existence of God!*

*Well, by your definition...

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:Rationality, first, has more than one form. Both mathematics and science are species of rationality, but they are clearly different. One uses empiricism the other couldn't care less about the measurable world.

This why your agnostic argument falls to pieces. Quantifying this God is a requirement of your argument. Otherwise you may as well say, "HxJU8AU 102" may or may not exist. Your "common definition of God" angle is totally untenable because it requires giving this God attributes and defining “it” as “something”, yet your argument is that God is beyond empiricism. As soon as you give this God attributes it disappears.

Fuck, I just disproved the existence of God!*

*Well, by your definition...

The agnostic case is that "I/we don't know whether God exists". The only way the agnostic case can fail is for someone to prove God exists or to prove that he doesn't exist.

What you suggest is a sort of ontological disproof of God. Like the ontological proof it falls prey to the Kantian objection that existence is not a predicate.

galanter wrote:What you suggest is a sort of ontological disproof of God. Like the ontological proof it falls prey to the Kantian objection that existence is not a predicate.

Yes, but Kant was a well known theist, so I suggest you start again.

galanter wrote:We part ways here. Rationality, first, has more than one form. Both mathematics and science are species of rationality, but they are clearly different. One uses empiricism the other couldn't care less about the measurable world.

First, you've mistaken 'different kinds of rationality' for methodology. All of us use the three laws of thought to process information. Mathematics is more explicit in nature but there is nothing REALLY different going on in, say, chemistry, in terms of processing information. Mathematics is the most axiomatic, for sure. But finding out, for instance, that the infinite amount of primes are not evenly distributed uses the same laws of reason as calculating the dispersion of nitrogen in the Universe. By it's nature, sciences are more statistical in their findings and not exact, but that's how it goes when you get empirical.

One of my favourite subjects for discussion is the ol' "Is Mathematics real or is it discovered?". That question is really beyond the scope of what we're talking about here and has no relevance, but if you want to start a topic like that somewhere I'd love to hear your thoughts. I love math! (and have no idea of the answer to that question)

What *would* be irrational, for example, would be to define God as being beyond physical measurement, but then expect science to be able to give a full account and critique of religious truths.

No, what *would* be irrational would be to posit a God - and anything after that.

It's also not at all clear that the mind doesn't have "multiple tools boxes" and that our apparently unified view of the world is not nearly as integrated as it seems. There are all manner of examples from psychology, including brain imaging and studies from brain injuries, that point in this direction.

But are those processes correct ways of processing sensory information, abstracting and making conclusions about the world around us? Saying "well, schizophrenics don't process the world in the same way we do" doesn't really help your argument.

Finally, in the realm of "rational is as rational does" I'll again trot out St. Thomas as one of *many* examples of rational theology.

Saying someone isn't rational shouldn't mean they tried to be rational but made a mistake somewhere along the line, or that they tried to be rational but embrace first principles you disagree with, or that they tried to be rational but you disagree with their conclusions. Saying someone isn't rational shouldn't even mean they aren't empirical, lest you want to cast mathematics into the sea of irrationality.

Saying someone isn't rational should be a critique of methodology, and clearly rationality is an important part of religion and the practice of theology.

I know of rational theology; I've read quite a bit. But to say that because they're being rational ABOUT theology doesn't mean their theism is rational. Remember elementary propositional calculus; doesn't matter how suave your logic is, your conclusions are erroneous if your premise is flawed. For instance:

1) My magic elf will grant me everlasting life when I leave this world
2) I will die
3) When I die, I will have everlasting life

Nothing faulty with the logic, as long as you don't rationally scrutinize my premise.

M_a_x,

first, regarding brain function and mind, the current scientific view is that there are, in fact, multiple toolboxes. This isn't just a way to describe pathology, but also the widely accepted view of a healthy brain. While it's true there isn't something as clear cut as, say, an induction lobe and a deduction lobe, the contention that brain function is a sort of unified field without specialization is not supported by science.

But worse than this, in a number of points in the above post you seem to imply that when it comes to deductive reasoning some axioms are rational and some are not. I think this abuses the term "rational". In mathematatics, for example, rationality is what allows you to go from axioms to theorems, or theorems plus axioms to other theorems. One might say that some axioms seem to intuitively reflect our everyday experience more than others, but to call something an "irrational axiom" is to invoke an oxymoron.

In short, the term "rational" can be used in a technical sense where it needs to be further specified in a way relative to the given discipline in the interest of rigor, or the term "rational" can be used in an everyday sense with all manner of connotation including "common sense" or even just plain "correct". I've tried to limit my use of the term to the former.

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:What you suggest is a sort of ontological disproof of God. Like the ontological proof it falls prey to the Kantian objection that existence is not a predicate.

Yes, but Kant was a well known theist, so I suggest you start again.

If this discussion is limited to arguments from authority and ideas are not allowed to speak for themselves, then I've suddenly lost interest.

I wasn't kidding back when I posted "Checkmate"

You really totally fucked everything up when you said:

galanter wrote:How I've defined God is a common minimal definition, not a set-up.

You must see that this totally untenable position and undermines everything you say from the source.

galanter wrote:M_a_x,

first, regarding brain function and mind, the current scientific view is that there are, in fact, multiple toolboxes. This isn't just a way to describe pathology, but also the widely accepted view of a healthy brain. While it's true there isn't something as clear cut as, say, an induction lobe and a deduction lobe, the contention that brain function is a sort of unified field without specialization is not supported by science.

But worse than this, in a number of points in the above post you seem to imply that when it comes to deductive reasoning some axioms are rational and some are not. I think this abuses the term "rational". In mathematatics, for example, rationality is what allows you to go from axioms to theorems, or theorems plus axioms to other theorems. One might say that some axioms seem to intuitively reflect our everyday experience more than others, but to call something an "irrational axiom" is to invoke an oxymoron.

In short, the term "rational" can be used in a technical sense where it needs to be further specified in a way relative to the given discipline in the interest of rigor, or the term "rational" can be used in an everyday sense with all manner of connotation including "common sense" or even just plain "correct". I've tried to limit my use of the term to the former.

This is making me think of Old Ludwig Wittgenstein. He wrote some good stuff about religion. I wrote a paper on his ideas regarding what proof and rationality are, with specific regard to scientific and religious investigation. I like Wittgenstein a lot.

Gramsci wrote:I wasn't kidding back when I posted "Checkmate"

You really totally fucked everything up when you said:

galanter wrote:How I've defined God is a common minimal definition, not a set-up.

You must see that this totally untenable position and undermines everything you say from the source.

A definition isn't a position, it's just a definition.

A position would be a statement as to whether such a thing as defined exists.

If you are saying "you're wrong about God possibly existing because God doesn't exist" that isn't saying much.

Finally, defining God as a consciousness which is the ground of all being is about as neutral and widely accepted a definition of a monotheistic god as I know of. ("ground of all being" is a more accurate phrase for the less formal "perfect creator of all things").