In defence of Sociology...

[Poi E]

The interest of Freud is sociological: how could so many people believe such crap for so long?.

I wonder the same about religious people.

 

[nino_savatte]

I wonder the same about religious people.

Same here. Religion has endured in much the same way, yet it relies on unquestioning faith in something intangible. Freud, on the other hand, can be challenged with reason and logic. Indeed, it does not require absolute faith.

 

[phildwyer]

Same here. Religion has endured in much the same way, yet it relies on unquestioning faith in something intangible. Freud, on the other hand, can be challenged with reason and logic. Indeed, it does not require absolute faith.

(I'm pretty close to cracking the secret of Savattean rhetoric, watch this...)

Cobblers, sunshine. Let's get one thing straight: I know your type. Your onanism has reached its messy climax. Have you ever read Foucault? The death of man, that's all I can say, the death of man. You're quite an expert in this field--I *don't* think!

(What do you reckon, just a bit more work, and I'll be ready to take it on the road?)

 

[phildwyer]

I wonder the same about religious people.

This shows only that you have never studied religion. Have you? (Please don't say "I don't need to, I just *know* its crap, thanks.)

 

[ViolentPanda]

(I'm pretty close to cracking the secret of Savattean rhetoric, watch this...)

Cobblers, sunshine. Let's get one thing straight: I know your type. Your onanism has reached its messy climax. Have you ever read Foucault? The death of man, that's all I can say, the death of man. You're quite an expert in this field--I *don't* think!

(What do you reckon, just a bit more work, and I'll be ready to take it on the road?)

I reckon your vanity has been pricked, my foppish friend. Now you're being snitty about it and derailing threads in your attempt to salve your wounded ego.

 

[Poi E]

This shows only that you have never studied religion. Have you? (Please don't say "I don't need to, I just *know* its crap, thanks.)

8 years C of E school with Christian dogma every day (had a nice time, though), did a couple of courses at uni. Religion is about belief, and I don't believe in the supernatural, whether God, ghosts or otherwise. Would you tell a believer that their belief was ill-founded if they hadn't studied it?

 

[phildwyer]

8 years C of E school with Christian dogma every day (had a nice time, though), did a couple of courses at uni. Religion is about belief, and I don't believe in the supernatural, whether God, ghosts or otherwise. Would you tell a believer that their belief was ill-founded if they hadn't studied it?

Fair enough, but yes I would say that to a believer. I don't think true religion is about faith, I think its rational.

 

[Poi E]

Fair enough, but yes I would say that to a believer. I don't think true religion is about faith, I think its rational.

You can choose to believe that if you wish.

 

[phildwyer]

You can choose to believe that if you wish.

Thanks. But its not a matter of "belief," its a matter of logic.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fair enough, but yes I would say that to a believer. I don't think true religion is about faith, I think its rational.

Rational in and of itself, or as an act that is part of a set of practices that set moral and eithical limits on behaviour etc?

 

[phildwyer]

Rational in and of itself, or as an act that is part of a set of practices that set moral and eithical limits on behaviour etc?

In and of itself. I don't think religion is very good at setting limits to behavior, and I don't think its supposed to be.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In and of itself.

So it's a rational (for want of a better word) impulse that drives a person to attempt to find meaning of a form that can't readily be found elsewhere?

I don't think religion is very good at setting limits to behavior, and I don't think its supposed to be.

I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I find it so aggravating that so much law and even custom is still based around limits to behaviour originally delineated by religious edict (usually in the form of an interpretation of holy writ).

 

[phildwyer]

So it's a rational (for want of a better word) impulse that drives a person to attempt to find meaning of a form that can't readily be found elsewhere?

It rational to search for what makes the world of appearances possible, to investigate the conditions of possibility for human experience. These conditions are not natural, they are part of our minds. Whatever makes *them* possible is what philosophers and theologians have called "God." Plato, Aristotle and the tradition of Western philosophy express this in rational terms, while the monotheistic religions express it in mythological terms. It is a dreadful, though very common, mistake to imagine that religion is irrational. Most believers couldn't formulate the rational grounds of their belief, its true, but nor could most believers in scientific truths.

 

[WeTheYouth]

Ive just finished my a level in sociology, and it was the best subject i have ever taken, im going to take it on at university. Sociology is the most important area of the social scieneces.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ive just finished my a level in sociology, and it was the best subject i have ever taken, im going to take it on at university. Sociology is the most important area of the social scieneces.

You'll get loads of people (usually terminally boring economists! ) disagreeing with you about that!

Personally I'd say Sociology is the social science that encompasses the greatest amount of (parts of) other soc sci fields.

 

[Calum McD]

It rational to search for what makes the world of appearances possible, to investigate the conditions of possibility for human experience. These conditions are not natural, they are part of our minds. Whatever makes *them* possible is what philosophers and theologians have called "God." Plato, Aristotle and the tradition of Western philosophy express this in rational terms, while the monotheistic religions express it in mythological terms. It is a dreadful, though very common, mistake to imagine that religion is irrational. Most believers couldn't formulate the rational grounds of their belief, its true, but nor could most believers in scientific truths.

What makes you so sure that consciousness is given by God? Surely, it is more 'rational' to assume that - in its givenness - it is simply a given, and by definition not capable of being apprehended by itself (ie. human minds?) ie. How could the finite, fallible human mind be sure that it was correct in recognising what it believed to be 'proof' of God? Surely it would take God to be absolutely sure of the existence of God. We can only bracket out his (non?)existence as beyond our cognitive reach.

PS Religion is irrational. But then so is 'reason'

 

[Poi E]

Thanks. But its not a matter of "belief," its a matter of logic.

Faith in rationality has been all the rage for quite some time, so you certainly won't be alone in justifying speculative matters with reason.

 

[phildwyer]

What makes you so sure that consciousness is given by God? Surely, it is more 'rational' to assume that - in its givenness - it is simply a given, and by definition not capable of being apprehended by itself (ie. human minds?) ie. How could the finite, fallible human mind be sure that it was correct in recognising what it believed to be 'proof' of God? Surely it would take God to be absolutely sure of the existence of God. We can only bracket out his (non?)existence as beyond our cognitive reach.

PS Religion is irrational. But then so is 'reason'

Well yes, I agree with this. But if something is a "given" then, logically, it has to be given *by* something else. In other words: reason exists, therefore it must be possible for it to exist, therefore there must be conditions for its possibility. The sum of those conditions would be "God."

 

[Fruitloop]

Meaningless idiosyncracies of the English language...

 

[articul8]

Well yes, I agree with this. But if something is a "given" then, logically, it has to be given *by* something else.

But since its givenness is all we can posit of it (given the unverifiable status of divinity, a transcendental "giver"), aren't we obliged to bracket out that quesiton and concentrate on what might - fallibalistically - pass as worthwile knowledge for us, on this planet? I think you make a mistake in assuming that "reason", per se, exists. Thought exists - it would appear. But it can only stipulate its own immanent criteria as proof of its value.

The existence of otherwise of god - iMO - cannot be definitively refuted - but nor can it be convincingly postulated today

 

[Poi E]

The existence of otherwise of god - iMO - cannot be definitively refuted - but nor can it be convincingly postulated today

A bit like the flying spaghetti monster, occasionally rumoured to be around these parts.

"fallibalistically". Awesome word. Only one google entry. Is that a googlewhack?

 

[phildwyer]

A bit like the flying spaghetti monster, occasionally rumoured to be around these parts.

So you are under the impression that the existence of God is an empirical hypothesis?

 

[Poi E]

So you are under the impression that the existence of God is an empirical hypothesis?

I just dump it in with the silly stuff like ghosts, spiritual guides, dream catchers, mediums, crystal balls and what not. I suppose I could embark on an exercise of reasoning God into existence, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter. My faith in reason isn't strong enough, though, I suppose.

 

[phildwyer]

I just dump it in with the silly stuff like ghosts, spiritual guides, dream catchers, mediums, crystal balls and what not. I suppose I could embark on an exercise of reasoning God into existence, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter. My faith in reason isn't strong enough, though, I suppose.

See, this is the problem. You think that God is like the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster, or an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud. You can't see Him, you can't find Him, therefore you conclude He doesn't exist. With due respect, you don't really understand the debate.

 

[Poi E]

With due respect, you don't really understand the debate.

It's all about what's important in your life, phil. If supernatural stuff is important to you, then cool. If your world view needs to be reinforced by the notion that you are somehow closer to a universal truth than others, then I would say your ego or insecurities need to be kept in check a little.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's all about what's important in your life, phil. If supernatural stuff is important to you, then cool. If your world view needs to be reinforced by the notion that you are somehow closer to a universal truth than others, then I would say your ego or insecurities need to be kept in check a little.

It's all vanity. Here's a link that sums up our friend.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/n/narcissus.html

 

[phildwyer]

It's all about what's important in your life, phil. If supernatural stuff is important to you, then cool. If your world view needs to be reinforced by the notion that you are somehow closer to a universal truth than others, then I would say your ego or insecurities need to be kept in check a little.

First of all, my view is shared by a vastly greater proportion of humanity than yours. If anyone is flattering themselves that they are "closer to a universal truth than others," it is you. Secondly, there is nothing "supernatural" about belief in God.

 

[phildwyer]

It's all vanity.

Bloody hell Nino, you've been reading Ecclesiastes! I'm very impressed--I *don't* think!

 

[Poi E]

First of all, my view is shared by a vastly greater proportion of humanity than yours. If anyone is flattering themselves that they are "closer to a universal truth than others," it is you. Secondly, there is nothing "supernatural" about belief in God.

Schiller's always a good 'un.

"Anyone taken as an individual, is tolerably sensible and reasonable- as a member of a crowd, he at once becomes a blockhead."

Need the reinforcement of that crowd, eh phil?

 

[phildwyer]

Schiller's always a good 'un.

"Anyone taken as an individual, is tolerably sensible and reasonable- as a member of a crowd, he at once becomes a blockhead."

Need the reinforcement of that crowd, eh phil?

Hang on, I thought I was fighting a lonely battle for truth in the face of the massed ranks of the Urban75 Skepticism For Beginners Possee. Seems to me you're the one running with the crowd mate.