Do people really believe in Angels?

[Master Zik]

So when you insult me, you insult GOD.
Blasphemous Heretic

thats not cute...your not initiated....so don't try imitating....you could seriously get yourself hurt.

you already exposed yourself as an atheist anyway...atheist.

The way you calling it the more you hate me the more you hate yourself and your GOD. According to what you belief w/e I label myself is irrelevant, right? or are your beliefs clearly arbitrary and random that could easily be different?

Son you talking about initiations? Initiation was before birth. You not even adhering to what you believe in. False prophet type of ******.

 

[johnny cakes]

Right. But you seem to presume a HELL of a lot about my life though.

Kiddo. 

Last time I checked, a troll was someone who wasn't sticking to the topic but was rather lodging ad-hominem attacks against posters.

You fit the bill since your first post in here. 

See how you're able to keep up with my posts? Because I do them intermittently due to the fact I have a life, you on the other hand.... Now I disappear again, I have things to do. Talk to you later sweety.

 

[b smooth 202]

The way you calling it the more you hate me the more you hate yourself and your GOD. According to what you belief w/e I label myself is irrelevant, right? or are your beliefs clearly arbitrary and random that could easily be different?
Son you talking about initiations? Initiation was before birth. You not even adhering to what you believe in. False prophet type of ******.

what the **** are you talking about?

first of all I don't hate you, I don't even know you. Second of all.....everybody has a soul and is part and parcel of GOD is the point that I made. that even goes for the devil and all of his **** *** followers who attack righteousness and deny the creator of all there is.

...but of course like a fool your going to try and unilaterally apply this knowledge to your self without really being in understanding or knowledge

you've been arguing against the almighty in all of these types of threads....now you wanna try and turn the tables like your slick....

sit your *** down.

 

[brainwashed21]

yo future.. the fossils man.. the sizes and shapes of the skulls from our ancestors to us is real different. nd another thing... people use to think the world was flat until they found out it was round.. so your the type of guy to believe anything as long as theres proof, until someone come and disclaims it.. right?

 

[futuremd]

Right. But you seem to presume a HELL of a lot about my life though.

Kiddo. 

Last time I checked, a troll was someone who wasn't sticking to the topic but was rather lodging ad-hominem attacks against posters.

You fit the bill since your first post in here. 

See how you're able to keep up with my posts? Because I do them intermittently due to the fact I have a life, you on the other hand.... Now I disappear again, I have things to do. Talk to you later sweety.

Do you have anything to contribute to the conversation?

 

[futuremd]

yo future.. the fossils man.. the sizes and shapes of the skulls from our ancestors to us is real different. nd another thing... people use to think the world was flat until they found out it was round.. so your the type of guy to believe anything as long as theres proof, until someone come and disclaims it.. right?

I'm confused as to what you're talking about regarding fossils. If you could be more specific, I could give you a more specific answer. Do you mean of other species??

and I align myself with things where the evidence lies. If something comes along that grants more evidence then I'll go where that leads me.

Bottom line, you can not make claims on things that you do not have the ability to support. 

 

[futuremd]

So when you insult me, you insult GOD.
Blasphemous Heretic

thats not cute...your not initiated....so don't try imitating....you could seriously get yourself hurt.

you already exposed yourself as an atheist anyway...atheist.

What makes you "initiated?" 

 

[futuremd]

The way you calling it the more you hate me the more you hate yourself and your GOD. According to what you belief w/e I label myself is irrelevant, right? or are your beliefs clearly arbitrary and random that could easily be different?
Son you talking about initiations?

Initiation was before birth. You not even adhering to what you believe in. False prophet type of ******.

what the **** are you talking about?

first of all I don't hate you, I don't even know you. Second of all.....everybody has a soul and is part and parcel of GOD is the point that I made. that even goes for the devil and all of his **** *** followers who attack righteousness and deny the creator of all there is.

...but of course like a fool your going to try and unilaterally apply this knowledge to your self without really being in understanding or knowledge

you've been arguing against the almighty in all of these types of threads....now you wanna try and turn the tables like your slick....

sit your *** down.

What is this soul and where is it? 

You say there is a creator. What is it and where is it? 

What is the almighty? Is it real? 

 

[brainwashed21]

i mean the fossils of of our supposed evolution.. heres a link so u could see what i mean 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2722517...ssils-trace-story-human-origins/#.UG9yq_l24r4

how the hell did we alter so much?

yo religion and science are all a mind state.. whichever one you go by is how your pretty much gonna live and look at life

 

[futuremd]

i mean the fossils of of our supposed evolution.. heres a link so u could see what i mean 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2722517...ssils-trace-story-human-origins/#.UG9yq_l24r4

how the hell did we alter so much?

yo religion and science are all a mind state.. whichever one you go by is how your pretty much gonna live and look at life

Religion is not a mind state. Its an excuse and an attempt to fill in gaps of knowledge with unsubstantiated assumptions and as little thinking as possible.

Religious people use science when its convenient. 

Science is a process. Its not a thing. 

And the fossils you're referring to are pre-hominid species. Those aren't humans. Homo habilus, erectus, ergaster, floresiensis, etc. Those aren't homo sapiens. 

There are theories that center around things like better nutrition, enhanced brains, better adaptation with bipedal motion.

If you want more details on it, I can recommend some books. 

 

[brainwashed21]

religions a cop out sure,, but when you throw it on the ground like its worth nothing then u seem kind of cynical.. back when there were kings in england rome and all those wonderful places, they would kick out all the poor people.. while they were living rich within their walls the poor were dying nd struggling on the outside.. they were forced to have hope that there was a better life, after death, than what they were living. reminds me of slavery in america.. its a mind state of what your circumstances lead you to believe... not a full blown excuse

 

[hugheyfreeman]

religions a cop out sure,, but when you throw it on the ground like its worth nothing then u seem kind of cynical.. back when there were kings in england rome and all those wonderful places, they would kick out all the poor people.. while they were living rich within their walls the poor were dying nd struggling on the outside.. they were forced to have hope that there was a better life, after death, than what they were living. reminds me of slavery in america.. its a mind state of what your circumstances lead you to believe... not a full blown excuse

you just made sense of everything that everyone in here is arguing about ...in a sentence!..repped son

 

[futuremd]

religions a cop out sure,, but when you throw it on the ground like its worth nothing then u seem kind of cynical..

it ISN'T worth anything.

It never was. 

Its not my fault that I seem cynical. Am I supposed to care about it? I don't. I won't. I will not start. 

 back when there were kings in england rome and all those wonderful places, they would kick out all the poor people.. while they were living rich within their walls the poor were dying nd struggling on the outside.. they were forced to have hope that there was a better life, after death, than what they were living.

So?

You don't need religion to be altruistic or to find the benefit in socially derived collectivism that allows us to rely on each other for our total advancement. 

Imagine that your life sucks so much that you think there is another life after you die.

I don't care how comforting that is. Its not real. Its an idea that has gotten WAY too much credibility. 

reminds me of slavery in america.. its a mind state of what your circumstances lead you to believe... not a full blown excuse

So? 

Again, wanting to believe something because its comforting has no bearing on the validity of it. 

None. 

 

[brainwashed21]

lol.. you dont have to care for religion.. but you cant s*** on people just because thats a principle they stand by. when science finds out what happens after death then go to every religious person and tell them they have no point.. till then shut up 

 

[futuremd]

lol.. you dont have to care for religion..

You're right. I absolutely, do not.

 but you cant s*** on people just because thats a principle they stand by.

Pretty sure I can.

I will protect their right to believe it though. I do not have to agree with it though, nor do I have to hold my tongue.

when science finds out what happens after death then go to every religious person and tell them they have no point..

Science doesn't have a stance on things it can't prove.

Religious people need to understand this. Stop making absolute claims on things you can not prove. 

 till then shut up 

How mature. 

 

[longstroke]

You can't say I'm limited in my thinking because you choose to give a word several definitions whether they fit or not. In fact you come off quite lazy to do that instead of using the appropriate word for what you mean and what you're trying to express. It seems you're the one limited in that regard.
Regardless of that what you say of hope and humanity is only your subjective opinion so far from the facts of history and philosophy over time that it couldn't be father from the truth.

You know what? All that really matters is that the statement I made, was understood by the person I directed it to. So perhaps if I need to address you any further, I'll simply reference Dr. Seuss on your behalf.

Have a great one.

 

[wr]

I will protect their right to believe it though. I do not have to agree with it though, nor do I have to hold my tongue.

Where in any of your time online do you find yourself protecting others rights to belief?

What you are doing is the exact opposite. What gives you jurisdiction to police peoples rights to speech. Especially here on NT.

A conversation can not even commence because you run around shouting for the burden of proof for anything anybody says. We're on the web. Chill.

I think anytime you say anything on any topic we should all bombard your post asking for proof. whether it's substantive to the topic or not just to give you a taste of your own medicine.

You have this notion that intellectual competitiveness is more auspicious than intellectual collaboration which is trying to take place and flower here in this community, but you want to go pulling up all the roots before they get a chance to show any growth.

 

[longstroke]

You have this notion that intellectual competitiveness is more auspicious than intellectual collaboration which is trying to take place and flower here in this community, but you want to go pulling up all the roots before they get a chance to show any growth.

Interesting comment.

 

[brainwashed21]

mediums, psychics, ghost, angels, god, hell, love, hate, bad, good.. is it all bull? because to me it all starts from somewhere.. just like in science.. everything has a beginning.. it doesnt have to have physical truth for someone to believe its real.. just because you show me something doesnt mean i have to believe it.. i heard there were 13 presidents before our first.. they didnt tell me that in school.. pluto use to be a planet and now its not.. your science and proof is flawed my friend. your told what you think is real and then they change it up without any consent.. i rather believe something that makes sense in my mind, even if i outgrew the whole god/santa story.. if it makes sense nd keeps someone at peace, why disturb or discredit that with your ever changing science of theorys.. just because they classify something nd put it in categories doesnt mean i gotta believe it.. 

 

[offwhitewhite]

What are you talking about?

It is an individual. A human being. Thats not a soul. You changing the name for "person" doesn't make it just then "a soul" 


WHAT???

How do babies have personalities?

Its their brains, silly.

Do you think kids are just little robots with no means of thinking?

Sex isn't on their mind because of the hormonal changes hat haven't taken place.

People have dreams based on their experiences.

Its all just people with complex brains sucking in tons of different stimuli, trying to make sense of things. 

What are you talking about dude? 

This isn't magic. 

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

People can be dedicated to learning more about life and how to improve it. 

And they don't come up with "theories I just believe in." I'm not into blind faith. I'm in to observing studies and gathering proof. They don't just make **** up and then ask people to believe it.

Peer review is real. If the results aren't true or can't be replicated then its not actual science. 

What is wrong with you? 

If you assert that a soul exists, where is it and what is it?

Stop dancing and answer the question. 

You keep saying, "what's wrong with me?" and "what am I talking about?" because you can't understand. The problem with you is you only process information one way and one way only...Which is weird because the tools of Philosophy are the tools of Science.

You say, that's how a brain works, that's an individual, that's a person. You're saying that all of this happens because that's just how human brains work right? Okay, if that was the case we would just be artificial intelligence created by the brain. How do you explain consciousness? 

That's what your soul is. Like I said, at least 3 times already. Fact : You can't disprove it. Until you can you're in the same boat as those who can't prove it.

The most ironic thing about is that Science wouldn't have even existed if people didn't question things around them and ask "why?". 
 

 

[futuremd]

I will protect their right to believe it though. I do not have to agree with it though, nor do I have to hold my tongue.

Where in any of your time online do you find yourself protecting others rights to belief?

Funny you ask.

I've donated to causes that promote freedom to religion as well as secular initiatives because I don't want to live in a society where you CANT believe in what you want to believe.

I don't have a problem with challenging you for what you believe, but the moment you can't believe in BS, then we've got a problem as a whole.

What you are doing is the exact opposite. What gives you jurisdiction to police peoples rights to speech. Especially here on NT.

Policing? Actually, I'm just responding to people. You have as much of a right to not respond to me if you don't want to. Doesn't bother me at all.

Just don't act like you are then free from having others address you either.

You choose to reply to everything that is addressed to you.

A conversation can not even commence because you run around shouting for the burden of proof for anything anybody says. We're on the web. Chill.

Well the burden of proof is pretty powerful because it preserves the conversation if you ask me.

It keeps ridiculous arguments out of the fray so real discussion can occur on ACTUAL topics. 

If you can't back up what you're saying, on any level, then I, personally, am not wasting time on entertaining what you're saying. 

I think anytime you say anything on any topic we should all bombard your post asking for proof. whether it's substantive to the topic or not just to give you a taste of your own medicine.

Thats fine. I enjoy substantiating claims I assert.

Then again, I don't have a problem with asserting things that aren't true. Go ahead. 

You have this notion that intellectual competitiveness is more auspicious than intellectual collaboration which is trying to take place and flower here in this community, but you want to go pulling up all the roots before they get a chance to show any growth.

There isn't anything "intellectual" about dreaming about angels and magic monsters only for the sake of speculation.

If you'd like to give legitimacy to those claims, PLEASE assert your reasons for supporting those claims. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people don't give you the time of day or use the kid gloves on you for making up random ideas and asserting them as fact.

Proof matters. If you don't have it, you're gonna have a bad time. 

 

[futuremd]

mediums, psychics, ghost, angels, god, hell, love, hate, bad, good.. is it all bull? because to me it all starts from somewhere.. 

They're ideas that people WANT to be true.

That doesn't mean that they are.

Its all bull.

BTW, "love, hate, good, and bad" are all subjective ideas.

just like in science.. everything has a beginning..

Thats not what science says or asserts.

 it doesnt have to have physical truth for someone to believe its real..

No one said it did.

There are sociological concepts that are proven every day. 

There are psychological hypotheses that are supported every day. 

If you want to assert something, back it up. Its rather simple. 

just because you show me something doesnt mean i have to believe it..

Evidence matters. 

I hope you don't have a problem with the theory of gravity either. 

 i heard there were 13 presidents before our first.. they didnt tell me that in school..

Because we were under the articles of confederation and not the current constitution?

 pluto use to be a planet and now its not..

Its called learning more.

Science doesn't claim to be absolute. It claims to support assertions that are made.

I'm proud of the fact that we LEARNED MORE.

your science and proof is flawed my friend.

You mean learning more and admitting when you get something wrong? Yeah. Its called progress.

Good thing we don't practice bloodletting as a means of treating the cold. 

Evidence is what allows us to change our views. 

Religion doesn't change its views, even when its outdated and factually wrong. 

your told what you think is real and then they change it up without any consent..

Peer review.

Try again.

i rather believe something that makes sense in my mind,

Thats a pretty poor method.

What you think you'd see and what is actually true actually differs by quite a bit. 

even if i outgrew the whole god/santa story..

So? 

if it makes sense nd keeps someone at peace, why disturb or discredit that with your ever changing science of theorys.. just because they classify something nd put it in categories doesnt mean i gotta believe it.. 

What?

Thats like saying, well since this placebo sugar pill works, I'll keep taking it.

You're proving my point.

ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND. 

 

[futuremd]

What are you talking about?

It is an individual. A human being. Thats not a soul. You changing the name for "person" doesn't make it just then "a soul" 


WHAT???

How do babies have personalities?

Its their brains, silly.

Do you think kids are just little robots with no means of thinking?

Sex isn't on their mind because of the hormonal changes hat haven't taken place.

People have dreams based on their experiences.

Its all just people with complex brains sucking in tons of different stimuli, trying to make sense of things. 

What are you talking about dude? 

This isn't magic. 

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

People can be dedicated to learning more about life and how to improve it. 

And they don't come up with "theories I just believe in." I'm not into blind faith. I'm in to observing studies and gathering proof. They don't just make **** up and then ask people to believe it.

Peer review is real. If the results aren't true or can't be replicated then its not actual science. 

What is wrong with you? 

If you assert that a soul exists, where is it and what is it?

Stop dancing and answer the question. 

You keep saying, "what's wrong with me?" and "what am I talking about?" because you can't understand. The problem with you is you only process information one way and one way only...Which is weird because the tools of Philosophy are the tools of Science.

Philosophy has gotten smaller once it realized that it can't answer questions on the natural world.

Learning more about reality gets more difficult when you can't sit around and conjure up ideas. 

You have to actually get your hands dirty and set out proving these wild assertions.

Ask me how far the concept of the luminiferious aether got. 

You say, that's how a brain works, that's an individual, that's a person. You're saying that all of this happens because that's just how human brains work right?

Yes.

Okay, if that was the case we would just be artificial intelligence created by the brain. How do you explain consciousness? 

So? Creating machines to imitate our perception of behavior? 

And some have actually proposed this notion of yours. Don't mean its true.

Ask Alan Turing or look into the notion of a Turing Machine. 

And what do you mean, "explain consciousness?" Its your brain experiencing itself. Trippy right? Blame your prefrontal cortex. 

That's what your soul is.

What?

That makes NO sense.

Consciousness is not a thing. Its a concept of existence.

Like I said, at least 3 times already. Fact : You can't disprove it. Until you can you're in the same boat as those who can't prove it.

You can not disprove a negative of a deductive claim.

You can only prove a positive.

You don't say "you can't prove me wrong"...that doesn't make sense. You're the one that asserts this so you have to assert that its true. Thats how the burden of proof works. The burden is ON YOU to confirm the claims that you are proposing.

Otherwise, your claims are unsupported.

The most ironic thing about is that Science wouldn't have even existed if people didn't question things around them and ask "why?". 

Theres nothing wrong with asking questions.

There is a problem with making things up and not supporting them and then going forth and taking them as fact.

Start from the understanding that you know nothing and work to prove why you believe or align yourself with EVERYTHING you've ever learned.

If you can't validate why the formula for gravitational attraction makes sense, go figure it out.

If you can't validate why newborns shouldn't eat honey, go figure it out.

Ask questions. I encourage it.

Don't make stuff up to create comfortable delusions and assert them as fact. 

 

[voidemperor]

sheep gon sheep

 

[offwhitewhite]

Recently, a number of people have opened their mouth to deride Philosophy. Notably, they tend to be people who are well-placed academics such as Krauss and Dawkins. Likewise, Atheistlogic  has stuck their oar in too, though much more articulately. Atheistlogic spells out the general objection quite well, I think, so I’m going to focus on their comments as a stepping off point.

In a post titled “The Relative Uselessness of Philosophy in Determining Truth”, Atheistlogic claims the following:

There are some really hard-to-grasp concepts out there. Relativity: time doesn’t move at the same rate for all observers. Quantum mechanics: photons may be polarized in two different directions at once. Evolution: tiny changes in individual specimens result in large changes in a population over time.

These concepts are not intuitive: nobody is going to figure them out by sitting there and thinking about them really hard. It takes observation and concrete data. But once we have the data and observations to demonstrate a hypothesis, it’s ridiculous to cling to some point like “something can’t come from nothing” just because the observations are counterintuitive. This is why philosophy is not a method to truth, and fails especially spectacularly when you compare it to something like science. There’s no better way to figure out how the world works than going out and checking it for yourself.

That’s not to say that philosophy doesn’t have it’s uses: it’s great for ethics, rhetoric, epistemology, law, logic, etc… But when it comes to working out how the world actually is  by using metaphysics, ontology, theology, etc… philosophy can’t really hold a candle to science. And when you cling to axioms that you came to from an armchair in the face of actual scientific discovery, then you’re an idiot.

At the core of this analysis lies a false dichotomy, and some faulty assumptions. Or, to put it less strongly, a dichotomy that I do not believe is actually real and some assumptions I think I can demonstrate to be false.

Assumption 1: Philosophy is nothing more than people speculating from their intuitions.

Assumption 2: “Actual scientific discoveries” trump axioms.

Assumption 3: One doesn’t understand things by thinking about them really hard.

Assumption 4: Ethics, rhetoric, epistemology, law, logic, etc… don’t actually tell you about the world.

Assumption 5: Data has nothing to do with Philosophy.

False Dichotomy:  Either you are doing Science, or you are doing Philosophy. In any case, that which is Science is not Philosophy, and that which is Philosophy is not Science. An individual can blend the two together (c.f. Massimo Pigliucci), but that’s just doing two different things at the same time, it doesn’t imply that the two things are related (e.g eating dinner and watching tv).
[h3]Assumption 1: Philosophy is nothing more than people speculating from their intuitions.[/h3]
I’ve seen this bandied about a few times, and this seems to be the primary, pervasive misunderstanding of Philosophy in North America. I say North America, because it is not  the (mis)understanding of Philosophy that I experience here in Japan. (Here, when I mention my degree, people react with indrawn breath and a sudden deferential tone of voice. The difference between this and the contempt in North America is striking)

It would likewise be a mistake to assert that intuitions have no place in Philosophy. It’s as mistaken as saying that ‘intuitions have no place in Science’. Of course  they have a place in both Science and Philosophy: that’s where the process begins, with our intuitions. That’s how we starting looking for ideas, that’s where the ‘huh… that’s odd’ kicks in (this being an intuitive  response to something). But neither Science nor Philosophy end  at intuitions either. Anyone believing that one can simply babble on about ones feelings in Philosophy has zero experience with the academic discipline. Have a read over Samuel Clarke, a philosopher/theologian in the 18[sup]th[/sup]century who babbled on about god (if you’ve heard William Lane Craig, Clarke will be eerily familiar), and you can clearly see the role that intuitions play in his work. And Clarke’s arguments were torn to pieces  on that basis. They fail, because they are nothing more than Appeals to Intuition, an informal fallacy.

If you really do feel that Philosophy is nothing more than people talking about their intuitions, then 1) please let me know what Philosophy you have been reading, as I’m curious and I’d like to check who is currently babbling nonsense and 2) please ask someone with expertise in the area to recommend some introductory texts. I’d be more than happy to do so (some are linked at the bottom of this article).

Pigliucci has a whole podcast dedicated to this particular topic.
[h3]Assumption 2: “Actual scientific discoveries” trump axioms.[/h3]
This is one of those troublesome assumptions that is false, but true. It’s complicated.

It’s important to note that there is no such thing as axiom-free Science. Science consists of a whole bunch of axioms (I’ll elaborate on this later, Empiricism). So the question really hinges on what is meant by “actual scientific discoveries”.

Are we talking about data? Are we talking about basic facts about the world? If so, it’s almost impossible for them to ‘trump’ axioms, as most Philosophical  axioms are not directly about objects in the world (Spinoza). There may be a rare case, for example if someone were so foolish to claim that “all swans are white” is an axiom, that is definitely a case where a ‘scientific discovery’ vis a vis ‘data’ definition trumps an axiom. On this reading, the claim is false.

Are we talking about ‘scientific models that have turned out to have a lot of data to support them’ (e.g. Evolution)? Does this trump the axiomatic view that Humans are Humans because of some intangible ‘human-ness’ (i.e. Essentialism)? Absolutely. But… Those scientific models are collections of axioms themselves, so it’s not really correct to say that the “scientific discovery” has trumped the axiom; it’s more accurate to say that Set of Axioms A has garnered more support than Set of Axioms B. But to follow that through to reject Set of Axioms B, one has to have a precommitment to another set of axioms (aka Empiricism. More on this later). On this reading, the claim is kinda, sorta true, but not exactly a damning indictment of Philosophy…
[h3]Assumption 3: One doesn’t understand things by thinking about them really hard.[/h3]
This is one of those statements where, hopefully, the writer rereads their work and facepalms. And yet, I hear variations of this all the time: claims that we have to observe the world to understand it, and that we need data to reach the correct conclusion.

Sure, all of that is definitely true, but it still involves a whole bunch of ‘thinking really hard’ as well. It’s absolutely true that one can’t understand the world if onemerely  sits at home and thinks really hard: Philosophers don’t do that. Go read Descartes, or Hume, or Spinoza, or Leibniz, or any of them. All  of them lived in the world, observed the world, and attempted to explain the world by ‘thinking really hard’ about what they had seen. Yes, many of them were terribly, terribly wrong. That sounds exactly like Science to me.

Observations can be interpreted in multiple ways. ‘Data’, in and of itself, is meaningless. Only in the framework of a theory (aka “thinking really hard”) does data actually mean anything.
[h3]Assumption 4: Ethics, rhetoric, epistemology, law, logic, etc… don’t actually tell you about the world.[/h3]
The list above are a list of disciplines that are the theoretical underpinnings of action. You are absolutely welcome to operate in the world without any concept of Ethics. You are absolutely welcome to try to understand the world without any concept of Epistemology. Likewise, you are welcome to try to write music without any knowledge of music composition, and you are welcome to design a rocket without any training in Engineering.

Without a theoretical education in the arena in which you operate you may still be effective. By some magic of happenstance, your actions might just fit in with the people around you such that you don’t need guidance for your actions, and you don’t need to worry about resolving conflicts. Being lucky, however, doesn’t mean that the study of Ethics is useless. Fortunately, Hobbes never contributed anything to political science, and Rawls certainly didn’t contribute anything to social justice.

Oh… Wait…
[h3]Assumption 5: Data has nothing to do with Philosophy.[/h3]
I’ve mentioned Empiricism  a couple times above, so I’ll get into it a little more here.

First though: what the hell is  Philosophy? In order to distinguish Philosophy from, say, Science, one has to at least try to sketch an outline of what you’re talking about. Y’know, rather than just relying on your intuition and the intuitions of your readers…

In the broadest sense, Philosophy is about ‘what we think’. It is not about ‘how we think’ (as in the physical process of our thinking), as that is Psychology. It is, perhaps, about ‘how we should  think’ (as in the best methods of thinking that we are biologically capable of employing). In that sense, Philosophy is about the analysis of ideas, the critical dissection of ideas, and arguments, and hypotheses. It is about taking some things that we know, and attempting to logically extrapolate things that could  be true to varying degrees of certainty. It is about acknowledging that, given the prior things that we know, some things simply cannot be true.

This practice, in and of itself, does not require ‘new’ data, insofar as we are merely sketching out the possibilities. In this sense, Philosophy can determine The False, which is certainly useful. It is also fair to say that, given no new data, Philosophy cannot distinguish between the various possibilities to identify The True.

So what is Empiricism? Empiricism is that idea that we can get new, accurate information from examing the world, and plugging that information into our existing beliefs to help figure out which of them (if any) is true.

This sounds suspiciously like Science. Which leads me neatly into:
[h3]False Dichotomy: Either you are doing Science, or you are doing Philosophy.[/h3]
This is simply false. The tools of Philosophy are the tools of Science, though not all of the tools of Science are the tools of Philosophy (and, conversely, not all the tools of Philosophy are the tools of Science). I contend (and I am not alone) that Philosophy and Science are neither antagonistic, nor are they seperate in any meaningful way. Science is merely Philosophy plus Empiricism. I believe that the best way to view this is as a continuum, with Philosophy at one end, and Science as the other, and one moves from one to the other depending on ‘how much’ (so to speak) Empiricism one is using.

Sure, it may be the case that someone is doing ‘pure’ Philosophy, in terms of studying Ethics, but Utilitarianism is all about the outcomes, and outcomes can be measured. If we start predicting Utilitarian outcomes for communities, and subsequently measuring those outcomes (by whatever metrics are determined to be relevant), are we not doing Science? Are we doing “Applied Philosophy”? Is there a meaningful difference between those two terms? (I think not)

 The idea that data can be used to either validate a theory or falsify a theory is an idea with Philosophical roots. The idea that certain conclusions are justified given certain kinds of evidence is a Philosophical idea. Philosophically-blind Science is terrible science: it is data with no understanding of warrant or justification, or how to create a model, or any of those things that turn ‘a science’ into Science.

Likewise, Scientifically-blind Philosophy is limited, insofar as that Philosophy is about the world. I’m all for a spewing forth heaps of theories and ideas about how the world works, but there comes a point where one must apply those theories, and test to see which bear fruit. Philosophers like Kripke  drive me nuts, as does the whole ‘Philosophy of Language‘ subdivision.

So, I don’t think that folks like Dawkins, Krauss or Atheistlogic should shut up about Philosophy, or should cease commenting on the relevance of Philosophy to life in the real world. But I do think they would do themselves (and everyone else) a favour if they took the time to become educated on the subject prior to speaking…