Best degrees for atheists who want to debate creationists? (1 Viewer)

[Arsey-Darcy]

...

Would first year geology and biology be suitable?

my question is why the fuck you would want to get anywhere near someone who believes in creationism, i wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot clown pole.

 

[Cookie182]

I think I could have summarised what I tried to say earlier by this question:

If truth is unattainable, is self-delusion not only pragmatic but required?

Edit: I'm aptly reminded of a passage in a River out of Eden where Dawkins says that jsut because we can ask the question "does life have meaning" does not mean it deserves an answer.

 

[KFunk]

Without the requisite philosophical background I stuggle to describe another major concern of mine and that is the use (and in my opinion the limitations) of using language to describe the possibility and furthermore the characteristics of such an entity at all.

A non-cognitivist approach seems highly interesting...

I am highly sympathetic to this idea. One thing I might suggest is that in some cases it is less language itself than the particular manner of use. It may be that the meaning of some parts of experience and the universe are amenable to metaphor but not to analysis in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. That said, in the face of the universe, god, or the infinite a guttural expression of awe and terror might be most appropriate. Non-cognitivism of the kind you refer to has been explored a great deal in the domain of ethics.

Yet I only have a limited time until the final sleep comes (death)...is it worth seeking knowledge at all, if only to further the pain?

Don't fear, I'm not suicidal, but I can contemplate it in a theoretical/philosophical sense...

as i'm sure many philosophers have, any thoughts on the "dark side" of enquiry?

Hmm, hard question. Pragmatism is definitely a good safety net in times of need. Do note that the kind of critical philosophy I am advocating could never endorse an outright rejection of commonly held truths, rather it encourages us to regard them critically whilst remaining open to alternatives. There are some interesting dark corners of philosophy though (e.g. Kierkegaard on faith, some critical theorists like Adorno/Horkheimer, and so on). Also, on pragmatism, I think that cynicism and upset are important and not to be avoided, especially with respect to the plight of humanity (for how else are we to perceive the necessity of change).

In the most broadest sense, Kfunk why do you bother to live, neverlone "seek knowledge" if in many ways you have already learned knowledge can't be fully acquired (paradox there I think: how can this be true under nihilism?)?

I mentioned this at the dinner table once and the folks got worried...I consider it a legitimate question.

Because I feel that this pursuit enriches my life. Also, it helps me to sleep at night (there is nothing like Kant/Heidegger to slow a racing mind to a halt..?). Also, in some cases philosophy is not so much about knowledge as adopting an attitude/approach or attaining a certain state-of-mind - e.g. existential strands of thought on the importance of fundamental responsibility in the face of choice.

 

[KFunk]

I think I could have summarised what I tried to say earlier by this question:

If truth is unattainable, is self-delusion not only pragmatic but required?

If truth is unattainable, is this question answerable?

 

[KFunk]

I only argue using classical propositional logic, but like most, its all I know (and even then I know little). Saving the details is there another form of logic which supersedes it?

How did you feel in respect to the value of science while studying medicine?

I mean technically you could call into question the "truth" of everything your learning. The "facts" in your pharmacology class are only facts under the system of enquiry we have created (yet I know of no other way). Is the scientific method arbitary? What do you think of the real "truth"?

On logic: you probably use a naive/folk form of modal logic without realising it (modal --> dealing in possibility/necessity), but the subtleties which emerge through formalisation are quite interesting. Special logics which are interesting, but perhaps lest obviously useful, are paraconsistent logic (which permits contradiction, leading most logicians to reject it bar a courageous few) and intuitionistic logic which does not assume that a proposition must be either true or false (i.e. 'p OR not p' - the law of the excluded middle) without a proof one way or the other. Intuitionism has actually been utilised within certain branches of mathematics since it emphasises 'construction' of mathematical entities and so is more grounded than mainstream mathematics which will posit 'Platonic' entities at whim.

On science: I'm yet to go back actually (3 years med, 2 years arts, 2 years med). No doubt it will force me to be more critical, probably in a good way for the most part - there is a lot of mumbo jumbo in medicine where tradition and custom pass for truth. Evidence-based medicine is slowly eliminating this, though perhaps at the expense of ceremony (with all the placebo benefit it brings). In general I find that I can bracket off skepticism when it comes to medicine. Something like anatomy is pretty hard to doubt. Molecular biology is a little more touch-and-go (so a million lever looking thingies latch onto cable like things, break down energy, go 'woosh' and then make the sperm wiggle its tail). I survive.

Also, you seem to love Kant.

Don't you think the whole "categorical imperative" would fail pragmatically?

Haha, Kant is cool, but he is mainly on my mind because I have just been studying him and am about to write an essay (on where his theoretical and moral philosophies collide). Certainly I think that he is worth consulting on a range of issues given that he brings interesting and relatively sophisticated views to the table - to the extent that he is still of great relevance to contemporary cognitive science, theology, moral and legal theory, politics (e.g. the relevance of Kant on 'perpetual peace' to institutions like U.N., or the League of Nations in the past) and so on.

 

[micuzzo]

R u serious buddy???

 

[Ben1220]

Most ppl find this motivation strange I admit...

I get the vibe that a lot of students are studying to get a job or becuase they have some specific interest/research idea to a known problem...

Is it common to study purely for the pursuit of knowledge and in some way "spiritual" (which I will define in a materialistic sense of "knwoing truth") attainment about the universe?

Not so much in Australia, because our culture unfortunately views education as just a means to get a job, but elsewhere: yes, with more intelligent individuals. That is not to say many Australian students do courses purely for the pursuit of knowledge, its just not overly common.

Also, about debating creationists, there is no point really. They mostly don't care about scientific evidence or logical arguments. Many probably couldn't care less if there happened to be a logically sound argument against creationism that Forrest Gump could follow... It is probably best to transcend discussions with these kind of people, as nothing of meaning can come out of them. I'm not saying you shouldn't debate with intelligent open minded christians who have actually put some thought into their position though. (I know there are few people like this, but its better then going after the millions of strawmen that won't even realise when they loose)

You might enjoy taking a course on epistemology, which is the philosophy of knowledge. It deals with ideas such as certainty and skepticism. The philosophy of Science is also good. I'm doing a Bachelor of Science at Melbourne, and as you might know, with the Melbourne model, you need to do 1/4 of your subjects from another faculty. So I am taking B.A philosophy subjects along with Science, which is perfect for me, and maybe something you might want to consider in the future.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Cookie dont you dare attempt to debate religious people in real life, ur horrible at articulating your muddled little thoughts, the shit you spew will give us 'athiests' a bad name

What kind of mentally retarded individual needs to go to university in order to 'debate creationists', in case you havent realised, there is no debate.
Imagine someone saying;
''I'm off to go and study marine biology because my schizophrenic freind tells me he can speak to coral, I rekon after 3 years of sitting in a dark basement studying coral I'll be ready''.

Do not enter their fantasy land at all.

The intellectually nauseating conversationg you and KFunk are engaged in really makes me cringe, please learn how to construct meaningful statements...

"I'm an unsettled agnostic sipping the straw of probabilistic atheism, a similar position to Albert Ellis the great American Psychologist"

it's just NOT ON.

 

[KFunk]

^ Short poppy.

 

[ConquerDiscover]

im doing a science degree and im not atheist.

 

[Cookie182]

^ Short poppy.

Indeed

He is a Hitchens wannabe, spouting the very dogmatism we chuckled at.

 

[ay0_x]

And you guys are making your religious [or lack thereof] beliefs a central point in your life, just like the Christians do, and you make me LOL. Really now, wanting to spend 3 years and a lot of money just so you can sound "right"? No different to a man entering a monastery.

It's this kind of forceful, belligerent atheism that makes me roll my eyes. No better than Christians. -_-

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Indeed

He is a Hitchens wannabe, spouting the very dogmatism we chuckled at.

uh you satisfy the definition of a 'wannabe' precisely, you want to go to uni so you can 'debate the believers'.......(just like Hitchens)
dim wit stay silent

 

[Studentleader]

YouTube - You're too stupid to be an atheist.

Physics and biology.

 

[Hello2U2]

consider taking up an arts unit like religious studies/studies of religion or something similar offered at whatever university you go too. you may find it easier to understand where they are coming from, what beliefs they hold. Maybe then you'll find it easier to debate creationists.

 

[Vce121]

uh you satisfy the definition of a 'wannabe' precisely, you want to go to uni so you can 'debate the believers'.......(just like Hitchens)
dim wit stay silent

We have a little thing called freedom of speech. Dip shit.

 

[chucknthem]

We have a little thing called freedom of speech. Dip shit.

Not under Australian law
Free Speech and the Constitution

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system.(6) There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116).

Free Speech & Defamation

In Australia there is no explicit legal protection of freedom of speech. The most commonly understood notion of freedom of speech derives from the United States where the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights reads, 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...' Some argue that freedom of speech in Australia exists to the extent that there is no law restricting it. However in the absence of a positive right to freedom of speech there is little protection against censorship on the part of government or other interests.

Yeah not that relevant to this discussion, but it seems to be a common misconception in Australia

 

[Cookie182]

Not under Australian law
Free Speech and the Constitution

Free Speech & Defamation



Yeah not that relevant to this discussion, but it seems to be a common misconception in Australia

Adding to the strong case for a legislative Bill of Rights.

 

[Ben1220]

adding to the strong case for a legislative bill of rights.

+1

 

[iggy90]

I honestly thought this was a funny joke for the first two pages, then i realised it wasnt. You are serious.

How about a bachelor in wanker studies