Post AFij4oP7hLDbaAt0im by velartrill@social.ignis.link
(DIR) More posts by velartrill@social.ignis.link
(DIR) Post #AFiglxMjxHdbxweXqa by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T03:50:51.290652Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
the absolute, blinkered arrogance of these people never ceases to amaze me. they're like the inverse of the christians who insist the earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so
(DIR) Post #AFigt0V0hguXi8souO by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T03:52:07.683457Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
scientists assert that there is no god, as science finds no mechanism for god to existscientists assert that the universe does not exist, as science finds no mechanism for ex-nihilo formation of all physical principles, energy, matter, space, and time
(DIR) Post #AFih1eGgj9w7MwIx04 by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T03:53:41.501936Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
there's this fundamental cognitive error here, the conflation of "X is outside the magisterium of philosophy Y" and "philosophy Y disproves X", which i *constantly* see scientists make. religious thinkers too, ofc
(DIR) Post #AFihIP9s9uq9Qg6g7s by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T03:56:42.973645Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
it is the equivalenot of saying "pi is not an integer, therefore integers disprove pi and circles are fake news." like it's not even wrong, it's barely even an argument. you're just hitting people over the head with big words they don't understand to try and bludgeon them into agreeing with you
(DIR) Post #AFihvIWEmGIu8E75DU by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T04:03:44.869056Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
the entire conceit of supernaturalism is that there is a separate component to existence, a spiritual one which is *by definition* not amenable to interrogation by the tools of physical science (and i personally would go as far as suggesting that the truth of this proposition is self-evident to anyone who isn't a philosophical zombie, as it is demonstrated by the mere fact of our conscious experience). it doesn't negate the possibility that some kind of "spiritual science" could be developed someday, but there would be no overlap with the tools and mechanisms we use to interrogate the physical universe. it's hard to guess whether even the scientific method itself could be applied, or if we'd need an entirely new philosophy to work from
(DIR) Post #AFii9m3Zkmx9nNbsDQ by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T04:06:21.931351Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
and the precise way scientists go about attacking supernaturalism seems to suggest intentional sophistry, because they cannot possibly be stupid enough to believe their own reasoning in these arguments is sound, even if they're emotionally certain their conclusions are.
(DIR) Post #AFiiFP2wDaoSASznAu by tai@shitposter.club
2022-01-23T04:07:23.490604Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@velartrill do they even believe in what they are spouting though?I know some cases of career scientists for example that have gotten some publicity or been focused on a certain thing in their youth and refuse to ever change their position in the light of new evidence, because that would compromise their established position.Doesn't make them any less despicable, but taking their previous poor thought to it's seemingly obvious conclusion and providing obviously cherry-picked "evidence" for it seems too dishonest to be something they wouldn't internally be aware of.If so, I hope these life-long grifter-types end up in eternal inferno.
(DIR) Post #AFiisYlrznppcdgRf6 by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T04:14:27.367280Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
the reason i suspect the scientific method would be insufficient for approaching spiritual questions, even supposing we gain some kind of "psychic toolkit" for interrogating spiritual reality, comes down to the issue of qualia. in short, we who are conscious experience an objective fact -- the basic fact of our own consciousness -- which we can neither prove to others, nor can be proved to us using the scientific method, *despite the fact that we are capable of knowing this (and, arguably, nothing else) objectively.* and consider the magnitude of this: even memories can, in principle, be falsified, but the entire concept of "illusory" or "falsified" conscious experience is a contradiction in terms. you can't be fooled into believing you don't have a soul (except by semantic trickery that plays games with the definition of "soul"), even if you can be fooled into believing you were in fact born yesterday. and yet, this proposition -- "i have (am) a soul" -- is unfalsifiable by the axioms of the scientific method.
(DIR) Post #AFij3qXYGsJFuwMtWq by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T04:16:29.709208Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tai they should spend the afterlife having to argue their own existence to a God who refuses to believe the
(DIR) Post #AFij4oP7hLDbaAt0im by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T04:16:40.908102Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@tai they should spend the afterlife having to argue their own existence to a God who refuses to believe them
(DIR) Post #AFijGiTZZ5Hgfgdz7I by velartrill@social.ignis.link
2022-01-23T04:18:49.227333Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
philosophers, please stay out of linguistics, and scientists, please stay out of philosophy