Best degrees for atheists who want to debate creationists?

[KFunk]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by Cookie182

Also, Kfunk when you say "not rule out god entirely" I'm assuming your definition of "god" here is quite unique. I'm smug enough to assume it ain't Allah or the Christian god?

btw, have u critically read George Smiths "The Case Against God" (1979), forwarded a fairly basic +ve case for atheism

Also another question (I could seriously write you a 10 pg letter), what is your thoughts on a political science/theory major? Looks very interesting as well in our BA degrees, seems a little more softer then philosophy in terms of critical theory and more "applied" so to speak. Is philosophy more respected and regarded as more rigorous? I'm guessing a philosophy major would have no problem critiquing a political theory anyway...

On god, I will offer you a link to a recent post rather than retype something similar.

Both politics and philosophy can be rigorous. I am tempted to say that philosophy has the potential to be more 'hardcore' but most philosophy departments in NSW only run few courses that I would toss into the 'difficult' basket. Employment-wise philosophy comes down to generic skills (find me an employer cool enough to care about what you know about gender roles in Plato's Republic) whereas politics will equip you with a similar skillset at the same time as offering you knowledge which may be of specific relevance to certain careers (e.g. within government institutions, many NGOs, etc).

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by KFunk

If you have a lot of smarts on your side then you can make a(n) (academic) career in the liberal arts. You can always compromise: lately I have been considering a split career --> finish medicine, specialise in a field which is potentially conducive to part time work (e.g. shift work in intensive care or private psychiatry) and then attempt a split between clinical practice / academic humanities. There are a number of people around universities who manage combined professional/academic carrers.

Also, the likes of Kant/Hume simply offer different kinds of answers to Dawkins/Hawking. What I will say in favour of philosophy is that the range of answers is exceptionally broad, such that 'theistic creationism' and 'scientific realism' stand as but two views within the multitude. Both science and religion will tend to leave a number of things assumed and untouched (as will much philosophy, of course).

Thanks for your replies, thoughtful as always.

Firstly in respect to careers, I guess your advantage is that medicine is already clearly defined, with as you point out, philosophy acting as (useful) but complimentary knowledge.

In my case, a commerce degree is far less defined, and whilst I don't doubt the usefulness of the skills a BA teaches, it is a tricky decision (not that a BSc offers fantastic opportunies either, on surface).

I do like the breadth of philosophical enquiry and it certainly destroys any presupposed intellectual arrogance one has stored up when your whole world views (including those which you feel are immune because they are grounded in "science") are evaluated in front of one self. I'll admit though, at the danger of admiting to ignorance, science is comfortable enquiry. I think psychologically we all seek certainty and "truth" (the lovely word it is) and for many scientists the constant results and advancements give them this. The dreaded enemy in many ways is the philosopher of science who can then make them question their own methodology and ultimately reality. My own critique on the limited philosophy I have read is the complete and utter lack of certainty, to the point where I felt at times its a time-old act of no resolution. Philosophy in essence doesn't produce anything- one well thought through opinion is just as quickly disapated or held equal to something completely contradictory. At the end of the day, do you know the 'truth' in the most objective sense any more then you did before you began? If it leads to nihilism and I know this a priori then why should I bother- should I feel settled that that is the ultimate truth? Is there any universal advancements in the field such that there is a theory or "law" that is considered standard (besides the rules of logic)?

Science seems to offer that certainty, even if it is deluded in a deep sense, as it constantly builds on itself, throwing out junk but continually expanding our knowledge. Going down the other track means I could be 60 yrs old and still know nothing. Even if this is true in a realistic sense for an old scientist, is it not nice to die with the illusion of certainty?

Shit...I just answered why people are religious lol.

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by KFunk

On god, I will offer you a link to a recent post rather than retype something similar.

Both politics and philosophy can be rigorous. I am tempted to say that philosophy has the potential to be more 'hardcore' but most philosophy departments in NSW only run few courses that I would toss into the 'difficult' basket. Employment-wise philosophy comes down to generic skills (find me an employer cool enough to care about what you know about gender roles in Plato's Republic) whereas politics will equip you with a similar skillset at the same time as offering you knowledge which may be of specific relevance to certain careers (e.g. within government institutions, many NGOs, etc).

I like your approach, your reflection on god is as you say sympathetic and interesting, but its also beautiful as you treat it as though its simply a philosophical concept X existing as a possible element with our universe ( a set) or beyond.

I have similar contemplations, yet I would go further then you in my militantism, probably due to immaturity at times but mostly just due to an inner frustration in relation to the pragmatic effects of actually knowing 'a god' and telling the world at a legislative level (eg- Sharia law).

My issue is remaining calm around those who claim to not only know god, but who are certain of the existence at the complete denial of science. Surely this must frustrate you intellectually, or have you simply transcended the god politics?

I thought philosophy would create an outspoken, augmentative monster...Kfunk, are you a rare personality or was the consensus among your fourth year fellowship one of soothing and compassionate enquiry?

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

Shit...I just answered why people are religious lol.

Haha, correct, and well spotted.

Personally I quite enjoy the self-devouring nature of critical philosophy. I find it worthwhile to cultivate a certain amount of comfort with uncertainty and incompleteness (in the technical logic sense, even). Perhaps this is what Sextus Empiricus (a 'Pyrrhonean' skeptic) meant to indicate by the term Ataraxia?

[Cookie182]

I'd classify myslef firstly as an ignostic, but if I'm willing to lax my first barrier, I'm an unsettled agnostic sipping the straw of probabilistic atheism, a similar position to Albert Ellis the great American Psychologist.

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...

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by KFunk

Haha, correct, and well spotted.

Personally I quite enjoy the self-devouring nature of critical philosophy. I find it worthwhile to cultivate a certain amount of comfort with uncertainty and incompleteness (in the technical logic sense, even). Perhaps this is what Sextus Empiricus (a 'Pyrrhonean' skeptic) meant to indicate by the term Ataraxia?

hmm "a state of robust tranquility" would be lovely.

Honestly, your the doc-to-be, I'll anonymously admit that I feel deeply disturbed without answers, its almost a paranoid rift in my psychology. I find what you seem to enjoy, queezy and uneasy (though I could learn to live with it). If I had less intelligence I could put down my copy of the god delusion and be done with it. But then what better am I then my man under the Lord? I could of done the same thing with the Bible 15 yrs ago.

The further I enquire, the harder it is to get to sleep...

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?

[Cookie182]

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.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

My issue is remaining calm around those who claim to not only know god, but who are certain of the existence at the complete denial of science. Surely this must frustrate you intellectually, or have you simply transcended the god politics?

I thought philosophy would create an outspoken, augmentative monster...Kfunk, are you a rare personality or was the consensus among your fourth year fellowship one of soothing and compassionate enquiry?

Haha, a bit of both perhaps? I have never been a particularly dogmatic person (in so far as I tend to be open rather than rigid in the face of new ideas?), but at the same time I certainly think that philosophy has made me less dogmatic, especially with respect to the value of science, evolutionary theory and classical propositional logic (i.e. the standard anti-religious intellectual toolkit). Philosophy often tries to paint itself as a discipline which promotes personal development but I am inclined to think that personality will overcome the discipline in most cases.

Mind you, I could still remain a dogmatist of sorts and say 'If it is good enough for Kant, then it is good enough for me'.

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by KFunk

Haha, a bit of both perhaps? I have never been a particularly dogmatic person (in so far as I tend to be open rather than rigid in the face of new ideas?), but at the same time I certainly think that philosophy has made me less dogmatic, especially with respect to the value of science, evolutionary theory and classical propositional logic (i.e. the standard anti-religious intellectual toolkit). Philosophy often tries to paint itself as a discipline which promotes personal development but I am inclined to think that personality will overcome the discipline in most cases.

Mind you, I could still remain a dogmatist of sorts and say 'If it is good enough for Kant, then it is good enough for me'.

Haha, pierce brosnan

Oh this is a question I need to forward to the psychologist certainly. I'm not "immature" but I'm self-admittedly "excited" by dogmatism: there is something beautiful about feeling your closer then others to the "truth" in the same way you feel if you had extra hints towards a test which you witheld from a cohort. I would like to achieve this calmness, though as you say, personality can be a bitch to fight. The problem is, dogmatists now have public idols such as Hitchens and I admit its very easy to fall into his web with such a punchy vernacular & wit.

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"?

[Cookie182]

Also, you seem to love Kant.

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

[Arsey-Darcy]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

...

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]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

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.

Originally Posted by Cookie182

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).

Originally Posted by Cookie182

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

If truth is unattainable, is this question answerable?

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

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.

Originally Posted by Cookie182

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.