Print

[GodSlayer]

You mean I just spend 20 minutes trying to decipher all that post-modernist nonsense you just wrote and I got it wrong?

if you're using postmodernist literally rather than derogatorily I'd like you to explain what you're referring to, as there was nothing in there which Descartes or Paine wouldn't have thought

[mindme]

I believe Korean women (and women in east asia) have a similar problem with vitamin d inadequacy. East asian women generally want to have very white skin and avoid the sun. They walk around with umbrellas to keep from tanning up.

[GodSlayer]

if they accidentally say the wrong thing about Philosophy - clearly millions of people will die.

one could jeer similarly about every quack claim they've addressed in the history of the podcast, but one would both look an idiot and be encouraging intellectual sloppiness and apathy, and for what, the fact that one proper treatment of an issue will have a negligible influence against all the discourse which fails to address the matter sufficiently?

some of us care about upholding a standard of discourse which promotes intellectual progress, and for such people behaving as if our words are of consequence only in some hypothetical future date where we have an audience of millions would be foolish.

[Cat Jockey Fanboy]

You mean I just spend 20 minutes trying to decipher all that post-modernist nonsense you just wrote and I got it wrong?

if you're using postmodernist literally rather than derogatorily I'd like you to explain what you're referring to, as there was nothing in there which Descartes or Paine wouldn't have thought

I just can't believe he read all that in 20 minutes.

[Cat Jockey Fanboy]

some of us care about upholding a standard of discourse which promotes intellectual progress, and for such people behaving as if our words are of consequence only in some hypothetical future date where we have an audience of millions would be foolish.

Some of us got a degree in philosophy and don't want to feel bad about it.

[seaotter]

some of us care about upholding a standard of discourse which promotes intellectual progress, and for such people behaving as if our words are of consequence only in some hypothetical future date where we have an audience of millions would be foolish.

Some of us got a degree in philosophy and don't want to feel bad about it.

Should have thought about that earlier.

[GodSlayer]

Some of us got a degree in philosophy and don't want to feel bad about it.

whateeeever you need to tell yourself to excuse your own intellectual torpor buddy.

[Cat Jockey Fanboy]

They shouldn't mistake science and philosophy.
You shouldn't mistake science-podcasts and philosophy-podcasts.

[GodSlayer]

They shouldn't mistake science and philosophy.
You shouldn't mistake science-podcasts and philosophy-podcasts.

talk about missing the point entirely.

[Ajzzz]

Everything is philosophical terrority. Steve's answer was philosophically sound. Mutually exclusive beliefs can't both be true, that's redundant. Noting apologetics or alternative religious beliefs doesn't answer the emailer's question, Steve's answer did. Steve doesn't have to note that non-mutually exclusive beliefs can both be true as well. Steve wasn't suggestioning that it's either one or none, he was answering a question that he assumed included a mutually exclusive belief. The criticism of Steve's answer doesn't even relate to his answer, or to the question.

I can understand that women feel the way Carrie does but I find the type of feminism that picks on statements like "you have pretty eyes" as sexist is pathetic, and paranoid. I strongly disagree with diversity for diversity's sake, it just plays into identity politics and groups people against their will. I fully agree that speakers should be representative of the movement.

[Cat Jockey Fanboy]

They shouldn't mistake science and philosophy.
You shouldn't mistake science-podcasts and philosophy-podcasts.

talk about missing the point entirely.

I would talk about it - but apparently you'd miss the point entirely.

[GodSlayer]

Steve's answer was philosophically sound. Mutually exclusive beliefs can't both be true, that's redundant.

The question, which I made a point to quote exactly, wasn't whether two religions can be right about a mutually exclusive truth-claim, but whether or not if God existed more than one religion could be valid. Religion, as they say, is about how to go to heaven, not about how the heavens go. While there might be only one truth about heliocentricism, there might in truth be more than one way to satisfy God.

Steve wasn't suggestioning that it's either one or none, he was answering a question that he assumed included a mutually exclusive belief.

I have no idea what you think you just said here.

The criticism of Steve's answer doesn't even relate to his answer, or to the question.

my critique here is that his answer doesn't address the question beyond the extent to which the concern was 'what do you guys on the panel yourselves believe'.--I thought it worthy of note what the scope of philosophically valid positions would be, so as to not mischaracterize the predicament to the emailer. The claim that either one religion is valid or no religion is valid, just as heliocentrism is either valid or invalid is not analogous or philosophically sound, since, for example, Lutherans and Calvinists could both be wrong about the selling of indulgences, and yet Catholics and Protestants alike attain salvation in Jesus Christ.--For someone who wonders 'if there is only one truth, then doesn't that mean if I'm a Methodist and I'm right that I need to convert Baptists, otherwise they won't enjoy salvation?', Steve's answer is misleading.

[gone]

I do think Steve skirted the question a little bit,  but appropriately so.  I think that he answered the question the writer meant to say, not the question he actually asked

[BertrandBataille]

Everything is philosophical terrority. Steve's answer was philosophically sound. Mutually exclusive beliefs can't both be true, that's redundant.

Yes, yes, and I don't think so. There's certainly a perspective that science and the world "match up", so to speak -- but my studies in philosophy have convinced me (pending superior arguments to the contrary) that this is perhaps not so; and that it is not so isn't that big of a deal. We can have two sets of mutually exclusive worldviews and, so long as they are internally consistent, both worldviews can give us an informative picture of the world -- but not at the same time. Just like we can see the duck-rabbit as EITHER duck OR rabbit -- but not at the same time.

[GodSlayer]

I think that he answered the question the writer meant to say, not the question he actually asked

I think that's clearly what Steve was aiming to do, but, for the reasons I provided, I'm not convinced that it was indeed what the emailer meant to ask.

maybe some follow-up in subsequent days will put this to rest.