tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4666551547235209266..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Religion and Philosophy in SchoolsStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15534393101109265652009-02-08T18:52:00.000+00:002009-02-08T18:52:00.000+00:00though long, but worth readingthough long, but worth readingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29760877996898498102008-07-16T16:00:00.000+00:002008-07-16T16:00:00.000+00:00Although this comment thread seems to have died, I...Although this comment thread seems to have died, I wanted to clarify my previous comment. Are you Stephen arguing that "relative truths" are non-cognitive - given your example? I don't think so and I do think that such "relative truths" are cognitive, just all in error... if they think that truth is relative to culture or equivalent.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-68338288160989276542008-07-08T19:42:00.000+00:002008-07-08T19:42:00.000+00:00Stephen - would you please explain what's wrong wi...Stephen - would you please explain what's wrong with relativism [so long as it isn't the mindless "everything is equal, there are no values" brand]?<BR/><BR/>If you aren't a relativist of some sort, presumably you must believe in the existence of absolute truth, which I find surprising.<BR/><BR/>I have no difficulty with a relativism which recognises that some standards, values, and cultures are better or worse than others.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43835122663722924152008-07-08T15:10:00.000+00:002008-07-08T15:10:00.000+00:00Kosh3 - Well I guess it would depend on how the Ma...Kosh3 - <BR/><BR/>Well I guess it would depend on how the Marxist's case was put. If it simply consisted of a string of appeals to the authority of Marx or even a bitter catalogue of the injustices perpetrated upon the proletariat (as personified by himself) then the causal response seems fair enough.<BR/><BR/>Of course to rebut it, one needs to find enough Marxists from loving homes...but no that can't be right either. Surely the definition of <I>enough</I> hugging is "until the Marxism goes away"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88535922187883435982008-07-08T15:08:00.000+00:002008-07-08T15:08:00.000+00:00Well many interesting points Stephen.I can only co...Well many interesting points Stephen.I can only cover a few in this comment, you will be glad to read.<BR/><BR/>First I wonder if there is such a thing as relative truth? Are such entities instead just non-cognitive? Your example on the deliciousness of wichitti grubs is surely makes more sense - ahem, to me - as being non-cognitive not a relative truth. That is deliciousness and taste in general is non-cognitive. On the other hand reporting ones preferences for or against wichitti grubs is a simple statement that is true or false and not relative. Now, assuming one is not lying or under some form of self-deception, then it is true. And if one is lying etc then the statement is plain false and that too is also a matter of fact, however difficult it may be to ascertain in practice. <BR/><BR/>Now I mention the above because it is not clear to me how well this example hangs with the rest of your argument, with which I broadly agree. Certainly my initial response to the idea of that teaching philosophy brings about relativism was, how absurd. And then of course realized this is yet another empty rhetorical claim by religionists and the opposite is the case. It is more likely that religious eduction, though preventing the teaching of philosophy, indirectly encourages relativistic thinking, as most pupils, according to stats from the BHA, end up rejecting theism, to a higher degree than in the adult population - and this is with the current religious education we do have. <BR/><BR/>Now if these critics are <I>really</I> concerned about relativism then the simplest argument is that teaching critical reasoning is the best antidote to relativistic thinking. As usual they are <I>actually</I> looking to defend religious education and create a strawman argument, based on an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy and an appeal to (false) consequences. If they are <I>really</I> concerned about relativism - which they are not - then they should be for teaching philosophy in schools.<BR/><BR/>As for causes versus reason for belief, well this is one topic that would be covered through teaching philosophy. These critics confusion and fears over being exposed is, ironically, a result of their own relativism that they are so quick to (falsely) condemn in others! :-)Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60848680384535944762008-07-07T23:25:00.000+00:002008-07-07T23:25:00.000+00:00I am sure the Marxist thinks the evidence is on hi...I am sure the Marxist thinks the evidence is on his side! He just finished detailing the case for Marxism, only to be responded to with "you weren't hugged enough". <BR/><BR/>I admit of course though that such causal responses are unlikely to occur for mainstream, mundane beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2896454692633702262008-07-07T12:44:00.000+00:002008-07-07T12:44:00.000+00:00kosh3"we could dismiss any claim whatsoever by spe...kosh3<BR/><BR/>"we could dismiss any claim whatsoever by speculating about causal explanations for belief"<BR/><BR/>I do not think this is so because many beliefs will be also supported by reason and objectively verifiable evidence. <BR/><BR/>In the absence of the strongest rational arguments for a belief it becomes surely a matter of probabilities. Is it more <I>likely</I> that Germany has managed to annexe France and make Paris the capital or that the person making the claim has been hypnotized?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34723632058674598722008-07-06T21:20:00.000+00:002008-07-06T21:20:00.000+00:00Here's a question: When is it philosophically acce...Here's a question: When is it philosophically acceptable to respond to arguments with causal explanations? <BR/><BR/>Some people are highly in favour of seeing religion as a by-product of modules inside our heads that detect intention. The idea being that it was evolutionarily advantageous when faced with a russling bush close by to suspect intention, and be wrong, than to be sceptical, and risk getting eaten. So we have in that a plausible account of why we might be 'over-tuned' to looking at certain things, like the universe, and see it as the result of an intentional act. But if someone responding to religion simply by saying "oh, you only believe that because of an overactive intention detector", we would likely think that saying so was philosophically naughty. <BR/><BR/>Reason being, we could dismiss any claim whatsoever by speculating about causal explanations for belief. Suppose I was a Marxist and finished telling you about how unjust the capitalist mode of production is, and then you reply simply by saying "oh, you only believe that because you weren't hugged enough as a child". Now, that could certainly be true, yet it would be inappropriate to do away with any arguments I offered on that basis.<BR/><BR/>So, when is it acceptable to speak of causal explanations for belief?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83244840708177066272008-07-04T15:32:00.000+00:002008-07-04T15:32:00.000+00:00I dunno - I think the anti-critical-thinking briga...I dunno - I think the anti-critical-thinking brigade are stuck in relativistic space (not in the Einsteinian sense!). Although either their religion is right or it isn't and there's no in between they have to share the country with other faiths and those with none. Relative truth is the best they can hope for, unless they once again obtain sufficient temporal power to sweep out dissenting voices (as pertains in some countries). The problem with reason & evidence is that atheism tends to win, by and large. This would seem to boil the relativism down into the kind of absolutism that most people couldn't stomach.<BR/>Unfortunately for reason.Jithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14591821557158009912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75225881652683933472008-07-03T17:05:00.000+00:002008-07-03T17:05:00.000+00:00Stephen. From your paper - "But they can just as e...Stephen. From your paper - "But they can just as easily be applied to induce the beliefs that Paris is the capital of Germany " <BR/><BR/>Reminds me of a news programme on at the tie of the German reunification. An interviewer was asking a sample of Germans where they thought the new capital city should be. Mostly the responses were "Berlin" "Bonn" and an occasional "Frankfurt" but one crusty old boy who looked ancient enough to predate both wars gave the matter some thought and then replied "Paris".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76242650144063498162008-07-03T13:34:00.000+00:002008-07-03T13:34:00.000+00:00ah - thanks...ah - thanks...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72302385559492937132008-07-03T13:31:00.000+00:002008-07-03T13:31:00.000+00:00Hi Stephen, Just a quick correction on this senten...Hi Stephen, <BR/><BR/>Just a quick correction on this sentence:<BR/><BR/>Many religious people were entirely comfortable with this proposal. But not all. The Daily Telegraph ran a leader <I>a leader</I><B>(repitition)</B> condemning the IPPR’s recommendations. Here is Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips quoting from it <B>dis?</B><I>approvingly:</I>The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.com