Why haven't any renowned philosophers challenged any of

>>520966
Scientism is a tough shell to crack desu senpai

>>520966
because no one cares

>>520966
How can a philosopher prove evolution and the Big Bang wrong?

>renowned philosophers

I'll ask them next time I go to McDonalds

>>520966
Renowned to fucking who?

Because everyone would laugh at zizek's voice

>>520969
>>520975
They don't have to "disprove" it, they just have to shake its foundations and undermine their certainty and public authority.

Philosophy is an advanced discipline, their arguments are contingent upon you already having a lot of prior knowledge. They couldn't enter a pop debate without either descending to pop level, or giving a long speech beforehand so everyone understands what they're talking about.

>>520993
But science has been so successful that they do have absolute public authority

I'm surprised Sam Harris hasn't been publicly BTFO yet, he's already lost several debates with actual philosophers and he's so easy to debunk that threads here on /his/ do it routinely. Yet he keeps getting invited to talk on the news. He needs to get shrekt.

>>521005

>their arguments are contingent upon you already having a lot of prior knowledge. They couldn't enter a pop debate without either descending to pop level, or giving a long speech beforehand so everyone understands what they're talking about.

Metaphysics and theology are intrinsically pop-tier.

>>521034
Sam Harris' existence is a state of being BTFO

File: goofy.png (76KB, 315x340px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 315x340px

>>520976
my fucking sides

>>521046
That's a very pop thing to say, tbqh

>>521005
Yes we hear this all the time, but where are all the big name philosophers in modern academia tearing this stuff apart? More to the point, are there not philosophers in modern academia who more or less agree with logical positivism?

>>521072
Uh, logical positivism is synonymous with scientism. Karl Popper said he considered God to be a very real possibility, and said he found anti-theism obnoxious.

Modern philosophers aren't going to waste their time on it for the same reason they won't try to debate Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh, it would be retarded.

>>520966
They have, but you write them off as crazy right wing nutjobs or conspiracy theorists because the indoctrination is strong.

>>521076
*isn't synomnous

>>521030
Thus we have universal acceptance that anthropogenic climate change is real and vaccinations are not harmful.

>>521076
academics write scathing pieces on modern culture all the time. I struggle to accept the notion that no phd anywhere has tackled the issue in depth

>>520966
>Science is-
>BRAIN IN A VAT
>But Sci-
>INDUCTION
>Look, the statisti-
>BIG BANG NOTHING EXPLODEDDDDDDDDDDD
>BTFO

Pretty much all the philosophical arguments against scientific are based on epistemology, and most people would say that's no practical way to live your life, because they presume your life may or may not actually be a thing you are living. Scientism isn't ultimate rationalism, it's really practical rationalism.

Also consider there are 3 tiers of living life
>we dont know if this world even exists even if we observe it
>the world we seem to observe is real
>there is a divine and afterlife we don't observe but is real

It's pretty obvious why certain types of people gravitate towards certain ones. Basically, if you believe in the observed world, rather than disbelieve in the observed world, or believe in an unobserved world, you're going to gravitate towards scientism.

>>520966
>Why haven't any renowned philosophers challenged any of these meme preachers?

Why haven't any renowned philosophers challenged the drunks pissing themselves in the gutter?

You wrestle with a pig, you end up covered in shit.

>>521080
But both of those things are true anon

>>521034
Maybe it's because he hasn't actually been losing?

>>521072
>where are all the big name philosophers in modern academia tearing this stuff apart?

There are very few 'big name philosophers' writing on any issue in current academia.

Some well-known (for philosophers) people who have criticized scientism include Jurgen Habermas, Paul Feyerabend, Massimo Pigliucci, Thomas Nagel, Bas van Fraassen, Alain Badiou, Bruno Latour, Bernard Stiegler, and Richard Rorty.

>>521124
I can't even pronounce more than half of those names

>>521087
Sure they do, but they generally aren't going to engage a pop thinker directly, they'll just write commentary. Chomsky debated Harris, I know, but mostly they don't want to do that because it is retarded. Not the same as just writing commentary on what these thinkers symbolize or are symptoms of.

>>520966
Analytical philosophy proved that anime is real.

What has engineering ever done for us?

>>521131
You realize anime wouldn't exist without engineering?

>>521123
Sam Harris got BTFO by William Lane Craig, who is certainly not a great theologian (even though his work on the historicity of the Gospels is extremely high quality).

Why don't big philosophers go after meme creationist preachers?

File: inari.png (184KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 500x500px

>>521131
Do anime characters have consciousness?

>>521132
Dude, modal realism means that engineering is irrelevant to anime existing.

http://philpapers.org/archive/sinPG

File: 1446997941758.jpg (43KB, 507x363px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 507x363px

>>521030
>I think that science gives us cars and computers, so i say that science is successful.

>>521133
kek no he did not. Everyone of the New Atheists have blown the fuck out of theism.

Every time William Lame Craig supposedly comes to debate religion, he turns it into a stalemate buy citing all the traditional logical arguments for the existence of deities, but he never once tries to defend his theism.

>>521144
What if those possible worlds contain nothing but 3D girls?

>>521107
That's not what I consider scientism. Scientism to me is applying scientific/technocratic concepts such as utility, efficiency, determinism, materialism, mathematical principles, etc., to all aspects of life. The kind of guys who would argue non-STEM fields are "useless" or "outdated" and that the world would be better if it was run by Objectively Correct™ scientists.

>>521107
>>521107
People are just too absorbed with what they can see, rather than what they can feel or have faith in.

>>521146
Dude, Sam Harris got BTFO by him, even atheists generally acknowledge this. If it were a debate with judges, Craig would have won. Sam Harris tried to say we could derive objective morality from science, ffs. Craig curb stomped him.

Hitchens especially got soundly thumped him. Hitchens couldn't even engage him, he'd say something, and Hitchens would go, "Uh, you know, just because we can't prove God isn't real, that doesn't mean he exists," when Craig never even made that claim.

>>520993

What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you like some naive college student?

>>521142
Anime characters are fully conscious in an infinite number of modally real universes.

>>521156
>Sam Harris tried to say we could derive objective morality from science, ffs.

No, he said we could possibly apply scientific principles to ethics and morality, which honestly would be way more sane than applying Craig's divine command theory to society.

>Hitchens couldn't even engage him, he'd say something, and Hitchens would go, "Uh, you know, just because we can't prove God isn't real, that doesn't mean he exists," when Craig never even made that claim.

We clearly didn't watch the same debate then, because if that's all you got from it, then you clearly weren't listening.

>>521148
An infinite number of modally real universes contain only 3d girls.

File: friedrich-nietzsche.jpg (30KB, 300x389px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x389px

>>521164
>No, he said we could possibly apply scientific principles to ethics and morality

And he's WRONG. This is the point we keep coming back to, every time we talk about Harris. His assertions about scientifically derived morality are flat-out counterfactual. Anyone who has read their Nietzsche knows how to defeat Harris in a debate.

>>521164
>Constantine
>listening
He only posts here to hear himself talk.

>>521080

Man-made climate change is universally accepted except by biased political advocates in the US.

As for vaccinations, as far as I understand it, only the flu vaccine is in really in any doubt by any level headed person. And rightly so, since it's mostly a guess each time of year wether or not to take it. A lot of countries don't issue flu vaccine because a small part of it boils down to: "What's the point? If I take this, it's a 75% chance that it's gonna work, but in the end, I might not even catch it."

All other vaccination obstructions are just idiots. Who wouldn't want their kid vaccinated for polio or some other shit that just might fuck up your life if you catch it.

>>521159
The only thing naive here is believing these characters are innocently conducting empirical research.

>>521164
>No, he said we could possibly apply scientific principles to ethics and morality
Here are some things he said in the Moral Landscape


"My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics"

"Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim Algebra, we will see tht there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality."

"Despite our perennial bad behavior, our moral progress seems to me unmistakable."

>We clearly didn't watch the same debate then, because if that's all you got from it, then you clearly weren't listening.
Hitchens wasn't even coherent.

>>521167
If you don't want me posting anymore in this thread, I will leave it. I only post for mutual enjoyment in debate or discussion, but if I am hampering your happiness, I assure you will cease to participate, because that would defeat my whole purpose in even commenting.

>>521151
Are we talking fedora who doesn't know what he's talking about tier scientism of Bill Nye tier scientism?

>>521173
>Here are some things he said in the Moral Landscape

Yes, and what's wrong with them?

He is completely right that morality and ethics progresses. And he's also right that religious people no longer have a monopoly on right and wrong(as they did before).

Need I remind you that if you brought your modern day sensibilities to Eastern Orthodox Russia anno 1840, people would probably think you were insane, ethically.

>>521163
Infinite universes means every possible universe. It does not mean that there are not impossible universes. It's like bounded infinity. If you take a set between 0 and 1, there's an infinite amount of points between the bounds, but 2 is not inside of it.

>>521178
Not that guy, but let's not gonna derail a perfectly good thread with a bitchfest about tripfags.

>>521183
It really depends on the person, but I'm sure my sensibilities are entirely in line with, say, Dostoevsky's and many of the Church Fathers and great monks.

>>521169
The flu vaccine is like Schrodinger's sick call.
This is the one year I didn't get it, and I got influenza.

>>521172

If I wanted humour I'd ask for your IQ level.

>>521131
Well anime is real, usually an adult cartoon, or animation
Now the world that the story of the show is fictional in our perspective,usually invented by the creator
>>521142
I don't think so, they follow whatever the script says.

>>521196
Really?

So you support serfdom?

>>521207
But, anon, Dostoevsky was very much opposed to serfdom.

>>521165
The real question is how the fuck do i switch.

>>521206
>I don't think so, they follow whatever the script says
Just like us living in a deterministic universe

>>521202
The only humorous thing is that you think my average IQ would tell anything.

>>521213
Yes, but my contention wasn't that you didn't agree with Dostoevsky, it was that you would be considered a pariah in that society because your modern day opinions about society.

Unless of course, you are against capitalism, democracy, the rule of law, and in general are a Luddite.

>>521206
Did you even read the Possible Girls paper?

>>521225
What do you mean? Plenty of people were for all these things, and weren't pariahs at all.

>>520966
They are too closely related.

>>521232
You should get my point at this juncture.

Ethics and the morals of a society changes over time. Sam Harris is not wrong.

File: 1392525098737.gif (82KB, 478x358px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 478x358px

>>521145

File: 1436888438895.jpg (12KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x247px

>>521145

File: 1451555230227.gif (3MB, 442x366px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 442x366px

>>521247
Sure they do. But that doesn't mean they're consistently better just because they're newer, I don't subscribe to Whig history. I think it's pretty sad we don't still bow to our elders and kiss their hands.

>>521265
You say that, but for some reason I can't imagine you wanting to live in a society where you would be killed for working on the Sabbath.

>>521273
I'd want to live in a Christian society.

>>521265
Is that gif supposed to prove something anon?

>>521278
The Old Testament isn't Christian?

>>521278
In a Geneva sort of fashion?

>>521163
I liked that manga too.

>>521281
No, it's carnal. I mean, it is Christian when it is fulfilled by Christ, in which case it is corporeal, but without Christ, is is a purely carnal covenant. It is represented by carnal morality and carnal initiation.

>>521265
>I think it's pretty sad we don't still bow to our elders and kiss their hands.
Why don't you move to east Asia, they're into that sort of thing.

>>521288
Because their standard of living is way lower.

>>521220

>my average IQ
>my average

Nevermind, cancel that, I think this case is closed.

>>521286
>I mean, it is Christian when it is fulfilled by Christ

Which if you believe in it, he did, no?

In which case, I once again reiterate. I doubt you would want to live in a society where you would be stoned or executed for mowing the lawn on the Sabbath.

>>521292
the standard of living and the kissing "elders" hands thing are not entirely unrelated.

>>521292
>Japan
>low standards of living
>South Korea
>low standards of living
>Taiwan
>low standards of living
???

>>521301
He could mean the mean IQ. As in taking several tests to account for potential errors.

>>521292

Hmm, I wonder if there is a connection between liberalism and high standards and conservatism and low standards.

>>521302
His fulfilling means morality would not be carnal...hence, no stoning.

>>521324
So you don't have to follow the 10 Commandments?

Sounds like some theological flapdoodle, and I doubt any other Christian would agree with you.

What the fuck is scientism? Is someone asshurt that there are people out there who don't see a reason to believe in God or something?

>>521316
Are you familiar with the work "Sex and Culture", by Unwin?

>>521331
What do you mean? Just because the ten commandments are not longer dealt with through carnal justice, does not mean it is okay to disregard them.

>>521340
>Just because the ten commandments are not longer dealt with through carnal justice, does not mean it is okay to disregard them.

But you can disregard the injunction against working on the Sabbath for that specific reason?

>>521334
Yes, scientism is basically the SJW-boogeyman of philosophers and religious people. They both label anything remotely resembling positivism as scientism, while at the same time pointing to the most extreme examples of it.

>>521334
A lot of people use it like that. But it primarily refers to people who treat science as if it were a dogma that applies to all aspects of life, rather than as an empirical system of inquiry used to study and understand the natural world.

>>521347
No, it's still immoral to work on Sunday, as well as all Holy Days.

>>521349
It's called arguing in bad faith.

Everyone who has an agenda does it.

>>521353
So, you're comfortable with the idea that the last time you mowed the lawn on Sunday you condemned yourself to hell?

>>521358
I don't mow the lawn on Sunday. But if I did, I would confess it to my priest.

Aren't most modern philosophers primarily focused either on politics or extremely obscure issues that have no relevance to the average person?

Also, for it to be fair, it would have to be two philosophers.

>>521301
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification

>>521359
kek, okay

>>521301
Why can't a person score averagely?

>>521371

Lel Wikipedia nice sauce. Shame if someone were to edit it.

>>521034
William Lane Craig

Harris spent the whole debate just making complaints about the bible instead of making actual arguments

>>521410
>>>/b/

>>521429
>Harris spent the whole debate just making complaints about the bible

You forgot the part where those complaints were entirely valid, and demonstrates the internal inconsistency and absurdity of the book itself.

>>521449
But the debate was about whether objective morality exists. Not whether or not the bible was moral.

>>521457
>But the debate was about whether objective morality exists. Not whether or not the bible was moral.

True, but theists claim that objective morality exists because the Bible says so. And the Bible is full extreme inconsistencies.

>>520976
Upset man-child with an iq of 80?

>>521499
>theists claim that objective morality exists because the Bible says so
That wasn't was Craig's argument was. He specifically says that he was trying to keep the bible out of it

You're being dishonest now

>>521516
Upset pseudo intellectual with a weekly income of 80?

>>521034
>that threads here on /his/ do it routinely

These threads are mostly lalalal i cant hear you lalala im correct ur wrong lalalal. Actually much of religions philosophy is like that.

>>521523
>That wasn't was Craig's argument was. He specifically says that he was trying to keep the bible out of it

The claim that any objective morality comes from a deity without reference to a holy text is impossible m8.

It just falls flat on it's face.

>>521549
>The punishment is no longer earthly

Sure, but in what sense does "wanting to live in a Christian society" work then, if all punishments are supernatural?

If you're going to make a religious society, you need laws, and either you apply the laws of the Bible upon society, or you make new laws which have nothing to do with the Bible.

Seems to me that you can't have it both ways, and if the so-called "carnal" punishments in the Bible are void, then you couldn't make a Christian society anyway, so what's the fuzz?

>>521279
It proves that there is no God, since he wouldnt allow for this to occur.

>>521340
The 10 commandments were literally written for the jews. Are you a jew?
How would you even follow the "dont kill people of your tribe" rule, when you dont have a tribe?

>>521577
Yes, I am a Jew
Romans 2:28-9

>>521560
No, a truly Christian society would not need laws. Laws are only important in society insofar as it is not Christian.

>>521586
So you're an anarchist?

>>521584
Thats actually a nice save. I'm honestly impressed. Other /his/ christians would've clinged to the english translation of the bible.

>>521586
Consider the patent laws.
If I make the best barbecue sauce, and call it Dave's Sauce, and have a red band around the bottle, and some guy down the street makes a worse, cheaper sauce, and he copies my name and design to sell more, thats not unchristian. Yet it would harm me, and harm consumers, and it is thus unlawful in modern societies.
Christianity hasnt evolved enough to cover things like brands, intellectual property, communication technologies and such. Laws move slow, but still faster than morality and religion in that domain.

>>521589
No, when he says "no laws" he means "no written laws". There would still be "laws" enforced by everybody's desire to be good, and the agreed upon definition of what good is.

>>521586
>implying the bible doesnt have laws
You mean no secular laws? You are literally a Sharia loving Islamist.

>>521595
>No, when he says "no laws" he means "no written laws". There would still be "laws" enforced by everybody's desire to be good, and the agreed upon definition of what good is.

Sounds very arbitrary to me.

Tell me what these "agreed upon definitions" are, if it doesn't involve the non-carnal punishments in the Bible.

>>521598
The Islamic State has secular laws too, I think?
Is there a country today that operates only on implied religious rules, and not on a court of law?

>>521589
No, because I do not object to authority. I do not object to servitude.

>>521595
>Christianity hasnt evolved enough to cover things like brands, intellectual property, communication technologies and such
That is correct, the Orthodox Church does not consider that to be theft, despite copyrighting stuff herself.

>>521598
No, no secular laws. Just religious laws. But such a society would forgive all transgressors, there would be no punishment.

>>521604
Sounds like a society which rewards opportunist criminals. And such a society will be very unstable, since promoting such criminals will lead to many of them appearing, and since they dont act in that way the society itself would change and disappear.

>>521602
But there have been Christian courts for transgressions of faith.

>>521607
People who hurt others might be quarantined, if only to protect others, even if personal defense was not common.

>>521609
afaik the only Christian courts have been about heresy, not sin.

>>521614
How would you quarantine that fucker who sells his bad sauce at my expense? How will I be compensated for the lost consumer trust, since everybody now thinks my sauce is bad? How will consumers be compensated for having their barbecue ruined with shit sauce? How do we ensure this wont happen again, and other opportunists wont use the good name and trust in quality producers to make a quick buck themselves?

Christian morality isnt up to the task. People, christians included, still dont consider intellectual property theft or fraud to be immoral, and thus wont see it as a sin.

>>521625
Why would a Christian society be capitalist? The whole point of the Orthodox Financial System is to supplant capitalism.

>>520966
Because philosophy is nothing but a bunch of useless wankery that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

>>521630
>Orthodox Financial System
Has the same horrible design flaw as Communism. It cant possibly exist unless every single person on the planet is using it.

Regardless, from what I just read up on the system it wouldnt prevent the example I provided.

>>521331
The 10 commandments are rendered obsolete by Jesus' new covenant in Mark 12:31.

>>521643
What. The horrible design flaw of communion is central planning. The OFS is about getting as many workers as possible to be independent.

It wouldn't prevent it as it is, because we're still in a capitalist framework, but a Christian society would not be capitalist anyway, that would be silly.

>>521675
No, they are not.

>>521678
Any economic system which makes everybody middle class, instead of having 1% filthy rich people and some horribly poor people, cant coexist with capitalism.
People are optimists. If you look at your neighboring state, and there are beggars and millionaires there, you wont think to yourself "man, if our economy was like theirs, i'd have 20% chance to be a beggar". You would think "man, if our economy was like theirs, i'd surely be a millionaire, the hard worker that i am".
This leads to depression, and people want a change, so they can try to beat the odds and become filthy rich in their pursuit of happiness.
Thats not even going through the less spiritual and more practical stuff like exploitation of less developed countries for profit, or big business working at a loss for a while to starve the competition, and so on. Capitalism feeds on non-capitalist economies. The only way to have a non-capitalist economy is if everybody else does too, else you will only make the remaining capitalists more successful.

>>520966
How are thick books and autism suppose to complete against memes and explosions? Philosophers are never as spectacular as scientists.

File: 1425426651985.gif (2MB, 352x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x217px

>>521680

>The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

Whatever you say, heretic.

>>521301
Wow, good one.

>>520966
because philosophy can't disprove science

>>521572
What if God is kind of a dick?

>>521793
Then he is a god, but not God, the christian creator and authority figure.

>>521793
Then why call him God?

>>521625
>People, christians included, still dont consider intellectual property theft or fraud to be immoral, and thus wont see it as a sin.
congrats, you're retarded

>Why haven't any renowned philosophers challenged any of these meme preachers?

Because no one takes 'WE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN!!" seriously anymore.

>>521265
What's that Gif supposed to say?

File: Nietzsche1882.jpg (329KB, 1274x1700px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1274x1700px

>>521166
Kek, absolutely no one responded to Order 66 here.

What's the matter, Harrisites, afraid of old Fred?

>>521799
Because he can hurt you.

>>521265
by the way this baby died

>>521142
of course senpai. otherwise my waifu couldnt love me. desu fám

>>521214

Same way you got here, you have to die. Don't be in such a rush, goddamn. You have infinite time on your hands. You will spend billions and billions of lifetimes living in an infinite variety of those universes and you will become sick and tired of it until you crave a mundane experience bringing you right back to this life where you crave one of those anime universes.

Protip: Chill, just dream your dreams and make them reality when possible but just take it easy mane

>>521206
>I don't think so, they follow whatever the script says.

>implying we don't

It's like you don't even understand what determinism means. Just because there is infinite variety doesn't mean that every outcome isn't already determined by preexisting conditions

>>523135

I know you're jesting anon, but the reality of what you're saying is spookier than you might think

>>521183
>Yes, and what's wrong with them?
Deontological ethics is retarded. There is no way in hell you can easily argue for it as a normative ethics. Look up Hume's "Is-ought gap", "naturalistic fallacy", and "appeal to nature". Read those three and you'll see how a deontological ethics derived from observations of natural phenomena is nearly impossible.

>>520966
Probably because there's no such thing as a renowned philosopher in this day and age.

Zizek, maybe - just barely. He won't be challenging anyone though because he's probably well aware of the fact that he himself is a meme.

>>521543
>The claim that any objective morality comes from a deity without reference to a holy text is impossible m8.

But that's exactly the argument that Harris lost to, gd watch the fucking debate instead of bitching about it why don't you.

>>521076
>Uh, logical positivism isn't synonymous with scientism.
It pretty much is. Logical positivism pretty much entails scientism.

>>521072
To quote Ayer, who was a strong proponent of logical positivism: Logical positivism is dead as a scool of thought can be. No serious scholar nowadays believes in the ideas of scientism, its just that the arguments need a wide elaboration, at least starting with Bacon, that makes it hard to convey to wide audience

They have

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

>>523652
No, there is a crucial difference in how the standard of being empirically falsifiable is applied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

File: 1433120479808.jpg (118KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1600x900px

>>521265
>>521278
>>521292

>People are responding to this bait

Come on /his/, hasn't history taught you anything about tripfags?