Humility: Good or Bad?

[james03]

Humility is an excellent quality in salespeople.

Yep, and another point.  I don't know of any successful man who doesn't understand the importance of sacrifice.  Doing the "irrational" thing, putting off the immediate pleasure so that you can obtain a goal in the future is the touchstone of greatness.

[Probius]

Okay, I think I have it now.  What is the real difference between man and beast?  Our intelligence is evolved more than that of the beast.  Our intelligence has evolved to the point where we have reason.  Our reason stems from our intelligence, and our intelligence comes from our brain.  At some point int the past we must have hit a tipping point which caused a paradigm shift, such that we began to have reason.  Before this tipping point we did not.  It seems like that tipping point was about 6,000 years ago, when men began to develop written language.

How on earth can intelligence evolve? How can an abstract idea evolve? And how can reason and intelligence be separated like that? You're talking in fairy tales; your constructing a building with marshmellows to justify your worldview. Can you not see how strange it sounds to say that "our intellligence evolved to the point where we have reason"? I mean... what does that even mean? It cannot mean anything!

Science can prove things with facts.

You seem to have the view that philosophical proofs are not facts when they are. Philosophy is not mere navel gazing. Science can only ever advance within a metaphysial and philosophical system that is either implicitely or explicitely well defined. As it stands, we have a system in place now where things like inductive reasoning and the principle of non-contradiction (amongst others) are the primary a priori building blocks of how we are able to generate scientific proofs (which in themselves are meta-analyses of 'science' qua observation of the material world).

The fact is that your own worldivew that you are espousing here is a metaphysical one - scientism and materialism. Science is the only thing that can give us facts. Oh really? And how can you prove such a thing without circular reasoning? You can't. You need some discipline besides science to prove such a thing. You need a philosophical toolkit. You need metaphysics.

Philosophy has its place, which is as the handmaiden of science.  If I want answers, I will look to hard proofs and not to some old man simply thinking about things.  I reject a priori arguments.  One should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.  One should not start with a conclusion and look for ways to prove that conclusion, it biases one's view and skews the results.  I'm not quite sure what scientism is, but I readily admit to being a materialist.

I can prove that science proves things by pointing to the proofs of science.  Science has colored our worldview and furthered our knowledge for centuries.  This is why we know the world is round, thanks to the Greeks.  This is how we know the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.  This is how we know the universe started with the Big Bang, and that we are a product of evolution.  One could never have made these discoveries with philosophy alone.  Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.

[Probius]

Humility is an excellent quality in salespeople.

Yep, and another point.  I don't know of any successful man who doesn't understand the importance of sacrifice.  Doing the "irrational" thing, putting off the immediate pleasure so that you can obtain a goal in the future is the touchstone of greatness.

There is nothing irrational about putting off immediate pleasure for a goal in the future, and that is not a sacrifice.  A sacrifice is giving up something for another thing of lesser value.  Giving up one thing for something of equal or greater value is an exchange and not a sacrifice.

[james03]

Well this concept of sacrifice is then a straw man, as no Catholic asks for people to do this.  Your definition is useless.  The definition I gave is the one commonly used.

[Probius]

Well this concept of sacrifice is then a straw man, as no Catholic asks for people to do this.  Your definition is useless.  The definition I gave is the one commonly used.

To simply give something up, regardless of what one receives in return.  This definition has caused many problems in our age.

[james03]

Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.

And there is your dilemma.  Because the same launching pad requires the existence of God.

[james03]

To simply give something up, regardless of what one receives in return.  This definition has caused many problems in our age.

I disagree.  To get the government to loot for you, to have things stolen from you at the point of a gun, and to say that is fine because we voted on it, THAT has caused most problems in our age.  And that is an atheistic system that ignores justice.  Because we are just a bunch of atoms moving about, and it is a matter of chance at who holds the gun.  So to the atheist it would be irrational for the government and those protected by it to actually work for a living.

As far as your conjecture, I am not aware of anyone preaching such masochism of just giving stuff up for no reason.  Well, certain atheistic nihilist obviously believe that, but that's all I can think off.

[Probius]

To simply give something up, regardless of what one receives in return.  This definition has caused many problems in our age.

I disagree.  To get the government to loot for you, to have things stolen from you at the point of a gun, and to say that is fine because we voted on it, THAT has caused most problems in our age.  And that is an atheistic system that ignores justice.  Because we are just a bunch of atoms moving about, and it is a matter of chance at who holds the gun.  So to the atheist it would be irrational for the government and those protected by it to actually work for a living.

As far as your conjecture, I am not aware of anyone preaching such masochism of just giving stuff up for no reason.  Well, certain atheistic nihilist obviously believe that, but that's all I can think off.

Socialists certainly do when they preach the importance of sacrificing for the collective, as do all altruists.

[Probius]

Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.

And there is your dilemma.  Because the same launching pad requires the existence of God.

How so?

[Basilios]

Dear Crimson,

Please read all these articles! NOW!! DO IT!! Particularly the group of articles starting around the article "The New Philistinism". They will answer your questions and all your objections better than any of us can. It'll make for interesting reading too. I know it's less personal but it will be more rewarding I promise.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html

[Probius]

Dear Crimson,

Please read all these articles! NOW!! DO IT!! Particularly the group of articles starting around the article "The New Philistinism". They will answer your questions and all your objections better than any of us can. It'll make for interesting reading too. I know it's less personal but it will be more rewarding I promise.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html

All right, I can dig it.

[Pheo]

One should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.

With science alone you can't prove the the reliability of your reason or senses.  This approach makes all sorts of assumptions in order to fit the atheistic worldview.  There's nothing particularly open-minded about it.

You've seen similar results from repeated experiments - the next obvious question would be...so what?  Science alone offers a very flimsy definition of "proof."

[Pheo]

I'm really not sure how atheists can maintain intellectual honesty and gloss over this basic assumption.  Science cannot prove that our senses or reason are reliable - not even in the slightest.  But the first (unwritten) article of the atheistic faith allows people to skip over the nasty side effects of epistemological nihilism.

[rbjmartin]

As far as your conjecture, I am not aware of anyone preaching such masochism of just giving stuff up for no reason.  Well, certain atheistic nihilist obviously believe that, but that's all I can think off.

Socialists certainly do when they preach the importance of sacrificing for the collective, as do all altruists.

Socialists preach sacrifice, but in practice, they re-distribute by force. They don't wait for anyone to voluntarily sacrifice on their own. So that is just rhetoric.

Sacrifice is a function of true liberty, even beyond the liberty a materialistic atheist could comprehend. Sacrifice is a demonstration of one's freedom to act outside of the realm of conventional self-interest. If I must always act out of selfishness, then I'm not truly free. I'm nothing but an automaton. But if I freely choose to sacrifice, I have demonstrated my freedom over selfishness and the material goods that manifest my selfishness.

[Probius]

Nothing can prove that are senses are reliable.  The brain in a vat theory has shown this.  So, we just accept the premise that are senses are reliable because it works.