Undoubtedly this is correct given likely similarities in cultural upbringing
Who says the similarity has to be cultural? People from wildly different cultures all tend to think that lying and stealing are wrong. Even those who practice horrors like human sacrifice usually do so for reasons we could sympathize with, if we accepted their worldview. The Aztecs shed all that blood not for its own sake, but in order to make the sun come up and the crops grow, which I'm sure we would all agree are good things; we simply disagree with them about the necessity for mass murder in securing them.
Science is therefore necessarily a subset of philosophy.
Except that in conventional speech it's not, dictionary formulations notwithstanding; "philosophy" and "science" are often used in opposition. Now, it may be that this requires a "not" clause in the formal definition of "philosophy" - i.e. "philosophy is the rational investigation of truth through non-scientific means". And in practice the distinction may be blurred further still; I could go on at great length about the implicit use of the scientific method even in the most abstract philosophizing. But none of this changes how we use the words.
Is it a distinct subset, or the exact same set? Well, the only method of rational exploration of truth is empiricism...
Hah! Countless gallons of ink have been drained over the rationalist-empiricist debate. You don't get to assume empiricism's triumph with a bald claim. And by incorporating Jack London's argument in your own, you seem to be conflating truth with results, even though it's perfectly possible for someone to learn a truth that is completely useless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Personally, I believe evolution should be allowed to be a part of science class curriculums, but should be thoroughly explained to the class that it is a theory and only a theory until proven otherwise.
However, I do NOT believe that creationism should be taught in schools because it is insensitive to other religious beliefs, and that it belongs in church and only in church.
As for intelligent design, I am a firm believer in the subject. I have thought long and hard. For three consecutive days I have thought of many things and it seems to me that everything I have thought of strings together a puzzle that, once solved, could prove the existance of not only evolution, but creation as well. First I took the core belief of intelligent design, a belief of evolution guided by a supreme being, in my case God would be that being. Then I took into consideration the structure of a strand of human DNA. DNA consists of proteins and amino acids molded in the double helix structure. It is an "owner's manual" for the body, it tells all the organisms in your body what to do and how to do it. Not much useful information there but it is an interesting tidbit. Then came the big black cloud of life, death, and a potential afterlife. In nature everything has a purpose, every organism, and every part of an organism (or did at one time). These purposes eventually work toward any given ultimate goal. Then I started asking why do we, as organisms feel the need to continue as a species, as all other organisms do? As everything else in nature I came to the conclusion that life itself works to an ultimate goal, and to achieve that goal there needed to be a way to continue the species, thus our drive to survive. "But what could this ultimate goal be?", I asked myself. The only real benefit I could think of for continuing the species would be an afterlife, what else could the goal be? This is why I believe in intelligent design. I am not looking for answers in some dusty old book, I am simply asking myself questions and I have come to this personal revelation.
I know, it is a very Socrates-like way of thinking.:rolleyes:
Any thoughts on how I percieve my belief would be welcomed too, if you wish. I loves me a good debate.;)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to mchief111 & .toRRent for the awesome avatar!
As for intelligent design, I am a firm believer in the subject. I have thought long and hard. For three consecutive days I have thought of many things and it seems to me that everything I have thought of strings together a puzzle that, once solved, could prove the existance of not only evolution, but creation as well. First I took the core belief of intelligent design, a belief of evolution guided by a supreme being, in my case God would be that being. Then I took into consideration the structure of a strand of human DNA. DNA consists of proteins and amino acids molded in the double helix structure. It is an "owner's manual" for the body, it tells all the organisms in your body what to do and how to do it. Not much useful information there but it is an interesting tidbit. Then came the big black cloud of life, death, and a potential afterlife. In nature everything has a purpose, every organism, and every part of an organism (or did at one time). These purposes eventually work toward any given ultimate goal. Then I started asking why do we, as organisms feel the need to continue as a species, as all other organisms do? As everything else in nature I came to the conclusion that life itself works to an ultimate goal, and to achieve that goal there needed to be a way to continue the species, thus our drive to survive. "But what could this ultimate goal be?", I asked myself. The only real benefit I could think of for continuing the species would be an afterlife, what else could the goal be? This is why I believe in intelligent design. I am not looking for answers in some dusty old book, I am simply asking myself questions and I have come to this personal revelation.
Before you ask what the ultimate goal of survival is, first you have to establish that there is such a goal. You can't assume that there is some further goal based on the analogy of previous goals, because that argument leads to infinite regress. Consider: Why should we assume that the afterlife is the ultimate goal? Why can't we ask what the goal beyond the afterlife is? And the goal beyond that? And the goal beyond that? If you accept that it's valid to ask the question of survival, it's equally valid to ask it of anything beyond survival, and that way lies a topless tower of speculative nonsense.
No, we have to establish some criteria for recognizing an ultimate goal when we see it. And, guess what? It's survival. It's what we've evolved to do, because that's the way evolution works: it preserves and builds on what survives. Final cause from efficient cause.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Who says the similarity has to be cultural? People from wildly different cultures all tend to think that lying and stealing are wrong. Even those who practice horrors like human sacrifice usually do so for reasons we could sympathize with, if we accepted their worldview. The Aztecs shed all that blood not for its own sake, but in order to make the sun come up and the crops grow, which I'm sure we would all agree are good things; we simply disagree with them about the necessity for mass murder in securing them.
Except that in conventional speech it's not, dictionary formulations notwithstanding; "philosophy" and "science" are often used in opposition. Now, it may be that this requires a "not" clause in the formal definition of "philosophy" - i.e. "philosophy is the rational investigation of truth through non-scientific means". And in practice the distinction may be blurred further still; I could go on at great length about the implicit use of the scientific method even in the most abstract philosophizing. But none of this changes how we use the words.
Hah! Countless gallons of ink have been drained over the rationalist-empiricist debate. You don't get to assume empiricism's triumph with a bald claim. And by incorporating Jack London's argument in your own, you seem to be conflating truth with results, even though it's perfectly possible for someone to learn a truth that is completely useless.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
They work great at parties.
However, I do NOT believe that creationism should be taught in schools because it is insensitive to other religious beliefs, and that it belongs in church and only in church.
As for intelligent design, I am a firm believer in the subject. I have thought long and hard. For three consecutive days I have thought of many things and it seems to me that everything I have thought of strings together a puzzle that, once solved, could prove the existance of not only evolution, but creation as well. First I took the core belief of intelligent design, a belief of evolution guided by a supreme being, in my case God would be that being. Then I took into consideration the structure of a strand of human DNA. DNA consists of proteins and amino acids molded in the double helix structure. It is an "owner's manual" for the body, it tells all the organisms in your body what to do and how to do it. Not much useful information there but it is an interesting tidbit. Then came the big black cloud of life, death, and a potential afterlife. In nature everything has a purpose, every organism, and every part of an organism (or did at one time). These purposes eventually work toward any given ultimate goal. Then I started asking why do we, as organisms feel the need to continue as a species, as all other organisms do? As everything else in nature I came to the conclusion that life itself works to an ultimate goal, and to achieve that goal there needed to be a way to continue the species, thus our drive to survive. "But what could this ultimate goal be?", I asked myself. The only real benefit I could think of for continuing the species would be an afterlife, what else could the goal be? This is why I believe in intelligent design. I am not looking for answers in some dusty old book, I am simply asking myself questions and I have come to this personal revelation.
I know, it is a very Socrates-like way of thinking.:rolleyes:
Any thoughts on how I percieve my belief would be welcomed too, if you wish. I loves me a good debate.;)
Before you ask what the ultimate goal of survival is, first you have to establish that there is such a goal. You can't assume that there is some further goal based on the analogy of previous goals, because that argument leads to infinite regress. Consider: Why should we assume that the afterlife is the ultimate goal? Why can't we ask what the goal beyond the afterlife is? And the goal beyond that? And the goal beyond that? If you accept that it's valid to ask the question of survival, it's equally valid to ask it of anything beyond survival, and that way lies a topless tower of speculative nonsense.
No, we have to establish some criteria for recognizing an ultimate goal when we see it. And, guess what? It's survival. It's what we've evolved to do, because that's the way evolution works: it preserves and builds on what survives. Final cause from efficient cause.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.