I see it very differently. At the most an idea can be considered important to address seriously but I would not call this respect.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Then I think you're having a semantic difference of opinion rather than a substantive one, since I doubt the person asking you "what wrong ideas do you respect" defines "respect" as applied to ideas the same way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
I think this is a problem of thinking tho. I get a bee in my bonnet about 'respect'. I think it is essential to only give respect to ideas which have validity. I am worried about the idea of respecting ideas regardless of their truth value.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
But your problem seems to be with the implications some people may have for the word "respect" more than its actual content if understood in the way I (and others) use it. You agree that there are wrong ideas that are worth taking seriously (& not because of their harmfulness)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
Yes, but we need to think about what we consider respect-worthy, whether it is the idea itself or the thinking that has gone into it. When a scientific consensus is overturned by new evidence, we don't stop respecting the previous work but we do stop respecting the idea.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Yes ... but that's because the idea has been conclusively disproven. (Hence the lack of respect for flat-earthism). I don't think you can get to that type of conclusiveness in many cases of wrong ideas in philosophy/social sciences
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
This is true. But I still don't respect ideas unless there is some evidence of their soundness. And God is not really a philosophical or social science issue. He either exists or not. That is a scientific question.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
We really do need to have that debate we talked about a while back
Once my custody trial is done, we're going to have it out in Aero, you hear?
But no, it's not a scientific question at all, since science is the study of the existent universe and ...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen @HPluckrose
in "God" we're referencing an entity defined as the creator of that universe; you can't measure something outside of a system using tools that are internal to that system. God's existence or non-existence is something to be addressed through logic & philosophy, not science
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen @HPluckrose
Separate from whether god exists or not, science can address whether some phenomenon is attributable to god, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Most importantly, from the perspective of those who believe in an afterlife, is there any evidence of a soul which can survive the death of the brain and go on to live in a different form?
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @Juris_dudence
Descartes seemed to think so. But I'd say that's one of those issues that rests on revelation
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen @Juris_dudence
I'd say not. People only ever seem to get revelations related to the god they already believed in or were culturally familiar with.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.