Jayb,

There are many areas of the real world where sociological studies are used: politics, medicine, law, marketing, urban organization, city development, homeland security. So sociology has everything to do with the "ordinary person in the street". The "ordinary person in the street" also doesn’t give much thought to medical studies or the development of technology, but that doesn’t make such studies meaningless and nor does it render them “navel gazing”.

I’ve never accused someone of “navel gazing”, but I get the feeling that it’s a term used by people too uneducated to understand what others are talking about.

By the way, I find it flattering that you would mistake me for a professional philosopher. I would love to be that intelligent.

George,

Thanks for the link. It’s precisely what I’m talking about. I had a quick look for webpages that talked about logical absolutes but couldn’t find anything. In hindsight, I think I was too focussed on finding a Wikipedia link, of which there appears to be none. Your contributions to the discussion over the weekend were good too. They’ve helped me to re-calibrate what I’m on about here and have articulated some points that I wouldn’t have been able to communicate so effectively.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I’m certainly no logician. My occasional fumbling is probably the cause of some of your confusion. Yes, in hindsight, it probably would have been better if I had said “laws of nature”, but I wasn’t referring to natural phenomena, so I avoided it.

Continued…

...Continued

At the same time, though, I think you may be getting a little too hung up on the word “absolute”. As George points out, “absolute” is an adjective that can be used in many contexts. You seem to be over analysing things. For example, rather than simply stating a third option to theism and atheism, or explaining how one could be both, or explaining how one could be more theist than theist and more atheist than atheist, you’ve gone off on a tangent and questioned the notion of absolute. I could have referred to logical absolutes as “logical binaries” and it probably wouldn’t have attracted the same reaction, even though it essentially means the same thing. We can call them that, if you prefer.

While I don’t like the idea of absolutes on a philosophical level either, I’m happy to entertain the concept on a more practical level; we all do this implicitly in rational discourse. On a deeply philosophical level, you could open the door to the possibility of anything; I could argue that I’m a brain in a vat and the entire universe is the creation of my mind - no-one here really exists. But whether or not that’s true doesn’t matter because that’s not the world that I directly experience. Imagine how irritating it would be if every, “Yeah, I know”, that you uttered was met with a, “Ah, but do you *really* know? What does it mean to know?”

I tried to simplify things by saying: “things are what they are because of what they’re not and nothing is neither or both”. An even more simplified version of this can be found at the webpage George linked to: A=A. I don’t see where questioning absolutes gets anyone when discussing this.

Anyway, now that you seem to understand what I meant, perhaps you may accept my point regarding theism and atheism?

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You ask :

« Anyway, now that you seem to understand what I meant, perhaps you may accept my point regarding theism and atheism? »

Despite my sincere desire to please you, AJ, I am afraid I have to reply by the negative to that question.

As the American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, observed :

« Any reductionist program has to be based on an analysis of what is to be reduced. If the analysis leaves something out, the problem will be falsely
posed »

I consider “theism and atheism” to be a false dichotomy. The problem is falsely posed. First there was man, not theism. That concept came later. The theists should be compared to the rest of mankind, not the other way round. If there is a need for a dichotomy in this domain, the relationship should be expressed correctly, i.e., theism as a deviation from the norm. People are not born theists.

I consider myself to be “a very ordinary person”. I have no difficulty accepting the idea that those persons who believe in the theist concept wish to adopt a new appellation in order to distinguish themselves from “very ordinary persons” such as myself. On the contrary, I am happy for them to adopt the label of their choice. However, I see no reason why I should change mine or that it should be changed for me.

I was baptised shortly after my birth, and George tells me that, according to Christian dogma, that makes me a Christian for the rest of my life. Obviously I had no say in it. Who is it now to tell me I have no other choice than theism or atheism. Human logic ? So-called “logical absolutes” ? That, to me, is intellectual tyranny. Concepts can prove erroneous and be replaced by new concepts. Humanity advances by trial and error.

I oppose my free will and intelligence to what I consider to be the false dichotomy of theism and atheism. I suggest that “normality and theism” or, perhaps, “realism and delusion” would be more appropriate.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You kindly explained :

« The devil came into it because of its phonetic closeness to de Ville »

I always enjoy your jokes, George, but, as you must have already noticed, I don’t always get it straight away. Not much of an IQ I’m afraid.

I am pleased to see that, even if we don’t all agree with everything we are saying here, at least we all finally seem to understand each other. And that’s no small achievement !

.

.

Dear AJ Philips & George,

.

There is, of course, a third combination that comes to mind (though I am open to any further suggestions you may like to make) :

realism and theism

Perhaps this may be more palatable to George. If I had not hit my 350 word limit I should have added it to my previous post to AJ.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

It appears we have now come full circle. I think you know what I’m talking about but are weaving all over the place to avoid understanding it.

<<I consider “theism and atheism” to be a false dichotomy. The problem is falsely posed. First there was man, not theism. That concept came later.>>

The, problem involves two conditions: theist or not a theist. The issue of which one came first is irrelevant.

<<The theists should be compared to the rest of mankind, not the other way round. If there is a need for a dichotomy in this domain, the relationship should be expressed correctly, i.e., theism as a deviation from the norm. People are not born theists.>>

Who deviates from whom is also irrelevant. People are not born teapotists either, but you probably wouldn’t have a problem with being labeled an “a-teapotist”. According to your logic, we are wrong to refer to asexual reproduction as such because it came first (and we deviated from asexual reproduction), but I’d doubt you’d have a problem with that. Thus, when you present arguments like the above, it comes across as disingenuous because ‘which came first’ is not your problem and this can be demonstrated by pointing out the inconsistencies in your logic.

If you consider atheism to be some sort of a millstone to be carried around your neck, then it’s a wonder that you can ever move given the infinite number of other things that you are not.

<<I consider myself to be “a very ordinary person”.>>

There is more intellectual tyranny in this than there is in ‘atheism’ because it’s a positive description of what you are and not just what you’re not. To add another layer of complexity and tyranny, it contains the highly subjective adjective of “ordinary”.

Continued…