Richard Rorty - Is There a Conflict Between Science and Religion?

[@cmarqz1]

The audio is clearer and crisp. Thanks.

[@lonelycubicle]

Thanks for posting

[@poultryforest7453]

48:00 the big kicker.

[@gabeullman6020]

Do you know where he is presenting?

[@kaimarmalade9660]

It almost sounds like it's a bunch of Mormons from the statements in the beginning. I would like to think that it's at BYU but that makes like zero sense.

[@patrickholt2270]

The thing about utilitarianism, well the first thing about utilitarianism is that it's a case of presuming that theology is a subset of philosophy rather than the other way around, and that therefore the "neutral" or "objective" philosopher has higher theological authority than the theologian. So that's an argument about authority in the church, asserting as the superior authority a stream of philosophy originating elsewhere. The second thing about utilitarianism is that it philosophically articulates the false claims of bourgeois economics and consumerism. Namely that people are exchangeable objects which can be priced and to which the terminology of worth and value applies. That pleasure and pain can somehow be counted, and evaluated as a guide to action according to worth. That objectification and dehumanisation is the habit of mind which takes place in the slave trade, as well as neoliberal politics. That fundamental assumption upon which the rest of utilitarianism stands is false. In general western philosophical apologetics has all this covered, especially with the concept of Partially Overlapping Magisteria (POMA). Theology understands the physical sciences and mathematics as subsets of theology having to do with the work of the Creator in the specifics of the physical universe. As such the whole output of the exact sciences is accepted almost without criticism, as illuminating the nature and mind of the Creator through the examination of Creation, and the scientific pursuit of the physical truth within its competence is recognised as a form of worship of the Creator as the source of all truth, unknowingly or not. Only where scientists drift out of their field of competence into speculation about ultimate causation or the lack thereof, and onto morality and ethics do they stray into the subject areas exclusive to theology, where the two Magisteria do not overlap and where the scientific method does not and cannot apply by definition. Also on speculation about the spiritual dimension of reality and the human person, afterlife if any and what if anything might be external to Space-Time, such as the infinite number of universes hypothesis which contradicts Occam's Razor and by definition cannot be observed or tested in any way whatever, and actually amounts to an attempt to redefine the meaning of the word Universe so as to defer the question of how the universe came into existence. Of course it only begs the question an infinite number of times, rather than disposing of the question. Most often one is dealing with false assumptions about what non-atheistic believers believe, and false definitions of what we mean by the word God. All of the asserted contradictions evaporate when the actual beliefs of monotheists and the actual monotheistic conception of God is used, to my knowledge. Faith, hope and love is a Biblical grouping of concepts, in St Paul's conclusion to his discussion of the role and significance of the supernatural Gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1st Corinthians chapter 13. They are specified as the supreme Gifts of the Holy Spirit, available gratis to every believer (the lesser Gifts are only selectively granted), and not actions or virtues the believer has to struggle to perform or conform to by will, or can usefully try to. Logically they are intimately related to each other. Love creates hope and requires faith, faith is buoyed by love and grants hope, and so on. You see that reality articulated in sports psychology, among other places.