Who Says Only Scientific Statements Make Sense?

[Louis-Antoine]

Hello, though new to AnswerBank, I have been reading current and many earlier posts on the 'Religion and Spirituality' threads, and it astonishes me to see so many (though not all) self-proclaimed scientific authorities eschewing all religious and spiritual beliefs merely on the feeble and illogical grounds that they are lacking in scientific validation.
In his early work 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus' Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: "The right method of philosophy would be to say nothing except what can be said, that is to say the propositions of natural science."
Regrettably for him, the sentences that constituted the Tractatus itself were not propositions of natural science. In consistency, Wittgenstein had to concede that they were nothing more than nonsense. This line of thought is now known as "Ludwig's Self-Trap'
Wittgenstein spent the latter part of his life repenting the claim that only scientific statements made sense. Others it seems are still willing to follow on into similar traps. I see on here the logical-positivist principle being by upheld; ie. meaningful propositions with relationship to religious beliefs must be either analytic of verification or falsification by experience. However, as the verification principle itself is neither analytic nor empirical, it follows that this assertion has to be meaningless. Does anyone disagree?

[jackthehat]

You're doing very well for a 283-year old.......

[LazyGun]

Surprised to read Khandro had been suspended - what brought that on?

[jackthehat]

He was giving personal, judgemental opinion in the Law Section from what I saw......despite the Ed issuing a warning on that thread.

[LazyGun]

Ahh ok - thanks for the info JtH...

[jackthehat]

You're welcome......

[vetuste_ennemi]

There are no professional philosophers on these threads that I know of, Louis-Antoine, far less logical positivists. And the attacks on religion by AB atheists, as I see it, are based as often as not on moral grounds as on scientific or logical ones. So I think you’re putting words in our mouths. Asking someone what evidence they have that the Bible, Koran or Book of Mormon are the work of a supernatural creator of the universe, or that Jesus, Mohammed or Joseph Smith communed with this being is not equivalent to denying the value of ethical statements, or asserting that they are meaningless.
An aside - come on, Jom – Wittgentstein isn’t that obscure, is he?

[LazyGun]

I think I must have misunderstood something here - Wasn't the initial post a rather long-winded April Fool post?

[vetuste_ennemi]

The joke stops at midday in England. Maybe Poisson d'Avril goes on longer abroad.

[vetuste_ennemi]

By the way, off piste, you've persuaded me to read Banks, LG.

[jomifl]

V-E obscure? probably not, isn't he the goalie for Bayern Munich?

[LazyGun]

@ v_e I hope you enjoy them, ;)

I am a huge fan of his Sci-Fi, and his contempory fiction is pretty good, as well, Wasp Factory and Crow Road for contemporary, Consider Phlebas and Player of Games for His Sci-Fi, along with the Algebraist :)

[jomifl]

I must say that I am extremely surprised that our urbane and witty khando could be banned. Perhaps his chakra has become misaligned or his tantra has been developed to the point of no return.:-) Whatever, I'm sure we can rely on his kharma being restored by the Omnipotent Ed.

[jomifl]

V_E No signs of the fish here in La France Profonde, but we are a long way from the sea :-)