

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Philosophy Lounge</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.philosophylounge.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com</link>
	<description>A Forum For Critical Thinkers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:15:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Some Disconnect on Darwinian Evolutionary Theory</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/disconnect-darwinian-evolutionary-theory/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/disconnect-darwinian-evolutionary-theory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:18:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biological Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darwinian philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darwinian Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Creation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1446</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Against the claim that Darwin only challenged orthodox religious explanations,  I pointed out that many historians and commentators on Darwin argue the contrary: namely, that Darwin’s work, Origin of the Species,  faced a variety of resistance,  only part of which stemmed from religious doctrine.  Undeniably, Darwin challenged orthodox religious accounts of life on earth (origin and maintenance); and religious doctrine was a big factor in the thinking of most people.  But more importantly to the history of biological science, Darwin's evolutionary science also challenged prevailing theories and beliefs of secular scientists and other people who did not base their views on religion at all. The idea of fixity of life species was a far broader idea than just something gotten from religious doctrine.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/disconnect-darwinian-evolutionary-theory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meditation on Maternal Assertiveness  &#8211;  By Virginia Bernal</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/meditation-maternal-assertiveness-virginia-bernal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/meditation-maternal-assertiveness-virginia-bernal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This life within me is my child 
My body nurtures him, (you can replace with “her”.) 
Protects him, 
Keeps him warm. 
At the time of birth I will still be the best provider 
Of warmth, 
Protection, 
Nutrition. 
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/meditation-maternal-assertiveness-virginia-bernal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contra the Moral Utility of Belief in a Soul</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/contra-moral-utility-belief-soul/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/contra-moral-utility-belief-soul/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:22:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[critique of religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[belief in soul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moral implications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why do I think ancient people adopted the belief in an immortal soul?  --  The likely answer is that the ancients and medieval people were generally  indoctrinated to believe the dogma of an immortal soul, along with other dogma about the fate of the soul after death.  In the Christian period, when they were not so indoctrinated or resisted the indoctrination, they were terrorized into believing (or at least outward assent to the belief).]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/contra-moral-utility-belief-soul/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mulling about some puzzles on &#8216;objective reality&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/mulling-puzzles-objective-reality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/mulling-puzzles-objective-reality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:42:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[theory of knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[objective reality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skepticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The epistemological tradition from Descartes through the classical empiricists --- Locke, Berkeley, Hume --- to Immanuel Kant is based on an erroneous idea that the possibility of knowledge of the external world (external to the subject) needs to be proven. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/mulling-puzzles-objective-reality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Extra-Ordinary Claims &amp; Miracles</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/extraordinary-claims-miracles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/extraordinary-claims-miracles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:22:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Notes and Remarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory of knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extra-ordinary claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miracles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1432</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ It is not sufficient to well-grounded belief to affirm belief in miracles (e.g. a resurrection from death, or a feat of levitation) on testimony and reports of such events. Much more is called for if we’re to see such belief as rationally and empirically well-grounded.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/extraordinary-claims-miracles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Dialogue on the Limits of Science and Transcendent Possibilities</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/dialogue-limits-science-transcendent-possibilities/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/dialogue-limits-science-transcendent-possibilities/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[critique of religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science and philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science and Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limits of science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speculation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supernatural]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1427</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let me use the analogy of human high jumping.  Although the height that human high jumpers have achieved has risen dramatically in recent decades (now over 8 feet), there is a limit (a physical limit to how high a human can jump).  So possibilities of yet higher jumps remain.  But the book is not wide open on these possibilities, as long as we’re talking about human physiology.  You won’t see anyone ever high jumping 50 feet!  But maybe someone will someday achieve a jump of 9-10 feet.  The same thinking applies to the limits and possibilities of scientific knowledge.  Yes, scientific knowledge is not a completed story.  Yes, more remains to be told (discovered).  But what remains, when it is disclosed, will come under the category of nature as we now know it.  There is no reason for claiming that among those possibilities not yet disclosed are supernatural realities (the sort you yearn for).  That would be like claiming that because human high jumpers are still setting new records, one will eventually jump over a 100 foot barrier unaided!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/dialogue-limits-science-transcendent-possibilities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opposing views on issues of knowledge, truth, and reality</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/opposing-views-issues-knowledge-truth-reality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/opposing-views-issues-knowledge-truth-reality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:17:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the mind-body problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory of knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualistic problems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Dewey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the modern age it may not be "hard to imagine" that the subjective/objective distinction has no "metaphysical significance," but it surely does not follow from a philosophical rejection of the mind-body dualism.   Rejecting mind-body dualism, with its implication of mind as entity apart from body, does have metaphysical implications; but this is distinct from questions regarding the significance of the distinction between subjective experience and objective reality. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/opposing-views-issues-knowledge-truth-reality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Over-reaching when we promote philosophy</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/overreaching-promote-philosophy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/overreaching-promote-philosophy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Critique of philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rebecca Goldstein over-reaches on behalf of the relevance and effectiveness of rational argument and the role that philosophers – with their rational arguments --  played in bringing about an end to slavery and the plight of women (regarded as second-class members of society).  Like with Yanni’s grand statement, so with Goldstein’s declaration of rational philosophy being the starting point of humanitarian developments, when we test the grand statement against the actual social and historical developments we find much reason for doubting and rejecting them.

 The humanitarian movements that have helped to bring about the end of the institution of slavery have included social, historical, and economic forces not at all philosophical in nature; and have been executed by different people of different backgrounds, most of whom were not inspired by the “theoretical moral arguments” of some philosopher or other.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/overreaching-promote-philosophy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We Find Discrimination Everywhere!</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/find-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/find-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[humor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Irony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[categorization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In his latest book for the non-scientific layman, Leonard Mlodinow  (See* below) recounts a joke in his discussion of the stereo-typing and categorization of people.  As Mlodinow tells it, three gentlemen (a white Catholic, a white Jew, and a poor black man) die and head for the gate of heaven where the Lord will question them to determine their qualifications for entry.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/find-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is torture of a person ever morally justified?</title>
		<link>http://www.philosophylounge.com/torture-person-morally-justified/</link>
		<comments>http://www.philosophylounge.com/torture-person-morally-justified/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:00:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jbernal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture and Morality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philosophylounge.com/?p=1408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So I will go out on the limb and declare that torturing people in attempts to extract crucial information is not a morally justifiable act.  It might turn out to be a prudent or utilitarian act, one that yields some desirable result.   But in the end, the torturer (if he/she is honest) might have to admit to gaining a desirable result through immoral means.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.philosophylounge.com/torture-person-morally-justified/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
