Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Conservative Author: 19th Amendment is the Problem
Laurence Auster is a leading far-right conservative author, one of the primary forces behind efforts to severely limit immigration and the "suicidal course of Western Civilization". He has published extensively at FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker, NewsMax, and National Review. His website is called "View From the Right", subtitled "The passing scene and what it's about viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect Right."
OK, fine. So he's a wingnut conservative with a strong religious belief, who is fixated on Islam, and pretty much defines nativism (his 1990 book The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immmigration and Multiculturalism is considered by the 'mainstream right' as one of their seminal anti-immigration texts ). So what?
So, last month he came out with the following:
In accordance with the mission statement of this website which is to discuss the modern world as "viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect right," let me put the matter plainly: Is it a sign of strength in the West that women can vote, hold political office, and be shapers of public opinion on political issues including matters of national security? Or is it a sign--and a cause--of a profound, perhaps fatal weakness?
Yeah, you read that correctly: he wonders whether women should have any political rights. And while he claims that he is still developing his opinions on this, the post (and his comments in the discussion thread), make it pretty clear that he thinks that the 19th Amendment was a Bad Idea:
There is much to be said for the view that affording women political rights (as distinct from the protection of their human rights, property rights, and civil rights) inevitably leads society in the direction of the Nanny State that we see in full bloom in today's Britain and Europe, leading ultimately to the end of national sovereignty and the onset of global governance. Women's primary external concern is safety and security. That is how it should be. Women are the natural care-givers and are naturally focused on the home and the family and its protection. But those same priorities, when expressed through the political sphere as distinct from the private sphere, inevitably lead a society in the direction of socialism. Once women have the vote, there is, over time, a growing tendency for women to stop seeing their fathers and husbands as the primary providers of security, and to see the state in that role instead. This tendency encourages--and in turn is greatly exacerbated by--the increase in unmarried motherhood. Single women, both with children and not, overwhelmingly see the state as their principal provider and accordingly vote overwhelmingly for the left. If women's vote leads a society in the direction of socialist statism, the weakening of marriage and the family, the loss of male responsibility, the loss of basic freedoms (which only men are physically and temperamentally suited to defend), and the loss of national vigor, does that not suggest that giving women the vote was a mistake?
Then there is the direct effect on society of having women in high leadership positions. I believe that with rare exceptions such as a Margaret Thatcher or a Golda Meir, women are not well suited for upholding the basic external structure of society. That is preeminently a male, not a female task. To me, the female-dominated politics of the Scandinavian countries do not represent a positive and uplifting direction for the human race. The huge number of women in the British Parliament do not represent a growth of British national strength but its decline.
There's more. And since comments are all moderated by Mr. Auster, one can assume that those comments he posts supporting his position are ones he accepts to at least some degree. His interaction with the comments also makes it very clear that he thinks that allowing woman the franchise was the source of all that is bad in America (i.e., liberalism), since it paved the way for further equality and the 'feminization' of men and politics. One last quote, from those comments:
Modern liberal society reduces society to a single paradigm, i.e., diversity and equality, to which all institutions must rigidly conform. By contrast, a traditionalist society allows for a genuine diversity of institutions and settings. Thus we could imagine a traditionalist society in which some settings would be all-male, some all female, and others having both men and women, all depending on what is appropriate to the nature and function of that institution.
Women were not excluded from participation in political discussion prior to the 19th amendment which gave women the vote; obviously, since it was women's activism that led to the 19th amendment. But now, assuming for the sake of discussion that we agree that it is better for society that women not have political rights (which is not yet a position I am fully committed to, though I am lean in that direction), if such a re-traditionalized society were to maintain itself, everyone, men and women, would need to understand the importance of the differentiation of women's and men's roles in society.
I have never seen a clearer example of the American Taliban put forth. Lest you think that such stuff should just be ignored, note when Auster's book was published - 1990 - and how it has grown into 'mainstream' political thought on the Right, culminating in the defeat of Bush's immigration reform efforts.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to Daily Kos.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
who's morality
Hi. I was reading with interest the apples and oranges and sometimes turtles discussion. I would like to know, for the atheists, what is the highest base of your morality? A person I know was thinking that science would be a good choice but I do not see how that would work. Some have said the state, the self, etc. For purposes of example, how about using who gets to claim/take property or perhaps, although I don't think it quiet as good, who gets to define the definition of property itself - these are nice "safe" ideas to use for examples. :)
Sounds like...
Sounds like...another "real man" who needs to keep women subjugated,controlled, supressed and abused to avoid facing his own frailities? Just like KKK members etc.
Confident men, Strong men... actually like women and believe in our American ideals.
From a life time of close observation.
No, it's the real deal, Jim.
No, it's the real deal, Jim. I often visit your fine site; I think Brent is one of the most reasonable "admitted atheists" of the Scarlet-Letter crew. Obviously I'm not going to beat up N.T.'s poor girlfriend, although I have to admit that if that's really all it would take to get rid of the 19th amendment, I'd certainly be tempted.
As far as the mysogyny goes, anyone who has boxed or done contact martial arts for more than a few years has punched out a woman or ten. Getting your bell rung is just part of the learning process. If it makes you feel any better, I actually got a bigger buzz out of smacking around a 250-pound football player than a 120-pound girl.
I just get a bit tired of the assumption that all writers, political or otherwise, are physical cowards. That's all.
Not quite what I was going for...
I never meant to imply that authors (or any form of intellectuals)in general are weak or cowardly. I did mean to imply that our current crop of conservative pundits are incredibly over-inflated, what with the stomping little boy, warmongering from a safe distance, he-man woman haters' club act that they put on for their pathetically vicarious audience. They are incredible pussies compared to what their rhetoric would have us believe, and can't even scrape up the balls to admit any shortcoming in their views or their ability to support them. All they can muster in their impotence is to be flag-waving, goose-stepping cheerleaders for reactionary thugs who fancy themselves heroes of freedom, but would not likely survive long if they actually had to live without the infrastructure and civility that a so-called Nanny State provides.
I stand by my original statement- one on one, not one of the gasbags I've mentioned could take my girlfriend in a fair fight. Does that, in your oh-so-manly estimation, mean that she should be able to strip them of their right to vote? Then again, I've never known a blowhard reactionary who could scrape up the balls to fight fair, either!
I guess I should be honest-I do believe, based on my life experience, that most far-right conservatives are sniveling wussies under all the bluster. Most of the real ass-kickers I've met were middle of the road in politics, and those who were more conservative still weren't so full of themselves as to suggest stealing the vote from their wives and mothers. In other words, they were men: confident enough to work and vote alongside women without having to flash their nuts every 30 seconds, or pretend that they are just "letting" women vote, or bother telling a woman what to do with her body. The way a freedom loving man would want it-free.
Completely unimpressed.
*applause*. Well, VD, I compliment you - you've just done a lot to impress the hell out of anyone who is looking for more than a "when reason fails, force prevails" argument.
I don't believe I've made the assumption you're talking about. In fact, given my background, martial arts training, et cetera, I'd hardly say that any writer is incapable of physical control of a violent confrontation. Once, I was one of the best - and while those days are behind me now, they're not *that* far behind me.
But that means exactly what, in this forum? You've smacked around "120 pound girls". Woo-hoo, I bet you're proud. And that forms the basis of your political philosophy? Sorry, buddy, you're gonna need to bring more to this battle than that.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Violent VD
Jim-
Sorry, I guess I was wrong. Vox would actually hit women. Worse still, he brags about it. I shouldn't be surprised given the violent nature of religious kooks.
Oh, speaking of beatings, PZ lays a pretty good smackdown on Vox today in this article(Another debate with a creationist, another phony exposed). Here is an excerpt:
Breadth?
Dirk. Man, c'mon. You surely recognize that this might just be ever the slightest bit broad or the minutest bit indefinite.
-Col.
Is there a religion of peace?
Col-
Haven't we covered this before? Yes, it is a broad statement. Yes, there are exceptions. My statements were in reference to Vox's statements about hitting women. Does context matter or do you always pull half a sentance out of a paragraph to chastise? Or is it that you have a problem with me pointing out the violent nature of the religious? I see religious conflict all over the world right now. Even our president compares the Iraq war to the Crusades. He believes god wants him to spread democracy in the ME and told him to invade Iraq. Is there such a thing as a religion of peace? Maybe the Buddhists?
Dirk
Yes, context matters.
I can grant your point about the context of abuse of women. However, I read the "religious kooks" thing here a lot, as you know. There are some.
There are also "irreligious kooks" of those that have faith there is no God. There are, however, some of these that are not "kooks" in the sense that you use the term. I think imprecision adds more heat than light.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "religion" as to whether there is a peaceful one. If you mean the original tenets of certain founders of systems of thought, yes there is. If you mean what man has often done in corruption of such (it isn't just government or business that gets corrupted), then perhaps not.
Clearly, the Sermon on the Mount, held even by many non-Christians to be the highest moral code succinctly given, is a treatise on peace (turn the other cheek, etc.). Have there been errors on the part of Christ's followers? Absolutely. Have committed Biblicists erred here as well? Certainly. But have committed Biblicists as a whole been a "religion of violence"? Demonstrably not.
ABP (I recognized the acronym yesterday after you gave the whole title) and Vox Day would, I imagine, be guilty of statements that are too broad. Again, don't really know because I don't read them. But given what I've seen of them here, it would seem that way to me. If it is counterproductive for them to do it, it is counterproductive here as well, right?
-Col.
Irreligious kooks
Col-
At the point I made the original statement you took exception to, you were not part of the conversation. Like I said, yes, it was a broad statement. That's part of the problem with having you here. You get caught in the crossfire unintentionally. I can't be expected to say "except the Colonel, Jeg, and the Pastor's Husband" every time I say something snarky about Christianists. I will again apologize for the insensitivity, but in the future please understand my respect toward you is implied. You must also try to remember, I respect individuals not religions.
I don't mind being called a kook if you disagree with me, but the term irreligious kook is irrelevant. There are a billion ways to describe me. Why would you choose something I don't believe in to describe me? How about something that does describe me? You could call me a Detroit Lions loving kook. Or a science loving kook. Or a kooky political junkie.
If you were to ask me how I describe myself to others, I would tell you that I almost never say atheist except here on UTI. I don't define myself by something I don't believe in. I call myself a skeptic or humanist or free thinker. Atheist is just one of thousands of words that describe me and I use it very rarely.
I find it interesting that you still believe atheism is a type of faith that makes me not believe in god. I assure you, it is a lack of faith, that makes me not believe in god. I guess it must be hard for you to understand as a person of faith. You think I just have a different type of faith as if atheism is just another religion. That is not the case. Try to think of it this way: you are a man of faith, I am a man of reason. I have absolutely no supernatural beliefs whatsoever. No ghosts, spirits, voodoo, witchcraft, superstitions etc. I consider all forms of faith to be like fairy tales. If someone wants me to stop considering their religion a fairy tale, they must prove to me that it exists outside of their heads. Everything I believe in is physical and scientific.
It seems like if there was one thing you learn from us atheists, it would be that atheism is the opposite of religion. But strangely, that has not sunk in yet. I wonder why?
Dirk
Accepted crossfire
Hey, Dirk, your explanation of the crossfire is a good one. I realize I am the odd one out here.
As far as faith goes, however, you are a man of it as much as I am. The fact is, I cannot prove Christianity with mathematical certainty. But then you cannot prove atheism that way either. This makes both positions ultimately that of faith, but in varying degrees. I believe the evidence is such that probability is on my side. You believe the opposite. At some point we can talk about what evidence there is for either side, but since atheism cannot be proven, it is therefore a faith proposition.
Christianity can also be described in the negative similarly to how you describe atheism. Atheism, you say, is not belief but non-belief. Christianity can be described as non-belief in no God. Sure, double negatives are harder to follow, but the logic is intact.
In point of fact, pure empiricism is a faith position. You cannot prove empiricism empirically! In this regard, I could say, “Why don't you just understand that my position is one of reason (since I have non-self-refuting evidence) and yours is one of faith?” I am not making such a statement (it’s incorrect in either direction), but just trying to get you to think outside of your box. You seem to think yours is the only position supported by anything. This is, again, demonstrably false. Such does not prove Christianity or any other worldview is correct, but it does shine the light on epistemological arrogance. The way to prove something (not in a mathematical sense but in a real-world sense) is to stack the evidence from each side. Call this preponderance of evidence, probability quotients, or what have you. Only if there were no evidence at all in favor of a particular worldview would it be a wholly faith or fideistic position. If there is some evidence, even if ultimately inadequate to a given mind, it isn't only a faith position. Do you see what I'm saying?
Interestingly, in some ways, atheism could be said to be a far greater faith position in that it cannot posit positive evidence in its favor--only negative evidence. Nevertheless, such evidence must be weighed by the theist. Therefore, I can't say atheism is a completely fideistic position, but certainly neither is it solely rational.
-Col.
Intellectual Dishonesty
Col-
I can't tell if you are serious or not. You are not stupid, but you are acting like it right now. Are you just trying to win a debate or are you actually trying to understand my position? It's very hard to tell.
What the hell are you talking about? What supernatural beliefs do I have? I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I suppose in the most technical-weasely-annoying sense that is faith, but come on, give me a break if you think that is the same type of faith as you believing in god. It's not even close. As a matter of fact, I am accusing you right now of intellectual dishonesty if you seriously equate the sun rising tomorrow as faith just like the existence of god. I would also call you a kook!
For the umpteenth time, atheism is the absence of belief in god or gods. It is not about what I believe in, it's what I don't believe in. How many more times will you make me explain this? Why can't I get this message thru? Is there some sort of logical deficiency religion has placed inside your head? It really seems that way. It's really hard to have a conversation with someone who does follow the rules of logic 101.
No. My position is not one of faith unless you say that the laws of gravity are faith. I have no supernatural beliefs. Please, stop the nonsense. I pretty much covered most of this above. I don't accept fairy tales as evidence. You can point to a 2000 year old book and make fantastic claims about it's divinely inspired origins, then call it evidence if you want, but I require more substantial verifiable evidence.
You believe probability is on your side because you embrace creation science and reject science science. Science does not account for the supernatural! Ever. Period. Creation science does and therefore cannot be considered true science. We have been over this before ad nauseum. Not much left to say.
Again, your logic is flawed. Xianity is a supernatural belief. I have no supernatural beliefs. See the very big difference? You believe god sacrificed himself to himself in order to break rules that he himself set. Is that logical to you? Saying "Christianity can be described as non-belief in no God" is unbelievably ridiculous. Why would someone say such a thing unless you are purposely trying to deceive? Why not say I believe in the supernatural and you atheists don't? You are just playing word games trying to win a debate again. You are not having a discussion. Knock it off.
I feel this way because my position is the only logical one. Yours is a belief system founded on faith and the supernatural. Faith that I don't share. If the sun comes up tomorrow as I predict, will you believe me then? If I drop a rock and it breaks your toe, will you believe me that gravity is real? What can you do to convince me that god is real (other than talking in circular logic and double negatives)? If you insist on calling them both positions of faith, can you at least admit that your faith is extremely far fetched compared to my so called faith that is backed up by real physical evidence and years upon years of experience. This whole conversation is so silly I can't even believe we are having it.
No. Not really. I am trying. I see what you, as a man of faith believe. However, as a man without faith, I see zero evidence for the existence of god. Can you show me some of this evidence you speak of that I or a real scientist would agree with? Sorry, but I showed you why the Discovery Institute jokers cannot be trusted in a previous conversation.
This is why people call you a kook. What negative evidence? I look around me an I see natural processes and natural phenomena everywhere. The cycle of life, evolutionary biology and physics are my positive evidence. All of which can be experienced by you and I both. Your beliefs, while seeming very real to you, only exist in your head. Of all the questions I just asked you, if you only answer one, please let it be this one: What can you do to convince me that god is real? In other words, what can you show me?
Dirk
There is no equality here
Gah, what a pungent, steaming mass of sophistry. Well if it is so very logical to believe in Christianity because it cannot be disproven then it must be equally logical to believe in ALL OF THE OTHER religions which coincidentally also CANNOT BE DISPROVEN (imagine that). So picking just one religion and not believing in ALL of them must be equally illogical.
Christianity is the extrordinary claim here. Atheism isn't. If you want to twist logic into a pretzel to say that atheists are people of faith that's fine you can redefine ignorance as strength and war as peace if you'd care to. It has certainly been done before but it doesn't change anything. If you don't want to believe in the laws of physics, chemistry and biology you are not required to. Where is your PROOF (which you seem to demand of us) that all the other religions except Christianity are wrong? Where is it? There are thousands and thousands of them so I expect some very hefty proof that each and every one of them is wrong and Christianity (of which flavor I wonder) is right. These other religions have lasted for centuries and lots of people believe them as well so they must be right right? They have books saying they are right so they must be right right?
If you want to say the universe was created by some unknowable creator being that's fine. Since right now we don't know how that happened. If you want to say that this creator being created life on a whim that's fine until science explains how that happened. But the minute you say you do know this creator being and that it impregnated itself with some Hebrew girl millenia ago wandered around for a while then got killed and went back to itself then you go into same category as anyone else making extrordinary claims with no evidence i.e. into the realm of 'entertainment'. I do hope you go to a witch doctor rather than a regular medical practitioner since, as you say, science is just faith and faith is logically superior.
Most people would say you are correct.
There is no equality between your amount of faith and mine. Yours is by far the more extreme position, why the onus is on the Atheist, and why the vast majority of people look at the world and conclude there had to be a Creator.
You are correct.
-Col.
I have not been to the mountain
The mountain of PROOF that all religions except Christianity are false. Where is the PROOF colonel? Where is it? Sure such a massive body of scholarly work should be easy to point to. Where is the PROOF that Islam is false? Where is the PROOF that Judaism is false? Where is the PROOF that Hinduism is False? Where is the PROOF that animism is False? (list edited for space considerations). Where?
If believing in the proven and demonstrated laws of physics is the same as 'faith' then I am faithful. If believing that peer reviewed science gives us the best conception of what constitutes objective reality makes me a 'believer' then I am a believer. If doubting an ancient story written decades after the events it perports to describe about a man who consistently violated the known laws of physics makes me 'exteme' then I guess I am extreme. So tell me colonel, did the computer that you are using to promulgate ancient myths come into existence via divine revelation? Was the microchip a gift from god perhaps? Or maybe, just maybe it was the result of a lot of hard work on the part of human beings resulting from the manipulation of the laws of physics discovered through work and intutition? For better or worse it is science that brings us progress. Were it up to religion we'd still be in mud huts herding goats, so go ahead and disparage science while using its fruits at the same time. Just use an air freshener to mask the telltale smell of hypocrisy.
Didn't
Didn't he just explain that the onus is on the one making the claim?
Normally we use something ridiculous (eg. Tooth Fairy or Invisible Pink Unicorns) to illustrate our point but that's not really getting through to you.
We aren't making a claim at all. There is no claim.
Let's play a little role playing game -
Jim says, "My lawn has japanese beetle grubs."
I say, "I don't believe you."
Scenario 1. Jim then goes to his yard, picks up a spadeful of grass, dirt and grubs and shows me.
I would then believe him.
Scenaria 2. Jim goes to get a spadeful of dirt and grass but there are no grubs...I would then remain skeptical.
Now Jim says, "There's a black jellybean coursing it's way to Alpha Centauri and it will burn up in that star in the year 2500".
I say, "I don't believe you."
Jim says, "You just have to have faith, I read it in a book."
Guess what? I remain skeptical. (Sorry Jim)
There's no evidence and Jim's book isn't "proof".
It's your wild claim.
You are each making claims that are tooth-fairyish. You hold that the cosmos came from nothing (if you affirm the same cosmology that holds the field today) or you hold that it came from some theoretical-only quantum fluctuation against all observed phenomena and real math, or some other such mind-wrencher. You hold that things like Mount Rushmore could be accidental, because every mountain shape is equally unlikely in the world of chance, therefore the appearance of design is just that--appearance only. Besides, with infinite time, all things can happen. Of course, infinite time runs counter to hard science as well as philosophy, but don't let that bother you.
The point that Dirk was trying to make was that the atheist has zero faith. That, sirs, is wrong. You cannot PROVE there is no God, now can you? Therefore, tautologically, your position is a faith one as well.
So it then goes to probabilities of evidence--not a faith/no faith question. Since the now famed Alvin Plantinga and, for all I know, Bernard Lonergan as well, convinced minds that atheism is the view out of sync with human basically held beliefs, and since the vast majority of people are witness to this, the burden of proof lies on you. You are the ones making the out-of-sync claim. This is precisely along the lines of the recent posts over whether we are in someone else's dream or "Matrix" (what a stupid movie). People toy with it, but they normally come back to reality. People toy with the idea of universes popping out of nothing, too, but normally give it up, just like they reject pink unicorns.
I look at the cosmos and believe I am holding to physics better than you are. Nothing comes from nothing. I look at Mount Rushmore and believe I am holding to logic better than you are. Design comes from a designer. I look at DNA and think I am holding to information theory better than you are. Detailed information in the known world, always, always comes from an intelligent source. Does this make my position right? Not in and of itself alone. But to try to arrogate all these things to your side by fiat is something you may be impressed with, but the academy is certainly not, nor am I. If you want to believe in magical popping universes, go ahead. I will not block your faith. But that is what it is.
This is the kind of narrow-mindedness that atheistic Philosopher Michael Ruse was responding to in Dawkin's latest book when he said, "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist...." And further, why Francis Collins has said, "...Dawkins has abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism."
If guy stands on the street corner and tells people they're going to meet their Maker but he can't prove it, you would say he not only has faith, but he's a "ravin' fundy". So when you say it's all from nothing and accidental, be thankful I only ask for you to admit that involves some faith. Some would take you for just another ravin' fundy.
If it takes no faith to hold your worldview, it means you can prove it in a mathematical or syllogistic fashion. If you can’t, there is faith involved. I’m all ears.
-Col.
Wild Claims And Straw Men
Hi Colonel - just thought I'd jump in here for a little bit.
Heheh.. You cannot PROVE there is no invisible garden gnome living on my shoulder, therefore, tautologically, your position is a faith one as well.
Do you see how silly that sounds?
Atheism itself makes no claims at all. I think you misunderstand - badly - what atheism is and is not.
Atheism is a description. Atheism is the word that is used to describe a person in which god-belief is absent.
That's all. Nothing else. no "worldview", no dogma, no claims, no theories, no scriptures, no faith. Absense of god-belief.
The other side of that coin is the descriptive word "theist" which is used to describe a person in which god-belief is present. Again - no "worldview", no dogma, no claims, no theories, no scriptures, no faith. Presence of god-belief only.
So, neither of these words makes any claims at all. They are merely words that describe the binary equation that is the presence or the absence of god-belief in a human being. It is either there or not there, on or off.
An aside - because everyone on the planet is either a theist or an atheist - "there or not there", remember? - then this means that agnosticism is compatible with both of these descriptions. Agnosticism describes a person who does not believe that knowledge of a god is possible, and gnosticism describes a person who believes that knowledge of a god is possible. Atheism and theism deal in the realm of god-belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with god-knowledge. So, one can easily be an agnostic atheist, and agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist. Atheism/Theism, and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are not all points along the same line - they are on different lines altogether. Please take a look at this handy chart is this confuses you.
There is nothing about being an atheist that requires that a person makes a claim that "universes pop out of nothing". That is not a part of what atheism is. That is a strawman.
There is nothing about being an atheist that requires that a person makes a claim that "something comes from nothing". That is not a part of what atheism is. That is a strawman.
There is nothing about being an atheist that requires that a person makes a claim that "design does not come from a designer". That is not a part of what atheism is. That is a strawman.
There is nothing about being an atheist that requires that a person makes a claim that "detailed information does not come from an intelligent source". That is not a part of what atheism is. That is a strawman.
No one has made any such claim about atheism itself. Individual people may hold views or opinions - even strong ones - about the subjects you mention above, but no one has "arrogated them to our side". That would be stupid.
Why is it that when a vocal atheist like Dawkins writes a book, it is called an "attack" or an "embittered manifesto", and Dawkins himself is labeled a "fundamentalist"?
Look, Col., there is nothing in the descriptive word "atheism" to be "fundamental" about. It's not that kind of word. It's a description, not a set of beliefs or a "worldview".
Dawkins is an atheist, but his views are his own. He does not make claims for all atheists, nor does he ever claim to be some sort of spokesman for atheists in general. Don't confuse Dawkin's own personal beliefs and arguments with atheism in general.
As for Ruse, he's - forgive the language - a fucking moron. There is nothing about the description of a person in which god-belief is absent to be embarrassed about. It is emotionless. Being "embarrassed to be an atheist" by Dawkins is just about the silliest fucking thing I've heard from Ruse - and he's said a lot of silly things over the years.
Yes. He is making specific, positive claims about the nature of reality. He may or may not be a "fundy". It depends on what his core religion is, and whether or not he holds to the "fundamental" beliefs of that religion.
But atheism is NOT a religion. There is nothing to be fundamental about. Atheists do not all dogmatically claim that "it's all nothing and accidental". That is yet another strawman born from your obvious and very well-developed (if I might say so) misunderstanding of what the words atheism and theism really mean.
Dirk's "worldview" (I really dislike that word. It implies all sorts of things that it really shouldn't) may indeed require some "faith". However, there is a qualitative difference between "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow, or that gravity will continue to work, or that frequency of alleles change within a gene pool from one generation to the next --- and "faith" that a magical man in the sky made it all with magic, amen.
Surely you can see that difference? James Randi, in his book called "The Faith Healers", discusses three types of faith.
From what I've read, you generally exhibit Type I and II faith - in my estimation of course. There is nothing really wrong with this, until you begin to tell me that my type III faith is "the same thing".
It's not, and that's where your argument falls apart. That and trying to make a big-old strawman religion out of your boogeyman misunderstanding of what atheism is.
Brent-Agnostic Theist?
Hey Brent,
Glad you jumped in because you explain things much better than I. And you are much nicer about it. I tend to get exasperated when someone can't understand simple logic, you on the other hand are very patient. I need to try harder to remain polite and not to let the insults fly.
With the compliments out of the way, I can get the heart of my confusion. I have a small problem with your explanation. The atheist/theist stuff was great, its the Gnostic/agnostic description I am having a hard time with. I have always thought of an agnostic as someone who is not sure about the existence or non-existence of god. You described an agnostic as a person who does not believe that knowledge of a god is possible. Here is the Wikipedia definition of agnosticism. It looks like we are both right. I just thought it was important to point out, that there is a little more to it than your explanation gave. Sorry if you think I am picking nits.
Anyway, that was just the set-up for my real question which stems from the chart you provided. You claim agnostic means "a person who does not believe that knowledge of a god is possible" and theist means "a person in which god-belief is present". How can someone be an agnostic theist simultaneously, according to your chart and abiding by your original definitions? Those two words are incompatible, no?
I thought I knew what I was talking about before you gave your definitions. Now I am confused. Would you mind clearing this up for me?
Dirk
Knowledge And Belief
Theism describes a person in which god-belief is present. The belief that there is a god is a stand-alone thing, a singular belief. God-belief is there in that person.
Agnosticism is a negative statement about god-knowledge. It is a completely separate thing. Knowledge of a god is not required to posses a belief in a god, and visa-versa.
One deals with god-belief, and the other deals with god-knowledge. Like I said, they are not simply points all along the same line going from left to right, Atheist --> Agnostic --> Theist, they are on completely separate lines altogether.
I agree that the two don't sound like they should go together - but think about the following statement and see if it reminds you of any god-botherers you know in your life. An "agnostic theist" would be someone who says,
Do you see how that works? They don't think that knowledge of whether a god exists or not is possible (agnosticism), and they simultaneously hold a god-belief (theism) despite their stated position on knowledge of a god.
Trust me, it happens a lot more often than you'd think. :)
Which is crazier?
Brent-
Thanks for getting back to me and your explanation is spot on. I had more time to chew on it this weekend and kinda figured it out for myself. I was caught up on the definition of agnostic instead of thinking of gnostic. The opposite of gnostic is a-gnostic. Knowledge versus absense of knowledge. I see now. For a logical person, it would seem that knowledge would be required for belief, but we are not talking about logical people here.
And yes, I know far too many of these people. I don't know which is crazier. Those who aren't sure if god exists, but believe anyway or those that think they know and fervently believe god exists. I would say that the former are dumber and the latter are crazier. I bet we can make up a chart for that also. LOL.
Thanks again,
Dirk
Eternal wheel re-creation
Hi, Brent: I’m sorry I didn’t respond earlier. I hadn’t seen your post until after I had responded to Dirk, and then had no time. You have posted quite a bit of material here, so let me try to touch on a few of them just briefly—though this runs the risk of being misunderstood or without answers.
In regard to the garden gnome, there is no cosmos that so begs for a garden gnome’s existence that it convinces nearly all minds. Further, there is no positive evidence for the gnome either. This is what Thameron is after, but one thing at a time; I can’t respond to all of you and every thought you have in essay form. The garden gnome is actually the best, if not only, example of a straw man in your entire post, for there aren’t those that are trying to change the course of America, individual lives, calling names, or myriads of other things based on whether there is or is not the gnome. For these and other reasons, it is nothing like theism/atheism.
I do understand the descriptive force of words like “atheist”. I also know how they are used everyday, and how they are colloquially used here at UTI. Jim has a hobby others might think of as unique—ancient weapons and tactics. I have one you might find unique as well. I read Greek. Every day. I think I understand a bit about all the words you listed, since they all derive from that language. But I also understand that, unlike animal species, language and word evolution is very fast, and there is much overlap in usage. Technically speaking, it means without God belief. But this is not how it used in everyday speech, here at UTI or elsewhere. Atheists are not simply passive. They are active in their beliefs and the act on them. This is why the bus scenario in the reply to Dirk is much more similar to the God question than the binary code allusion. Perhaps not in grammar, but certainly in praxis.
You use “requires” in the “popping universe” repartee as well as in the one on “from nothing”. I didn’t say required. This is the error in your strawman accusation here, and at other parts of your post. I was responding to several people at once, and to atheistic thought conceptually. Though you may not believe in popping universes, there are demonstrably atheists that do. Perhaps they are in the majority among your like-minded peers, in that the Big Bang with a finite past with infinite or near-infinite density is clearly the primary cosmology of our day—and growing stronger, not weaker, as a matter of fact. The very reason atheistic scientists are frequently so fanatical about finding a cosmological loop-hole is because they are active in their unbelief. The material/energy of the cosmos has only three options. Three—that’s it. It (1) had no beginning and is infinitely old; it (2) came from nothing and is self-created; or (3) it was created transcendently by what we commonly call God. There can be adjustments or nuances to these, but no other genuine options. Thus, seeing the difficulty atheists will often state their disdain for the Big Bang based on their atheology. They then condemn creationists for being narrow-minded. Are you able to see how silly this sounds? I may be guilty here of a generalist-man argument, but no strawman—particularly since I’ve listed in similar posts other non-God cosmological theories. I just can’t recreate the entire wheel each post.
To be an atheist, you must affirm that everything that looks like design in the cosmos, is not produced by a mind. It is either chance or some grand-unifying concept, etc. Stated otherwise, if veridical design is proven in the cosmos beyond what chance or the sciences can account for, you could no longer be an atheist. At least not an honest one, as I take most of you at UTI to be. So not a true strawman here either.
As to “arrogated them to our side”, c’mon, Brent. It is attempted here every day. Every day. There are creationists, and then there is “science science”. There are morons, and then there are those that are “enlightened”. You are very correct here in one aspect: it is very stupid to try to be both open-minded AND refuse to look except in one narrow spot for answers.
As to worldviews, nothing could be sillier than saying atheism isn’t one. It colors as much of your life and your decisions as theism does a Christian’s. Jim’s devotion to his mother-in-law springs, in part (if I’ve read him correctly) from his belief that this is all there is, so we have to make our own reality or the best of life in the here-and-now. He’s attempting to be non-hypocritical to his worldview. I admire it. Regardless of whether we like certain words, words that can be loaded, they often exist because we don’t have anything better. Believing there is no God affects you and all other atheists. The same for theists. As for “fundamentalist”, there are certainly enough similarities among atheists to produce the critical mass for Webster’s definition. Moreover, it is not always used anymore of someone that holds to a specific set of tenets, but to one that goes about it wild-eyed. Dawkins is an archetypal example of this—more so in my opinion than some from whom I’d distance myself in the Christian world, say a Jerry Fallwell.
Atheism and religion. You are wholly correct here—atheism is not one, and you’ve never heard me make that claim. Atheists often do, however, behave in (positive or negative) religious fashions, whether in devotion or fanaticism, or what have you.
Brent, I appreciate your honesty, and your general gentlemanliness. I do have a question that has something ultimately to do with our interchanges. I know you’re big on James Randi, and for the most part, I would agree with him, too. I am, believe it or not, quite skeptical about most everything. It’s one reason I’ve studied my own rationale for Christianity over and over again. I am very familiar, however, with probably over 200 circumstances that simply outstrip his position, and one has to do with some Rasmussens. Do you have any near family in Oregon? (I know there are roughly 1.8935746 million Rasmussens in the world…). :-)
The reason I ask is that I have a good friend, Phil Rasmussen (I’ve also met his brother Kyle), that attended high school in that state. Phil had a friend there that was the school’s quarterback. This friend was injured in a hunting accident in about his Freshman or Sophomore year, when their vehicle rolled down a cliff. The result was that he was 100% deaf in one ear, and physicians said it was permanent. The entire school was aware of this due to his notoriety as the quarterback, etc. They always had to make sure they were speaking into his good ear. In his senior year, Phil invited him to a church meeting (Phil’s dad was the pastor). As far as I know, the quarterback was not a Christian at all. At the end of the service, the quarterback, without asking Phil about it, went forward to be prayed for. Instantaneously, he was healed. Of course, there was a lot of celebrating, and Phil got to bed quite late. He arrived for school late the next morning, and was astonished to see no one in class. Instead, the whole student body was at one end of the building, and the quarterback was at the other with his “good” ear plugged. The students were whispering things down the hallway, and he was repeating them back exact. It completely changed the course of that community.
Of the many different kinds of reasons I believe what I do (notice I’m talking about lines and types of evidence, not individual stepping stones), this is an example of just one that is a bit more personal.
Herding Cats
Colonel-
There are so many straw men in this comment I don't know where to begin. And when a strawman doesn't work, you invent fallacies, red herrings, false dilemma's and slippery slopes I don't believe in. I am not sure if I should even bother responding. Please in the future, if you are not sure what I believe, ask. Don't just make shit up and claim my 'faith' is the same as yours. I will point out the strawmen/fallacies and give you another chance to respond rationally if you can.
Strawman #1: The universe came from nothing through magic.
I don't believe in magic and the BB theory is very old. The best theory science has right now is M theory. "God did it" is the least likely and frankly the most childish thing I have ever heard. It is just too easy now isn't it. It's called giving up. Lazy mindedness. I can't explain it so god did it. I put food in the microwave and it comes out hot. Wow. God must have done it. Sorry, that bunk might work for you, but I need more than magic.
Strawman #2: Mount Rushmore is accidental.
Huh? This one is out of left field. When did I claim Rushmore is an accident or natural phenomena? Obviously men sculpted it. Can a mountain with a face on it occur naturally? Kind of. Ever hear of the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire? It fell down a few years ago, but I saw it and it did look like the profile of a mans face kind of.
Strawman #3: With infinite time, all things can happen.
Another one pulled out of your arse. Who says there is infinite time? Our universe is around 14 billion years old. That is a long time, but not infinite. And what do you mean all things can happen? I think in 14 billion years a lot of crazy things are likely to happen, but they are all natural. Science is still trying to explain quarks, quasars and black holes. But guess what, no magic. No god. No supernatural explanations.
Strawman #4: Atheists prove god does not exist.
No. I don't care. It's nonsense. We don't disprove god or the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns. No proof required for lack of belief. Proof is required only for belief. If you want to make up a crazy stories, the onus of proof is on the lunatic who makes the wild magical claims.
Fallacy #1: Most people believe X, therefore X must be true.
Are you really so wrapped up in your bubble of delusion, you believe this? If I show 10 people a card trick and 9 are fooled, does that make it real magic in your eyes? Thameron asked about all religions. Since most people believe in one religion or other, are they all correct? It is my view that you are an atheist like us. We just believe in one less god than you do.
Fallacy #2: The Cosmos and DNA are designed.
This is nothing but wishful thinking. Are crystals designed? Snowflakes? Or are these just patterns that show up over and over in nature? I have asked you several times and you always ignore the creators creator paradox. Nothing comes from nothing right? Where did this magical designer come from? Who designed him? Care to take a shot at it this time? I bet you ignore this again and just come back with the same intellectually lazy 'god did it' nonsense.
Fallacy #3: All atheists agree and have a dogma.
For the millionth time, no(you must get a kick out of repetition). Atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby(Randi). Trying to get us to agree is like herding cats. That is why so-and-so disagrees with Dawkins and Dawkins disagrees with Harris and Harris disagrees with Hitchens etc. None of whom have I read by the way. The only thing that we have in common is the lack of belief in god or gods.
------------
I really don't know what else to say. You are so tragically misinformed about my beliefs, that you make things up and then argue with what you imagine I believe. I try and try to explain, but either you don't believe me or you refuse to accept my beliefs. Why bother asking if you won't accept the answers? What are you really doing here?
Dirk
General men, not straw ones.
Dirk:
I may have appeared to be putting words in your mouth because I was trying to respond to several of you at once with a general reply. (There’s only one of me, y’know.) Jim has said "all things" in regard to infinite time, the Big Bang theory may be old but it is still, by far, the one that holds the field with relatively few buying into M-Theory (formerly "string"), and so forth. At this point, it takes more faith to hold to M-Theory than the Big Bang.
I don't have time this morning to go through everything (it's hard to keep you guys on point), point by point in the way I’d like to since, contrary to Thameron's accusation, I have two-plus careers, am not wealthy by any stretch, and actually have to work this afternoon.
Snowflakes are a horrid example for you, for they contain almost no information or complexity. They are like salt crystals--highly ordered but with no high information content. The often misstated 2nd law does not apply to "order" but to "complexity". This is to the very point of Mt. Rushmore. Snowflakes and crystals do not convince us of a sculptor. Mt. Rushmore automatically does. Every phenomenon is "equally improbable"—as has been stated on this site—when governed by chance. So the very stupid argument (that has been posted here on occasion) that everything being equally unlikely somehow allows that design only LOOKS that way falls to the ground. Very hard, I might add. We know Mt. Rushmore is not just chance. You are correct, Dirk, in saying that only an idiot would think that Mt. Rushmore was not designed. So then what about things that are much, much more highly designed in the cosmos? Informationally intensive, highly complex things?
About God and timelessness, or disproving all other religions, (1) I've already addressed such here in brief, and (2) they are extraneous to the original point, that atheists have faith in their worldview. Stay on point. There is lots of time for going on to other ones.
As for "fallacy" #1, c'mon. Again and again here I have said that a majority does not in and of itself "prove" anything. But it certainly DOES indicate some things, such as most people being able to see design, cosmology, etc. and know that the atheist position is the one that is the pink unicorn. Even without the philosophic contributions, this alone puts the onus on those whose faith is that nothing supernatural exists.
I already dealt with "fallacy" #2; crystals, etc. miss the point, and experts will tell you so. There is a world of difference between a snowflake and the information content of DNA.
As for "fallacy" # 3, I said no such thing at all. Now who is putting words in someone else's mouth? I neither said that atheists have a religion, nor did I say that they all have the same dogma. Jim says he is a libertarian. You call yourself a liberal. Thameron has not stated, but appears to be a communist or socialist. The point was that when atheists attempt to just affirm something by stamping their little feet, it is no less “fundamentalist” than when a religious person does it. Here an example would be “science science”, not “X science”. This so logically fallacious it screams. It is saying, “No matter what the evidence is for Y theory, THIS particular set of scientists is against it, and so I will label them scientists and these others as non-scientists.” An egregious example of circular reasoning—or worse.
But for the "umpteenth" time, the current question boils down to a very, very simple—even syllogistic—point. Bringing in other religions or the beginning of God, yada, yada, yada are red herrings to this point: Can one prove that there is no God? (No, one cannot, which is conceded by you.) Therefore, ipso facto the atheistic worldview is one of faith to one degree or another. There is no escaping it. You hold tenaciously to a position that may ultimately be shown to be wrong. That is faith. To simply say, “I don’t believe therefore I have no faith” is a simplistic dodge. One can endeavor to cross a road blindfolded saying to himself and others that since he does not believe there is a bus, he is therefore not exercising any faith to step onto the roadway. As long as, however, the possibility of a bus still exists, he is exercising very real faith to step out, regardless of his self-declared “no faith”.
Let’s try it one more time. If you can prove God does not exist, I’m all ears. I’LL BECOME ONE OF YOU. If you can’t, you are living a life of faith to one degree or another.
-Col.
Where is my proof?
I will ask again since I don't seem to be getting through here. As an admitted Christian you have chosen to believe that that particular belief is true and by default that all other contrary religious beliefs are false. Where is your proof that Judaism is not the true path? Where is your proof that Islam is not the true path? Where is your proof that Hinduism is not the true path? Where is your proof that Taoism is not the true path? Where is your proof that Shintoism is not the true path? Either produce the proof necessary or admit that logically since none of the religions can be proven to be false then they must all be equally valid. Come now colonel. Either produce the proof or admit to us that Animism is every bit as valid as Christianity (or Wicca for that matter) since you cannot prove them false.
To paraphrase someone close to you. Science is by no means perfect since it is done by imperfect human beings. It is just the best system for knowing the observable univers that there is.
Simple, All those other
Simple, All those other religions that you mentioned had books that were written by man. Christianity which is based off of the Bible was written by God.
You know that how exactly?
There is nothing in there that bronze age shepherds wouldn't have known. So how exatly do you know that the bible was 'written by God'? Because it says so in the book maybe? Because someone told you that it was? Because you feel it was? Because you received a direct verbal or written communication from the deity itself perhaps? And if it was written by the deity then I'd say it needs to hire an editor. Oh, and which version of the bible was written by the deity? There are several on the shelves and you know they don't all say the same thing.
Thameron:
Okay, let's interrupt the subject just for you. I would argue along many lines for the case for Christianity. These lines, in extreme brief, would include but not be limited to: Cosmology, teleology, information theory, and mind/body relationship in regard to theism in general. Then I would move to: Establishing from secular data the resurrection of Jesus as historical, illuminating Messianic threads from the OT tapestry (motifs from across known centuries, not "prooftexts"), establishing the veracity of at least some miracles (modern and ancient), et al. I would then argue that there are mutally exclusive claims between Christ and the also-rans, that the evidence is vastly in favor of the above in comparison with them, and thus checkmate.
Now. Back to the point before you interrupted. How do you know there not a God? What proof do you have?
-Col.
Checkmate? Hardly
You can't have a checkmate when you haven't even moved a pawn. Where is the cosmology that Jesus gave? There is one in the old testament; Genesis with its two creation stories, but to my knowledge those scribes who put words in Jesus' mouth in the gospels didn't give one. What 'Christian' cosmology proves that Christianity is true and all of the other religions are false? What teleology is is that proves that Christianity is true and all other religions are false? How in the creator being's name do you get to Jesus starting from information theory and at the same time exclude all other religions? How in the creator being's name do you get from a mind/body relationship to Jesus (while excluding all other religions)? Is Jesus lurking in my neurons somewhere?
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. What secular data do you offer that would do that? You know that even if there was a guy named Jesus and even if he managed to regenerate back from death, and even if he flew up into the sky this wouldn't prove that he was equivalent to the creator being in any way. In order to prove such an equivalency he would have to have created a universe like our own. I have seen no text reporting that he had done so.
Some? Some? Do you get to say which? And how exactly would you prove their veracity? Double blind reproducible experiment perhaps?
This of course is absolutely worthless as any kind of proof. As any other story would be.
This is certainly true. I hope that you have an abundance of proof that the also rans cannot be true.
Keep to your studies
This is one reason I wanted to go one step at a time. A host of questions and red herrings strewn around desperately a point does not make.
It is very obvious to anyone having done the slightest amount of research in the area that you are out of your depth. The NT text is acknowledged by all sides (even the most liberal, agnostic, and atheistic writers) to be 98% certain, with the other two percent that is still in question touching no doctrinal issue. Second, yes, many creation passages are directly attached to Jesus, not just Yahweh--and in fact these merge across highly detailed macro themes. Third, one miracle would be enough to destroy naturalism, so though there have been fakes or mistakes, but that is immaterial. Just a single miracle is all I’d need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that naturalism is inadequate. Finally, if Someone claimed to be God, then rose from the dead, I'd be willing to take that step of faith. I base my life on the evidence (not on my preconceived desires or hates or prejudices), however I freely admit that a God-claimer that had been proven to have risen from the dead would elicit enough faith in me to look both ways before I crossed in front of the bus.
(Oh, yeah--the old two creation account thing. You're badly out of date. ANE studies as well as Hebrew literary knowledge have put the passe wraps on that.)
And, now, back to the original subject before you interrupted: The evidence upon which you so arrogantly and besmirchingly look down on all those without your worldview is…?
-Col.
And you keep to yours colonel
As far as the laws which govern our universe go colonel I have a degree in physics. Do you? I guess if you don't then your speaking of them puts you 'out of your depth'.
.
98% certain of what? That it was written? The atheist writers I read consider the miracles in NT just as much mythology as the story of the minotaur.
.
What gospel passages say Jesus created a universe? I don't think that is on the list of miracles attributed to him. Changing water into wine, making loaves and fishes from some few 'seeds' walking on water, healing leprosy, raising the dead, killing fig trees, but creating a universe? Where did he do that?
Since you insist on being recalcitrant I will of necessity have to ask you again. Which miracles would you pick as the 'true' ones and how would you go about proving it? You do put such emphasis on proof. I believe such proof would have to be 'mathematical' and 'teleological' to be accepted right?
Speaking of immaterial, what you do and do not accept doesn't change the nature of objective reality one bit. But there are problems with the ressurection story. Not the least of which is that it doesn't appear at all in one of the gospels. In Mark there was some young guy telling a story about a missing body. Hardly convincing. And how many doctors did they get to verify that Jesus was in fact dead? There are certainly stories of people who have appeared dead (been certified dead in fact) and who later came back to life. Not much of a miracle if normal people can do it. It is not like they cut him into small bite-sized pieces and he came back from that. That would be a little more impressive.
Hmmm. Hebrew literary knowledge you say? Say aren't they the jews? Aren't the jews wrong? You have proven them to be wrong by avowing your stance as a Christian proved by logic and evidence and now you are quoting them as an authority? Obviously if they can be so terribly wrong about the nature of reality then their judgement is at best questionable.
Recalcitrancy in spades.
Let's see. We were on the subject of how you know you as an atheist are right. Then you interrupted. Multiple times, not being able to stay on point. So I humored you. Now back to what was going on before.... How do you know your atheism is true?
-Col.
Down this road before
I have said it before, but given since your memory may not be all that it once was I will repeat myself. I have seen, and to my knowledge there exists no convincing evidence that, there is anything supernatural. This includes your god, the jewish god, the muslim god etc. Until such time as this evidence becomes manifest I feel the most reasonable position to take is that there is no deity and yes I am painfully aware that you do not share that stance. Should a deity appear to me now and provide such proof, then I would perforce change my mind. Restoring people I know to be dead to life would convince me. People verified dead by actual doctors and cremated. Well it would convince me they could do that, anyway. In order to convince me they created the universe they would have to repeat that feat. Satisfied now?
Yes.
As a matter of fact, I am. You are saying that the position you hold is one based upon your observances, and since none of them fit your criteria of God-proof, you are choosing the no-God option at this time. Wasn't so hard, now was it?
But then, again, it brings us back to evidence and amounts of faith. I'm glad we agree on that much. Our divergence, then, is over our interpretation of the evidence, what evidence we might even know about at all, and which is "goofier": the pink unicorn of a "God" or the pink unicorn of everything with "no Designer or Cause". Now there can be genuine (and, I would hope, mature) discussion.
As for miracles, since you were kind enough to answer me, my point is that ANY proven miracle discounts naturalism. Even if it were a true miracle of, say, Pharaoh's courtsmen, or Bagavadi Goo-goo, or Red Green. For a miracle to mean significantly more than that, it would have to have context--such as (for the sake of argument) Jesus' claiming to be God, saying He would die and rise, and then doing it. But let's face it, if a miracle of the kind I attempted to critically delineate in an earlier post (beyond science's ability to deny, beyond reasonable doubt, etc.) were to occur, even if only once, naturalism would be out. One would then go on to the next step in seeking fuller understanding.
-Col.
I have clearly stated my beliefs
In several places on this blog and re-stated them in this thread. If you were not paying attention then there is not much I can do to correct that.
And the problem here is that there are NO proven miracles and you have failed several times now to delineate just how it is that you will prove one is true since you have admitted that there are false claims of miracles. Especially if as you say it is something that happens only one time. And each miracle even if proven would only imply that that one event was possible. It would not imply that you had to swallow the whole package. Making 5000 fish from one fish means you can make 5000 fish from one fish. It does not mean that you are God. Dying and getting up again doesn't mean you are god either. It means you are something akin to Wolverine in the marvel comics universe. The only way to prove that you can create a universe is to create one.
We each make our choices of what to believe. I believe in the evidence of my senses with the understanding that they are not always perfect. I believe in the four known forces and their interactions with matter and energy. I believe in the peer reviewed science and the technology which arises from that science including normally imperceptible things like television signals and radiation. You believe in the story of a man that was written decades after he is supposed to have lived, a story of virgin birth and frequent, flagrant violations of the known laws of physics. You put your faith in each and every one of the translators and editors of that story even though you have no idea who they were. We each make our choices. I have made mine and you have made yours. If my dead mother shows up at my door to tell me that I am wrong then I will certainly reconsider my position.
Good to know
It's good to know that you would reconsider your position under certain circumstances. You might be surprised that I certainly would reconsider mine, as well, given certain things.
As for evidences, I hold to all those you list under what you believe. We're not epistemologically very far apart. I'm much more comfortable with you, here, than with almost anything that comes from the mushy-minded postmoderns, so-called.
You've not understood correctly what I believe and make several errors in assumption. But I see this forum as a place where such misconceptions could be swept away, hopefully in both directions. It would not be a bad thing if theists and non-theists understood each other better. In fact, it would be much better for both groups, though I don't know if I will be around to imbibe it.
Thank you for your straight ahead response.
-Col.
[Just a side issue in case you were really asking earlier: John 1:1f. (from the Gospels) and Heb 1:1f. (from the balance of the NT) speak of Jesus' involvement with creation. There are others as well.]
Mischaracterization
Then by all means let's correct them.
Do you dispute that the gospels were written decades after the supposed time of Jesus' life?
Do you not believe the virgin birth story?
Do you not believe in Jesus' miracles which violate the known laws of physics? Like walking on water for instance.
Do you claim to know who the writers. editors and translators of the Jesus story were?
And while we are at it do you believe in demons? There are several places in the gospels where Jesus is casting them out. Do you believe in them?
Oh and I notice you still haven't said how we separate the true miracles from the false claims. An oversight on your part no doubt.
Singularities
That's a good scientific term. As I posted to Jim and Dirk, it would help to work with one question at a time. Let me try to very tersely reply to you here, however, since your post was already up.
The "story" if you mean the gospels per se was not likely written in its current forms until "decades" later--most likely the 60s through the late 80s (dates shared by virtually all scholarly viewpoints). However, that isn't the point. The primary points of Christ's life are known to be absolutely no later than 50, due to the pre-Pauline creed in I Cor. 15 (admittedly genuine by everyone), which was introduced by him to that Achaian city some years earlier. But scholars also agree that creed predates Paul and almost all put it in the early to mid 30s; this includes, if my memory serves me correctly, even Gerd Ludemann, the German atheist and radical NT critic. This puts the key events within a couple to a few years of the crucifixion. Further, it is known that the Passion account in Mark predates that extant Gospel, and the 40s AD is the most likely provenance for that account.
Yes, I believe the virgin birth. It is no more miraculous in our scientific day than the first century. People have known where babies come from for some time now.
No, I don't consider miracles a flagrant violation of the laws of physics, though they appear to be that with our finite knowledge. 'Course quantum mechanics would have seemed to Newton as flagrant violations. I would tend to think of them along the lines of occurrences of higher or superseding "laws" interjected by the Highest "Law".
Each and every one of the translators and editors is too broad. First of all, I don't need any translators, I read Greek. Secondly, the scribes can be cross-examined across families of mss. from all over the Roman Empire and Africa. This is why textual critics (even the liberal and/or agnostic ones) don't even raise this question anymore. The text is considered solidly settled. Further, the time-span is miniscule in literary terms. The John Rylands papyrus fragment was penned when "the ink was hardly dry" on the original, to quote one critic.
As to the demon question, it is new and I will pass on it for now, but this does not mean forever.
As for miracles, context is everything. I would be highly critical, but if someone's life was above reproach (pragmatism), they practiced everything they preached, the "miracle" lined up with what is known from other fields (correspondence) and wasn't spoiled by some form of antinomy (coherence), then perhaps it could be held, with provisions, as genuine. In other words, I'd take a philosophically Presuppositional Approach (coherence, correspondence, and pragmatism). I think you're right, if your mom come back to life, I would be of a mind to consider this a genuine miracle.
-Col.
The Old Admiral
Colonel, I know you're a fan of Twain. Perhaps you will accept this passage from Roughing It (my favorite Twain book) as a small tribute...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
******************************
THE OLD ADMIRAL.
The Admiral seldom read newspapers; and when he did he never believed anything they said. He read nothing, and believed in nothing, but "The Old Guard," a secession periodical published in New York. He carried a dozen copies of it with him, always, and referred to them for all required information. If it was not there, he supplied it himself, out of a bountiful fancy, inventing history, names, dates, and every thing else necessary to make his point good in an argument. Consequently he was a formidable antagonist in a dispute. Whenever he swung clear of the record and began to create history, the enemy was helpless and had to surrender. Indeed, the enemy could not keep from betraying some little spark of indignation at his manufactured history -- and when it came to indignation, that was the Admiral's very "best hold." He was always ready for a political argument, and if nobody started one he would do it himself. With his third retort his temper would begin to rise, and within five minutes he would be blowing a gale, and within fifteen his smoking-room audience would be utterly stormed away and the old man left solitary and alone, banging the table with his fist, kicking the chairs, and roaring a hurricane of profanity. It got so, after a while, that whenever the Admiral approached, with politics in his eye, the passengers would drop out with quiet accord, afraid to meet him; and he would camp on a deserted field.
But he found his match at last, and before a full company. At one time or another, everybody had entered the lists against him and been routed, except the quiet passenger Williams. He had never been able to get an expression of opinion out of him on politics. But now, just as the Admiral drew near the door and the company were about to slip out, Williams said:
"Admiral, are you certain about that circumstance concerning the clergymen you mentioned the other day?" -- referring to a piece of the Admiral's manufactured history.
Every one was amazed at the man's rashness. The idea of deliberately inviting annihilation was a thing incomprehensible. The retreat came to a halt; then everybody sat down again wondering, to await the upshot of it. The Admiral himself was as surprised as any one. He paused in the door, with his red handkerchief half raised to his sweating face, and contemplated the daring reptile in the corner.
"Certain of it? Am I certain of it? Do you think I've been lying about it? What do you take me for? Anybody that don't know that circumstance, don't know anything; a child ought to know it. Read up your history! Read it up -- -- -- -- , and don't come asking a man if he's certain about a bit of ABC stuff that the very southern niggers know all about."
Here the Admiral's fires began to wax hot, the atmosphere thickened, the coming earthquake rumbled, he began to thunder and lighten. Within three minutes his volcano was in full irruption and he was discharging flames and ashes of indignation, belching black volumes of foul history aloft, and vomiting red-hot torrents of profanity from his crater. Meantime Williams sat silent, and apparently deeply and earnestly interested in what the old man was saying. By and by, when the lull came, he said in the most deferential way, and with the gratified air of a man who has had a mystery cleared up which had been puzzling him uncomfortably:
"Now I understand it. I always thought I knew that piece of history well enough, but was still afraid to trust it, because there was not that convincing particularity about it that one likes to have in history; but when you mentioned every name, the other day, and every date, and every little circumstance, in their just order and sequence, I said to myself, this sounds something like -- this is history -- this is putting it in a shape that gives a man confidence; and I said to myself afterward, I will just ask the Admiral if he is perfectly certain about the details, and and if he is I will come out and thank him for clearing this matter up for me. And that is what I want to do now -- for until you set that matter right it was nothing but just a confusion in my mind, without head or tail to it."
Nobody ever saw the Admiral look so mollified before, and so pleased. Nobody had ever received his bogus history as gospel before; its genuineness had always been called in question either by words or looks; but here was a man that not only swallowed it all down, but was grateful for the dose. He was taken a back; he hardly knew what to say; even his profanity failed him. Now, Williams continued, modestly and earnestly:
"But Admiral, in saying that this was the first stone thrown, and that this precipitated the war, you have overlooked a circumstance which you are perfectly familiar with, but which has escaped your memory. Now I grant you that what you have stated is correct in every detail -- to wit: that on the 16th of October, 1860, two Massachusetts clergymen, named Waite and Granger, went in disguise to the house of John Moody, in Rockport, at dead of night, and dragged forth two southern women and their two little children, and after tarring and feathering them conveyed them to Boston and burned them alive in the State House square; and I also grant your proposition that this deed is what led to the secession of South Carolina on the 20th of December following. Very well." [Here the company were pleasantly surprised to hear Williams proceed to come back at the Admiral with his own invincible weapon -- clean, pure, manufactured history, without a word of truth in it.] "Very well, I say. But Admiral, why overlook the Willis and Morgan case in South Carolina? You are too well informed a man not to know all about that circumstance. Your arguments and your conversations have shown you to be intimately conversant with every detail of this national quarrel. You develop matters of history every day that show plainly that you are no smatterer in it, content to nibble about the surface, but a man who has searched the depths and possessed yourself of everything that has a bearing upon the great question. Therefore, let me just recall to your mind that Willis and Morgan case -- though I see by your face that the whole thing is already passing through your memory at this moment. On the 12th of August, 1860, two months before the Waite and Granger affair, two South Carolina clergymen, named John H. Morgan and Winthrop L. Willis, one a Methodist and the other an Old School Baptist, disguised themselves, and went at midnight to the house of a planter named Thompson -- Archibald F. Thompson, Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, -- and took thence, at midnight, his widowed aunt, (a Northern woman,) and her adopted child, an orphan-named Mortimer Highie, afflicted with epilepsy and suffering at the time from white swelling on one of his legs, and compelled to walk on crutches in consequence; and the two ministers, in spite of the pleadings of the victims, dragged them to the bush, tarred and feathered them, and afterward burned them at the stake in the city of Charleston. You remember perfectly well what a stir it made; you remember perfectly well that even the Charleston Courier stigmatized the act as being unpleasant, of questionable propriety, and scarcely justifiable, and likewise that it would not be matter of surprise if retaliation ensued. And you remember also, that this thing was the cause of the Massachusetts outrage. Who, indeed, were the two Massachusetts ministers? and who were the two Southern women they burned? I do not need to remind you, Admiral, with your intimate knowledge of history, that Waite was the nephew of the woman burned in Charleston; that Granger was her cousin in the second degree, and that the woman they burned in Boston was the wife of John H. Morgan, and the still loved but divorced wife of Winthrop L. Willis. Now, Admiral, it is only fair that you should acknowledge that the first provocation came from the Southern preachers and that the Northern ones were justified in retaliating. In your arguments you never yet have shown the least disposition to withhold a just verdict or be in anywise unfair, when authoritative history condemned your position, and therefore I have no hesitation in asking you to take the original blame from the Massachusetts ministers, in this matter, and transfer it to the South Carolina clergymen where it justly belongs."
The Admiral was conquered. This sweet spoken creature who swallowed his fraudulent history as if it were the bread of life; basked in his furious blasphemy as if it were generous sunshine; found only calm, even-handed justice in his rampart partisanship; and flooded him with invented history so sugarcoated with flattery and deference that there was no rejecting it, was "too many" for him. He stammered some awkward, profane sentences about the -- -- -- -- Willis and
Morgan business having escaped his memory, but that he "remembered it now," and then, under pretence of giving Fan some medicine for an imaginary cough, drew out of the battle and went away, a vanquished man. Then cheers and laughter went up, and Williams, the ship's benefactor was a hero. The news went about the vessel, champagne was ordered, and enthusiastic reception instituted in the smoking room, and everybody flocked thither to shake hands with the conqueror. The wheelman said afterward, that the Admiral stood up behind the pilot house and "ripped and cursed all to himself" till he loosened the smokestack guys and becalmed the mainsail.
The Admiral's power was broken. After that, if he began argument, somebody would bring Williams, and the old man would grow weak and begin to quiet down at once. And as soon as he was done, Williams in his dulcet, insinuating way, would invent some history (referring for proof, to the old man's own excellent memory and to copies of "The Old Guard" known not to be in his possession) that would turn the tables completely and leave the Admiral all abroad and helpless. By and by he came to so dread Williams and his gilded tongue that he would stop talking when he saw him approach, and finally ceased to mention politics altogether, and from that time forward there was entire peace and serenity in the ship.
Despite your occasional profanity
I do not consider you as the Admiral. :-)
I don't suppose Twain had any kind of an agenda, did he? Since atheists have no worldview?
I read your post last evening before going to dinner with my wife and daughter. I had to outright grin to myself several times. Nonetheless, I'm the guest here, and understand that. I'd like to be able to help anyway I possibly could--whether it would be with your MIL or in just understanding you all better.
-Col.
_______
_______
New material...
Jim (and all of you, I guess): I think this very exchange is part of why I'm here. I honestly, honestly fail to see where you are coming from at times, and that on logic grounds, not faith. The same is what you are saying about me. If I might forward you a portion of script that describes how I sometimes see UTI, perhaps you will take it as a gift exchange for Twain.
Oxford professor and Ph.D from there in molecular biophysics, Alister McGrath, writes about the view someone from another side can have. In response to Oxford colleague Dawkins, he says,
I hope this helps bring understanding to our relationship. I will try not to do to you what McGrath descibes, and hope you will all do likewise for me. The only other position would be if one of us already knows all things perfectly. I, do not.
-Col.
Losing faith.
Nor I you as Williams.
As for the rest...as might be discerned from my last couple of comments posted your way, and that bit in "Are you *sure*?", I am losing my faith in just how honest your intentions actually are. Perhaps it is just a limitation of how we see the world in such divergent ways, and that may indicate the limits of any such dialog. But it may also be something else.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Intentions
Jim, I want to be a genuine Christian. If I could come over and help with your MIL, I'd do it. If I could take care of some things around the house for you so you could get away for a bit with your wife, I'd do it.
But I also want people to know that there are Christians that are that specifically because of their studies--not because they are mentally defective, have some emotional need, or what have you.
I'm not above attempting to persuade someone of a point, as we've both spoken of before. But I'm also not above being won by one, either. I thought that is what free thought was and is.
Perhaps you cannot get your mind around this (and I run the risk of being Eddy here, or causing eyes to roll), but I genuinely care about you (plural). As much as can possibly be without core violations from either side, I'd like to be considered your friend. But let's face it--a lot of shrapnel comes my way that isn't simply debate/dialogue. If there IS evidence of (pick your flavor) say, astrophysical design, why can't we discuss that without prejudgment and the one-upsmanship that too often goes with it? And similarly, if there is evidence that (again pick one) denies a particular miracle claim, we ought to be able to talk about that in precisely the same way.
*Sigh* I don't know what else to say. Not do I have any idea what the "somethinge else" could ever be. I don't have any unspoken agenda; I enjoy the iron-on-iron and want to be what you say other Christians have not been.
-Col.
First off...
...thank you for your kind thoughts. I take your intent vis-a-vis wanting to be a good Christian at face value - it does in no way conflict with many such I have known. (Oh, I've known bastards and con-men, too, but that's because that's the way humans are.) That is not in any way what I meant in my comment about losing faith in how honest your comments really are.
And there's nothing wrong with that, here or elsewhere.
Aye, there's the rub. Because I am having increasing difficulty in believing that.
This is not to say that this is intentional on your part; in that I could be mistaken. It may well be that you are so entrenched in your worldview (I'm not bothered by the term) that you simply filter everything through your Christian/Creationist belief structure. It's been said that when the first Europeans arrived in the New World, the American Indians were incapable of processing that they were not the Gods of their legends at first, and were simply blind to the (relatively) large ships which delivered the Europeans even though they were in clear view just off shore.
Or it may be that you are doing this intentionally. Doing what? Denying the arguments presented. You cite numbers and experts which are completely outside of my experience and ability to document as independent fact. When I went to get actual working astrophysicists to come here and say what they and their colleagues believe, you just simply ignored it. You seem unaware that some of the sources of your material comes from compromised institutions (such as the Discovery Institute), or try and equate such sources in their bias with the 'agenda' of other scientists who disagree. Consistently you will attempt to twist terms used into the direct inverse of what they commonly mean. It is very much like watching one of the researchers in the pay of say the tobacco companies go to extraordinary steps to deny that cigarettes cause cancer (or, earlier, that cigarettes are actually *healthy* for you).
And much of your debate with some of the others here strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Just one example: the bit about saying that just one miracle means that naturalist explanations are inadequate, and equates with Jesus being the Lord and Saviour. Um, no. That's like saying just one unexplained UFO sighting equates with Aliens living inside the hollow interior of the Earth. Just because something hasn't yet been explained does not mean that naturalism is dead and to be dismissed in favor of magic.
Again, you may not be doing this intentionally. But with as intelligent and well educated as you clearly are, I really have to wonder. Yes, smart people with PhDs can be fooled (and actually often are, since they can fall into the trap of thinking that they're too smart) - but much of the mischief in this world is caused by smart people preying upon the gullibility of others by using the rhetoric of belief.
I'll leave this with the thought I mentioned previously: that many of my friends are people who believe in one form of God or another, who do not try and rationalize that in terms of "proof" and are completely content in saying that their belief rests solely on faith. So why is it that you feel the need to go to such extraordinary lengths to try and "prove" that God exists?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Jim, did you see this?
I just saw this very briefly and wondered if you had noticed a similar trend in your MIL at any time in the past?
-Col.
Had not.
Thanks, Col., I had not seen that. Interesting, and something for people to pay attention to, but not helpful in the case of my MIL - there's little doubt about the diagnosis at this point, though only an autopsy would be definitive.
And not to pick up the thread where Dirk has left off, but I also see that you've made several comments about me and 'infinite time' or 'infinity'. I can't recall the specific use, but I'd say this: I understand infinite time to hold the set of all that is possible - i.e., if anything is possible, it will in fact happen within an infinite (time) system. That is almost the definition of "possible" within a statistical model as I understand it, and forms the basis of most quantum models of physics (again, as I understand it). If I gave some other meaning or implication, I'm sorry.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Infinite possibilities
I knew it wasn't going to be any help for your MIL, I just wondered if you had noticed a similar weight loss earlier in her life. It's interesting (odd?) there is that sort of apparent relationship between the two.
I don't think you misstated yourself on possibilities and infinity; I believe you've been consistent.
Infinite sets are some of the strangest concepts to try to get a grip on. Have you seen the red book/black book infinite library illustration? It plays with your head pretty quick.
-Col.
Jim & Dirk
Let me try to respond briefly to both of you in one post.
First off, thank you, Jim, for your trust. I will make every attempt to guard it carefully.
Secondly, I think our format causes some of the issues. I'm not a wonderful typist, and so don't keep up well with multiple questions flying from several fields. I may sometimes answer too broadly, or inadequately, or even other than what I intended to say. This may have contributed to my being too "broadman" with things like "out of nothing" etc., although I thought on that one I had given enough background data for you to know I was speaking of a segment of origins scientists (which remains the case with Big Bang cosmologists). My intent was not to put you in that one camp, since, Jim, you imply (?) a view of infinite time and, Dirk, you one of string theory (?). In a similar vein, I think I may have been misundertood a couple times when I was just trying to joke. It's a downfall of written communication--warm smiles are hard to dictate.
Jim, if you will read carefully, I didn't say a single miracle proved Jesus as Lord. I said if it could be shown beyond the realm of the sciences, etc., and beyond reasonable doubt, it would dismiss (let me say here, disadvantage at least) simple naturalism. How one would so prove this is Thameron's point, but I didn't state it as you reproduced it. I must say, however, had I been the one that had been deaf in one ear and suddenly could hear perfectly when someone called on a "God", I might be likely to think something beyond mere naturalism was at work. It's easier to pooh-pooh something when it happens to someone else.
I understand you think the Discovery Institute is "compromised", but I don't think anyone ever said why. If they did, I missed it. All I heard was railing on them for not being "scientist scientists". Of course, this is too close for comfort to suing PZ Meyers for a bad review. If one wants to toss every scientific input because it doesn't tow some party line, this will be the end of science. I don't know much about the Discovery Institute (what I know I learned after dialoging with you, Dirk), but they do have a spectrum of academics that certainly isn't from some Christian hothouse. But scientists that are theists go far beyond the Discovery Institute and are in most of the universities of our nation.
I cannot speak for every Christian, but I am one because of the evidence. Doesn't make me right--as I told Thameron, I would change under various circumstances. But to try to paint me as a man of faith and arrogate reason to yourselves simply is a naive misunderstanding. Do you work through reason? Absolutely. But don't think that every conclusion I come to is based on a priori faith. That simply shows your ignorance in this area. As I've related several times before, I've examined my own position on a daily basis for 20+ years. During that time did I have my doubts? Absolutely! Have you really examined your position with that kind of rigor?
Let me be honest--I frequently haven't seen closely reasoned rationale for your positions. Jim, you said (perhaps intending something slightly different--I know how that can go) that given an infinity, a given anything "will" happen. This is simply not correct. It is logically possible that for all infinite time War and Peace could be typed out with the final letter wrong every single time. I.e., not everything will necessarily happen. Dirk, your circular reasoning that you will only accept X scientists and never Y scientists because X scientists are real ones and Ys aren't is absurd on its face. Now do these two things shoot down everything you've said? Clearly, no. But this is the kind of arena where we could learn from each other, and refine our beliefs. Instead, what I often get here is not so much careful thought, but satire or lampooning or a list questions to try to bury the issue, various snarks, etc. I doubt anyone in the thinking world can respect that. When someone answers critically, I thank them for it. It's straight ahead, and I appreciate it. Thameron's effort at defining evil as a breach of relationships was, in my opinion, unconvincing--but at least he proposed a reasoned position and I praised him for it.
I don't know precisely what my future holds here. I find myself losing sleep in frustration. I'm plenty busy (believe me) without UTI. I do, however, care about the gang here, and as I said, enjoy the iron-on-iron. I've learned a lot, some good and some bad. If I continue for any length of time, I think one help would be to stay with a single subject (as much as possible--there are obvious overlaps), and attempt to make sure we understand the other person's position and not see them through our own preconceived notions. Are all atheists serial killers? I'm guessing not. Are all Christians without any rational founding? I'm also guessing not. Let's get the blinders off.
Thanks~
-Col.
Suffer no fools
Col-
Don't lose sleep over having a disagreement here on UTI, lose sleep over missing out on a whole world full of science you cannot allow yourself to ponder and enjoy.
You perpetually (purposefully?) misunderstand. I never said I believe in M theory. I just said, it is the best science has to offer right now. 30 years ago it was Big Bang. I don't know what started our universe (or created it from your view) 14 billion years ago. I wasn't there. I can't possibly answer that question, but scientists can theorize and theists can speculate. It's my preference to listen and read and learn from the scientists who make educated guesses (theories) based on empirical evidence. That's all. No worldview. No belief. No faith. And if new evidence comes to light, back to the drawing board!
I understand this all to well. I would much prefer a face to face discussion anytime. That is why I am not mad at you, I just strongly disagree. I get frustrated, but it's nothing personal. I do feel a little bad for you. I wish I could just snap my fingers and deprogram you. You have god on the brain and I accept that. I also know that you will probably never change. It doesn't make you a bad person, but I do worry about how it holds our civilization back with so many like you.
I did. I will do it again if you insist. I don't trust the Discovery Institute because of their publicly stated Teach the Controversy mission. Did you hear me this time? I said, the purpose of the DI is to teach public school children creation science! If you "miss it" again I am going to pull my hair out. See, I don't believe you 'miss' things. I believe your mind makes you ignore things that are inconvenient to your worldview. I do the same thing sometimes. My friends or family will sometimes point out things I miss. It's good to have another person around to keep ourselves honest.
sci·ence /?sa??ns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
There is nothing to do with the supernatural in the definition of science. I am accusing you of redefining science to fit your faith. You can't do that. Not here. In your church, maybe, but not here. That is why I differentiate between "science science" and creation science.
And yes, there are a small number of creation scientists from the DI out there. I already stated what there mission is and why I don't trust them. They are the enemy of science. They want to redefine science to include their supernatural god beliefs. It is my mission to make sure they fail.
Evidence only confirmable by using creation science which is not adequate for me.
I keep trying to explain, but you reject the explanation. What else can I do? This has lead us to the impasse I spoke of before.
Yes and no. I have felt like an outcast my whole life because of my lack of belief. Everyone around me claims to believe in an invisible all powerful man that will send you to hell if you don't kiss Hanks ass. (Sorry, that video cracks me up!) So yes, I have examined it with rigor. But also, no. I figured out long ago, that god belief is made up by other men to attempt to control me. It's a big scam perpetrated by con men claiming to understand the mind of an omni/omni being. As if that would even be possible. The whole notion is preposterous.
I only trust scientists who work within the guidelines of science. All others are not scientists. Period. No discussion or debate. You can call logic absurd if you want, but that is your problem, not mine. As for learning from each other, I think we do even in disagreement. I think we have learned from one another, but there is definitely a wall. At a certain point, I feel you step into a realm of nonsense and I stop listening. I get bored easily. I have no patience for junk (creation) science. The old saying is "I suffer no fools". Sorry, I don't mean to call you a fool. I hope you know what I mean. As I have said before, I respect people, but I refuse to respect religion. Why should I? Religion has done at least as much harm as good, therefore deserves no respect. That is a societal taboo I will continue to break for the rest of my life.
Hopefully this helps you to understand why I get so frustrated with you at times.
Dirk
Philosophy of Science
Thanks, Dirk~
Sorry I misunderstood your origins position in regard to M Theory. Also, I do remember clicking on the Wikipedia link before and scanning, but it was primarily "information" not polemical, which is what I was hoping for from you personally--that is, why did you take the position on them you did. I understand you better now.
But to keep to a single point, let's just look at the "scientific method" for a moment, and how it has extended to beyond itself. What I mean is this: true science goes where the evidence leads without prejudging what can and cannot be, right? You would agree with me, wouldn't you, that to set out on a mission of space discovery, but say at the outset that the only realities we will allow to be discovered are those in the parameters of XYZ would be a corruption of science? Stated more clearly, the method you are defending says, "Only natural causes can be studied by science, therefore, by default, anything outside of naturalism is 'not science'." This is demonstrably atrocious logic, for it assumes the conclusion in the premise. This and other things like it are why it is often said that scientists make horrible philosophers and vice versa. To use the earlier story, todays representative scientists say, "We will only look at First and Willow, because that is "science." What if the evidence leads to First and Oak? "Damn everyone at First and Oak. They're not real scientists." Really? No one who has ever believed in God or questioned some aspect of whether there could be infinite time or design or what have you has been a true scientist? Hmmm. Methinks this kind of logic is a more egregious example of "fundamentalist" behavior than many things seen in the religious world. By the very definition of these "scientists", if God were to give interstellar electronic impulses of the Lord's Prayer picked up by radar equipment all over the world, we would have to say, "No, no. There must be a natural cause because science only studies natural things."
Forget for a minute the creation/non-creation debate. This line of approach--this methodology--is absurd on its face. Think of how many discoveries we would have missed out on if we had taken such a parochial approach to other things--like General Relativity! The Sagans of the world appear here to be much like the king of Siam who could not believe that water ever gelled into a solid because it was beyond his worldview. Real science is inquisitive, not parochial.
-Col.
(By the way, one reason I didn't read real carefully the bit on ID earlier is because it was from Wiki. I think the format there is flawed, and believe it is less balanced than, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica, or what have you--or better yet the primary literature. Because of the format, there is greater chance in some of the articles of bias. I had suspected this when reading many articles, but came to know it first hand from an article that dealt with a subject wholly other than any we've discussed here. I am very well versed in that subject, and the article was badly tilted. I would be more likely to take seriously something from an academically esteemed source.)
Rhymes with drawman
Col-
Could you please provide links? The ideas and theories you use to make points may be familiar to you, but I would like to see exactly what you mean. Now I have to go research several items and I might not even find the exact idea you are trying to explain. It may be tedious, but providing links would greatly enhance our ability to communicate.
If you don't like Wiki, then use something else credible to back up your statements. I happen to like Wikipedia. It has been incredibly useful over the years. And if you question the validity of a write up, you can follow the footnotes to further research the subject. For example, you didn't like the DI write up. Did you notice the 10 footnotes? Also, there are many links within the DI listing on Wiki. Tell me which part you don't like and why, instead of dismissing the whole thing.
This is another thing that drives me crazy. You are dead wrong about the logic. You act as if hypothetical questions are enough to supplant logic. Wrong. So far, in the entire history of the planet, nothing supernatural has ever happened that can be proven. Lots of tricks, myths, hearsay, stories about miracles, mass hysteria, hallucinations, anecdotal evidence....but no proof. Ever. What you are asking me is completely hypothetical. I am talking about real, everyday life, not some sci-fi novel full of what if's? What if a space mission discovered something supernatural? How could my science definition deal with it? Who cares? It's not gonna happen.
Okay, if all of these crazy events did happen in your sci-fi scenario then you are right. We would have to redefine science. How about we wait for that to happen first? Quit trying to redefine science! Do we have a deal? Can we just talk about science as it relates to natural processes for now? At least until the rules are broken, that is. When god actually returns or when god does a miracle that can be proven, I will happily support your efforts to redefine science. But until then, stop (please, I beg you) using faith based hypotheticals to "prove" your point. These tactics are a poor excuse for logic.
I have no cotton-pickin idea what you mean by this paragraph. How exactly would we have missed out on General Relativity? Or Carl Sagan? Or the king of Siam? Do you mean ice when you say water gelled? Again, links would be very helpful. I have no idea why you believe physical natural science is not inquisitive? I don't want to say it because I know how sensitive you get, so let's just say it rhymes with drawman.
Again, I would love to see a link and be able to decide for myself if Wiki was biased or you are just nuts as usual. Just kidding. I know Wiki isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good.
I tried to search for the Discovery Institute on Encyclopedia Britannica but it's not free. And if you want to see something really funny, you can try Conservapedia. Here is the information you get when you look up Kangaroo: "modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic."
Dirk
PS- If you don't know how to make a link, here is a link to when Brent and Jim taught me to use the link button. Don't feel bad if it takes a few tries, I didn't get it right away either.