»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Vestibular Reply
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Vestibular Reply |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
The new poet/member "Vestibular Bard" responded in ideological protest to a poem of mine entitled "Common Ground" in Open Poetry: /pip/Forum106/HTML/002852.html Since "Open" is a poetry forum, I thought a discussion forum would be a better place to pursue a discussion / debate. I nearly posted this in "The Alley" since VBs reply seemed like a rant (nothing wrong with that in the proper sphere, we all have 'em round here). But since it did have some definite propositions in there that fall somewhere along the lines of Philosophy/Theology, I decided to post it here. Here goes... Vestibular: quote: The point of my former poem was to deny any naturalistic explanation of morals ... or at least to suggest that those who hold such an explanation tend to treat their own morals as a bit more than the result of natural process (like genetic mutation or behavioral conditioning). You illustrated my point quite well when you spoke of certain religious people being "smug" or implied their arrogance or conceit. The tone of moral disapprobation is hard to miss since it communicates that certain behaviors/ attitudes are in reality "better" than others. Of course I have no problem with that premise, because I believe it to be true. And I don't think it should be nasty in spirit or used as a flogging stick (hence my reference in the poem about agreeing with those who disapprove of religious bigotry), but even that is based upon a moral conviction that cannot be mere convention or the result of random changes in genes. quote: I deny that morality is merely a survival strategy, though I don't deny that morality and successful living are (in a general sense) proportionate. You should deny this also, since according to you religious bigotry and hypocrisy have survived well into the contemporary gene pool ... making its survival value currently unknown and pending. I just want to make sure you have a basis on which to disapprove of that which you and I agree is deplorable.  Otherwise, I don't deny that culture affects moral practice, though I don't think the moral convictions from century to century differ that much. C.S. Lewis once wrote that the only reason the moral differences among cultures are so glaring is because of the vast amount of common ground they hold. Can you imagine a culture where cowardice is admired, or where generosity is despised? So could you give me some specific examples of how a Christian young man in 1808 might be fine with something that I would disapprove of now? Then we'll ask whether or not that shows that our "morality" is really so different. quote: I never would say that atheists or homosexuals couldn't be generally "moral" people. Though I, like the Christian of 1808, believe atheism and homosexuality themselves to be immoral. And of course none of this rules out the fact that religious people may be immoral too, in quite other ways. In fact it's part of the creed that Jesus Christ came to save sinners. So I really don't know how your example refutes my own view of morality (which is not simplistic). I have only been insisting that morals are not totally subjective, culturally conditioned, or biologically determined ... as they would have to be in a naturalistic paradigm. If that's too ambitious of me, at least I can point out that you don't handle your own morality as if it were such. quote: I don't think that universal moral awareness depends upon knowing the Christian God. We all live in God's universe and have attempted to scrawl imperfectly a common awareness of an image of goodness that is above us, in the form of moral prescriptions. Moral prescriptions and conscience did not begin with Christianity nor even with Moses. Jesus did not bring a new morality, though he amplified the signal a bit. Rather, he came to deal with our inablity to live according to even our own standards, much less God's, in a unique way. And again, I don't deny that morality is acquired and reinforced through culture and community, since culture and community is just an aggregate of human-nature. An awareness of morals that transcend human-nature is a part of human nature ... and this awareness is proliferated in very ordinary ways. quote: The irony is, you seem to be trying to "reform" it as much as anyone, based upon what I have read of your posts. You have on several occasions protested their behavior and attitudes, having a theory that they acquired this from their cultural surroundings and genes, in the exact same way you acquired the belief that they shouldn't be that way. No mistake about it, your present disregard of the Theology aside, your incongruous philosophy aside, you are an inadvertent reformer of the faith. quote: Are you as zealous in your subjective and grumpy musical preferences, as you are with your moral disapproval? Though I agree with you, my singing of hymns is atrocious. quote: Ghandi did say that. Interestingly enough though, that statement is often misused, regardless of how Ghandi himself used it. Someone quoted this to me once, who denied everything Christ said except for a couple of favorite paraphrases (and those used quite out of context). Is that "liking" him really? It seems to me that the people who really like him and are drawn to him, eventually see that they have their own faults to square with, and find its no use beating fellow admirers an travelers for their faults. On the other hand, I do admire Ghandi, and make good use of his statement to try and be as faithful to Jesus as I can (I've got a long way to go yet), since others are watching and scrutinizing. There's enough stones to stumble over on the way to the wicker gate, and I don't want to add one more. quote: I'm going to have to quote Ron in order to respond to this one. "just as scientists must live their lives as if some things were beyond doubt, we all must live our lives as if the far spectrums of the probability curves were labeled with binary true and false values ... 'I want to be with you forever,' your greatest love says. That is heaven, even here on this mortal coil. 'Get out! Leave me alone,' your greatest love says. Anyone who has faced that ultimate pain knows something of Hell, I suspect. And, yea, acceptance/rejection is a necessarily binary condition. 'Let's just be friends' was never really an option." You're right you'll never comprehend this world if you can't bifurcate. Of course I agree that a world painted as stark black and white, in every instance, would be absurd. But Christian Orthodoxy need not deny shades and subtleties ... It just doesn't deny the reality of boundaries, ultimatums and great gulfs. C.S. Lewis said it this way: "Blake wrote the Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If I have written of their Divorce, this is not because I think myself a fit antagonist for so great a genius, nor even because I feel at all sure that I know what he meant. But in some sense or other the attempt to make that marriage is perennial. The attempt is based upon the belief that reality never presents us with an absolutely unavoidable 'either/or'; that, granted skill and patience and (above all) time enough, some way of embracing both alternatives can always be found; that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain. This belief I take to be a disasterous error" (From his introduction to 'The Great Divorce') Thanks for the chance to respond, Stephen. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Stephan, Thank-you for taking the time to post this, and for allowing us to continue our conversation. I hope you understand that I am a person who is brutally honest, and often just as brutally sarcastic. I don’t suffer fools well, and I’m going to be very pointed in this reply, demonstrating why you are wrong and also why you made an argument from ignorance in your poem. Please try not to take this as insult, it is meant to be a brief effort in education and perhaps a lesson in humility for you. I wouldn’t make this effort, if I didn’t think you were ‘worth it’…from what I’ve read, I do think that. First of all, my reply wasn’t ‘ideological’, it wasn’t my personal ‘philosophy’, it was factual and precise in its accusations of your mistakes. It was made, to point out your poem’s gross argument from ignorance, it’s silly bifurcation fallacy, and your pretentious claim to be some kind of ‘angry reformer’ of some unspecified, Christian ‘truth’ that had been 'misplaced'. And that this collection of ambiguous rhetoric was all preferred to being a ‘blind’ human, with no ability to figure out why people are kind or ‘wrathful’…like you obviously can. In other words, it presents the foundation, and time honored, lazy tradition of all religion and theology in a nutshell... "My god dun it"...is always the preferable answer to: "I don't know, lets try and figure out what dun it". Instead of getting bogged down in responding to ever more layers of your fallacious crock of empty rhetoric in this reply, and having to deal with the ever so eloquent, simpleton musings of the world’s favorite Christian fantasy writer, theologian and philosopher…C.S. Lewis... I will simply go back to your poem and use it to ask you some Socratic questions, so maybe you can figure out what the heck the meaning of your little poem is. I am in utmost harmony with your moral distaste of religious truth misplaced and spirituality wielded as a kind of flogging stick First of all Stephan, who is the ‘your’ in your second sentence? Please be specific. Now perhaps this poem is like a C.S. Lewis apologetic, and you are simply having a mythical discussion with a mythical demon, named ‘Screwtape’? Is that who ‘your’ is? If so, we can cut this analysis short, and just chalk the rest of the poem up to your rich fantasy life. No harm done. But assuming ‘your’ is some unspecified real people, people who don’t subscribe to your particular brand of Christian superstitions with 'misplaced truths'….why and how would these people be able to have ‘moral distaste’ for something? Can you explain that? Also please explain what ‘religious truths’ you are referring to in line 3. Please explain how a religious ‘truth’ somehow becomes ‘misplaced’. Where does it go? Does your god or some demon have something to do with this? Do they forget where they left the 'truth' and then Moses, or Jesus or Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard has to come along and talk to a burning bush to 'find' the 'misplaced truth'? I eagerly await your explanation. Please also give some specific examples of ‘spirituality’ being wielded as a kind of ‘flogging stick’, and explain if you think you are guilty of this, and why you, or anyone else should have any ‘moral distaste’ for it. If one Christian does something that they say is righteous, and it is the will of the one true god, but you come along and say it is ‘morally distasteful’, and a sin in the eyes of the one true god, and that these others are using their spirituality to flog people…but you are the 'angry reformer' here to fix their flogging sticks... …who should I BELIEVE Stephan? Who has the authority to arbitrate between you and your Christian brothers? How is this arbitration done? I look foreward to your nebulous reply that we should all just 'Be like Jesus', and, 'do whatever Jesus would do in any situtuation'. Let’s move on to your next stanza: But I need to say this in reply (no this is not a trick) You sound as if you’re sure your morals too are really more than just vermiculate markings on a dust-laden floor inside a structure that only seemed like it was once somebody's house Again, I have to ask, who is the ‘You’, you are talking to in the third line of this stanza? Someone specific here on the forum? Someone who has claimed their ‘morals’ are something far more lofty than the hackneyed, run-on metaphor you present us with here? Are ‘vermiculate markings on a dust laden floor’ supposed to represent the neurons and synapses in my brain? Is this supposed to make me feel dirty and cheap for having to rely on these bilogical brain structures to make judgments? Instead of virginal spirits whispering in my ears. Does beind a human, a mammal, just another biological life form make you feel cheap, dirty and less special than you deserve to feel... Stephan? And what of this ‘structure’ that only seems like ‘somebody’s house’? Is that supposed to be 'me', without your personal god, invading my body and making me all holy and righteous and guiding me with his supernatural magic in when to be kind and when to be wrathful? Please explain. Again, please take this opportunity to explain, in your own words, exactly what you think human ‘morals’ are. Please tell us where human ‘morals’ come from, as opposed to say, where our ability to walk with balance and postural integrity comes from. Or where our ability to regulate our body temperature comes from. Do they come from different places? Please explain how you know what types of human behaviors are ‘moral’ behaviors, and which ones are simply ‘amoral’ behaviors. And please explain how you have figured out which behaviors are morally ‘good’ and which ones are ‘bad’. If this ability involves supernatural feats of magic between you and your personal god, or the spirit of C.S. Lewis, please provide as much detail on the mechanism as you understand it. Let’s take a look at your whopper of a closing stanza, the one dripping with strawmen and fallacious arguments from ignorance. And though we are just babes with rattlers in our mouths It is better to grow up even an angry reformer of a faith gone far afield than as one who can find no basis at all for being either wrathful or kind or why even poor eyes are deemed better than blind Who are the ‘babes’ with ‘rattlers in our mouths’ Stephan? Everyone? Or just a subset of people? Who do you think is in a better position to intelligently explain the various forces at work in individual human behaviors? People with doctorates in Pyschology, Sociology, or Cognitive Neuroscience? Or nice, young Christian men who read C.S. Lewis books, other fantasy literature, write poetry as a hobby and enjoy playing Xbox with their friends? Who is the babe? And who is the person who might actually be able to explain why a brain lesion, or a brain injury, can turn a man who once friendly and kind, into someone who is angry and prone to violent outburst? It is you who are the babe Stephan. Look in the mirror, put down your pride for a moment, and be honest with yourself. It is you who appear to be completely uninformed of the incredible research and hard work being done in various scientific cross disciplines that study human behavior. I could recommend some books for you at this point, but I’m not so inclined, because I doubt you really are interested in making the concerted effort to actually educate yourself on these topics. You look somewhat smug to me in your comfy chair, and if I have read that wrong, please correct me and I will recommend some books that are approachable by the layperson. For your info Stephan, not only have educated psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and cognitive neuroscientists established plenty of scientifically tested models for current and past human behaviors, including altruism and violence, they have even mapped these emotions to specific areas of the brain. Ever heard of the ‘amygdala’ Stephan? No, of course you haven’t, but I bet you can quote me C.S. Lewis chapter and verse. So it seems Stephan, in an ironic twist of poetic karma and justice…it is YOU who are actually ‘blind’ to the myriad biological and social forces that shape human behavior. Don't worry, your brain did not evolve to understand itself, that is simply a byproduct of your species success at survival and specialization, these last few thousand years. So it appears, it is you who are uneducated on these disciplines, that other men have spent their lifetime studying and testing, so that the next time someone has a brain lesion, that completely changes their behaviors and ‘morals’, a doctor might operate and remove it. It is you, in your religious stupor and arrogance, who has projected your own ignorance onto EVERYONE else in your poem, and then with even more arrogance, you proceed to brag to us that all we need to do, is 'wait' for you to find some unspecified ‘misplaced truth’, that someone left in a closet at your church. I’ll go against one of my own sacred rules at this point, and say that ‘We’, (the ‘You’ you refer to in your poem) won’t be stopping the work of human behavioral sciences, while YOU shake your angry 'reformer' fist at other people in the pews at your church, while searching for some unspecified, ‘misplaced religious truths’ in the church closet. [This message has been edited by Vestibular Bard (12-16-2008 11:21 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Here: "These ‘morals' are written first and foremost by your genes, and then shaped by your unique temporal experiences, that are strongly influenced by the social environment where your brain is being programmed." And here: "Genesis is a collection of sacred Semite folklore and allegory, and at its worst, just another one of countless, ignorant, cultural creation stories, told by ancient peoples, around their campfires, who were not informed by the modern science we have today." And now again here: "It is you who is wholesale ignorant of the incredible research and hard work being done in various scientific cross disciplines that study human behaviour." And here: "For your info Stephan, not only have educated psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and cognitive neuroscientists established plenty of scientifically tested models for current and past human behaviors, including altruism and violence, they have even mapped these emotions to specific areas of the brain." And here: "and say that ‘We', (the ‘You' you refer to in your poem) won't be stopping the work of human behavioral sciences" Now at least I am clear as to where you are coming from VB. I wasn't wrong in my first, admittedly precocious, assumptions. And I have to say that your "response" to Stephen exhibits all the fanatical religious zeal of someone who has submitted themselves to the Gods of medicine and science with all the corresponding blindness that that entails. I think you are missing a good deal if you allow that to exclude all possibility of some element of the spiritual as opposed to the material. But then, it occurs to me, that again I may be misreading, perhaps you admit a spiritual dimension to life, just not the one in pre-packaged form that Stephen subscribes to. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Vestibular Make sure to keep your "claws" off the person you are arguing with. It is acceptable to say someone's argument is "ignorant" for the nature of the argument, but it is not acceptable to say the person himself is ignorant, making your judgement personal and an insult to the person. It is important to make that distinction, for it saves things from getting disrespectful in a personal way, and saves one's posts from being edited and often deleted by the moderators. |
||
SEA 
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
Essorant is right keep it nice guys. I think you all make your points just fine without being disrespectful. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Thank-you for the advice E and Sea, I have slightly modified my reply to Stephan to make it more to your suggestion. BTW...I am vastly ignorant of countless things. And I don't mind having that pointed out to be by people who are experts in something I am interested in learning about. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: What part of this factual sentence can't you come to grips with moonbeam? If I told you it was gravitational forces that keep our planet orbiting the sun, would you also get up in my grill and claim I sound 'far to certain' about this relatively recent discovery of the high priests of Physics? That it could still be angels pushing the sun around the earth? That the jury was still out on that one? And what if I scientifically explained lightening, thunder and fertility to you? Would you also laugh at my over confidence and smug certainty? Again...why do you think humans are inclined to have just a single offspring at a time, that they care for, and feed, and defend to the death...for years....while a mother turtle lays countless eggs, in a hole on the beach, abandons them, and the vast majority of her 'babies' are eaten before they make it to the water? Dang...you think that's something other than your genome and the turtle's genome at work there? You think you're more special than that turtle? More 'moral' in some way? You think there's something 'magical' in you that's not in that turtle? Do you think your more 'special' than other mammals, like the the lions who would eat your anceint ancestor's babies on the ancient plains of Africa? No, you're not. Your a biological organism, the product of countless combinations of genes that specify behaviors that help you and your species survive and reproduce. Suggest you look into that, and come to grips with it. Now, again, I apologize for having a modicum of science education. I realize that section of the bookstore isn't as popular as the C.S. Lewis section...pity. |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
I think I'm magical  just kidding... the more I pay attention to science, the less truth I find in religion. It's quite conflicting. We have religion pounded into us from an early age but I've found it to be like bedtime stories for little kids. Spoon fed "answers" that have no fact to support them. I have a lot of thoughts on this, but don't want to fight about it with anyone lol so I suppose just ignore me |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
You are magical Sea...I could start a new religion around you quite easily with this troop... Now then...back to chasing moonbeams... quote: There are no gods of medicine or science moonbeam. All the greatest scientists in history have been shown to be quite fallible...quite a few doctors too... Medicine is not a 'religion', even though people sometimes wear special clothes, and go to fancy special buildings, where they read books, and perform rituals, so they can heal you when you have a boo-boo. I could see how someone like you might get the two confused. Here's an idea for you moonbeam, next time you break your leg, or get a nasty infection, or come down with some obscure cancer, make sure and get all indignant with the priests and clerics of medicine and science who treat you. Make sure and question why they think they know better than you and your god, when it comes to prescribing the right anti-biotic or performing the right surgery to heal you. No...I bet when something like that happens, you are quite as a mouse. There is no theologian in sight at those encounters, just you in an examining room with a high priest of science. Not to worry, if you are healed, you can always give the credit to your personal god, who heard and answered your personal prayers and healed you from the disease he specially designed and created to infect you. Done amusing me yet with your "precociousness"? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That might be true elsewhere, but it won't be true here. I've been watching your posts for the past week, keeping my distance in large part because I knew others here would enjoy pointing out the flaws in your contentious contentions, but mostly because I saw a little talent and hoped you could learn to follow the examples laid out before you. Brutally honest? Come on, we all know that's just a euphemism for being unwilling or unable to write persuasively. And, of course, writing is what this community does here. What you write about, while not unimportant, is nonetheless secondary. If your only goal is to bang on someone else's beliefs, you should find a community centered on beliefs -- either theirs or yours. That's not, however, why we are here. And make no mistake; if you intend to depend on brutality in any of its various guises, you're in the wrong place and won't be here very long. And that, I think, would be a shame. quote: Far too certain? How about somewhere between far too simplistic and flat out wrong? You have read Einstein, right? I suspect he qualifies as one of those high priests. (Not incidentally, most of those high priests you cite, like Einstein and even The Grand High Priest, Sir Isaac Newton, were a little less quick to dismiss spirituality than you seem to be. I'm guessing they didn't understand their science quite as well you do?) The mythical battle between science and faith is an old artifice, almost invariably invoked by people who know a little more about one than the other, but not a whole lot about either. There is no more a conflict between science and faith than there is between poetry and prose, or perhaps more appropriately, between heads and tails. quote: Of course there are. You've just accepted them so blindly that you can't recognize them for what they are. Don't believe me? Fine. Provide for us, then, your proof that cause always precedes effect. It is, after all, the foundation upon which modern science is built. Surely, you don't accept it just on faith?  Hint: Calling something a "factual sentence" doesn't necessarily make it so. The word "proof" has a very specific meaning in science and math, but I'm sure you already know that. If that one's too tough (and trust me, it is), maybe you'd like to explain why you don't dare divide by zero or why the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. I could go on, if you wish? There are, indeed, no shortages of faith-based articles in your religion, either. quote: One should never apologize for an education. What you might want to apologize for is apparently forgetting it was, indeed, just a modicum? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Hi Ron, How nice to meet you. Nice place you have here... {It's always nice for a heavy handed threat, to be the first greeting I receive from someone introducing themselves to me.} How is the wife and family? How’s the job going? How about those Jets? They sure were lucky to pull that one out. Here about that crazy Illinois governor? Ahem...now then...Ron is it? I see from your fancy forum business card, that you are the site ‘Administrator’, so I guess your threats typically make people tremble, and fall at your feet, and grovel for some kind of clemency and mercy for having raised your ire. Hows that workin out for ya so far? quote: I thought I sensed a presence…I could feel the exhaust of your PC’s power supply on the back of my neck, and I could hear the far off footsteps of your mouse…close on my trail…cue the twilight zone music quote: Mot people keep there distance due to my uncontrollable, explosive flatlulence...still you were very wise... Now then...what 'contentious contentions' are you referring to Ron? Can you be specific, and less assonant? {the children should now scurry to their dictionaries for the exact definition of that word} Is claiming I have a 'little talent', some kind of back handed Ron compliment? Is that something I should wear as a badge of honor or disgrace? Forgive me, I'm new, don't know if you grade on a curve or not. Ron, one of your fine moderators, Sea, is right here, not hiding, and Sea has provided me some helpful advice and I have modified a post based on her wishes. She even thinks I’m even ‘moderately talented’. Was there some SPECIFIC decorum that I’ve broken, that you can share me with, Ron? Or should I just read your mind or pray to the high priestess of piptalk for the answer? quote: No Ron, it’s more a euphemism for "I don’t have time to hold your hand and start your education in 8th grade Earth Science." You feel I don’t write persuasively Ron? Again, I’m crushed, is that a decorum requirement here Ron? Can we move on to the other charges? quote: Oh my…so it’s just the WRITING part that is REALLY important…not WHAT you write. Wow…that is really odd Ron, I admit I had no idea this was a site dedicated to penmanship. Here I am typing, when all along I should be writing....how boorish of me. This the best you got Ron? Should I be amused yet? Still waiting for my talent to shine through? quote: My goal is to express myself, and my many myriad beliefs and observations, primarily in well metered and clever rhyme. Would that suit the purpose of this site? I don't need the rest of this, and will retreat right away from these lower fora on your command. Remind me again, what is the ‘mission’ of your ‘community’ here Ron? And how exactly am I violating the decorum? I guess I missed the part on specific scared cows that are off limits here. "Don't post any stuff that upsets Ron" did I miss that in the by-laws? quote: Ron, who is ‘we’? Why is we in ‘bold’? How many of you are there, Ron? How many would there be if 'we' was italicized? Is this a hive or collective? Did members sign over some power of attorney to you when they sign up here? How about this.... you speak for yourself, and I’ll speak for myself, in the first person? Kewl? quote: Here’s the key thing I intended to emphasize in that statement Ron…HONESTY. Not veiled threats, not unspecific charges, not speaking for everyone else, no pretentious claims of certainty or absolute knowledge…just honesty. Feel free to change the phrase to ‘unyielding honesty”….or ‘Don’t have time to blow smoke up your pompous backside honesty” quote: Yes. I’ve heard of Einstein Ron. Please feel free to correct my ‘over simplified’ explanation of 'gravitational forces' being responsible for the earth orbiting the sun. Feel free to compare and contrast it with the sun being pushed by angels around the earth. You do realize that Einstein’s relativity theories were theories of 'gravitational forces'…right Ron?...sure you want to wrestle with me Ron? Check your weight class first. Are we through here Ron? Or was giving a complete and thorough explanation of the role relative space time fabric plays in gravitational forces, to fetching moonbeams, another part of the decorum I’ve violated? quote: Did Einstein ever refer to himself as a ‘high priest’ of science Ron? Did Newton? Then I have to wonder why you are Ron? Why are you promoting blatant, rhetorical, fallacious hyperbole instead of reasoned argument and honesty Ron? Perhaps you don’t have the talent? hrmmm? I’m sorry, was Einstein’s favorite ice cream flavor also relevant to this discussion? Cause I don't know that neither... quote: So far you haven’t demonstrated any knowledge in either one, Ron. I'm not really interested in your personal 'myths', Ron, or Stephans..I'm just here to point out the difference between myth and reasoned and rational argument in this thread. Will you being doing that anytime soon? Or are you just here to drop your ambiguous pearls of wisdom on my apostate head before you burn me at the piptalk stake? If you want to join the discussion Ron, please do, as a regular poster, without the snide threats and heavy handed hyperbole. If you want to preach to me, like the stern grade school principal, before you expel me, I’d prefer we’d jump to the second part now…before my talent is completely exhausted and my writing hand is cramped. quote: Wow…pithy…is that copywritten? quote: God –noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3.(lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4.(often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. Ron, it’s going to be hard for me to communicate with you, if you don’t speak my native tongue. What is yours? I know some Spanish and French if that will help you figure out what the word 'god' means. Assuming you do hilariously believe anyone connected with medicine or science is really a god or goddess, I guess that would make you quite the polytheist Ron! And Garsh! That would also require you to bow before me and worship me, lest I smite you for your sinful insolence. quote: Garsh Ron, ya stumped me there…I guess the only right answer is ‘My gawd dun it!’. quote: Hint the word ‘god’ has a very specific meaning in the English language, sorry you haven’t figured it out. Are we having fun yet Ron? I'm not...I'd rather be writing a clever rhyme... quote: Ron, you wouldn’t be a Philosophy professor at the local community college would you? I’d really like to sign up for some classes next semester. Will all this material be on the test? Ron, in all seriousness, can you perhaps explain to me why you are really, REALLY mad at me? What exactly did I do to YOU? Can you explain what specific forum rules I have broken? Can you point to an instance where a moderator has asked me to change something I posted, and I have not complied? Can you explain why in our very first encounter, you felt so endangered by me, you felt the need to threaten me and insult my talent, my education, my writing and my knowledge of basic science or philosophy of science? Let me take a couple of stabs as this. 1. Stephanos and/or Moonbeam are your realtives or close personal friends, and you are here to defend their honor….no problem…I get that. 2. I have skewered some religious/science sacred cow of yours, and you are here to save your wounded pet….no problem…I get that too. 3. You once went to NYC and were mugged…and you kinda recognize my accent...and now this is finally your chance for payback...now that you have all the power…yep…that happens to me all the time... Seriously Ron, I hope you have taken this tongue-in-cheek reply in the complete sardonic jest it was meant. I don’t see why we can’t be pals, and I welcome far more interesting and less confrontational exchanges in the future. Now then…am I free to continue posting here as a member in good standing, or would you prefer I leave? This is clearly your home, and I am but a lowly peon, a guest, and if I have broken your rules, or injured your cow, and you think it best I leave, I am obviously going to have to comply with your wishes…with or without an explanation why. …btw…have you seen my and Serenity’s poems ‘If I was nice’ …and ‘If I was mean’ in your open poetry forum? If you permit me, I will retreat to there now, and forget that Sea ever told me about this alleged open ‘Philosophy’ forum. I guess discussing philosophy, science and theology with wannabe poets….just doesn’t always make sense…does it? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ron!!! You awful man. Now you went and spoilt it. VB you're a pretty good chaser, you need to focus on chasing the right story though. Perhaps we could rewind, start over. This, uh, altercation began when I mildly asked you what the relevance of your initial comment on Stephen's poem was. Unfortunately your fixation with heavyweight zapping at anything and everything all over PiP which looks to you like a right wing religious zealot started us off on the wrong foot. Ron has already point out the fallacy of the "battle" between faith and science, I prefer to call it the battle between the material and the spiritual (which is why I often disagree with Stephen), and until you understand that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, there is little chance of finding an arena for debate. However if you are familiar with the way in which particle physics is developing together with the latest writing of Stephen Hawking, you might begin to see possibilities for the eventual complete reconciliation of phenomena and theories that can appear paradoxical at present. On the other hand it maybe that paradox will prove to be the extent of our understanding of the universe: "the only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain". I have great respect for the medical profession and for scientists, I also have respect for many theologians. The key here is the word "respect", I don't have to agree with someone to respect their views and refrain from calling them ignorant, and I suspect you will advance a good deal further in your crusade (if that's what it is) to persuade religious people of the error of their ways, if you learn that. As for my views on the relation of animals to man, on christ, on genes etc, you will maybe find some of the answers to the questions you put to me: Here: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000904.html#1 Here: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000903-3.html#54 Here: /pip/Forum6/HTML/001715-8.html#188 and here: /pip/Forum6/HTML/001745.html Not exactly a religious zealot, huh? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: ROTFLMAO  |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Is that a step up from 'mildly talented'? I'm tryin to keep score here... quote: I'm sure you are about to tell the 'right story'...and I'm sure I'm going to get a good chuckle out of it. quote: Sure...Hi, I'm the 'Vestibular Bard', I will leave the explanation of this given name, to your various mythmakers, who will write about me, after Ron(the Good) slays me with his mighty sword in righteous battle to defend your honor. There are a couple of VERY important things you should know about me: 1. Don't take ANYTHING I say too seriously...I certainly don't quote: Yeah...I think I've explained that 6 or 7 times now...I hear 8 is the charm... quote: Unfortunately, your ASSUMPTION of that, is what started us off on the wrong foot. Trust me when I say, religion is far down my 'fixation' list, especially when compared to say...a women's full and healthy bosom....can I say that here? Are there any children nursing in this forum? You'll find my fixation, and reason for being here, center on my own brand of clever, rhymes and making people laugh. Have you read my work? Didn’t we kiss and make up already? quote: Ron has pointed out nothing. He has made an incredibly vacuous and meaningless boast, that you have just parroted. Don’t know what rock you or Ron are hiding under, but there are still young earth creationists home schooling their children in my country, so they aren’t exposed to ‘evil’oution. Meanwhile, I was happy to see you accept gravity as the force making our planet orbit the sun and, not angels, the other way around…Some battles are REALLY hard fought…your should google Copernicus and Galileo for more on that. quote: I don’t really care what you call it, moonbeam. Until you can exactly EXPLAIN it, in something other than empty, meaningless rhetoric, or wretched metaphor, all you have is an illusion of, the tiny universe you can grasp, all perfectly reconciled with the personal god you keep in your nightstand. Sorry…there’s my honesty again. So, it’s very hard for me to debate Jello and fluff and empty rhetoric, nor do I care to, I actually belong to other sites for that….here I think I’ll stick to rhyming wicked metaphors. quote: No moonbeam, I have NO IDEA what your are talking about. Please explain to me how particle physics is beginning to be reconciled with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinuism or Janism? How about we start you off with something a little easier on your noodle? Why don’t you just reconcile Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, Unitarians, and Branch Davidians with the 3000 year old Semite and Canannite religious traditions from which they morphed? Then we can move on to you chanting ‘Quantum particle entanglement’…while a choir sings in the background…and you and Stephen Hawking can sing in unison…’Look! Let us all be reconciled with the one true god!” Is this the place where I chuckle? Sure feels like it.... Ya think I’m too annoying at times? Be honest…I can take it. How long have you and Ron been an item? There’s a good chance that I have more money and drive a nicer car than him…if you’re interested in giving me a chance… quote: Certainty, like gravity, turns out to be ‘relative’ moonbeam. Ron and Einstein can explain it all to you in a much less ‘over simplified’ explanation. quote: No crusade. What would I be crusading for exactly? You think Satan has me on the payroll or something. Here’s the deal, I’m ignorant, and you’re ignorant…of countless things…nothing to be ashamed of. Say it with me…’I’m ignorant of many things’…’of most things’…human knowledge is cumulative and highly specialized….there are billions of us…nothing to be ashamed of. No need to act like you understand particle physics…you don’t…do you? You don’t have a clue about quantum entanglement…and nor do the vast majority of people who are working physicists. None of them claim it has anything to do with Ra, YHWH, Zeus, Shiva, Allah or Jesus. Sorry. Why do people have such misplaced pride over being ‘ignorant’?…it’s not a slur, it’s a word that can be used quite accurately in discourse with educated people. Do you understand the difference between the words ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’? It’s an important distinction. Words are the brushes of a writer and poet. I wouldn’t think I’d have to explain the word ‘god’ and ‘ignorant’ to people…I understand if they are not familiar with the word assonant. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"Trust me when I say, religion is far down my 'fixation' list" Coo, now why do I find that hard to do, the trusting stuff I mean. Your record speaks for itself. "So, it's very hard for me to debate Jello and fluff and empty rhetoric" You should have just stopped after the word "debate". You are great at spraying important sounding, what was it, umm, "Socratic" questions at anyone within range. Not so great at saying anything meaningful yourself. "Please explain to me how particle physics is beginning to be reconciled with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinuism or Janism?" No. When you ask a question that isn't arrant nonsense then I might. "How about we start you off with something a little easier on your noodle?" How about you start being somewhat less of a pompous jerk, sweetie pie oh and btw that was just a little "tongue-in-cheek reply in complete sardonic jest" or if you prefer "a brutally honest sardonic jest" to use your insincere rhetoric. See, it's easy to swap insults Vestibular Bard. It's easy to pepper replies with disingenuous jibes. My last reply was an attempt to try and have a constructive discussion. It failed. You go write your metaphorical verses and make people laugh. Good luck. Oh, and try looking up "god" in even the online version of Merriam-Webster - you'll broaden your education. PS You asked: "How long have you and Ron been an item?" - I'll let my hero answer that for you VB ... ta ta |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Ron has already point out the fallacy of the "battle" between meaningful and meaningless, I prefer to call it the battle between the bull feathers and the horse hockey (which is why I often disagree with Stephen), and until you understand that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, there is little chance of finding an arena for debate. However if you are familiar with the way in which particle physics is developing together with the latest writing of Stephen Hawking, and the music of Barry Manilow, you might begin to see possibilities for the eventual complete reconciliation of meaningless rhetoric with meaningful scientific facts and bad Las Vegas lounge music, phenomena that can appear paradoxical at present quote: K...thought you were just kidding on that one. quote: I admit that claiming some 'spiritual' thing-a-jig, doohickey, religious thing is about to be reconciled with physics by you, Ron and Stephen Hawking is hilarious 'errant' nonsense. Is there a form I have to sign? quote: How about we start off with a nice Oregon Pinot Noir, some strawberries and chocalates, and I'll put on the Barry Manilow and Stephen Hawking Sing Duets CD? Are you forgeting the first rule of the Vestibular Bard? Are you really taking me this seriously? Come now moonbeam...I'm going to write you a poem about this... What could I do to convince you that I really do like you, and if I wasn't married, I would be far more interested in reconciling the spiritual and the physical with you, than I already am?... Ron! It' a JOKE...I swear! |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Ode to Words - by The Vestibular Bard A folly I find quite absurd, Is humans in love with their words... Yapping “God!”, and “Free Will!”, In voice smug and shrill, As they mimic the ignorant herd. It is always amusing to me, Some take it so seriously… To their grunts and their yaps, Some reality maps... And they're here to enlighten poor me! Our language is recent invention... The sounds that we make for attention. But please get a clue, What you "say" isn't “true”, It's just a symbolic convention! So it's best if you keep this in mind, When discussing your god the next time: Its meaning pertains, To the function of brains, Something not understood by mankind. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Gee whiz all these words are confusing All the ass’n’ant acid abusing But I must say your rants Leave me peeing my pants So spill it - what drugs are you using? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
I believe it was the famous theologian and philosopher, C.S. Lewis, who once said: 'There are two kinds of people in the world; those that don't take everything so seriously, and those who are likely to ban Vestibular Bard from this site at any moment. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: I take a bladder control medication - Enablex. How about you? Anything you can share with the rest of us? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: There is nothing wrong with a good Merlot. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
A couple of heart meds and the occasional aspirin. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Sigh. I can clearly see I wasted a lot of my time, quickly followed by you wasting a lot of yours. Pity. quote: The part you quoted was neither heavy-handed nor a threat. It was one of those factual sentences of which you are so fond. quote: I suppose one man's threat is another man's warning. I apologize if my words were so unclear you took them as the former rather than the later. Generally, I expect people to know how to behave in public, how to treat others who share their space, how to more or less be someone most everyone can tolerate and like. I'm not usually disappointed, either, but when I am, I make it point to try to communicate my disappointment before acting on it. If my minimal expectations still aren't met one of two things typically happen. If it's their house, I leave. If it's my house, they leave. Simple as that. quote: Nope. Having any talent at all is purely complementary. Did you honestly expect a different adjective? quote: I wish I had more time to go back through your posts and be specific. If this was an indictment I suppose I'd have to make the time, but, really, I think generalities should suffice for a warning? You could probably start by avoiding derogatory names. The general rule is to attack the post, not the poster. If you feel that can't be easily done, move on to the next thread. It would probably also be wise, in the future, not to impose your own poetry or views on others without an invitation, implied or explicit. That's a tough one, though, because poetic repartee is mostly fun and mostly very welcome, and only becomes a problem in the absence of common sense. Going into a forum called Spiritual Journeys and answering a writer's spiritual poem with a contradictory verse is, in my opinion, a good example of lacking common sense. Hell, it's just rude. Here's the thing, though, Bard: Most of our so-called "rules" are afterthoughts added to the site several years after we opened the doors. They're for the people who actually like rules and need carefully defined expectations. We get a lot of people who believe they're very clever and think they can bend our rules without ever quite breaking them. Ten years ago, I would play that game. Not so much so any more. Have you read our pipTalk Philosophy page? It's really all about Respect and Tolerance, and those seem to be qualities you've almost gone out of your way to ignore in your short stay here. The Internet has developed its own culture in the fourteen or so years I've been here, and that includes its own nomenclature. Ever hear of a troll? They're nasty little critters anywhere, but they're especially dangerous in communities like ours because they have a really bad habit of taking other people down with them. I'm honestly proud that, so far at least, our people have demonstrated remarkable restraint in conversations with you. When names start flying it's often easy and all too common to respond in kind. I have to admit, the first draft of this post was essentially an echo of your own tongue-in-cheek nastiness, intended more to irritate than illuminate. Shame on me. My point, however, is that I'm not inclined to silently watch you provoke people into following your example. And that's going to remain true whether you break a rule or just incite someone else to break one. My advice, if you still want to participate in this community, is to spend a little time reading in it. This forum wouldn't be a bad place to start. You'll find we've already had the science versus religion debate a few times, we've already talked about determinism (your "genes made me do it" argument), and you should even find a few worthwhile explorations into science and math. More importantly, however, you just might discover and decide to emulate a bit of the culture surrounding this place. Mostly, we're not bad people. And I hope to keep it that way. quote: Feel free. However, please don't make the mistake of thinking the guidelines or philosophies are any different in the poetry forums than they are in the discussion forums. That this reached a head in the Philosophy forum is simply a coincidence; it could have as easily happened in Open. Just to be clear, your originating posts have mostly been fine as far as I'm concerned. Poke fun as you will. Your response to other's poetry, however, including those responses disguised as originating posts, have sometimes been somewhat less than fine. The honeymoon is over and some of what you've posted in the past week will be summarily deleted if you continue posting it in the future. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Looks like there was a flurry of posts between #10 and my response to #10. I type too slowly. Most, it seems, just serve to prove my points. Not worth wasting any more time here. DNFTT There was just one point deserving a comment, not so much for VD as for forum posterity. LOL. quote: It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn Moon understood particle physics (at least as well as any human does, which is to say we're all just mostly guessing). It's not like it's all that tough once someone does the really hard leg work. The math is harder than Einstein's Special theory, but a lot easier than his General theory (which borders on the impossible, at least for me). I think VD underestimates the intelligence of working physicists. Or, perhaps, overestimates his own? (Dang. There goes my promise to myself to forego the easy snipe.) |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Not so much for a STD!! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Oops. That was an inadvertent typo. Uh, twice. Obviously, I meant to type VB, not VD. You guys are buying this, right? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'll buy that for a dollar. (C'mon guys, I'm trying to read this seriously, but you (Which you? That you? The singular you? The plural? The formal?) keep forcing me to write cheap movie allusions!) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Maybe I should post this in Open but I just want to say that I think the poem is great! What Stephan does is use a geological time scale to make a theological point: quote: Yes, I had to look up vermiculate, but if you see this and the 'poor eyes' (both arguments used perennially in the evo./ creo. debate), you see what he's doing here. The whole babe thing isn't a slap at all. On the geological scale we still are babes. And just for the record, Freeman Dyson says much the same thing somewhere--I forget where exactly. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Would this be the proper forum to ask for my piptalk name be officially change to: 'Vitriolic Discharge'? You could also just call me "mildly talented troll" for giggles... That way Ron could continue to call me VD, and he, moonbeam, Stephen Hawking and Barry Manilow, could continue their important reconciliation work, in inspecting entangled quarks or strings for the "Made by YHWH" stickers. I realize that math gets awfully tricky at that scale....the fonts are really hard to read. In the meantime, I have no problems with Stephan, or anyone else, I relish the diversity of my species thoughts and beliefs, you are all my muse. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Garsh...now I got two Administrators, two or three moderators, and the Site janitor all in this thread inspecting my sardonic musings... I guess there's no chance of me blazin' up a doob right now, with the MAN so thick in here... |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
ok really. Is this necessary? you are acting like my kids over here and I don't like it from them.  no hitting below the belts...play nice... seriously. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Your kids gettin' any kewl toys for Christmas? It's never too late to adopt me... |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
I have older kids and they are spoiled rotten... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Wow, I go on a day trip, and come back, and there are 32 replies in a day and sheer pandemonium! (a chuckle and a shaking of the head) Don't have time to respond to anything yet. I'll let this one stew a bit longer. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Look what you started, Stephanos? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
VB: quote: So, in this first paragraph alone, you've implied that I'm a fool, told me that I'm ignorant, informed me graciously that you are 'educating' me for my own good, gave me a sunday-school lesson in humility, and then justified it all by telling me that you wouldn't give me such condescending favors unless you thought I was "worth" it? I guess "Thank you" is the only thing I can say. Seriously though, I'll take your own advice and not take anything you say too seriously. Ironically, what was so humorous about this is that you really seemed serious, like you really thought you were being gracious. Now a return to the subject matter(s) at hand: quote: Sorry but I think the tone of your posts belie your claim of 'not personal'. But if you're keen on facts, you should be able to recognize that questions concerning atheism, God, and Philosophy, always have more to do with ideology and personal beliefs than with mere facts (though I don't deny that 'facts' play a part) But no one interprets the "facts" without their grid of presuppositions. I am arguing that one set of presuppositions is better than another, and makes the most sense of what we see and know. I won't resort to the silly claim that my beliefs are all about incontrovertible "fact", while yours are wholly subjective, before the discussion even gets going. quote: It is not a specific "your" but refers more generally those who are offended by examples of Christian failure (at best) or out and out hypocrisy (at worst), and likewise who are tempted to agnosticism (at best) or atheism (at worst). I have encountered many in life, whom this describes. The author of a poem reserves complete autonomy to go no further than that general description, just like you need go no further than your general description of the "smug religious" in your poetry. Are you serious about demanding a specific person for what is an obvious group reference, or are you quibbling? quote: To call C.S. Lewis a simpleton simply drops my jaw. Even his fiercest philosophical adversaries (who themselves were very intelligent) were not so boorish to say it, and knew quite better than to think it. It would be like me saying that Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley were simpletons. Ron is right about some things becoming a stopgap for persuasive ability. Don't undersell yourself, I know you can do better. And as far as the poem goes, your method of critique (which just about falls on every word) would rather lead me to explain the poem to you in a nutshell (BTW, this summary is summarized in my above repies to you which you have chosen not to respond to) The ideas in poem are as follows: 1. Some irreligious people are offended and angry at religious failure/ hyprocisy. 2. Their anger (a form of moral indignation) is correct. 3. This anger and moral conviction is better explained within a Theistic pardigm where absolute moral law exists that is transcendent of human beings. 4. This anger and moral conviction is not best explained deterministically, either as biologically determined, and/ or socially conditioned. Such explanations undermine the validity of any protest. 5. Therefore it would be better to aim at setting right (beginning with oneself) a faith gone awry, than to adopt a philosophy which offers no clue why their moral "ought" concerning the thinking or behavior of the Church (or anyone else's for that matter), is anything other than "is" ... anything other than another flavor swirl in the grand paradox. [note- the word 'flavor' was not frivolous choice, but was meant to denote that morals must become entirely preferential to be consistent with a naturalistic paradigm] quote: First of all, anger and "flogging" are altogether different. I may be angry and choose not to flog. This is consistent with a scriptural principle: "Be angry and sin not". It is easy to imagine reform happening as a result of other approaches than "letting them have it". Lastly I'll let you muse on whether professing Christians, due to their knowledge, should be more accountable for being nasty, than those who don't claim the same standard at all, and certainly don't read it weekly ... Oh yeah and also ask yourself whether Christians have any authoritative example of someone who had little patience for the religious leaders who knew better, but nearly excessive kindness upon people like tax-collectors, sinners, prostitutes, women caught in adultery, etc ... ? quote: So detailed explanations of how the brain functions, tells us how morals came about and why? Remember science is totally in descriptive mode here ... not at all adept at explaining the origins or the purposes of the prescriptive mode. In fact most of these scientific descriptions I have no problem with. You are making the false antithesis of science and faith, as Ron pointed out. quote: I am a Registered Nurse, who took A&P. So yes, I have heard of the amygdala. As I explained before, detailed descriptions of physiology (which I appreciate) cannot fully explain the nature of morals any more than they can fully explain something like love. Is can never get to ought, in your canon, remember? quote: I accept that social forces shape human behavior. I just don't accept the fallacious view that this is all that shapes human behavior. In a more than ironic twist, in your "oughtless" world, you cannot cogently explain poetry, karma, or justice without reducing them to valueless material process. quote: Yes I am uneducated in medical science. But for the life of me, I can't remember how I got a career in it. Must be cosmic amnesia or something. Really, you are misrepresenting my belief to say that I discount the physical / scientific realm, when this is not my position whatsoever. I just resist the urge to adopt a philosophy which makes such the only layer of explanation. quote: That's what you got out of my poem? Apparantly I need to go practice some more. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, BTW, Thanks for the comment. But any references to the evolution debate were either totally subconscious on my part or projected on your part. But as you've said in the past (that I at least partially agree with), once the ink leaves my pen, I have no jurisdiction on the effect it has. To be honest, the references to worms, poor eyes, and desolate houses were existential in nature rather than biological or geological. Stephen |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Sea, my brain is actually starting to hurt, how about yours? I am not afraid to admit it either. I may actually be learning something from all this. Stephanos you truly are giving my funny bone a nudge. When you give up medical science I am sure you can always go into the hot sauce business.  Brad will be responsible for me having a nightmare tonight too, I hate wiggling worms. I want to mention to our newest members that not only is Ron our Administrator, but he is also our benefactor, and owner of these forums, as well as the main site. He puts more hours in than he will ever admit keeping it running 24/7, but that is not all. He pays all the bills for the server, and all that geek stuff out of his own pocket to run this place. Therefore, we all try to encourage each other and new posters to try to behave in "his" house by observing his house rules if only out of courtesy. Come February 2009, this site is having it's 10th Anniversary. Play nice now. I am going to find Regina to play with ya'll. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Mysteria, I beg your pardon. I said "Vermiculate" before Brad mentioned worms. Vestibular, I forgot to add, you really overuse that "bifurcation" fallacy, since it can easily be turned back on you: Are you implying the only two choices are bifurcation and non-bifurcation? Reality (and my arguments as well) are not so simple as that. And look, I'm only using the bifurcation fallacy on you once. PS. you forgot to respond to my argument that understanding that all is not black and white, does not do away with the need for binary true and false values. You use them all the time yourself. We only disagree on application and content. thanks, Stephen. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Stephan, Stephan, first just let me sincerely apologize to you for any insult, real, or imagined, made seriously or sarcastically, by me, towards you, in this, or any thread. In the reply you quote above, I did not call you ‘ignorant’, I said you made an “argument from ignorance”, which is a classic debating fallacy, and one that lies at the heart of the most basic, fallacious theological claim made by countless different religions, most of which you disagree with, with gods you don't believe in. That fallacious argument, is: I don't understand how something came to be, or what causes something in the universe, thus; "My personal god did it" And therefore the universe is a supernatural fantasyland, where my unseen personal god(s) are causing anything, and everything, to happen...or not..depending on their moods and what I sacrifice to them. That fallacy has slowly but surely been rejected by the academic and scientific communities over the last few hundred years, and has filtered into the general population via education. Most theists in the Western world, don't typically blame their gods for the weather, or their wife being infertile, or their child being born with a genetic defect. But occassionally some still claim their gods are directing hurricanes towards specific 'sinful' American cities. It was your poem, if you remember, that claimed those who didn’t subscribe to your religion, had no rational basis for explaining some unspecified ‘morality’, and that these people were in effect ‘blind’ in their ability to evaluate human behaviors like 'kindness and wrath'. Meanhile you also claimed in your poem, that you, in your godly wisdom, were perhaps just 'poorly sighted', with regards to unspecified 'moral behaviors'. And it was also you, who graciously lamented that your fellow Christians could be quite the nasty, immoral ‘spiritual floggers’, and this concerned you. But the solution you offered, was that you, Stephanos, and people like you, will be the ‘angry reformers’, who will somehow change all the floggers, and bring about some kind of unspecified 'moral reform'. And I presumed the implication was, that we 'others', should abandon our own naturalist, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist views, and all join your church, and help you in that mission..so we could all sing kum-by-ya together. So in effect Stephan, it was you who called me, and every other person outside your religious beliefs, and especially all those people working and researching human behavioral science from a purely naturalist perspective, as “ignorant”, “blind” and in effect “wasting their time”. Because without your religiously inspired moral insights and triune godhead, well then, we simply don’t have any good reason not to rape our neighbor’s children…do we? Perspective is a wonderful thing…wouldn’t you agree? Above, you have been insulted by MY words and condescension, I certainly understand that, and I fully take responsibility for it. I was out of line, and again I want to sincerely apologize for that, and I promise that I will be much more sensitive in how I approach you, or this topic, ever again on this site. I'm planning on move onto to writing poems about 'sex' and 'politics' next, now that I have stirred up a sufficient hornet's nest in the religion category. Hopefully, you too will gain some insight into how your poem, though I’m sure unintended by you, and possibly misinterpreted by me, could also be construed as extremely insulting to people who don’t hold your specific religious views, especially as they relate to how and why specific human judgments are formed around specific human behaviors. Ignorance is something education can fix…what is the cure for blindness, Stephan? Mud and spit? It’s clear to me that we have started off on the wrong foot, and I will take the blame for that. It’s also clear to me that this poor beginning has caused any future communication between us, on this topic, to be severely compromised and damaged. Again, I will take the blame for that, and apologize sincerely to you again. While you were away, the site owner came to this thread, and made it clear to me that he found me quite annoying and that he had been ‘watching me’ and was considering banning me for my boorish behavior. This is his site, he has no doubt put incredible work and resources into it, and I appreciate that effort. I am a guest here, with no rights beyond what he graciously extends me, and it is my goal to comply with his wishes and try and be a bette guest in the future. I actually really like this site. And the only reason I came here was to have some fun with poetry. There are many fine poets here, and many of them have been very gracious towards me and my work. I actually very much enjoyed your poem. It was quite humble in its approach, and the form, structure and unique metaphors were well matched and executed. I think you are a very talented poet Stephan, and please don't let my comments about the message, be misconstrued as a comment about your poetic talent. It was only the specific argument I found fallacious that raised my ire and caused me to respond. And I only did so, because I truly found your poem to be so well written, and humble. If I was in your shoes, I would have written that exact same poem, and I would be very proud of it, as you should be. I am just here giving you a different perspective, but I admit to doing that poorly. Getting into deep theological or philosophical discussions was certainly not my reason for coming here, and until Sea pointed it out, and you linked here, I didn’t know these fora existed. So forgive me, but I think it best I don’t read the rest of your reply, as the scorpion in me might sting the frog, and we surely both would drown. If you want to carry on this discussion one on one, feel free to email me your response and I will reply with as much grace and measured temperament as a godless heathen can muster. Sincerely, The VB |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Argg nooo. Please, please just stick with sex! |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Dearest Moonbeam, My mouse hovered over the 'inappropriate content' link on your post, for what seemed like an eternity...but then something inside me said no...don't do it...let's give moonbeam one more chance...surely she would see the error in her ways, and apologize for this crass act of solicitation on a family friendly site. I forgive you...and I hope this is a stern lesson in the abuse of 'context' for everyone! ...btw...what specific topic would you recommend for my very first sex poem? |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
pick something and write about it already! I want to read it too lolhow about oral? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Sea, It occurs to me that Ron may decide to package us as a bundle, and trade us to another poetry site for a future draft pick. |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
I hope not, I really love it here |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: You! /pip/Forum28/HTML/002398.html |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Sea, Maybe you can help me... I wanted to raise the level of intellectual discourse in this discussion, so I went back and looked for the Philosophy 201, 301 and 401 fora... ...but I could not find them. Are they something that are only open to piptalk upper classmen? If I was able to prove that every effect has one, and only one, specific cause... ...and that the very first cause that started it all, was the beating of a butterfly's wings, somewhere in ancient Africa... ...would that qualify me for a waiver? |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
honestly? I don't know I do know that I am making fudge and cookie dough today so when can we see a poem in Mature? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
for a moment there...I thought you asked... When can we see a poem in Manure? ...and I thought I had that sheet covered already...(little cookie dough reference) |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
 |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Vestibular, I understand that telling someone they are committing a logical fallacy is not the same as calling them "ignorant". I guess when it is placed side by side with statements about not tolerating fools, it takes on a different meaning altogether. And for that, I do accept your apology. In all of this, there is something about you I can't resist liking, not least the satiric element in your writing. So as far as that goes things are cool. I will just briefly say that I don't consider my argument to be "from ignorance", though there is much unknown on all sides of this question. Since inference is always made against a backdrop of ignorance, much of the natural theology I have mentioned can be called an inference to the best explanation ... or evidence as opposed to strict "proof" if you prefer. But I understand that such natural revelation can only take a person so far. While you would inevitably call any additional revelation an argument from ignorance, I would say that it raises, rather, an argument about epistemology. But then again, the naturalist (atheist, et al) has what I consider to be a more profound epistemological problem in a universe where throughts are wholly chemical effects of preceding causes. quote: Sorry, I had to breifly respond to this, since it was so far from what I am really saying that I want to clarify. As a man who has a career based well in science, and who is subtle enough in thinking enough to recognize that secondary causes do not rule out primary significance, I do not at all think that behavioral scientists are "wasting their time". What I did say was that believing that morality is more than a chemical ruse for genetic surivival (which we all act as such when it comes to moral approval or disapprobation) is more compatible with the Judeo-Christian framework. And I certainly don't imply that atheists cannot be "moral". I do emphatically say that their morality is held quite at odds with their atheism. We could go on. I am sorry that you are choosing to not respond to my responses. But maybe we could talk further via email or in some other fashion. But now that we've attained a better tone overall, I see no reason why we can't continue. It is an excercise for our maturity, to not let the "scorpion sting the frog" or whatever you said. And thanks for the compliment on the poem, Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Welcome to PiP’s Philos forum, VB. Hey again Steph, Lots of energy going on in this thread and I’m late to respond. Been busy trying to find the impossible: A gift for a man that has everything…so I searched within. Voila! Not so impossible at all. He’s wild about lasagna! I used my noodle and my heart will go into a hopefully magnifico dish of Italian pastaaah. Sorry, I’m off topic, but not too far. I appreciate Stephanos’ principle consistence, since inconsistency can be indicative of a fickle heart and mind. He’s held mostly true, thus far, to his inner medium, i.e. Thought to pen to paper and the application of his expression. My opinion of his poem is that its elements upon “morality” are distinctive to Steph. Again, I can appreciate that as much as I appreciate Poe’s pen upon the pulse of the dark side of humanity and Coleridge’s laudanum induced Xanadu. *I don’t agree with all you present, Steph, but you still represent a great mind at work.* *Equally so, VB. You’ve expressed yourself in a manner that compels one to read.* Congratulations to both of you for pumping up the volume here in Philos. It’s been a bit too quiet in here. With that said: Part of what may have gotten a few of “yous” up in arms is the 1st person usage of “you” throughout the debate/discussion, which is hopefully only a positional faux pas. “You” automatically weakens an argument, and it tends to dampen the art of communication as such is naturally perceived as a personal attack. We can all get too passionate with our words sometimes, and I’m not innocent of that in any way, but in reading some of what’s been posted here, I’m a bit confused as to where we’re going? I’m sure Steph knows he isn’t an authority on morality no more than I am on love, but I still love to write about love or what I love: My beautiful pain. He seems subjectively and objectively inspired by his beliefs and I can admire that, even if his focus or edge is religious. I know he knows how charlatans have planted some ill seeds in the field of theology and there’s some real daisies out there that don’t smell like the rose they rep. I’m sure VB knows he’s not an authority on science no more than I am, though I nailed science to the wall in college as an English Major.  Sighs… “The Poet Scores!” My sonnets might well be described as literal mitochondrial mutations, but I think it depends on how much heart I put into it. Maybe not. I might just suck and I’m too stubborn to give up. Never the less, I admire all sciences and persons of science though the brain fields are full of poppycock, too.Matters of the heart continue to baffle us, equally, as humans. And matters of the brain are no where near as explainable as you paint, dear VB. I wish science could completely figure out the brain. Epilepsy is a nightmare many live with due to the “We don’t knows” of the scientific community. I don’t find anything wrong with praying that such will change. They’ve made some “headway,” but everyone is still…so different, and no two brains are guaranteed to experience the same results. quote: This argument is always interesting and it comes up often, even here at PiP. Quantum discoveries strengthened my belief in God; because if the smallest particles known to man have no set pattern of existence, then there’s hope for me. I never know what I might do from one day to the next. I’m not near as consistent as Steph, and yes, I’m fickle about some things and totally stubborn to a criminally stupid degree on others. I'm just glad that's subject to change each moment I use my head or such weighs heavy on my heart. So, my brothers of the written word, Peace! A word that’s not morally or scientifically bankrupt, yet, is it? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Kewl... quote: Yep...that was wrong of me to do... quote: Kewl... quote: I mean really...what's not to like? (flex) quote: I'm sure you don't, and that's the problem. I wonder what it will take to convince you that you are not qualified to speak authoritatively on this broad and complex, scientific subject? A revelation from some god perhaps? quote: Not sure what 'question' you are talking about, or what 'sides' you are referring to. Again, there are countless questions that scientists are working on in these fields. If you are referring to a human's ability to judge their own, and others behaviors, and anticipate perhaps some of the consequences of those behaviors, and compare them against some social standards of behavior, while at the same time calculating the risks and benefits on those behaviors on them personally… …well then I assure you, that topic is quite large, multidimensional, and being approached scientifically in a variety of cross disciplines that I have already mentioned. Perhaps now I will mention one more...'game theory'….start reading. quote: Inference made by whom? Again your writing lacks detail and specifics. Why don’t you compare and contrast the 'ignorance' levels of inferences made by men trying to determine their universe's cosmology, their planet's origins and history, their planet's geography in say 3000BC,...to the level of ignorance we have as we make those same inferences today for those subjects? I hope you will agree the difference is vast, and that knowledge is cumulative and not doled out equally to all men who fancy themselves amateur theologians and philosophers. Again, take just a moment, and humble yourself, and then admit you are not in any position to 'guess', or speculate about how your brain works, or how your personal god’s magical spirits make, some of it work. quote: I have no idea what you mean by 'natural theology' it sounds like a ridiculous oxymoron, like natural supernaturalism. Theology deals with the unseen realm of 'supernaturalism'...things that theologians create in their fervent imaginations, after reading the ancient sacred writings of other men's fervent musings about such things. Science, especially cognitive nueroscience, deals in things that can be seen, measured, and tested repeatedly to form theory, inference and fact. As I have already alluded to, much of our early knowledge of brain function with regards to behavior stemmed from the clinical study of people with diseased and injured brains. Where people go from being loving, pleasant individuals to anti-social, angry and violent due to an injury to a social processing center in the brain. Tell me Stephanos, do you ever see children with autism, or old people with dementia or Alzheimer’s or a schizophrenic in your work? I wonder what is wrong with their ‘moral behavior’?…did your god screw up some how? Did their magical moral spirit take a vacation? Or is there something wrong with their brains that researchers are trying to figure out so doctors can treat them? Why not ask a neurologist next time you see one…get his opinion. quote: Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Has a god revealed himself to you in some way? Has this god either specifically educated you, or somehow supernaturally injected you, with intimate knowledge of how your brain works to form judgments? If so, you should be a neurologist and start treating all the people who suffer mental illness that impacts their ‘moral’ behaviors. quote: Again, you're being incredibly fallacious here with this question begging. Are you familiar with that fallacy as well? Or should I explain? Again, this is not a problem for philosophers like Descartes anymore…sorry, you were born 3 centuries too late for that. Scientists who study the myriad processes that lead to a specific behavior pattern in a human or dog or rat, in situations where they make a fight or flight decision, have absolutely NO problem assigning these behaviors to purely natural causes that arise from senses, that connect to the CNS, and are processed by various centers in the brain and result in behaviors. Behaviors that theologians, who are completely clueless of this process, can then label morally 'good', or 'bad', depending on what church they go to, in what part of the world, in what age. A nice pithy Sunday sermon on being kind to strangers comes to mind…unless of course they are Muslim terrorists…then we must kill them. See how easy that second part is? Is that the 'natural theology' part? Now then, let me correct you once again, and I know this may be difficult to believe…but…. I have absolutely NO problem being anything more than human, Stephanos. I have no problem being mortal, knowing I'm going to die someday and that my life will be over, just like the life of the turkey I ate for dinner last night is over. I have no problem not being 'special' not being created in the image of the 'one true god'...I’m no more special or important in the grand scheme of the ‘universe’ as the turkey I ate for dinner last night. And I have absolutely no problem with my brain being an incredibly complex product of eons of evolution, that has lots of specialized systems, cells, synapses and chemicals, that regulate my balance, my body temperature, my perspiration, my sexual arousal, and also makes decisions about when I should either fight someone, or be nice to them. It all happens in the same place…my brain. And I have no problem admitting that I don't understand exactly how my brain works and never will. I am satisfied with simply reading the latest books and literature being produced by the experts in these fields. Men like Christof Koch, Daniel Dennett, Joseph Ledoux, Antonio Damasio and others. I could recommend specific reading here if you are truly interested…though it will be far more challenging reading than any C.S. Lewis fantasy. I also have no problem being a mammal, or sharing a common ancient ancestor with other primates and mammals, like so many Christians do, despite I'm told by Ron and moonbeam, that the battle between science and religion is now long over, or never was…I forget... So it seems you are projecting... I don't have any problem with being a cause and effect based biological organism not largely different than a chimp or my dog or a turkey I ate for dinner last night...you do…it frightens you. I understand. quote: We could? quote: Well now I have responded, hopefully respectfully enough, to not get Ron in my grill, and to give you pause, and perhaps a chance to reflect, before you answer. Again, as I said, our relationship is permanently damaged, by my actions, because one thing the human brain does, is forms very powerful, and amazingly quick, first impressions that are very hard to overcome…read the book Blink. There is no shame in answering “I don’t know” when it comes to understanding how really complex phenomena arise and work. That is the humility of science and the bane of theologians. quote: well, again, your poetry is top notch in form, especially compared to some other stuff I've read, in the 'Spiritual Journeys in Fox News' forum... If you want to understand my reference to the 'scorpion' it is from an old fable, I have turned into verse here: /pip/Forum106/HTML/002943.html |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Hey Reggie - looking within to find presents for men is in my opinion, the only gifts to give, and sometimes withhold too! Welcome back lady. You are going to enjoy our latest member's input to this forum. I know I sure am. Thank goodness you showed up to represent the so-called, "weaker sex." |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Very interesting. So what you meant to say VB is that your relationship MIGHT be permanently damaged? Or should "very hard" have been "impossible"? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Yeah...especially that part about rwood's wild night with the quantum particle... Yo! rwoood...dude...I want to party with you sometime! quote: No...it is...and if you read carefully, you could detect the damage for yourself. Now then, might my many sardonic charms help repair some portion of that damage with Stephan, who disguised as a mild mannered philsophy of mind professor, for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for Truth, Justice and The American Way? Perhaps...especially if Stephan puts a good word in for me with God/Ron (notice you also never see the two of them together at parties?) quote: ...or better yet... should "moonbeam" be "random ray of reflected light from a cold, barren satellite"? How ya like me so far? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: So far so good. But not quite there - it's either me or the merlot or a mixture of both. If I could trouble you for further elucidation? quote: Yes "is", present tense, as in "now" (or near to now) - I can obviously see that clearly there is damage in the now. But you didn't say "is damaged." You said "is damaged permanently" (or if you want to be pedantic "is permanently damaged". Thus indicating your absolute (can I use that word with reference to you? ) certainty that the damage was not just for now, but for all time (or, just to please you, for as long as you both have not shuffled off the mortal whatsit) i.e. irreparable, unmendable, for ever. You then referenced this immediately to "things the human brain does" with these very powerful first impressions. All I was interested to know, is whether in fact we, you, Stephen, whoever, can overcome this, presumably, chemical? biological? stimulus, in some way (any way), and mend matters. In other words is the reaction in the brain impossible to reverse, or just hard? If the latter, then clearly your damaged relationship is not necessarily permanent. If the former, then I have some more thinking to do, and I'd better lay off the booze |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I fail to understand the fondness for bodily and "scientific" descriptions (i.e now a days, Latinish and Greekish terminology, for example "psychological" instead of "soulish" even though psyche is the Greek word for "soul" ). No one is saying our bodies don't behave according to our bodies, but most will agree they behave according to more than just our bodies, for there are more than just our bodies acting on our bodies. There are other bodies and things acting on our bodies and influencing with which they act in conjunction to which they respond as well. Yea, the whole universe, some things more than others, some more directly, some more indirectly. So emphasizing the body behaving according to its own parts, doesn't even describe anything about another body influencing, let alone determine anything about it. If fear is the brain behaving, so be it. That doesn't determine that it can't just as equally be a god that incites that fear in the body as much as a dog. Describing one's behavior only according to one's own body is a faulty approach, for it treats the body as if it is in a void, when in truth it is actually "cornered" into being what it is, not just by itself, but in conjunction with the whole universe around it. Our actions must not be described only according to our body parts, for we are not just dealing or describing body parts, we are describing actions in relation to people in relation to how they treat people in relation to relationships, etc, and how they help or hinder life. It is far more than just bodily science and that is why far more than just bodily science is used to describe behaviours and actions. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
VB quote: And I wonder what it will take to convince you that I'm not trying to speak authoritatively on the biological science of the human brain regarding ethics. Having done a smattering of lay reading (as I have), are you qualified? I also wonder what it will take to convince you that your insistence that the metaphysical philsophical and spiritual implications of human ethics must be explained by biological description, is reductionistic and too narrow. You've dodged some very good questions, with serious implications for your ideas about God and your philosophy of ethics. You can do better than point out that I (like you) have only a lay-understanding of biological systems. quote: What I meant was that, yes, even scientific theories of cosmology and origins of species are made against a backdrop of ignorance, that admittedly is a modicum better than the ancients. Actually I respect most of the descriptive biological and geologic science that is out there. (though do think the theory of common descent is a stretch). What I reject is the amateur philosophy and theology piggybacked onto science in the works of certain writers and frequenters to infidels.org quote: I guess humility must have good genetic survival value in your opinion (though the philosopher Nietzsche would disagree) and you're trying to help me out. But wait a minute ... I thought it was this kind of thing you were going to refrain from from now on. quote: If I'm forced to concede I'm a tyro in the realm of science, you should do the same with theology. Not believing in God, it would be hard for you to even grasp what "natural theology" is even referring to, I'm sure. But try to think of it this way: Christian Theology has always understood God to be both "unseen" in his full disclosure to humanity, and yet "seen" in the natural realm. Divine revelation about his righteousness, goodness, his promises, salvation, etc ... are accepted on authority (though there are historical and 'natural' examples in the real world which demonstrate them, albeit there must be some degree of 'faith' to not try and explain them away). Differently, natural theology involves those things about God which are more 'clearly seen', such as the design inference in creation, the universal belief that there is moral good and evil that is more than just subjective preference (like coffee over tea), the universal and historical tendency to believe in a 'higher power'. These all constitute "natural theology". Alister McGrath has written a book you might consider called "The Open Secret", along these lines. I would recommend it, just in case you think natural theology is an easily dismissible or simple idea. http://www.amazon.com/Open-Secret-Vision-Natural- Theology/dp/1405126914/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229543214&sr=8-4 quote: Did I ever say a violation of the integrity of the brain would not affect cognition (including the cognition of morality)? Your argument only makes any sense if this is the only thing that affects morality. People with medically normal brains can be nasty or virtuous. And the ways in which YOU respond to them, belies that you don't think it to be deterministic or merely physiologic. I've seen enough moral persuasion (both disapproval and praise) from you, even in these few pages of text you've supplied me with, to know that you are not advocating a purely "scientific" approach in dealing with morality. If it's so darn deterministic in the biological realm and social realm, then quit preaching at the preachers. Neurology and Theology are not antithetical as you suggest. quote: Of course I am familiar with begging the question. But I also realize that presuppositions and first principles (held by faith) are unavoidable. You use them yourself. A circle is unavoidable. Which is the right circle? Which circle makes the most sense of the data we have? As to your anachronistic statement about philosophy ... You do realize that it was after Descarte that existentialism and nihilism in philosophy became prominent? Try David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Soren Kirkegaard just to name a few post-Cartesian thinkers who show that the problem I mentioned is anything but settled. The fact that there's a large tradition of philosophy since Decarte which refutes your point, which you are not even acknowledging, makes me think you may be the one born too late. quote: Do you deny that humans possess a moral/ psychic dimension that does not apply to either dogs or rats? But I digress ... I'm still not denying secondary causes, or intermediary processes. I'm just denying the determinism your philosophy necessitates. To keep bringing up physiologic process is a red herring, since no one is denying it. And the conclusion that it proves naturalism is a non-sequitur. quote: At least, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, it can be asked whether religious-belief can become too mixed up with nationalism (at best) and vengeance (at worst), and whether such is true to the standard taught by Christ. From a purely naturalistic perspective, no such moral disapproval against warmongering (for example) makes much sense. The survival value could be an argument. But then again, there is still a moral principle involved in helping others survive which must be accepted prima-facie by the atheist, quite apart from their atheistic philosophy or amoral biological theories about genetic transmission through time. quote: The dehumanizing element in your philosophy is evident in your reply. Only you haven't been as bold as some philosophers (and monomaniacs who embraced those philosophies) who have taken your road to the logical conclusion: Human life, on the level of a fowl, is not sacred, therefore Might makes Right. quote: Secondary causes, or intermediary process, I don't deny ... so I don't either. What you can't explain by mere biological description of the brain, is why it is wrong to break covenant with your wife and right to suppress sexual desire for another woman. The fact that it happens "IN" your brain does not rule out other non-spacial dimensions to the moral question. quote: Not all who are scientifically saavy are atheists. I could give you my own reading list too. Maybe we could exchange a book or two along the way, and comment. Have you ever read Lewis (not read about Lewis)? It is not all child's fantasy, like Narnia. I suppose you are not making a real statement about genre here, but rather expressing your own view that Theology is illegitimate ... fantasy in disguise. That much is expected by me. I think, however, if you really read a work like "Til We Have Faces", "Miracles", "The Problem of Pain", or "The Great Divorce", you would see that they are challenging ... and great reading, whether you agree or not. quote: Of course I have no problem being a mammal either (I reject common ancestry on lack of evidence). But you act as if you're more than an animal, by telling us about "truth", and having insight about the whole show. No one ever said that religion and science were tension-free. But it is not evident or reasonable to think them antithetical, just as different scientific theories are not tension-free. I think you are bifurcating again (either faith and science are totally antithetical or bosom buddies), by denying the subtlety of Ron's argument here. (Drat, that's twice now I've used your sardonic little imp). quote: Quit being melodramatic. I already said I liked you. quote: The first part is true. Your second clause is mistaken. It's funny how the Judeo-Christian concept of God is maligned as a 'God of the Gaps' fallacy on one hand, and then theologians as modernistic priests of certitude on the other. You're just upset they won't capitulate to your view that God doesn't exist. It really has little to do with whether theologians admit ambiguity or agnosticism in areas. Has there been conceitedness? I guess it's just a sad part of human nature. But in your paradigm (and judging by your usual approach) I don't see how you can decry it anyway. enjoying the debate, Ventricular Fibrillation. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I think, VB (and please note I typed more carefully this time), your questions and observations about moral behavior here tie in very nicely to your poetic retelling of an ancient Chinese tale over in Open. Correct me as necessary, please, but in both instances you seem to be describing a very deterministic Universe where neither people nor scorpions are held responsible for the decisions they make, and indeed, appear to have no decisions that can be made because they've already been made for them? Is this the context within which you see moral behavior? Are we all just billiard balls careening in a Newtonian universe? quote: No, that is the conceit of science. The theologian is much closer to true humility, I suspect, when he admits, "I can't know." |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ron! You did it again. I was just working up a nice structured line of reasoning. Now you rush in with the salient questions, and put them directly. Where's the fun in that? To save you time VB, if you answer Ron's questions you'll also have answered mine regarding our ability to "override" the chemistry or whatever going on in our craniums. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is not determinism itself that is the problem, but something I call selective determinism. That is where someone says only some things get to determine some of the universe, but other things don't get to determine at all. It is no flaw to say the whole universe is deterministic, but it is a flaw to say we don't also get to determine things, a sole contradiction to what the rest of the universe does. But complete determinism from everything would not have that flaw, for it would say that not only does the rest of the universe determine things, but we as well determine things. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, You're misrepresenting determinism a bit. Determinism says that things are fixed, bound, and that each effect follows from the preceding cause, like a chain. Biological determinism undermines important realities such as self and will. So complete determinism is not mitigated by insisting that one's will may also be a cause. Anything like a true will is what the over-arching determinism calls into doubt. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Your comment is a bit confusing Stephanos. I don't think something such as the "will" is in doubt if the whole universe were deterministic, as I believe it is, for the willpower has its own power to determine things to some extent, but the only "condition" is that will is also determined to some extent by the rest of the universe. But, that does not mean it is determined more by the rest of the universe, but it does mean it can't determine itself more without the rest of the universe determing it too. For example, if you take away the sun, you may no longer have your "will", therefore will is determined and dependant on the sun to some extent. But when that condition is met, being to some extent "solarpowered" as we are, then we are able to determine ourselves to a further extent than just being solarpowered. We depend on the sun to have the solarpower that allows us to have our will, but we don't depend on it to determine how we use our will. And that is because we determine our will too. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, "I can't know." Isn’t the clarion call of Theologians, at least as far as I hear it - To me it sounds too often like “I don’t want to know.” I think that’s the Bards point, and one I’ve raised before, “god did it” is seen by some as an anathema to intellect, learning and free thought. Determinism? It’s a necessary evil if you wish to believe in the existance of an all powerful and all knowing god. Unfortunately if such a god exists free will doesn’t, but it isn’t the process of determinism that disallows free will, it is the act of successfully determining a future effect that holds that particular honour. Without god free will and determinism are quite compatible all the non-believers have to do is learn that they can’t know. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
There is one thing everyone knows about everything: something. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
What do you know about corteroid dilactis Ess? Everything? Anything? Something? Nothing? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: VB...VD..it's all good.. I certainly wouldn’t confuse my simplistic poetic musings, on an ancient fable, filled with talking animals... ...for scientific research into complex human behaviors and their myriad causes. Nor would I mistake it for philosophical argumentation about determinism, causation, possibility, necessity, agentry and the indeterminism of quantum physics….Would you, Ron? If you want to read fables filled with magical talking animals, take your pick of Aesop or the OT canon. If you want to understand the current scientific understanding of the role the brain and specific emotions play in triggering specific behavioral responses, read LeDoux or Damasio. If you want to read the latest research into the various aspects of human consciousness read Koch. If you want to read the latest, and most lucid philosophical argumentation, on the topics I noted above, I would suggest Dennett’s “Freedom Evolves” I’m trying my best here Ron, but I’m mostly playing this thread for laughs, as you can see. I’m responding to you, out of respect for your site ownership, and what I perceive and hope is your more serious educational background in these subjects, compared to what I would call the average amateur poet posting in this thread. That may sound condescending, but I’m just being honest. I'm just seriously not interested in giving people here an intro to Philosophy class, or intro to cognitive neuroscience class....3 paragraphs of typing at a time. I've cited several authors and books now, and I haven't detected the least interest in any one really wanting to educate themselves, or admitting they are unquaified to discuss these topics. Yet everyone wants to 'chat' and give their 'opinion' on why they do 'stuff'. You all want to knock big, bad VB, with his fancy sounding words, and smug scientific knowlege, off his high horse...yeah...I get it...well, you're gonna have to do better than what I've seen here. I would MUCH rather pick a new fable and whip up a new poem in 15 minutes then debate what 'is' means, with moonbeams....or explain to rwood he's not like a big quantum particle...sigh... How did you like The Scorpion and the Frog? Be honest...I can take it... quote: Sorry Ron, I live in a very deterministic universe, where people and scorpions are both held responsible for their actions every single day. I wonder how we would hold intelligent, autonomous agents responsible for things in ‘indeterministic’ “bizarro theist universe”? …A mythical place where magical, invisible spirits and demons, on a moment notice, invade bodies, and control minds, and make people fall down writhe around on the floor and speak in tongues? I wonder who we hold responsible in ‘bizzaro universe’, where certain of god’s ‘special’ prophets, have ‘magical super powers’ and can stop the ‘sun’ from ‘moving’ in the sky, so god’s ‘chosen’ tribe will have more time to slaughter their enemies in battle? (I’m sure that’s perfectly moral by the way…slaughtering your enemy…every last women and infant…as long as god told you to…right Stephan?) Yikes…Ron…I kinda like my dependable universe, where boring gravity doesn’t change from one day to the next…and no Muslim fanatics have any ‘superpowers’ to part seas or change water into plutonium. You see the problem is Ron, I’m well educated on Christianity, Philosophy and Science…I’m guessing most of the faithful Christians on this site haven’t even read the whole bible. You think they might read LeDoux’s Synaptic Self, or Dennett’s Freedom Evolves? I wouldn’t put them on the Christmas list. Now, perhaps you’re conflating the much broader topic of philosophical ‘determinism’, with ‘whom’ or what is held responsible for ‘actions’ in a deterministic universe? If a brain does something Ron, and you can figure out a way for me to lock it up without your body, or zap it clean and turn it into a landscaper…that would be great…in the meantime, ‘you’ are held responsible for what your ‘brain’ does. As opposed to the morally bankrupt salvation theology of Christianity where you aren’t held responsible for ANYTHING you’ve done or do, if you click your heals together 3 times and say ‘forgive me Jesus’....can I have my pleasant eternal life now? Your brain makes your decisions Ron, your brain is you…nothing to be ashamed of Ron…it’s a pinnacle of evolution…just like a giraffe’s neck or a Cheetah’s speed. Took you a long time growing up to program it all as well, I have no delusions that I’m gonna deprogram it in the least in these exchanges, nor do I care to…just chatting. Now you have a lot more cortex than a scorpion Ron, you have a far greater ability to model your environment, plan action, judge action against standards, and anticipate results of actions. Congrats on that…the scorpion has a deadly stinger that you don’t. Evolution is funny that way. You do accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the history and diversity of life on this planet…don’t you Ron? Guess I forgot to check with Stephan as well… quote: No Ron, we’re not ‘billiard balls’, we are highly evolved biological organisms with the largest most sophisticated cortex on the planet. Was that a trick question? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: I've dodge no questions, nor have I expressed any ideas about any 'philosophy of ethics', nor do I believe, or have any new ideas, about any of your gods, demi-gods, angels, fallen angels, demons, spirits, saints, magic wielding prohets, talking snakes or donkeys...and what any of that has to do with an intelligent discussion on human behavior. quote: You can do better than saying I can do better...I'm waiting. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I know it is something, Grinch, whether just the words (corteroid dilactis), or the words referring to something else, something you know directly, or indirectly with the artistic imagination. I know about it, just not perfectly. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Sure about that? What about The Sneferitzle Flaghintude? Hey....Isn't that the tiny gland in the brain where the 'will' and the 'spirit' interface with the neurons and chemicals and the rest of the boring and mundane brain stuff? |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Hey...this is a poetry site...right? If you can't baffle with your bullfeathers, dazzle them with your rhymes I say... The New Age Sonnet - by VB...VD...whatever... Philosophy is new age religion, Plied by self appointed internet priests, Who will claim what’s real, with no precision; Over confidence is their mind’s caprice. They will conjure immaterial realms, Where a mind can frolic without body, Ego’s timeless desire overwhelms, The quest for a new age theology. The new age god is the ‘quantum’ mind; The lost sheep are the ‘physicalists’; They’re here to enlighten all of mankind, Spewing some tripe, 'bout what really exists. Religion evolves, its methods maintained; Ignorant myths, filling gaps unexplained. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'll consider myself chastised, Grinch, for excessive use of poetic license? I should not, of course, have tried to speak for some abstract theologian, but rather should have narrowed by observation to a more personal pronoun (shared by at least some others, but I won't again presume to speak for them either). To clarify, if it's not too late? The only thing we (I really mean me, but I honestly think it applies to everyone) can ever know about an infinite god is the small sliver that is specifically revealed to us. And I doubt we can even understand that most of the time. More colloquially, you just can't get there from here. quote: Why? If you skin your knee in a bad fall and someone tells you, "Gravity did it," is that automatically anathema to intellect, learning and free thought? Or is that somehow different because you think you know more about gravity than you do about God? You don't, you know. Gravity is probably the greatest mystery of the Universe, an enigma that hasn't had the good grace to send anyone a revelation about itself. And yet, all declarations of "Gravity did it" hasn't prevented us from asking questions. Anyone remember the names B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann? Back in 1989, Dr. Pons, from the University of Utah, and Dr. Fleischmann, from University of Southampton, set the science world on fire by announcing they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature in a jar of water. Cold fusion, of course, would have been the single greatest world paradigm shift since the discovery of fire. It would have changed everything! Turns out, however, it was just bad science. Didn't work. Some people screwed up. That regrettable incident didn't destroy the integrity of science, though. There are people in every endeavor, from science to politics to religion, who do and say some really stupid things. Condemn the people, if you must, not the endeavor. quote: If you can believe in the existance of an all-powerful and all-knowing God, Grinch, there can't be any necessary evils tacked on as a trailer. Not determinism or anything else. Omnipotence and omniscience, whether together or separate, create self-referencing paradoxes that automatically allow any and all possibilities. Put another way, when you acknowledge the existance of the impossible you don't get to quibble about what else is possible. Again, you can't get there from here. We've had this discussion before, of course, but for the benefit of others joining us let me summarize what I've posted previously. Division by zero and the Uncertainty Principle (two names for the same thing) are reflections of God and free will. quote: Sorry, Essorant, but that's more semantic nonsense. You're just playing with words as symbols, apart and distinct from the meaning we attach to them. Can you express that without using words, perhaps? quote: I think you underestimate what a writer's words can reveal, both about their theme and about themselves. Poetry is, at its worst, a Rorschach test on steroids. And hey, you shouldn't knock talking animals as a legitimate literary device. Worked great for Orwell, as I recall. quote: To be honest, I have very little interest in the soft sciences (and I'm being tactful in calling most of them science). Biology is cool, I suppose, but frankly there's no such thing as "specific emotions ... triggering specific behavioral responses." To me, science is defined by repeatability and predictability, or at the very least, can be expressed statistically. And the bottom line is that while science (the real kind) helps us to manipulate our environment, it will never be able to help us to truly understand it. I would, of course, still like to learn about emotions, behavioral responses, and human consciousness. If you know of an E=MC^2 formula that applies to human beings, by all means, point me in the right direction. Failing that, however, I think I'll skip over the astrology stuff, if you don't mind? My advice would be to forget LeDoux and Damasio; if you want to understand emotions, responses, and consciousness you'd be much better off reading Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Dickinson, and Hemingway (to name just a few). It's not science, but then it doesn't pretend to be, either. quote: My mistake, then. I participate in these discussions, when I have the time, for the same reasons I read Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Dickinson, and Hemingway (to name just a few). I like to learn what other people think, what they believe, what they feel, what makes them tick. Mostly, I just like to learn. I presumed you did, too. I presumed you felt you had something useful to say and I was ready to listen. My mistake. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Oh my...that is some serious post modern mumbo jumbo you got going there Ron...sure you want to stick to that statement? Hey...what kind of gravity are we talkin' about here anyway? Hindu gravity? Ancient Egyptian sun god gravity? Ba'al gravity? Odin gravity? I myself prefer Aphrodite gravity, that way when I fall..I got a good lookin' god busom to break my fall. Oops...almost forgot...there's really only one gravity and countless man made gods... The greatest enigma of the universe is why really, smart educated people cling to 3000 year old myths and ignorant superstitions in the year 2008...and would dare to compare the ever constant and consistent physical force of gravity, with an invisible, unnamed, monothestic 'god' that is an amalgamation of countless Sumerian, Canaanite and Semite tribal deities, a first century apocalyptic messianic deity, and countless unique personal gods, spirits, saints and angels...all roled into one alleged 'monotheistic god", and franchised by the Roman Empire 1500 years ago. I mean I get the eternal life prize...is there something else keeping you in the pew? Really good sermons? Wife makes you go? Education is the death knell of ridiculous 'my god dun it' arguments from ignorance. Generic new age god is retreating to the big bang, the deepest recess of the human mind, and quantum particles...how sad...I hear he used to control fertility, the weather and smite people who blasphemed him. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm guessing that was more senseless humor, Bard? Or do you really think you understand gravity? Perhaps you can explain to rest of the world why it is at once so weak and so strong? I can practically guarantee you a Nobel if you just show us a graviton or two? I'm sort of guessing you're confusing gravity with its observable effects -- which, uh, you don't really understand either. Don't feel bad, though. No one else does, either. The difference is most of them, at least the brightest ones, really do understand there's no shame in saying, "I don't know." quote: How much education? No, I mean, really? Does it take a B.A. or a B.S. to make the grade? A Masters, maybe? At what point does every educated person in the world graduate to atheism? It's puzzling to me, because I've taught at a fairly large handful of colleges in Michigan and met a lot of faculty who apparently weren't as well educated as you are. Maybe my circle of acquaintances just wasn't wide enough? No, that wouldn't explain the others, the ones I've met through their writing, the thousands of brilliant people like Newton and Einstein, who apparently never became educated enough to graduate into atheism. Clearly I'm missing something here about the link between education and a refusal to see anything outside one's personal tunnel. Please, explain it to me again? There's nothing wrong with ignorance, of course. It's the ones who don't realize they're ignorant that too often become dangerous. Not to mention irritating as hell. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Hi Grinch, How appropriate it is to have dialogue with you so close to Christmas! Remember that atheists and theists (particularly of the Christian kind) disagree on what constitutes true knowledge. Both would say that the other doesn't want to know, what the other constitutes as the real thing. Wish fulfillment can go both ways. Atheists will always say that theists believe in God because they secretly fear absolute death and the dismantling of their humanity. Theists will say that atheists fear judgment day and the implications of an authoritative being of sublime holiness and purity, and so try to "wish" that knowledge away too. But in speaking of true science which is always descriptive, and not the atheistic philosophy which has parasitically attached itself to scientific theories of late, why should theologians "not want to know"? I don't believe the science behind Neo-Darwinism is convincing. But we've already had the discussion before, that evolutionary science doesn't do away with the need for God ... unless of course you want to deify nature and become a pantheist of some sort. quote: It's a necssary condition (evil wouldn't make sense here) if you wish to believe in a purely naturalistic scheme. If God is all powerful, that means he's bound to slavishly control all things? An omnipotent God couldn't give a degree of real freedom, and still get his will accomplished? quote: What exactly do you mean by "determining a future effect"? How would such undermine freewill, while naturalistic determinism itself (one set of physical circumstances necessarily leading to another, including the cortex of the brain) would not? V-Fib: quote: If Dennett is your only example of serious philosophy then you are being pretentious in the extreme. When you made your comment about Descarte solving the problem of epistemology in a naturlistic scheme, I responded by bringing to your attention an entire tradition of Philosophy that sprung up later which tends to deny your glib dismissal, and mentioned many philosophers who have been remembered far beyond their death (I'm honestly not sure that Daniel Dennett is in this category, as far as philosophy goes), and you've said nothing about philosophy. You're right it is condescending, and matters very little how honest you are to your own feelings, if you don't care to share with us your philosophical knowledge, but keep reminding us how you need to educate all of us in these fields. I myself suspect I know more of philosophy than you, because of the way you wave it away with statements about how you don't have time to share with those who are ignorant. But it would be arrogant for me to claim it as certainly so, until you talk and share something more than "Get Daniel Dennet's book for Christmas, and call me when you're educated". At least you could share some of Dennet's philsophical ideas, as I did of Lewis (which you didn't respond to either, except to whisk the Oxford Don away as a 'simpleton'). Quote him and comment if you wish, and allow for rebuttal. Put his ideas in your own mouth and show me that you know where he's coming from. quote: Not content to bear the reproach of insulting just one person? quote: Rather than answer the question posed by Ron about the problems with complete determinism, you have chosen to misrepresent Christian Theism. I'll explain. Miracles, though incredible, are only incredible against a backdrop of regularity. God has made a lawful universe. Even Einstein felt strongly that his theories of relativism did not undermine order and purpose which is evident all around us. Miracles only suggest that there are exceptions, or higher laws if you will. The very fact that scientists say our origins come from a banging singularity where the laws of nature break down, ought to suggest the sheer possibility of wiggle room here. So then, the question becomes about particular miracles in either an experiential or a historical way. The question of whether the resurrection of Jesus Christ really happened, for example, is one to be considered not on sheer philosophy, but on historical veracity. For example, does the martyrdom and severe persecution of many (which isn't disputed) who would have known that the resurrection was a sham, make good historical or psychological sense? Much more can be said along these lines. But what I wanted to emphasize is that miracles are miracles by virtue of irregularity and rarity. And so to recite a list of them to prove a theistic universe would be a "Bizzaro" universe without law or stability is more than a little misguided. quote: Actually that is right. "If" is a key word. I maintain that God has the prerogative to judge sin and impute death as he sees fit. Still, its also important to remember that the Old Testament represents an incomplete revelation, predominated by the Severity of Law and punishment (though mercy was not totally absent, it was not the focal point). The New Testament does change things. Divine evolution if you prefer. Not evolution of God, mind you, whose character does not change, but of his dispensational approach with a humanity that does. quote: No, the problem is, you haven't demonstrated it. quote: Why would you guess that? And why are you 'guessing' anyway? Not a very scientific approach is it? I, for one, have read the entire Bible. What's that got to do with it? quote: This lets me know that it is you who have not read the bible. Honestly, if you think salvation is nothing more than a get-someone-off-the-hook clause, where things like repentance and restitution are not required, you've invented your own caricature. Study how divine forgiveness doesn't annul earthly consequences, especially in the life of David, and get back to me. Then we'll look at what the New Testament says about the nature of the forgiveness of sins, and whether it is simply a get-out-of-jail-free card, and nothing more. quote: Nor can your philosophy explain why one program would even be "better" than another, except by appeals to survival-value which is pending and would be very much a faith-like statement for you. Could be wrong, but I suppose that's why you add that you don't care. Besides the detached-poet-bard stance is so very cool. quote: I think the question really is how much of "evolution" someone accepts. I don't think it speaks into origins at all, though some mean something like "atheistic naturalism" when they say evolution. If we know the Earth to be very old, then the amount of time for repicating life is small indeed. C.S. Lewis and Dinesh D'Souza are two Christian apologists who had no problem believing in Darwinism. And while I don't accept the theory of Common Descent (because I simply think the evidence isn't there), I don't have a problem with those who do. I don't think evolution would remove the need for God. As G.K. Chesterton once said, a slow miracle is still a miracle. quote: How bout I quote you? "Will I ever find the answer, To life’s existential quiz? Or perhaps I fear to speak it; ‘There is no ought, there only is’ quote: Nah, I think its the name of the hoped-for biological mechanism for the reproduction and survival of non-replicating entities that eventually became alive in the primordial soup. Or is it the name for the infinitude of other universes invoked by those who won't admit that our own universe is specified and fine tuned for our existence? Sorry if your continuous stream of contumelies has made me a little frisky in return. Hope you know its all good-natured. (and guys, please spell my real name right. Brad, it's been what 10 years or so? StephEn [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-18-2008 12:03 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Makes me sort of hesitant to ask why you registered as StephAnos? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, Stephanos is simply Greek for "Stephen". Why did I choose that? Why does anyone choose goofy screen-names? The point of friendly agitation is that I've signed my English name at the end of hundreds of posts. And I still get: Stephan ...  Of course there are worse things I can get called, (like ignorant fool and bigot) so I won't mention it again. Maybe I'll just start calling Brad, Bard, and claim a typo like you. lol. Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Well, darn, and I don’t have a big set of atomic balls either, in theory. I’m a she, not a he or an it without any explanation, thank you. And I can’t move faster than the speed of light, so size does matter. And there is the question of whether I exist to you at all, since you haven’t physically observed me in all my wild glory. Patterning was my interest in quantum mechanics: A true phenomenon always interests me. 'It is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain it in any classical way'.(Richard Feynman) Perhaps I’ve read you wrongly, but I feel what bothered you about my statement isn’t what little bit that I and everyone else understands about quantum physics, but how I mentioned that it strengthened my belief in God. If Einstein was searching for info on “The Old One,” in his work, why would it bother you that someone like me would? There is more than what meets the anthropological eye and there is much more to life than anyone with a brilliant brain understands. Three cheers to discovery. and sure, the occasional party is always good for the spirit, takes the edge off of things, unless one partakes of too many spirits and ends up kneeling before a porcelain object. good night all reg |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Stephen ! See I do it right (and always have). Do I get a choc drop? quote: Not bad Ron. Not bad at all. Maybe I'll just un-capitalise, or substitute something rather less parochial for "God" though. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Grinch, quote: More please, if you will. It’s early and I’m still trying to kick start my mind, but I’m awake enough to know that statement interests me…..non-believers? In determinism? or God? or….? Anyway, I hope you will go there again and I look forward to reading when I can. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Good morning, Sharon. quote: Thanks and yes I’m happy VB has joined in, which he probably missed my welcome due to the excitement so, again, Salut to VB. Thanks also for your vote of confidence but I’m severely under qualified to rep anything above an exhausted human. Not enough hours in the day and me legs feel like pickets at a protest. Gotta go run the race. Maybe later I’ll be more up to flexing my sexiest muscle. See ya’s love, reg |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Just a quick comment for the philosophy impaired.... Daniel Dennett is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. He is also one of those nasty outspoken atheists. C.S. Lewis was a very accomplished fantasy writer. Who wrote spellbinding tales of talking animals and humans battling in good vs. evil fantasylands...with plenty of biblical overtones. Later in life, his wife dies tragically, leaving him quite sad. He threw himself into religion, and applied his well honed literary skills to becoming a self styled Christian apologist, and theologian. He wrote many fantasy Christian stories, where his talking lions were replaced with talking devils and demons. C.S. Lewis is not a 'philosopher' in any way, shape or form compared to Dennett. He is not educated in any formal science or philsophy or mind. It would be just as ridiculous to compare a male nurse with the nuerosurgeon at a hospital...or to quote a male nurse's opinion on a delicate brain surgery, as it is to quote C.S. Lewis in a discussion of human behavior and the brain. This 5 minutes of concise philosophy education is brought to you by the Vestibular Bard, who clearly has forgotten more wretched and errant philosophy, than certain posters here will ever know... |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: That about sums up your presentation VB. That together with a talent for presenting sufficient superficial knowledge in many other arenas, to allow you to then try to ridicule those ideas in staccato jibes and quasi-intellectual sounding bytes. You've clearly had problems VB, and believe me, I am sincerely sympathetic to anyone who has suffered the mental illness that you apparently have. But your exposure to the medical profession and possibly the things you have learned about the mechanics of the brain and the wonders of medical science seem to have either created or hardened a unfortunate trait in you that prevents you being civil to anyone who doesn't hold your precise view. Rudeness and bombastic verbiage in a constant stream does make it quite difficult to take anything you say seriously. You keep mentioning Hawking, sometimes in a less than complimentary way, and Ron has briefly touched on some of what I regard as the more important questions that can be asked about our universe. I have read all Hawking's books and some lectures, and I can assure you that the issues he addresses do impact upon what you regard as the "realities" of life, the minutiae of neurology and the advances of medical science. Right now however you clearly aren't in a suitable frame of mind to debate publicly. Possibly you might be more comfortable not playing to an audience in e-mail? Or possibly you just want to ignore this "amateur poet" who just wants to debate the meaning of "is" (actually could be productive) and go back to producing your entertaining off-the-cuff 15 minute odes. (Note to Ron or Brad: Humm, I wrote the above after I read VB's response to Regina. I see that response has vanished, whether by his hand or someone elses. If you feel anything I've said above is inappropriate, please feel free to remove.) |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
LoL. No. That's not me. And I'm not on any pew and don't plan to be. The only new anything I'm completely sure of are my New Balance shoes which are about to assist me in running out the door. You're certainly not boorish. I'm equally grateful for wit and humor and I might even have some kind of disorder that involves having a warped fetish for sarcasm. Dunno. Thank you for both of your poems. I'm not sure I deserve any credit for inspiring the first one since I think I'm a bit "Miss Understood," but the second one? Absolutely.  Merengue? I have dancing shoes too!! Actually, I agree with a fair portion of what you say and I'll get to that when I can. Thanks for responding and for your friendship reg |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Don't get too happy...the powerful overlord is deleting my posts one by one...because they make him and his comments look silly...and no one wants to look silly in front of their kingdom and their subjects...very few people can deal with being laughed at...laughter is the most potent weapon we humans possess...which is why 'freedom of speech' is just as 'counter intuitive' as Quantum mechanics...and why it never lasts long in any place where the powerful can silence the powerless...without a charge of breaking any rule....off to the dungeon...burn the witty and smart apostate at the stake...that's what Calvin did to Servetus...google it...so you'll know the story... The rule here is obviously don't raise the ire of the site owner...don't challenge his sacred cows or views...don't point out his outrageous mistatements or erroneous claims...just be good little serfs...so he doesn't delete your posts with no explanation. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: ~sigh~ VB Trust me, this is one you can't win, and you'll look back in a few months time and see how silly you were. Like I say, trust me, I've been there done that. You'd be a sad loss to this site. Play nice |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: My superior knowledge really bothers you...so you feel helpless in responding to ANY of it with any intellectual argument that employs reason and evidence, so instead all you can do is belittle my 'elitism'...thank-you Sara Palin. I wonder how you would fair in a basketball game against an NBA player...even one of your own gender? Would you shake her fist at her 'superficial' skills? Is calling me a mental defect your idea of being 'civil'...I don't remember calling anyone anything approaching that here..I do remember running over some sacred cows tho... At least Reg saw my reply..and it made her laugh...there are some kewl ppl here, with a sense of humor..who don't take themselves...or me...too seriously...thank-you Jesus. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which part of summarily deleted didn't you understand? You're just lucky we don't have a rule against run-on sentences.  quote: Actually, had you read back through the forums as I suggested (it's clear you didn't), you would have realized that I've always been the one person on this site that people like you get to ridicule with impunity. Comes with the job. You'd also have realized that challenging sacred cows or views is not only allowed but encouraged. Treating people badly, however, is not. Even if you apparently can't help yourself. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Sorry, VB, but you are decidedly not an NBA player. Not even close. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Sure Ron... Whatever...your actions speak much louder than your words. Your disdain for science and your inability to even recognize life sciences as a science...is a 'Rorschach Test on Steroids' The delete button is so much easier than the think, laugh and reply button...I understand why you reach for it... Ron...I'll take you one on one in anything intellectual...you're just too scared to let me play... Reach for the delete button...it's so easy... |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Garsh Ron...sorry I didn't take time to read thru 10 years of hackneyed philosohical/theological discussions on this site...I'll get right on that after lunch...I guess you had a run in with moonbeam at some point..on whether Jesus was right or left handed...and you let her live...how gracious. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: On the contrary, you've been invited to play with us many times, not just by me but by others here as well. Your idea of intellectual discourse, however, has been to mock other people while continuously telling us how smart and funny you think you are. Writers should learn to show, not tell, and I'm afraid you've done little to demonstrate either quality. Instead of attacking the poster, which will just get you deleted from here on out, why don't you try to something new. Instead of ridiculing our ideas with meaningless jibes, why don't you actually try supporting your own with, oh I don't know, actual research. I have yet to hear you say ONE SINGLE THING in this forum that suggests you actually understand anything about science. All you've done is drop a few buzz words and a few big names (at least one of which isn't as big as you think). Is that typical of the kinds of papers you wrote in school? It's time to put up or shut up. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
On the contrary Ron, I wrote a very thorough dismantling of Stephen’s fallacious argument and conclusions in my post number 1, and revisted it again in post 29. And nothing I’ve eloquently and persuasively argued there…has been refuted or touched by Stephen or you. I wrote a very thorough reply to your mildly intellectual musing as to whether I thought humans were ‘billiard balls’. I’ve endured and entertained the most hilarious, derivative, shallow clichés in these exchanges you can imagine…and bit my tongue in laughter countless times. So all you can do is find fault with my sarcastic wit and parody. All you can do is mock my superior knowledge, while never demonstrating any of your own. "Biology is just like astrology." "If I want to learn how human emotions actually influence behavior…I’ll read Shakespeare instead of Ledoux." "Are humans like billiard balls, VB"? That about sums up your intellectual contribution to this thread. Here’s the difference between me and you Ron…I’ve read Shakespeare and LeDoux. C.S. Lewis and Dennett. I can write a sonnet, or have an intelligent conversation about the latest research taking place in cognitive neuroscience. You can’t, thus I'm a threat to your ego. So you need to delete me…I’m a threat to your imagined intellectual superiority. The delete key is much easier than reading ‘Synaptic Self. …you or Stephen or moonbeam wouldn’t make it thru the first chapter. Other people here have called me all kinds of names, some quite direct and vile, and some garden variety passive aggressive stykle…they have claimed I have no knowledge like THEY do, and hypocritically belittled me as mentally ill, while extending their smarmy, faux sympathy in the same sentence as they insult me. But there posts aren’t being deleted…I wonder why? I am honest. I know I am sarcastic, I know I can come off as condescending… ...but you don’t realize it in YOURSELF Ron…you can’t be honest with yourself… ...check the mirror…read your first post to me in this thread again. You’re not some shining example of good manners and fair play Ron…you’re a bully who owns a poetry site, and you have a delete button. I’m a sarcastic poet that stands up to bullies. The people here who are fair and open minded, and who have complimented me, know the score...even if you don't. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: If sincerely commiserating with you for having suffered a debilitating illness is calling you a "mental defect" then I'm sorry and I withdraw what was kindly meant. I have been trying to understand where you are "coming from" VB, I did some research on vestibular disorders and came across a site where I believe you are active, and where you are trying to help other sufferers. (Of course I apologise for jumping to conclusions if there are two Vestibular Bards with your syntax and diction). |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I won't try to speak for Stephen, but frankly, I don't think you understood his poem let alone dismantled it. But let's assume you did understand it. Do you really think telling us your reply "was factual and precise," without offering any support, is going to convince anyone? If there's anything at all in that post that shows an understanding of science, please by all means, quote it to me. All I saw was a lot of derogative adjectives being used. quote: LOL. This is what you call "a very thorough reply?" No Ron, we’re not ‘billiard balls’, we are highly evolved biological organisms with the largest most sophisticated cortex on the planet. Was that a trick question? I suppose it didn't occur to you that one doesn't preclude the other? Yes, we're evolved biological organisms (the jury is still out on your superfluous adverb), but you certainly didn't address the issue of choice. You did understand that was the question, right? Again, if there's anything at all in that post that demonstrates your superior understanding of science, please feel free to directly quote it to me. quote: Putting words into someone's mouth isn't very sanitary. I hope you washed them first? I, of course, never said that. What I actually said was, "Biology is cool, I suppose," specifically differentiating it from the much softer sciences I then compared to astrology. And you know what? I'm perfectly willing to listen to arguments supporting your cognitive sciences and might even admit they have (some) uses. You haven't offered any such arguments, though, have you? quote: You finally make a good point, a valid point, I think, albeit one I've already asked myself. I came very close to removing Moon's last post, the one with the mental illness crack, but ultimately decided not to. In part, that's for the same reason I didn't delete the first few of yours that went way over the line. People get some benefit of doubt points that generally can last them a while. Like a three-strike felon, however, they can eventually reach a point where even the most minor infraction (your deleted posted weren't nearly as bad as earlier ones) can bring down the hammer more quickly than would otherwise be the case. You've used up all your leeway, simple as that. There was another part, though, probably the larger part, and it goes right back to my first post in this thread (the one you didn't like so much). When you continuously poke a dog with a stick, you shouldn't be too surprised (or morally outraged) when the dog takes a nip at your outstretched fingers. My job, of course, is to make sure the dogs don't take off an arm or leg, and I take that job fairly seriously. Please, though, don't expect me to get too mad at the dogs? Like the scorpion in another apocryphal story, they're just doing what dogs do. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Again, you fail to address a single point in any of my replies with any rational argumentation. I went through Stephen’s poem stanza by stanza, and pointed out exactly where his fallacious errors were, and why they were fallacious, and why they led him to a fallacious conclusion. You haven’t replied to ANY thing I said or any point I made in those posts. I also complimented Stephan on the style and the overall tone of humility and reconciliation in his poem…and told him if I was in his shoes, I would be quite proud of that poem had I written it. Stephen, though I don’t agree with his theology or philosophy, is still quite humble in his poetry and his approach, compared to some of the more typical displays of hate-filled, allegedly ‘Christian’ poetry I’ve read here. It’s interesting, but it seems certain grumpy old men, can’t seem to write a poem about their loving god, without putting other people down, and calling them immoral, stupid, repugnant and vile…. quote: Again, you fail to address a single point in any of my replies with any rational argumentation. Don’t know what kind of ‘support’ you’re looking for Ron, I assure you, I won’t be loaning you my jockstrap, my posts offered plenty of persuasive, accurate argumentation, in the form of WORDS that provided DETAILED arguments. quote: You can go back and read my posts again Ron. Again, you fail to address a single point in any of my replies with any rational argumentation. You’ve already admitted you’re not the least bit interested science, why would I waste another second on you? Here’s a direct quote: “To be honest, I have very little interest in the soft sciences” Ron never tells us what a ‘soft science’ is, but I’m guessing he means anything that is outside the Mechanical Engineering I’m guessing he studied 30+ years ago...which REALLY isn't science btw...Ron Ron tells us that biology is ‘cool, I suppose’, even though it’s clear he hasn’t studied it in the least….but it’s ‘cool, I suppose’… Ron then proceeds to write this incredibly hilarious statement: “there's no such thing as "specific emotions triggering specific behavioral responses." A child in grade school intuitively understands what behavioral responses ‘fear’ are going to trigger in someone on the playground… a lion stalking prey on an African plain even knows this…but Ron….”I don’t like dem soft sciences’…can’t quite believe it… So..Ron has spoken...close down the Universities, or at least move cognitive neuroscience and neurology to the ‘Humanities’ building with the French poetry classes…so it will be safe from the mechanical engineering and statistics classes Ron likes. Here’s what you said Ron, here is the complete context of your quote. “I would, of course, still like to learn about emotions, behavioral responses, and human consciousness. If you know of an E=MC^2 formula that applies to human beings, by all means, point me in the right direction. Failing that, however, I think I'll skip over the astrology stuff, if you don't mind? My advice would be to forget LeDoux and Damasio; if you want to understand emotions, responses, and consciousness you'd be much better off reading Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Dickinson, and Hemingway (to name just a few). It's not science, but then it doesn't pretend to be, either.” Again, its so hard for me to tell if you are a Poe doing a parody or this is for real… Lets summarize the logic: 1. Ron really wants to learn about emotions, behavioral responses, and human consciousness. 2. But only if someone can sum it all up in a simple formula or slogan....that's what real science does! 3. Failing that…it really is ‘astrology stuff’...where amusingly enough...they summarize things with little zodiac signs they can remember easily. 4. So, if I want to understand how the human brain works, I won’t avail myself to any of the recent books written by the experts you’ve thoughtfully mentioned, VB, I’ll read poetry and literature from the 17th and 18th century. So you seem to be self contradicting Ron…here again, you pretend you want to understand ‘something’ about ‘science’…but only if it passes Ron’s ‘secret hard science litmus test’ and can be digested in a simple 4 symbol formula. Sorry...done doing that dance. Now then…one more thing to set the record straight. I wrote a lengthy, complimentary and humorous response directly to Rwood that had NOTHING to do with you. She read it, laughed, and complimented me on it. She obviously took no OFFENSE at it…but YOU deleted it. Why is that Ron? This will be my last response to you Ron…if I do keep posting here, it will actually be with Stephen, who I owe another apology to, because I clearly misjudged his level of knowledge, interest and humility compared to yours. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Steve ,Uh, I knew that. Still, and I've gotten in trouble for this before, I sometimes think using the nickname is easier than using the real name. It helps others see who you are talking to. I don't know, but I don't think I'm the only one who gets momentarily confused, when the switch to the real name is made. But I admit I'm not consistent on this point. quote: Okay, but look at Mysteria's reaction to worms and/or VB's response to babes. Placed in a slightly different context than the one you intended, the same metaphors (not to mention houses and eyes) are used in the evolution/creation debate. You know this. I know this. Most of us know this here. What intrigues me with the poem is how you used them for your own purposes. That you intended them as existential metaphors is fine but that doesn't exclude the geological time/evolutionary development line of thinking as well. The purpose of the poem is still clear. In other words, you got lucky. Or perhaps you've gleaned something from those debates that might be worth exploring in more detail. Since Dennet was brought into the discussion, I wonder how his "multiple homunculi" thesis fits in here. Reading the beginning of this thread again, I'm a little confused by the 'argument from ignorance' line. If anything, aren't you arguing the opposite? I don't think VB was calling you ignorant (unless he misunderstands what he's talking about), but I don't see how the classic line, "We don't know; therefore, it must be God," fits here. If you want criticism from me, you've heard it before. I think you confuse origin with identity -- again. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sure I did. To repeat myself, "To me, science is defined by repeatability and predictability." quote: And a child in grade school is only slightly less likely to be right than your sociologist and psychologists. Again, "repeatability and predictability" are the keys that differentiate the hard and soft sciences. Run a given current through a given substance and the results are going to be the same every single time. You can't say the same about an emotion triggering a response. If you're honest about it, you can't even give me a reliable probability. The sociologist, psychologist, and child on the play ground are all just making guesses based on previous experience. The best I can say about the scientists is that they have more experience than the child. But an educated guess is still a guess. Biology is a little higher up the rung than sociology and psychology, but only a little. Doctors aren't always real good at diagnosing an illness and, when they do get that part right, aren't always so good at treating it. They have to experiment, too, because every person is different from the last. But then, I think you already know more about that than I hopefully ever will. I nonetheless accord Biology more respect than its softer counterpoints, because I believe (or hope, perhaps) that its weakness are a reflection of current knowledge and not an inherent limitation. We "can" know how to diagnose and treat an illness, even if we don't today. In contrast, sociology and psychology, as examples, will never be able to accurately predict individual human behavior. quote: It doesn't have to be simple. It just has to work every single time. It has to be more than an educated guess. quote: Because, frankly, it wasn't worth my time to edit out the paragraph or two where you insulted others in closing? I do that sometimes, but not often. I much prefer to put the responsibility (and subsequent consequences) where they belong. quote: You've misjudged a lot. I'm glad you recognized at least one. I will be the first to admit that you've brought out the worst in some of us here, whether inadvertently or on purpose, and that's regrettable. Stephen deserves a lot of credit for absorbing your earlier abuse and responding like a gentleman and a Christian. I honestly wish I had been strong enough to do the same. Reminds me a bit of a line from that old Planet of the Apes movie, where Taylor says he would like to kiss Dr. Zira goodbye. "All right," she replies, "but you're so damn ugly." Replace ugly with irritating and I think I understand how Zira felt. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Vestibular B: quote: So far so good. Except of course for the "philosophically impaired" jibe. They're going to start calling you Vestibular Barb. quote: Actually you've got the chronology all wrong. Lewis was born in 1898. He was raised to be religious, but was an atheist by the time he was a teenager. In 1929 he became a struggling and searching theist. In 1931 he was converted to Christianity. He almost immediately wrote 'The Pilgrims Regress' a deeply philosophical and apologetic work. 'The Problem of Pain' was published in 1940, dealing with the philosophical question about suffering and evil in light of theism and atheism. His book 'Miracles' came in 1947. Interspersed between these strictly theological works, were imaginitave works in which Lewis used his love of story and myth to communicate Christian Truth, as he had already done in more direct and didactic forms. In less than 10 years after his conversion he was an established public figure in Christian apologetics giving talks about Christianity on BBC radio (these addresses were eventually compiled into what became 'Mere Christianity'). The Chronicles of Narnia came out between 1950 and 1956. He didn't marry Joy Gresham until 1956. She died of Cancer in 1960. After which, the only work I know of was "A grief observed". Lewis died in 1963. I gave you this, incomplete and perhaps uninteresting time line, to let you know that he was a Christian and a widely read Christian apologist long before Joy Gresham came into his life. You made it sound like he was a quaint little children's book writer, until he lost his wife ... which led him, perhaps in desperation, to dive into religion and theology for an escape. Actually, the Narnia Chronicles were his only works for Children, which also were written later in his career. quote: Umm, I never claimed Lewis was a formal Philosopher. Actually my references to Dennett (and my complaint about your references to him) had to do with the fact that you were failing to address the philosophers of the past pertinent to the problem of epistemology in a naturalistic scheme, which we were discussing. I don't mind you quoting Dennett (which you didn't, you just kept telling me to read him), but I did mind that you dismissed Hume, Nietzsche, Kirkegaard, Sartre, Camus, Russell, who all in one way or another commented on the problem I was bringing to your attention. Quoting only Dennett suggests a very narrow scope of Philosophy on your part. Of course, you may have a wide exposure to the flow of philosophical thought through history, but until you show it ... It's not that we couldn't continue to talk about it, even if you didn't. But telling other people they are ignorant gets you nowhere even if you ARE more knowledgable ... how much less if you apparantly aren't? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I'm just telling you how it seems on the receiving end. But back to Lewis ... I wasn't at all comparing him to Dennett anyway. quote: I guess it would be different with a female nurse?  First of all, I never compared my education with that of neurosurgeon. When I mentioned that I was a nurse I was only demonstrating the falsity of your charge that I was scientifically ignorant and dumber than a 10th grade science student. Um, bard, perhaps it would be inappropriate for me to quote Lewis if were discussing mere behaviorism and brain-science. We weren't. We were discussing ethics (a major branch of philosophy, and no small limb on the Theological tree either) and religion. Since Lewis was an erudite lay-theologian and philosopher, it was totally appropriate. And not once did you really refute anything I quoted of Lewis anyway. quote: Whether it is all 'wretched' is a matter of your subjective taste. Whether it is errant is debatable. But this I grant you: it does seem clear that you have forgotten. For what it's worth, I appreciate your compliments. You have great potential as a poet and as a person. You're witty and intelligent. But I think what Ron and others are saying, is generally true. You have mixed invective in with your views and opinions, and that won't fly well long term here or anywhere I suspect. Actually I was wrong ... it won't fly here even short term, If I know Ron. Think of it this way. You're probably politically liberal right? How do you like Ann Coulter's approach? Even if she had some valid points, I'll bet you feel that you could never really access them because her presentation is so offensive and insulting that it would be lost in the delight/frustration of hitting back. You, are coming across with the same kind of feel, even if your ideology is worlds apart. I hope that doesn't offend you, it's just how it seems to me. If you want to be heard and intelligently considered you should drop that stuff. It would be a pity to see you go. Hope you can stick 'round. And I don't say that facetiously. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-18-2008 09:09 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
 [This message has been edited by Ron (12-18-2008 08:30 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Uh oh. For a second I thought I was on acid because I knew there was a post I responded to, but I don’t do acid despite my passion for Pink Floyd, and then the thread just unraveled...sadly... Is there any way to call a truce here for the sake of discussion or diplomacy? So that we don’t all ”exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage,” ??? I mean I think the flaming elements of this discussion deal with superiority complexes? And since even a Nobody can be right, I’d like to be right enough for a humble moment of reflection: You’re right, VB. I didn’t take you seriously, though I can’t speak for any others that were addressed. I’m not easily offended and I think I’m able to hold my own. I think we exchanged something positive, regardless of what happened to the post. I did have more to say, but since I don’t have an eidetic memory I apologize for not being able to reply properly to what you offered. I know you went into some issues about a New Age God and offered some authors/physicists aside from Feynman. Again, I’m stressed and pressed for time most days, which greatly affects my memory, too, but not to a degree that all was lost. I did laugh, and I valued the exchange. I am sad that wasn’t case for all involved. Thanks, I’ve had my say bout that, so really there’s no need for anymore attacks or somebody’s gonna bust a brain nut from all this fixational flexation. And yeah, yall can pick on me for making up words to try to describe what’s going on up in here. Consider yourself lucky that Ron saved you from that slamtastic piece of mind I was going to give you, VB. (Not) And I didn’t have any intentions of such, and I trust you will see the humor in that, but just so you know: Despite the neuro-nuclear fallout that seems to be taking place between some, everyone has put up with me for the past 10 years so they must be good-hearted, including Ron. (I'm sure it hasn't been easy) Except for youuuuu, StephEn. Where are your manners?? Or did I miss your reply to me? Go ahead and overlook me for the new guy. Not even a hello. Pffft. Anyway, on the N.A.G thing, I’m not Goldie Locks looking for the bed of religion that feels most comfy to me among the bears. I don’t adhere to any system of religion though I don’t denounce them either, unless I’m offered Kool-Aid or asked to pet someone’s snake. I’m equally claw-bearing to scientific theory that says I envy males for their penis, and those people that spray feces on canvas and call it art? Well they can hang that crap on their own walls! I have never claimed to completely understand any religion or the sciences or the arts. I stand in awe of the great Pyramid for it incorporates the energies of all 3. Slavery? or Voluntary group effort--which seems impossible. I’m trying to experience all I can in learning and living, which means I’m going to go round and round with a lot of things before my pony breaks down, and again, I have a deep interest for phenomenon and maybe I’m in love with mystery and feel there’s a need for more magic, like touching someone without touching them…..or maybe not. An Ewww moment. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
rwood, Hello. My apologies, I was preoccupied with VB, as was everyone else. It was not at all intentional. (BTW, I love Pink Floyd myself ... talk about existential!) Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
correction: make that almost 9 years. Can't count, nor measure either. *epiphany!!* maybe that's why I've never had any trouble getting marriage proposals.  forgive me and how could I not forgive you Stephen?? Hey You!  |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Rwood, while I appreciate your good nature and peacemaking attempts, and the fact that you may very well be 'on acid'....I take the topic of science very seriously...and it's clear from your statement that you went to college in the 70s...since that time, science has modified it's theories, and you now envy men for the quality and quantity of expensive foreign sports cars they own, and the size of their investment portfolios. I could recommend some serious scholarly research that supports this as 'predictable and repeatable'...but given this late hour, I suggest you just thumb thru the pages of Cosmo Now then... the one thing you do seem to have very good taste in.. is music, as Pink Floyd may actually be god's other sons. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
LOL. Please don’t delete his post. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Stephen... I will reply to your thoughtful post soon... ...but I wanted to nip this in the bud. quote: Wrong... quote: Ann Coulter is my girlfriend. I would appreciate it if you leave her out of our discussion. [This message has been edited by Ron (12-18-2008 11:56 PM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Yes, I agree with that Mike. For me, Stephen has been a far better advertisement for Christianity than even my late godfather the Bishop of Dover who spent many fruitless years and several hundreds of bottles of whisky trying to persuade me to regular communion. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I feel the same way, Moonbeam, except it’s my Grandmother who’s still trying to persuade me, though no whiskey. That’s the devil’s drink, God love her. Stephen is a rare find in this world for me. VB, If I’d attended college in the 70’s I’d been a real babe. Neither of the material things you listed are gender specific, and some may argue that the penis isn’t either. But, if I’m to envy anyone for anything it won’t be a car. Well, ok, I would have a brief weak moment over a cherry 68 Shelby Mustang GT500, but I’d seriously trust that to be a very rare occurrence. I’m not sure why I’d envy someone’s investment portfolios, though If I could sell a man who thought that’s what made him special and I’d actually get what he thought he was worth? Maybe, but the odds are already against him and that theory. I’ll take my time and give it some thought, since Now’s not a good time to sell anyway, so it’ll be a while before I’ll be needing to jump on that bone. Thanks and have a great Friday everyone, reg |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes, Regina, at first sight kinda weird: a Bishop wedded to the Malt Devil, but then again ...! |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Apparently Ron, in a breathtaking display of his power over me, is simply going to continue to delete my posts, no matter what their content, without any explanation, and despite that the people I'm posting to, who read them, appreciate them, and are not the least bit offended by them. So, Reg or Stephan, when you get back, if you want to see my replies to you, please send me an email at this special Piptalk address: imnotimmortal@gmail.com I'm sure Ron will be deleting this as well. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: The "discoveries of the neurosciences" are very nearly irrelevant, fortunately. quote: How is it? It's totally wrong. quote: Here's another newsflash: I can. (Except it would probably be a sunny Monday) quote: Don't worry, I don't take anything you write seriously. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: How many explanations do you think you need? Or, for that matter, deserve? It's really not that complex and it shouldn't be that hard. Quit taking pot shots at people (you don't do subtle well enough to squeeze them by), quit crossing the line with much less than subtle sexual innuendo (your thread in Spiritual was moved to MC this morning), and quit being a jerk. Oh, wait a minute. That last one isn't against the rules, but then again, you apparently don't think the rules should apply to you any way. You're special and all that. I've pretty much reached the end of my patience, Matthew. It's shouldn't be my job to follow you around the boards cleaning up behind you. Either grow up or get out; I no longer care which. |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Being new here, I hesitate to intrude, but I suppose that's what forums like this are for; ostensibly cordial intrusions. I'm neither rocket surgeon, nor bard, but might qualify as a nominally literate techno-dud. I've visited a few different forums, mainly in search of answers for endless questions, and strengthening / dross burning, intelligent challenges to my beliefs, that are all too rare in person. There's been moderate success. It's intriguing to see that Vestibular's peers are so proliferate, even (or especially?) on 'Christian' forums (CARM, for one example). Not only proliferate, but sycophantic, and of common demeanor. The same songs, in the same meter... with attitude. There seems to be nothing quite so literally maddening as blaspheming the sacred religion of Scientism. At any rate, there's rarely all that much to learn beyond the standard un-caused cause, abiogenesis, literal doctrinaire materialistic atheism... vs. the superstitious peasants.... all with dripping, smarmy condescension. And we mustn't forget the universal and absolute refusal to address a proposition from the opposing perspective with anything substantive or on point - all the while demanding acquiescent forbearance for all materialistic presuppositions. Even when accommodated, the rebuttal is simply dismissed as foolishness, and then it's off on another bombastic pompous diatribe, demeaning the ignorant 'faith heads' for failing to comprehend weighty subjects such as, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", by physicist Alan Sokal. I realize there's nothing really specific here. For what it's worth, I might be tempted to tilt at windbags for a short spell, until the vain exercise loses its charm. In the meantime, here's a short poem I ran across recently: Atheism's Red Queen [Edit - Sorry, but as writers, we try very hard to respect the copyrights of others. I'll leave the poem title and author, and anyone interested can look for the text of the poem in authorized formats. Ron Vox Day [This message has been edited by Ron (12-19-2008 03:54 PM).] |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
[Edit - That apparently didn't take long for you to decide. Bye. - Ron [This message has been edited by Ron (12-19-2008 04:38 PM).] |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Whoops. My bad. see: "The Irrational Atheist", by Vox Day BenBella Books chapter VII, page 140 May those who love us love us, |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’ve read it - it’s not very good. “The fact is that a professor at an elite university is as likely to be an atheist as a suicide bomber is to be Muslim” This has to be one of the most intelligent and simultaneously unintelligent things in it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron I have to wonder how you deal with people in everyday life, where manners of communication often get a lot worse than this, especially among teenagers. If we all showed so little patience, none of us would learn to respect each other, but just look for the quickest way of shutting someone out so we would not need to help and deal with him or her only because it may be very difficult at first. And it is still at first, especially considering how much time and chances many other "difficult" members were given. Why couldn't you let the moderators moderate too, but instead you tried to do it all on your own, became overwhelmed as it seems, lost your patience, and then took it out on someone that wellnigh just walked in the door? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Essorant, Ron certainly doesn't need my defense but I marvel at your comments. I have to wonder how you deal with people in everyday life, where manners of communication often get a lot worse than this I would assume that Ron deals with them in the same way I do - and possibly you. If their manners of communication are not to our liking, we simply walk away and ignore them. If they come into our house with insults or bad manners of communication we have them leave. VB came into the house in an insulting, ill-mannered way. He was turned away after several warnings. just look for the quickest way of shutting someone out Ron hardly looked at the quickest way of shutting him out. Actually, he showed a lot more restraint than I would have and let many personal insults aimed at him slide by without comment or reprimand. instead you tried to do it all on your own, became overwhelmed as it seems, lost your patience, and then took it out on someone that wellnigh just walked in the door? Hard to believe we are talking about the same thread. I don't know ron well enough to know if anything on this planet can "overwhelm" him but I do know him well enough to know that nothing that happens on this site will. Lost his patience? Hardly. I'd say more like lost his desire to bang his head against a wall after constant attempts to communicate decently to the fellow and being answered with insults and sarcasm. Ron is also not the type to "take something out on someone". He gave the fellow every chance to come around until it was obvious that the fellow had no intention of adhering to site rules and policies. I have no idea why you are taking on this attitude of painting ron as the abusive bully here and VB as the poor, unfortunate newbie who just happened to walk in the door at the wrong time. Your unsolicited criticism of Ron's actions are puzzling, to say the least. Ron could simply say, "It's my place. Do it my way or hit the door" but he doesn't. He tries to work with people, goes the extra mile to give people the benefit of the doubt in any given situation, and tries to explain what is expected of people here. At the same time, when he reached the point of knowing there is no use continuing, he acts. He tried to reason with VB and reached that point. It took him much longer than it would have taken me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
To any who said kind words about me, I thank you, though I don't deserve them. My respect is yours as well. There were a couple of loose ends I wanted to tie up here, and respond to. Maybe it was Brad or someone ... hmmm can't remember right now. Too tired I guess. Too bad VB is gone. Didn't want to see it. But I don't think Ron was rash, or failed to give chances. I'll try again tommorrow. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer Yes he did look for the quickest way to shut someone out, in the end. We know when Ron says "bye" in such a way he means "banned". Banning doesn't help anyone deal with anything. It just leaves an example of trying to make someone disappear, instead of actually dealing with the problem and actually learning respect between each other. It is far from "every chance" when you give up on someone after only a week, and even further from being a "family" when the other members don't get any say about it either. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, Yes. But Mr. Bard was not interested in working-with, apparently, so much as in self-immolation. He was virtually daring Ron to toss him out. I doubt that Ron would think of himself as the victim here. I think of Ron as the victim here. It feels to me that Mr. Bard used Ron for a suicide-by-cop sort of experience, so Mr. Bard could prove how shabbily he was being treated — I hear the echo of the phrase "once again" reverberating in my ears — by authority. Sometimes authority is bad in and of itself; often it's some guy who's doing the best he can do in a tough situation to keep the wheels from coming off. Ron can be crusty, but he's hardly Mr. Authoritarian Personality, 2008. Sorry, Ron, if I'm stepping on any long cherished ambitions, but you're simply too willing to think the other guy might have something worth saying to make a really first rate dictator. Even if our politics often clash, and I loath Ayn Rand; and I enjoy Heinlein's fiction, but not his social theory. Mr. Bard was not actually addressing what other people were saying, and certainly not in in spirit for the most part of the way the were addressing him. You can have that Religion/science conversation with reasonable affection and respect for each other. Moonbeam and Stephanos both made great efforts to reach out to the man behind the contempt, but at this time the man was distracted and unavailable for reasons we may only speculate about. Certainly Moonbeam and Stephanos made efforts to reach out, even though they were provoked; almost everybody did. Perhaps Mr. Bard will be more available on a more generous level in the future, and he can disagree in a way that brings more of himself more generously to the table. He certainly voices a legitimate point of view. He simply does it in such a way that makes it almost impossible to listen to or consider seriously. You did very well to bear him like a gentleman for as long as you did, but in the end, as somebody who represents the site as a whole, you were required to defend the boundaries and the contractual obligations of the site and the membership. These are the primary tasks of a leader, and they can be very burdensome at times. I believe you did a hard job well, and I want to thank you for it. As I must thank Essorant for bringing up his doubts about things as well. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
(Oops Bob posted while I was busy in my wp. I agree with what he says too) Ess As you know in the past I haven't always seen eye to eye with Ron, especially on this "censorship" issue. I have come to realise two things: Firstly, that in the public forum we often only see part of the story. Secondly, that forum life, while mirroring real life in some ways, differs from it in at least one important respect: someone with a dubious agenda always has a platform within a close knit restricted community. In the present case I had the doubtful "pleasure" of having hours of spare time this last week to spend reading all the relevant posts and to do a little bit of further research, and I have no hesitation in saying that in this instance Ron was extremely forbearing. We can all be pompous and egotistical, dictatorial and impatient - I know I certainly am, but it's practically impossible for the owner of a site like this, if he takes an active role like Ron does, to avoid such a charge. I mean Ron has irritated the hell out of me at times with what comes over occasionally as his condescending attitude, and I know I have given him a few of the same moments, but at the end of the day he's the guy who has to carry the can for the smooth running of the site. And, given the level of freedom of expression that's allowed here, that's no easy responsibility. You make the point that VB only had a week, and that Ron didn't give him as much time as other difficult members. In point of fact I think the reverse of what you were implying should be the norm. New members should actually be given far less time and rope than established members. Look at it this way: an established member who has behaved ok and suddenly goes off the rails, or alternates good and bad behaviour has at least perhaps earned a little leeway for his good contributions. In this case a new member pretty much opened the batting with replies often dressed up as "poetry" which were little more than attacks on members' beliefs. He was asked to refrain from disrespectful comments on many occasions (including by you) and showed absolutely no intention of doing so, preferring instead to make the disrespectful comments and then pretend he was "only kidding" or "playing the thread for a laugh" as well as playing other members off against each other. If somebody is going out of his way to show disrespect, and at the same time making only superficial attempts to engage in any exchange of ideas, you begin to suspect that the disrespect or the "having fun" is the main part of the agenda, at which point, if you are like me (which you and Stephen aren't), and have a fairly short fuse for that type of behaviour, you begin to play him at his own game, and then the whole fabric of the community relationships starts to unravel. Ron could no doubt see the probability of that happening, and in my view, wisely called a halt. Yes, it's sad to see someone as intelligent, and occasionally witty, as that banned, and in everyday life it would have doubtless have been possible to isolate him from being able to cause trouble to a whole community, and to work through the issues he clearly has. But that's not possible here. You either let well alone and risk the mayhem escalating, or you spend hours and hours as Ron no doubt did, clearing up and firefighting. After a while that becomes mentally and physically impractical - so if the problem is continuing, showing no sign of abating after 150 posts, you reluctantly remove the problem. And VB did have problems. By his own admission, a mental illness which must have caused him a major challenge. But, as I eventually realised, this is no environment in which to try and give someone in that frame of mind the help he needs. Finally, on the "family" thing. What did you expect? A ballot of members as to whether he should go or stay? Which members? A special committee? How about the problem of dissemination of all the information they would have needed to make a fair decision? I've never liked power without responsibility, and apart from being totally impractical, consulting members would be precisely that. No, Ron (and maybe some mods) has the responsibility, he should also have the power imo. That way we can blame him when things go wrong . In this case though I think he got it right. |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Grinch, I'm singularly unimpressed by the efforts of the 'The Four Horse's Derrieres of the Atheocolypse' too (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett). That's my opinion. I recognize your opinion of Mr. Day's book, but it is just an opinion. The quote from the book... it's in error? How about the same subjects (university professors), but substituting democrat, or liberal (I repeat myself) for atheist? One of my favorite rebuttals to the 'new' atheists is David Berlinski's (agnostic university professor), "The Devil's Delusion". I'll attempt a sample in the hope that I'm not, yet again, violating copyright, even though it's not a poem: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism ... materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard. "Why should any discerning man or woman take the side of science, or anything else, under these circumstances? It is because, Lewontin explains, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." If one is obliged to accept absurdities for fear of a Divine Foot, imagine what prodigies of effort would be required were the rest of the Divine Torso found wedged at the door and with some justifiable irritation demanding to be let in?" "The Devil's Delusion", David Berlinski As more and more of the "Divine Torso" intrudes into the all 'natural' scientism parlor, the more comical the attempts to get the door slammed back shut. The self-existent universe that solves its identity crisis by evolving humans has been replaced, by an infinite number of universes among which there's sure to be at least one without party crashing Deities barging in. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It’s in error either way, or to be more exact the argument Day uses based on the quote is. Day has tried to use two intelligent, but unconvincing, arguments from authority used by Dawkins in the God Delusion as an argument against Atheists by using an ad hominem argument against the authorities themselves instead of challenging conclusions of those authorities. Dawkins offered the argument that atheism must be right because lots of intelligent people believe hat it’s right. The easiest and most intelligent counter to that argument from authority is that even intelligent people can get things wrong. Day avoids the easy answer though and instead decides to follow Dawkins into the a dark alley by attacking the intelligence of the (dis)believers. Dawkins also pointed out in his book that suicide bombers were invariably religious, the supposed inference being that if you take away religion you take away suicide bombers - another fallacy. Day decided to take this one step further and specifically associate suicide bombing with Muslims. Again he didn’t use the simple rebuttal that religion is only one convenient excuse among a whole heap of possible excuses and that man is just as likely to use one of those if religion were unavailable. Instead he decided to take the opportunity to malign Muslims and, presumably, distance or elevate his own religion at the same time. Yes, lots of intelligent people are atheists and lots of suicide bombers are religious, to recognise that fact is intelligent but trying to counter the assertion by attacking source of the data instead of the conclusion shows a fundamental lack of intelligence. Both Day and Dawkins are preaching to the converted, Dawkins by attacking the purported evidence offered by his opponents, Day by trying to attack the intelligence of atheists. It sort of fits nicely in this thread. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Scientific method as I understand it is supposed to follow where the data leads, not follow where the data leads except when it may challenge the pre-suppositions of the investigators, whatever those should happen to be. By itself, scientific method should be neutral on religious issues. They should be grist for the mill, open to exploration as might be any other subject and let the chips fall where they may. It seems that much of the discussion here suggests that the answers to such investigations should be known before the investigations are undertaken. As far as I understand, there have been no such experiments designed or undertaken to either prove or disprove any question about the existence of God because the subject seems difficult to frame in experimental terms. I do not claim to know everything, so if anybody knows more about this than I do, I'd be pleased to hear from you. Short of finding a way to frame the question of the existence of God in experimental terms, I don't know that we can actually hope to find a scientifically acceptable answer to this particular question using the scientific method — which is what most folks mean when they talk about science these days. I believe for either faction, that of science or religion — if indeed one can talk about them as separate and not as simply two competitive religious points of view — to claim scientific authority for its point of view ion the nature and existence of God is probably shall we say premature at this point. We can't even formulate the problem effectively in terms everybody will agree upon. If we actually want to resolve the issue in a scientific way by using the scientific method (as opposed to by using observation, for example, or data gathering, or reasoning, or logic or any of the other methods that have historically been considered "scientific") we'll need to break the problem down into bite-sized pieces, and test them out one by one, or gain operational agreement on definitions that we have so far been too contentious to achieve. Otherwise, we'll still be chucking ill-defined abstractions at each other until the quarks come home to roost. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Religion and Science overlap, but are not the same. Religion cannot be tested by "science", if by it you mean the scientific method. However, if a religion makes particular claims, a inferential method at least similar to science can be used to ask whether those claims are tenable. In the same way that religion cannot be tested by science, science itself cannot be tested by religion ... since science goes on working regardless of one's metaphysical views or spiritual beliefs. However, it can ask whether the nature of science is compatible with non-religious views of reality. Does the law-likeness and orderliness found in nature and humanity, which makes science possible, make any sense in an atheistic universe? They are not embittered enemies To prove each other fiction Though they've often clawed each other They have different jurisdiction But neither as self-contained Seperate independent spheres They overlap and help reform In a way, they're more like peers. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Nice piece of verse, Stephen. Thank you. Bob. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I don't want to give the idea that God's revelation and human science are "equals". But rather that Theology and science, from the human side of things, are akin, but not competing traditions after the same goal (except in their perverted forms). One is the study of God's word, the other of God's world. And in spite of their differences, there is a lot of overlap. Bob, thanks for the compliment. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-21-2008 12:38 AM).] |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
It may be simply a shortcoming in my education, upbringing, or intellect, but I've asked the following of many folks and still search in vain for understanding: When empiricists stray from the realm of 'science' and wander into the philosophy and theology departments, leaving muddy Birkenstock tracks all over the place, can they still call it scientific 'theory' or 'hypothesis', while excluding all but materialistic presuppositions? Is it, or is it not, scientific that 'something cannot come from nothing', the neo-alchemy of "abiogenesis" notwithstanding? When it's pontificated, in oversized words swaddled in rhetorical lab coats, that all that IS simply appeared, out of nothing, for no reason at all...an uncaused cause; is that "science" and thereby a neutral (as in the 'establishment clause') intrusion into the religious / philosophical realm? When it's by law, exclusively taught to children in State schools that they are nothing more than accidentally animated pieces of meat, is that also neutral? Do the observable (unintended?) consequences of that teaching bear the evidence of neutrality? "What is a big deal - the biggest of all - is how you get something out of nothing... Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either - despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. 'In the beginning', they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...' Whoa: Stop right there. You see what I mean. First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of the quantum hats." - David Darling British astronomer and science writer |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No, that would be theology, remember, the bit where the big guy with the beard creates everything out of thin air. I’ve never heard of any reasonable or proven scientific theory that suggested that anything came from nothing. Even the often quoted spontaneous appearance of sub-atomic particles, a verified event sometimes used as an example of “something from nothing“, is in reality a conversion of energy into matter. I may be wrong of course - can you give me some examples of scientific theory regarding something from nothing? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, You ask poets about Physics and Chemistry and hope to walk away with a comprehensive answer? I couldn't even begin to give you details. But isn't this why such events are called "singularities?" Unless I have my terms mixed up. And besides, this goes back to my comments about "Black Box" above. Any unknown process in which you know there is an input and an output but where you don't know the details of the process that happens inside is open to being called a "Black Box" process. You can theorize about the processes that happen within the "black box," but this doesn't substitute for a level of understanding that allows you to duplicate that process in detail on your own. In our case we have labeled one theoretical set of contents for that box "God." Another we have labeled "physics." The Taoists talk about an initial state of wuji that led to taiji — related but not, I believe, the same as the martial art. There must be further theoretical possibilities I can't recall or don't know about. They may or may not be mutually exclusive. I say this because they are, by definition, "Black Boxes," and their exact content is unknown or we would be able to duplicate it ourselves, wouldn't we? I think we are at the stage of expressing faith in one or another of these solutions. Having faith is a fine thing. In religion it may, some feel, be an end in itself, yet say they hold a position of reason. In science, many deny it is desirable, yet still act as if they were motivated by it. We are, I believe, creatures of contradiction; that is part of our logical structure. We have yet to come to grips with this in ourselves. In neither case, that of religion nor that of science, have we found a way to duplicate the primal act of creation. It is still inside the Black Box, and it seems that it is likely to remain there for at least the remainder of the year. Perhaps a week to two longer. I would hold off on victory celebrations on either side for at least that long. Sincerely, Bob Kaven P.S. I will be pleased to send you a small noisemaker when the the contents of this particular black box are understood, provided the two of us are still able to remember the promise and you send me an address when the happy (or unhappy) event occurs. Cheers! BK |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Nope. I hope they’ll either present some evidence of a scientific theory that substantiates their assertion or they’ll realise that the assertion is actually incorrect. Call me old fashioned but when I read this: When it's pontificated, in oversized words swaddled in rhetorical lab coats, that all that IS simply appeared, out of nothing I want a evidence to substantiate that the scientists in rhetorical lab coats actually exist and evidence of their alleged pontificating regarding the creation of something from nothing. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch you're right, Atheistic scientists tend to believe in things like abiogenesis, multiverse theory, or panspermia, and so end up advocating a nature that is eternal ... or either eternally putting off the question. I think DRS's point is that they are willing to embrace much that is not scientific ... and are not slow to speak of their own favored metaphysics. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: How can a hypothesis that’s still being tested as part of the scientific process NOT be scientific? You’re mistaking the process of scientific method for an unproven claim represented as truth - something akin to the biblical genesis story for instance. Abiogenisis isn’t embraced, it’s investigated and tested and if it’s found to be false it’ll be rejected, that’s how the process works Stephen. Scientists don’t stand at a pulpit rhyming off the same old diatribe without questioning the rhyme or reason, they’re allowed to think, they’re allowed to test their theories and when proved correct they’re allowed to replace the outmoded truth with their own. More power to their elbow is all I can say. |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Grinch, So... Just how might you suppose that all this STUFF got here, and incidentally, a self-conscious you, to contemplate it? Scientific something from nothing: faerie tales "Abiogenesis" "Punctuated Equilibrium” “Quantum Speciation” “Panspermia” "Pangenesis" "Gemmules" "Lamarkism" "Zoogenesis" "Hopeful Monster Mechanism" "Blind Watchmaker" "Anagenesis" "phyletic evolution" "Cladogenesis" "Chronocline" "String Theory" "[T]he current pantheon of scientists has become more than willing to believe in practically anything: that our universe evolved from an emptier, four-dimensional, mini-universe where space and time as we know it didn't exist; that a universe prior to ours "tunnelled through" to become our universe; that achieving ultimate knowledge of our world is best attempted by atomizing elementary particles into their smallest discoverable parts; that life sprang up "on the backs of crystals"; that Earthly beings may have been "seeded" by an alien race from another planet." Eyre/Berlinski and my personal favorite: the un-caused cosmic identity crisis universe that 'created' us to solve its low self-esteem issues. Psuedo-scientific alchemists, digging for fools gold in the pliant language of post-modern relativism. ************************************************ Esse quam videri To be, rather than to appear "[A] great many men and women take the universe in stride, and if they are disposed to ask why it is there, they are easily pleased with the answer that the physicist (and Nobel laureate) Frank Wilczek insouciantly offered: "The universe," he wrote, "appears to be just one of those things." A willingness to let the matter rest in this way is a characteristic of individuals that William James described as "healthy minded" - another way of describing them as thick." David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion" |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Dirt Roads Scholar, Clumping theories with various degrees of acceptability into one group and inviting me to reject them all wholesale does not respect even my own limited understanding of science. I have a particular fondness for the Greek pantheon, myself; I find it embodies a lot of psychological insight into the nature of people. Clumping Hermes with the Hebrew God in an effort to dismiss the overall notion of Gods in general would, I suspect, raise some eyebrows around here. If not eyebrows, potentially blood pressures. James Hillman makes an interesting case for polytheism, if you're ever moved to have a look, by the way. I would feel odd trying to convince anybody, myself, of the validity of the position, though I am fond of it. Lamarck was pretty much disposed of almost two hundred years ago; you're beating a dead horse, at least in the minds of most people. String theory is not in a position to be proved or disproved at this point. If you didn't know that before, you know that now. This doesn't mean it's less interesting or even true than much religious thinking. The metaphysics of science and religion have often seemed to me to bear an uncanny similarity to each other. This I have often thought, may account for much of the unwarranted hostility the two bear each other. Bright, friendly, well-meaning people will often cross the street to insult each other on the subject. Why not separate out the subjects of your scorn a bit more finely, unless you actually are lumping all these examples together with an equal level of dismissal: A mistake, I suspect, that makes your point somewhat less cogent than it might otherwise seem. For example, your scorn for Alchemy suggests that you accept the 19th century view of the field, and that you may not be familiar with the amount of work Newton put in on the subject, nor with some of Jung's work relating Alchemical transformations to the stages of transference development. He has an interesting volume in his collected Works called Alchemical Studies which, while difficult, has at least a significant philosophical interest and — for me at least — a psychological interest as well. As for string theory, you may express scorn if you will, but the work on 'Branes and higher dimensions is quite interesting, and offers an interesting bridge between the findings of those interested in quantum physics and those interested in the world of the Einsteinian Universe, the worlds governed by probability and geometry as I think of them, probably mistakenly. I believe it was in Robert Greene that I came across some speculations about the shape of the universe (most likely saddle shaped) and at the nature of what was outside the universe (apparently the theory that was being considered was that there was nothing outside the universe, in somewhat the same way that there is only a single side to a mobius strip; you go as far as you can in one direction and find yourself back at the beginning. When you read some of these science folks who are any good at writing in English and translating the concepts from math — which I do not speak — you find yourself having to consider a whole new range of beautiful and charming ideas. Sometimes they seem to slip away like a handful of sand gripped under water. Sometimes, you are able to retain them or parts of them. I can't say that any of these ideas are as beautiful as salvation or love, to offer two examples, but they are different and have a startling otherworldly beauty that is captivating as well. It's a pleasure that should be indulged as far as one is capable of doing so. I believe it's another way of of understanding many of the great religious ideas, and if you can get some understanding of both approaches to the world, it feels like acquiring stereoscopic vision instead of looking at the world with one eye closed all the time. At least for me, and at least in my own limited understanding. Sincerely, Bob Kaven Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t know, but more to the point nor do you, fortunately science offers us a way to get closer to the truth. Scientists suggest that we make a stab at a guess and then we test the hypothesis, any knowledge gleaned in the process is kept, anything disproved is discarded, theologists on the other hand say god did it and leave it at that. quote: Nice words, here’s one in return - TWADDLE! You seem to be labouring under the false impression that scientists are somehow wedded to their theories, that they are the be all and end all of the scientific method rather than a target to be proved or disproved. Scientifically proven truth and increased knowledge is what scientists embrace, they’re as likely to jump for joy disproving a previously held scientific fact as they are establishing a new one. You’re dismissing theories without evidence to support your dismissal - they’re dismissing or confirming theories by searching for evidence. I know who I’m more likely to believe. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, Grinch! |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Dear Bob, I don't necessarily believe that there's an unbreachable gulf 'twixt us here, but there seems to be hints of a familiar 'talking past each other' occurring. I recently read an article by a multiple degree holding academic who was bemused that his prodigious education had contributed greatly to his being unable to initiate or hold a conversation with the plumber he had hired. And they say homeschoolers are socially deprived (a scurrilous myth). I am a non-degree holding contractor, supporting a large family, and therefore forced to deal more exclusively in the concrete rather than the theoretical. I do read alot, but will be unlikely to find openings in my seemingly endless list for your suggestions. A man's got to know his limitations, and I haven't the head for quantum physics. It's a possibility you might have a few difficulties in realms I take for granted, I don't know (how well do you shoot?). As an example, when friends of mine wax eloquent on theology, which I have a passing interest in, I usually ask, "Yes, but how does that work itself out here on the ground, where I walk out my faith?" My purpose in "clumping theories" together was merely to illustrate what seems fairly obvious to those of us paying attention and, in turn, bemused by ivory tower folk - that a great many in the faith community of scientism (or science fetishists as I've heard them referred to), will believe in virtually anything at all... as long as it isn't God. Not only 'not God', but specifically the Christian God, who seems to pose the same terrifying threat to them that the bogeyman does to a three year old. The concept of 'intelligent design' plays the part of the monster in the closet, I suppose. But all that is no more than the inarticulate prattling of superstitious peasants, while the concept of a multi-verse (a large number of nursery rhymes?) is the epitome of sensibility, reason and logic. I didn't see a defense of Mr. Berlinski's list of esoteric science fiction held by some of the various sects. Is he qualified to mock scientism's pretensions? Even if not, he still has an exquisite knack for it. Thank you for the heads up. I will henceforth include alchemy on my list as certified. I realize my viewpoint is compromised by unfamiliarity with the lofty realms of lab-coated high priests, but in my own proletarian way I wonder if any of these theories are any more or less provable than the presupposition of an un-caused Cause that we call God. Is it really science, to 'theorize' on meta-physical and mystery of life subjects, following where the evidence leads and, a priori, excluding all but materialistic answers? There's an entire ballet of dances that are normally made at this point, and you may display a few new steps - but to us here on the ground it looks like nothing so much as the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel, in a frenzied, self-mutilating, dervish to wake the dead deity. In the midst of this veritable cornucopia of possibilities, one will end up being right, and the others wrong - any longing for endless subtle nuance notwithstanding. You can stick with the relativistic position if it's more comfortable. I have as close to zero respect for relativism as I do doctrinaire materialism, mainly because of the inherent bald-faced lie in positing a viewpoint the advocate of which hasn't, doesn't, and will never actually practice. So, again, for those of us mired down here in the mud of reality, some things make sense, and others do not... some things work, and others have proven a waste of time (e,g. - Communism isn't an abject lethal failure because it 'hasn't been done right' yet). Not the most intellectual titillating of perspectives, but it keeps us from standing oblivious in the rain, and walking off cliffs unawares. I appreciate your cordiality, and trust your indulgence of my acerbic demeanor. I've long ago tired of intellectual morons, and smarmy condescending elitist poseurs, and am pleasantly surprised to find an exception in you. It's a rare treat. I'll have to try and recall my naive attitude from back when I was tilting at windmills, before they morphed into windbags. There might be something to gain, or even give. "What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?" James Joyce |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Grinch' That I believe in an 'unprovable' myth is "more to the point" than your belief in an 'unprovable' myth? This where I get the overwhelming sense of pretentiousness from. "[The world] has been built for us by the Best and Most Orderly Workman of all." Copernicus "God is known ... by Nature in His works and by doctrine in His revealed word." Galileo "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." Pasteur "When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." Newton A very short list. Am I to take it on your word that these men and their many peers ceased their work after these statements? A very illuminating, and definitive word, "twaddle". No doubt a new cutting edge term of empirical apologetics in religious scientism's war with the heresies of other religions. In general, whether religiously, or in fear for their positions, grant money, favorable peer reviews, or invitations to faculty cocktail parties, a majority of 'scientists' are wedded to any materialist proposition at all. They would be just as happy with "quantum flutter", as they would be with the un-caused self-existent universe for whom we play the part of cosmic security blanket. It doesn't matter what IT is, as long as it's not God. You're dismissing a theory without evidence to support your dismissal. "With the possibility of inexistence staring it in the face, why does the universe exist? To say that the universe just is, as Stephen Hawking has said, is to reject out of hand any further questions. We know that it is. It is right there in plain sight. What philosophers such as ourselves wish to know is why it is. It may be that at the end of our inquiries we will answer our own question by saying that the universe exists for no reason whatsoever. At the end of these inquiries, and not the beginning. Two arguments are now at work. The first is due to [Thomas] Aquinas. Its first premise: If the universe is contingent [*], then at some time it did not exist. It's second: At that time it emerged from nothing. Its conclusion: This is crazy. And the second argument, derived from a mixed salad of philosophical greens of my own devising: Its first premise: If the universe is contingent, there is no saying whether it existed forever. Maybe. Maybe not. Its second: If anything might not exist, then it's reasonable to ask why it does exist. Its conclusion: Well, why does it exist? No, I mean really?" [contingent: dependant upon or conditioned by something else. not logically necessary] "The Devil's Delusion, Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions", David Berlinski (interviewed in the excellent documentary "Expelled") Don't know about y'all, but I enjoy the occasional obscure synapse brain tickle. Mr. Berlinski is an oddity I've never before encountered; a funny, agnostic philosopher. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: And those people were famous for their theological advancements or their scientific discoveries? quote: If god is, or can ever be, proved to be anything more than a myth it’s highly likely that the evidence that will come from science, granted it’s not likely that the scientist that makes the discovery will actually be looking for it. That’s got more to do with the bit I mentioned earlier, they take a stab at there best guess and most scientist don’t really think “god did it” is a very good theory to test. quote: I suppose you could say that Stephen Hawking rejects further questions, unfortunately nobody is likely to believe you though largely due to the fact that he’s continually posing them and doing his best to answer them. That’s an odd type of rejection if you ask me. quote: Has god always existed? You want me to accept that something I know exists can’t have existed forever while insisting that an entity I’ve never seen has always existed - snake oil anyone? This goes back to your insistence that science presumes that something came from nothing, as I’ve pointed out that simply isn’t correct. quote: Why it exists? Why presume a why? Why does a pebble exist? Why does the universe exist? There’s no necessity to impose or presume a why, as a well known physicist might say “it just is” - the question he’s trying to answer is HOW not why. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mr. Scholar, "Relativity" is a name that Einstein was as unhappy with as you are, and for many of the same reasons. He was especially unhappy because it sounded like "relativism," which made people unhappy even in the teens and twenties of the last century. Einstein thought "relativity" was emphatically not "relativism." And you, sir, are emphatically, not stupid, nor will you get me to dumb myself down and pretend that you are. If you are insecure about your knowledge base, expand it with your reading. You invited people to speak with you about science and the value of it. Don't switch topics and attempt to defend the value of a religious devotion that is admirable in itself and produces some fine people, but does not require you make accusations you find it difficult to support. As it happens, I believe your religious position is as fine and valid a position as any atheist's or that of any scientist, atheist or not. Stephanos, unless I mistake his current thinking, thinks intelligent design is a useful position to hold, and Stephanos is a fine man indeed. About this I happen to disagree with him, and with you. By far the bulk of the research and evidence seems to disagree with you as well, and the convention in science is that what is taught in a science course, at least in public school, is what the scientific consensus agrees is the mostly well substantiated theory accepted by the widest range of people in the field. The reason for this convention is that there really isn't much time devoted to science in public schools. In college, if you major in science, you can specialize and take special topics. Around evolution and geology and fields of this sort, I'm not certain how new people in the field would be able to do research that most folks would consider cutting edge from a Biblical perspective, but perhaps there might be some way it could be done. I have a fine motor tremor in my hands, probably from years of asthma medications. So yeah, I can shoot, but you wouldn't want to be standing in front of me if I had a firearm of any sort in my hand. I can probably be reasonably certain of hitting someplace within a thirty degree arc of a target at fifty feet with a .22 rifle. I'm better with a bow, though quite out of practice. As for dealing with everyday folks, I spent an awful long time as a psychiatric aid in state and private hospitals when I was younger, and I collected more than my fair share of lumps and injuries. I have next to no education in science myself, but I try to find decently written books in the field and do try to read them. Most of them, the ones that don't have pages of formulas, usually make sense if I think about them a little bit. I also think about religion and theology and loads of other things. I know enough about enough things to know how dumb I am, and I have enough pride that I tend to run away with myself sometimes and forget it. Mr. Scholar, all I ask is that you read some of the stuff that you're being caustic about, or people talking about. I seriously doubt that anybody will actually challenge your faith, which sounds solid, but they should give you additional miracles to contemplate that won't settle for easy answers. You will also run across a fair number of numbskulls, as you would anyplace, and they will validate your impression that just because a guy is smart doesn't make him wise. It can make him rigid and idiotic and smug as well as smart, which is a rotten combination. Every now and again, though, you run across people who really make the effort worth while. God didn't simply invest you with common sense, you know; he gave you a brain to expand or have it wither away on you. As you get older, it's important to keep making new neural connections in your brain. It helps you stay healthy. Nice Chatting, Yours, Mr. Potato Head |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Grinch, "And those people were famous for their theological advancements or their scientific discoveries?" The two are not exclusive, nor incompatible. I would venture to say that those men, and a precious few today viewed science, I've heard it said,as 'thinking God's thoughts after Him'. I read an article by a theoretical mathematician, who also happened to be an atheist, who was perplexed by the fact that there was even such a thing as mathematics, when in and un-caused undesigned universe there shouldn't be. "If god is, or can ever be, proved to be anything more than a myth..." If the multi-verse can ever be proved to be more than a glorified, peyote inspired grasp at a desperate straw.... "You want me to accept that something I know exists can’t have existed forever while insisting that an entity I’ve never seen has always existed - snake oil anyone?" "Existed forever"? Do you hear yourself? In Valhalla perhaps? We really just choose our 'myths' don't we? We get to decide which ones make the most sense. Something from nothing, or eternal un-caused existence, order from chaos, undesigned design, life from non-life, etc., appeals to you for personal subjective reasons having nothing to do with the cloak of science. Those concepts have no appeal to me at all, and strike me as particularly counter-intuitive, and psychologically suspect. "The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores." Julian Huxley "I was more than happy to latch onto Darwinism as an excuse to jettison the idea of God so I could unabashedly pursue my own agenda in life without moral constraints." Lee Strobel Darwinism, atheism, and scientism are interchangeable in those statements. "This goes back to your insistence that science presumes that something came from nothing, as I’ve pointed out that simply isn’t correct." And the notion that the universe is just one of those things, that was always just there, is an improvement over the erroneous conclusion that scientists would like us to believe the universe just poofed into being out of nowhere and nothing, for no reason? "Why presume a why? Why does a pebble exist? Why does the universe exist? There’s no necessity to impose or presume a why, as a well known physicist might say “it just is” - the question he’s trying to answer is HOW not why." Just one of those things. Right. God help us if y'all ever acquire the reins of power. The "Borg" looks attractive in comparison. "Finite, changing things exist. For example, me. I would have to exist to deny that I exist; so either way, I must really exist. Every finite, changing thing must be caused by something else. If it is limited and it changes, then it cannot be something that exists independently. If it existed independently, or necessarily, then it would have always existed without any kind of change. There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes. In other words, you can’t go on explaining how this finite thing causes this finite thing, which causes this other finite thing, and on and on, because that really just puts off the explanation indefinitely. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists." Norman Giesler |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Hey Bob, Funny, I didn't feel insecure before. Should I? You can be however dumb or smart you want to be with me. Don't wait for me to ask. Regardless of the dodge, "given enough time" to come up with proof, do you believe that "science" is making unverifiable philosophical statements when it makes bold, spectacular proclamations about origins, whether they are dressed up as "theory" or not? Again, it's just my worldview, but that stuff sure looks no different than any other profession of faith to me. Religion used to be integral to science, and I think the reason it isn't now is because of competing faith claims. Unlike the new congregants of scientism, I don't believe that science has an answer for everything. Empirically test love..... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Don't suppose anybody wants to start another thread? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear N.G., If you're not feeling insecure, you're probably not looking is my take on the matter. I tend to be very worried by people who profess to have answers for me or for anybody else. So, yes, from where I sit, you probably should be insecure. Not specifically you, mind you, simply anybody who's paying attention. Last I looked, everybody dies, you know, and mostly nobody says when. Everybody wants to go to Heaven, nobody wants to die. I owe that to a Steven Segal movie, much cherished. Sadly, I find I'm unable to be smarter than I am, and the depths of my foolishness constantly amaze me by revealing new depths. Would that I could provide them with some sort of floor. The more I talk, the more stupid I get. You'd think I'd have learned to shut up by now. But no. I think that we must be reading different folks if you feel that science is making bold proclamations. The scientific literature hardly has it within itself to suggest "further research should be conducted" about topics on which they reached some fairly interesting conclusions. The press will often make exaggerated claims for the meaning of research results. Scientists often joke about this. Such claims are less frequently made by scientists themselves. Check out an issue or two of Science or Nature, two of the big science journals and you'll see what I mean. Beyond that, "Philosophical Statements" are by their very nature different than "scientific statements." "Scientific statements" or statements of scientific theory should be testable, or should be in some condition where they are being worked into condition for being tested by collection of data that will confirm or deny the hypothesis being tested. Ideally, scientific statements should be concrete as a brick, or their tests should be. Philosophical statements may contain elements which are untestable by their very nature. Science is generally a version of one sort of philosophy — materialism — and it generally abides by the rules of that particular philosophical viewpoint. Philosophical Statements in general may be about any form of philosophy, some of which are antithetical to the materialistic (not in the sense of money, but in the sense of concentration on concrete things) viewpoint. It is less likely that science will make an unverifiable assertion about a subject of study, I believe, than most other philosophies, simply because it is a point of view that specializes in the study of concrete things and how they behave. It has developed techniques for making things that would seem abstract — the energies in atoms, for example — into more material objects of measurement and study. I find it, at time, almost annoying, the amount of ingenuity science has shown. I also admire it. Once the subject has changed from the concrete objects of the world, I believe, and looks at things that actually are abstract and philosophical, I believe that science is not such a useful instrument. I believe that it is essentially, on those subjects, no different that any other system of beliefs, and its prejudices are on display as unattractively as the prejudices of any other philosophy (or religious system, for that matter) can show themselves under conditions when the tenets of the philosophy itself are stressed. Scientific theories about origins seem to have as much validity as any other story about origins as far as I'm concerned. All of them show the persistence of man's need to tell the story of his origins. It's an archetype that man seems to construct for himself in every culture. Science, being as active a religious culture (I think) as any other on the planet, certainly has a right to its own creation story. Because it is a materialistic philosophy, it must insist that the story be literally true. In this it has a lot in common with lots of fundamentalist faiths throughout the world, from Osama Bin Laden to Oral Roberts to the some of the most conservative Popes, all share the conviction of literal correctness. Many of them share the evangelical zeal of the more annoying atheists in the scientific community, who simply won't let you alone and will give you no peace until you acknowledge the rightness of their revelation. All of them give me a migraine from time to time. Heaven knows how badly I frustrate them. quote: In science and in Christianity and Judaism, there is a sort of millennial passion. All of them must come to grips with the fact that everything isn't perfect now. You distort the position of science if you say that science says it has an answer for everything. What they say is we don't have that answer YET. The implication is that sometime in the future the answer will come if we simply retain our faith in the Scientific Method. In the fullness of time, that answer WILL COME. The Jews say, "Next year in Jerusalem!" or "Comes the Messiah!" The Christians say, "Your reward will come in Heaven" or When the messiah Returns." You need to keep faith with your insight, I think, about science being one religion among many, and notice that the other religions do the same thing as science does in this case as well. Very interesting Conversation, N.G. Unusual last name. Any relationship with the good Doctor? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Oh Grinch, you're right. Science is properly neutral on the question of God, since belief or disbelief in God is existential in nature, and provides a framework by which to interpret "evidence". I wasn't speaking of how science should be, but how it really is sometimes. Atheism really is portrayed as (by Dawkins et al) a scientific conclusion. And though things like abiogenesis and panspermia are not fully embraced as scientific (well there's no way they can), they are warmly spoken of in some circles. Even you tended to link Darwinism with Atheism in a thread not long ago. I could quote you a host of published who have erroneously linked the science with the metphysics/quasi-religion of atheism. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I see nothing about evolution that is inherently atheistic. There may be a problem when you try to make it fit with some religious positions, but many religious positions have that same problem with each other. I see science as a materialist attempt at a religious position, but even that is too limiting a way to talk about either science or religion and their area of overlap. |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Bob, That was a quote from Norman Geisler, an author I'm very familiar with ("I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", etc.). I'm not looking for inclusion in next year's list of the 100 most unobtrusive moderates. Subtlety and nuance are more appropriate for the arts than ideals to live by. Grey is not a universal tint. Ideas have consequences, and the arena they are put to the test in is not an amorphous sponge-like place, absorbing all in its pregnable embrace. There are real effects relating to which of the viewpoints are ascendant, impacting actual humans for good or ill. Atheistic, State worshipping Communism being given an ethereal, benign sounding title such as Dialectic Marxist THEORY is scant comfort to it's 100 million dead. This may well be better suited to another thread. I don't know. But on the vast majority of these forums where Christianity inevitably becomes pitted against everything from cosmic relativistic 'tolerance', to militant atheism, these same conflicts arise. A couple of questions that intrigue me: Given the premise of the Christian precept of God's desire for a voluntary personal relationship with His human creation - if you were God, how would you achieve that goal, avoiding the 'problem of evil'? There is a stark divide between the notions of an innately 'good' humanity, and a 'Fallen', sinful humanity (this is where I can almost sympathize with the alternate universe crowd... innate goodness is not registering on my radar when I look out my front door). The question: What do you imagine the world would look like had there never been a Jesus Christ or Christianity to impress an inner restraint on what we see men inclined to do down all recorded history to this day? Arranging externals 'just so', though I'm sure the social engineers 'meant well', has obviously been less than a stellar success... but maybe, given enough time - billions of years perhaps? "You distort the position of science if you say that science says it has an answer for everything. What they say is we don't have that answer YET. The implication is that sometime in the future the answer will come if we simply retain our faith in the Scientific Method. In the fullness of time, that answer WILL COME." BK This is classic. The distinction is invisible. Scientists say that eventually, given enough time (absolutely anything is possible - see the list of faerie tales), the "Scientific Method" (may Its Holiness be ever exalted, and Its enemies perish) if worshipped faithfully, and not allowed to be profaned by heresies and the superstitions of the unenlightened, the mystery of an autonomous, self-existent, strictly material cosmos will be revealed. On that great day, the clouds will part, the scales will be lifted from all eyes, and the sky will reflect the sacred Periodic Tables as far as from East to the West. DRS May those who love us love us, And may God turn the hearts of those who don't. And if He doesn't turn their hearts, may He turn their ankles, So we may recognize them by their limping. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I forgot to challenge you on your statement about research being in favor of Neo-Darwinian evolution ... Could you site me any studies where transition of one complex system to another has been demonstrated scientifically? (such as how a light-sensitive spot becomes an eye, step by step, etc...) As I recall it was Michael Behe's contention that his years in the halls of dogmatic Darwinism saw no such research. I think intelligent design and Darwinism are both inferential in nature, if not heavily scientific. I just think one is more reasonable and intuitive than the other, given the astonishing complexity of micro-biology revealed in recent years. No one has really come up with a reason why Paley's argument was flawed. Of course his argument for design would hold whether evolution is true or not. But is there really scientific validity to the theory of common ancestry, or is it more of a strange mix of a light smattering of science and heavy philosophy? Theories of gradualism had their beginnings in Greek speculation, not in test tubes. It seems to me that forbidding ID in schools is groundless, given the nature of Darwinism as currently supported, understood, and taught. Though it would be interesting what ID could do if it had the same kinds of support and grants ... now, at the very least, it's the kettle and the pot. ID may not have established itself as bonfide and pure science ... but it has debunked evolution pretty well, though dogmatists will ever hold true. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear DRS, My mistake, I’d thought somehow you were a reincarnation of the late Dr. Seuss, whose real last name was, I think, Geisler. I wasn’t reading closely enough, and I paid the price. I disagree with you about subtlety and nuance, having spent a at least a little time with the Tao te Ching and having been well rewarded for my troubles. I’ve started nibbling at Confucius and I find myself well over my head almost immediately, but fascinated. Neither are gray. Communism is I think atheistic because it is a variation also on Materialism as a philosophy. If you’re going to talk about it, though, it might be useful to stay clear about your subject. Communism itself does not worship the State, and in fact seeks to cause the state to wither away. This is Marxist theory. It’s also supposed to happen in industrialized countries where Capitalism is the primary economic system. Instead, thanks to the Germans in WWI, it got its launch in Russia, which was a feudal society just beginning to venture into Democracy, and a country that was virtually unindustrialized at all. What happened there was some odd mixture of Marxism with additional theory by Lenin and later additions by Stalin. I doubt if Marx would have recognized his child at all. The appeal that the Russian (later Soviet) model had was largely to agrarian countries with a government of authoritarian oligarchies. The folks who felt the appeal were those on the bottom. If you were on the bottom in a situation like that, I suspect you would have found some of those solutions appealing as well. The notion of a historical dialectic is hardly specific to Marx, and it is a good one. We make use of it in this country all the time without calling it that, so nobody gets their feathers ruffled. But when we talk about “the pendulum” of history swinging between left and right and everybody nods their heads sagely, that’s another way of talking about the dialectic. Hopefully everybody learns a little something during each swing, so the whole tea party reaches a new point of progress — if you don’t mind me mixing my metaphors too much. One extreme, the other extreme, then some sort of synthesis out of the two from which the whole cycle starts again. There’s your pendulum theory, and that’s the dialectic in dialectical materialism. It’s basically a reasonably practical way of looking at history — possibly right, possibly wrong, but likely there’s at least something to it. It’s useful as bricks. As for the 100,000,000 dead, don’t expect me to celebrate them or defend them. As for Christianity, I think it’s a religion and it acts like one. When you say it “becomes pitted” your use of the passive voice leaves out any possibility of understanding how that happens, doesn’t it. It just somehow “becomes pitted.” And somehow out of this “conflicts arise.” From the way you talk, nobody does anything to anybody, there are simply happenings in a world without cause or effect. Given the passivity of such a universe, it’s impossible to discuss actions within it, because nobody actually does anything. Questions within that universe are questions I can’t tackle for you; there’s no responsibility there. I would point out that militant atheism seems as much a valid religious position as fundamentalist Christianity, though, since both of them as going about the process of attempting to convert the unbelievers. I find the practice noxious no matter who does it, but no more noxious in atheists than in Muslims or in Baptists or Mormons. As for your notions of the necessity of Christianity or Jesus Christ to impose restraint on humanity, I respectfully suggest that Hammurabi had an effective set of laws before either. Moses also predated both of them. The Chinese and the Japanese managed very nicely with codes that had no mention of Christianity or Jesus and so do most of the folks in India today. I would suggest that you might want to go back to some of that “recorded history” and read a bit more deeply into the details. Christianity has much to be proud of; being the unique civilizing force on humanity is not one of the things it can lay claim to. You misread my comments about science quoted by you below” "You distort the position of science if you say that science says it has an answer for everything. What they say is we don't have that answer YET. The implication is that sometime in the future the answer will come if we simply retain our faith in the Scientific Method. In the fullness of time, that answer WILL COME." BK And this is your response: quote: You quote my blurb about science accurately enough, but you leave out my comments that suggest that religions like Christianity and Judaism do the same thing by putting of answers to ultimate questions to after death or end time or when the messiah returns or comes for the first time. I make a point of suggesting that the strategy in each situation is the same. Why is it that you would heap scorn upon one of these examples and let the others pass unremarked upon, when my point was that they were doing identical things. Did you miss my point? Or were you loathe to see the similarities and to speak of the others in the same scathing terms you reserved for science? Or were you embarrassed to give science the same bland pass that you gave the other religions? Yours sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, As for me (I can't reply for the scholar) ... I do see similarities. Again, nothing wrong with religion as religion, requiring a degree of faith, or believing the unseen. (mind you its not all unseen- The design inference is a strong one, and prayers are still answered) What I would like to see more than anything else is an admittance of the faith element in what the Dirt Road S. refers to as "scientism" ... that there is a quasi-scientific religion going on. If you are more existentially humble than the scientists I'm speaking of, then perhaps the DRS is barking up the wrong tree? Stephen |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
Bob, I can't decide if this is a shade of 'pale smoke', 'fuzzy sheep', 'ash essence', 'moth grey', 'fog', 'thin ice', or 'arctic cotton'. The possibilities are endless. A grey belt in origami might help, but sadly, I lack credentials in that cutting edge martial art. I'm taking large bites from the bread of life. It leaves a definitive space, and is invigorating. I'm gratified for the corroboration that Communism is just fine, if it's defined correctly, and done right (without interference from fascists for instance). Of course the oppressed proletariat finds it attractive, in that crafted light, and are in good company with anointed, visionary, useful intellectualoids... mostly inhabiting the regrettably un-communist West. I only mention it because, to this proletarian, socialism of all stripes (communist, Marxist, fascist, totalitarian, etc....) looks, sounds, and acts in a distinctly religious manner. And in a purely pragmatic sense, any difference between them is negligible in its felt effects on the peasants. Your disinterested glance at an insignificant 100 million sacrificial dead to the Bolshevik man-god brings to mind a Black editor at our newspaper here, whose very life is contingent upon outrage over slavery in America, 150 years dead and gone. I asked him about Black and Arab slave holders in Darfur and Sudan today, he said that it was their tough luck. I didn't even mention white female slavery in and around the EUtopian environs. Hammurabi's laws were only written on a stone. Those, like socialist-engineering merely arranges external circumstances, designed by other men, to either punish or reward behavior. If we were dealing with innately ‘good’ men, that might have a snowball's chance, but that concept only resides in the theoretical section of utopian elitist brains, and has proven invariably, and spectacularly lethal in practice. Christianity is primarily an internal restraint, whether you warrant the fact or not. It strikes me as the height of presumptuousness to occupy an unmerited safe, protected, prosperous environment, and proceed to disdain the lofty perch provided by better men. It amuses me to picture a freshly minted, ivy league journalism 'school', theoretical Marxist sitting in a dank cellar lockup as the guest of Chavez or El Papa's little brother, quoting Derrida and Foucault to the other political prisoners. Government schools and academia pump these ignorant compliant drones out like so many barrels of tasteless gruel. It's not so much the deferring of the "answer" - science claims it will come, Christians claim it has come - it's what's done in the meantime. We will operate on some premise or another. The motivations and actions of a materialist, or any other false religion will differ radically from those of a Christian. I would assume you believe otherwise, but everyone isn't going to be collectively right. Not even everyone, except Christians. There will be one Truth, and all the others false. If you choose to believe there are a multiplicity of answers, it's not from reason or logic that notion appeals. Certitude is out of fashion, and makes the sheeple anxious. "Heap scorn" in "scathing terms"? Mockery for sure, but scathing scorn would imply some sort of emotional hatred I don't possess, on a subject that might deserve it if its apologists were any more than comical priests. I've no animus for “science” at all. It's the fundamental jihadist radical religious cult of Scientism, and the science fetishists that dearly deserve much more heaping scorn than currently comes their way. But the tide, it is a'turning. "But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. To the question, "How did it all begin?", science answers, "Probably by an accident." To the question, "How will it all end?", science answers, "Probably by an accident." And to many people, the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, "Why are we here?" and, to the question, "What moral instructions do you give us?", the science-god maintains silence." Neil Postman What we have at the moment in the Designed vs. Accidental view of origins, is a crucial front in what has been termed the 'Culture War' - and I don't believe "war" is too provocative a word to use. The competing worldviews in conflict here have distinct, and antithetical consequences attendant to their victory. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, the combatants are not (if in fact they ever were) involved in a 'scientific' debate. The fight is strictly religious, and has very nearly ceased to be a debate at all - and that, by design. We are Balkanized groups in a struggle for supremacy. On the one hand are the fundamentalist Atheistic materialist relativists, and on the other Christianity. The implications are stark: Man is either an autonomous, strictly mechanistic, un-caused accident of blind impersonal self-existant chaos, accountable to no one and nothing but himself - Or he is a created being with a soul and a conscience, designed for relationship with his Creator, and subject to His immutable Truth. It is not beyond the ken of any average human to comprehend what the likely fruit of each of those two religions will be. History has already judged the costs, benefits, and lethality of each. But if 'morality' (whatever that may mean to a relativist) along with reality, is re-made anew each morning, neither history, logic, reason, common sense, nor indeed the ideological term formerly known as empirical science, have any bearing on the issue. For the proponents of Atheocracy, as long as materialist religious dogma rules the day, collateral damage is excused by the notion that, 'we meant well'. One hundred million and counting, formerly animated pieces of meat are merely grist for the insatiable sacrifices demanded by the man-god. No scheme is too heinous, foolish, or deadly, as long as it 'feels' good - and 'good' and 'evil' are interchangeable or meaningless depending only on the whims of 'smart' monkeys. It remains to be seen if history will repeat, and that as debate is stifled and censored the bullets begin to fly. If the historical myth makers and revisionists are 'right'(?) those murderous Christian jihadists will force everyone to bow to their God or die. Or it could be that if the courts inexplicably fail to impose Atheocracy on us by fiat, that the Darwiniacs will find the evangelical fervor to force those counter-revolutionary Christians to convert or die instead, as has already happened in the continuing utopian failures of Communism/socialism. More likely though, the godless will merely have weakened and effeminized the will of Judeo-Christian Western civilization to the point where all any of us really have left is the choice to submit to Islam or die. I for one, have no illusions about what is at stake in this fight, and am compelled to engage in it to the best of my ability, within the constraints of a transcendent set of values. Those constraints leave me at a great disadvantage, but in the end, better to die free than live in bondage to 'well-meaning' amoral sociopathic utopian cultists. Cordially, DRS |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, My sense is that Science is as much a faith based position as Christianity or Judaism. It speaks of promises to be delivered upon in the future if only the adherent will stay the course of the true believer in the present. I think of it as a religious position, as I think of atheism as a religion, all of them insisting on belief in some article of faith. This doesn't mean that I think that each of them don't have contributions to make, and profound contributions at that. I think that problems come from the notion that each of these positions get from time to time that theirs is the only correct position, and that they have the right to impose their position on others by force if necessary. At that point, their rights and my nose must part company in some hopefully polite fashion. But yes, I agree that much of the framework of science is as faith based as any other religious position. Which ones and how, we may have some discussions on. Those holding the position that DRS calls (and I have called from time to time) "Scientism" would likely disagree with me about that because the notion of faith itself is anathema to their basically materialist position, so some sort of linguistic fix or translation or patch would probably be necessary for the discussion to go forward. Possibly not even then. But I agree. All of these are basically religious positions because they require a faith that the basic position will lead mankind into the light in the future. Mr. Scholar disagrees with me because he says that Christianity's promise has already been fulfilled. I respectfully suggest that he believes that to be true, and that he believes the promises are true, but that he can't know except ultimately by faith or reason assisted by faith until he dies. And he's unlikely to be in a hurry to check that promise out for all sorts of great reasons. "Everybody wants to go to heaven; nobody wants to die." I have actually seen discussion of development of eyes from areas of sensitivity to light to full blown eyes, and I can't for the life of me remember where. I'd love to plunk it down right in front of you, simply because you're acting like such a smarty about it. If I do run across it, I'll try to get it to you. I suspect that even if I did send it, though, it wouldn't really matter. I've never actually understood what there is about evolution that means anything at all negative about God or Christianity unless you pretend that everything in the Bible is supposed to be perfectly clear and understandable, and that all that perfect clarity and understanding has already happened. There are sections of the Bible, of the Torah for that matter, that are just there, compressed beyond understanding, and folks have been theorizing about them for thousands of years, back and forth. From your point of view, simply understanding goodness that unimaginable may well be beyond the ability of language to capture or human minds to hold, and the notion that we not only can but have is almost blasphemous. A pint glass can only hold so much of the ocean at one time. We may be able to read the Bible as well as an ordained priest for our purposes, maybe, but we still need to spend a lifetime learning and even then we only scratch the surface. I suspect that the contradiction between evolution and religion is something created by mankind, and is something that doesn't bother God's goodness at all. The bickering is your basic waste of time and goodwill and serves only to sow discord and ill feeling. I'm reading a biography of Moses Miamonides at this point and have come to some interesting passages which, when I have more time, I'll talk with you about, but which seem to bear upon the relationship of science and religion. Best to your and your wife and kids, Sincerely, Bob Kaven Re, eyes: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye [This message has been edited by Bob K (12-24-2008 05:31 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, By the way, if you'll look again, you didn't forget to challenge me on my statement about research being in favor of neo-Darwinian evolution. I made no such statement. I suggested that what should be taught was the theory most commonly accepted and best researched. I'm not up enough on the science generally to give you much of a run for your money on biochemistry. I did my best to give you some stuff on eye evolution, which was pretty much as I remembered it and — as I said before — pretty much beside the point. I think the whole discussion about intelligent design is trying to defend man's understanding of God. That's pretty much downright silly. We do the best we can, assuming there is a God, and not understanding some of the details isn't something we shouldn't get all worked up about. The perfection is supposed to be God's and not ours, and certainly not our understanding, which ranges from genius, which still shouldn't be enough, to idiot, which may. If my experience with idiots is any guide, there are a fair number of pretty decent idiots running around. Why shouldn't intelligent design be taught as science? Because the overwhelming majority of scientists think that it's not science. As you can see from the first link above, apparently thanks to Behe, one can now see evolution as a falsifiable theory, which is much better, much more scientific, and which opens it to modification and change. Unfortunately one can't say the same of intelligent design, which is designed to be an alternative to evolution, near as I can tell, but seems to lack the element of falsifiability. Also, it's level of acceptance in the scientific community is low. It hasn't earned equal time. Perhaps there will be some research surge that will raise its level of validity, and it will earn its place in the classroom. That would solve the problem neatly. Sincerely, Bob Kaven Perhaps out of place, though I don't think so, but a merry Christmas to you and your family. I believe you are fortunate in each other. May your love keep you warm through the year. BK [This message has been edited by Bob K (12-24-2008 09:09 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
To Bob, (and all) Merry Christmas to you and your family. Some days are not fit for debate, but rather sharing simple good will. Stephen |
||
|
Dirt Roads Scholar Junior Member
since 2008-12-19
Posts 13Southern America |
I like you Bob. You are considerably more reasonable than most of those with viewpoints one degree or another in opposition to Christianity. Your most sterling and admirable quality, in my opinion, is that you admit to a leap of faith to ultimately embrace your position. That is nearly unheard of in my experience. The god of "Reason" is most often appealed to, with no basis for why one person's notion, that whatever happens to be rattling around between their ears constitutes 'reason', somehow supercedes someone else's contrary apprehension of reason. To use a favorite of the religious anti-theists de jour, the "theory most commonly accepted" has had many different contenders over time; a flat earth for instance. One question I have great difficulty getting a comprehensible response to is: Given mandatory attended 'public' schools, with court ordered censorship of any challenges to the aforementioned "commonly accepted", "theory" on the origin of the universe, and life in it, why is that not a violation of the vaunted shibboleth of 'separation of church and State'? If you teach a captive audience of children, to the legal exclusion of any problems or limitations of the 'theory', that the universe "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." (Dawkins), and that those same children are nothing more than inexplicably animate random collections of purposeless chemicals cobbled together for no ultimate reason, as the accidental progeny of chaos..... might there be some 'unintended' consequences down the road? It intrigues me that scientists insist that they are anything but intelligently designed, but that I'm somehow obligated to take them seriously. You might at least expect from them the courtesy to wipe the mud from their Birkenstocks before they track them all over the philosophy department. blessings, DRS Darwinian 'McCarthyism' "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Cobb County School System biology textbook sticker U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the sticker "conveys an impermissible message of [religious] endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders." My impression is that there are likely stars and crescent moons festooning Judge Cooper's black robes, and that he likely keeps a tall pointy hat and wand to match, for ceremonial occasions. He should garner serious consideration for the Moonbat of the Year award. If there is anyone denigrated as 'political outsiders' by the legal censorship of factual disclaimers in textbooks it would be those heretics who dare challenge the orthodox Darwinian fundamentalists who have blacklisted free inquiry. DRS ******************************************* Veritas Vos Liberabit |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
BobK, Sorry its taken so long. I've wanted to respond to a couple of points in your replies for some time. Here goes ... quote: On the contrary it would matter, if it were more than a demostration of how creatively some can imagine it to have happened. The large number of morphological overhauls required to get from this point to that, are not to be demonstrated either in the fossil record, or by reproducing the changes. David Berlinski pointed out that for a man to jump off of his sofa and flap his arms and land three feet foward, might be a reasonable inference to the gradual evolution toward the flight of an eagle. Yes, reasonable in the barest sense, but utterly wrong. That, I feel certain, is the kind of inferences we have going on in connecting mind boggling complexities by way of one or two "intermediaries". I just recently noticed you posted a link about this very thing. I will certainly look again. quote: I'm in agreement here Bob. Were Darwinian Evolution (as an explanation for the origin of species) true, I don't think it would eliminate the cry of design. Chesterton told us that a slow miracle is just as much of a miracle as an instantaneous one. Two Caveats: 1) Philosophic naturalism/atheism is catching quite a symbiotic ride on the back of scientific theories of gradualism, which need not be atheistic in implication, but are often presented that way (Dawkins et al). 2) For me, I don't think the evidence even for pure and theologically neutral evolution is forthcoming. quote: Couldn't have put it half so good myself. quote: Look forward to hearing it. I am reading a book by John Lennox right now along the same lines. Fascinating interface, these two. quote: It is pretty much silly, perhaps. And yet, I don't think that's all there is to it. David Berlinski is quite an entertaining and intellectual agnostic who has much to say in doubt of the hegemony of neo-darwinian orthodoxy. I'm glad his shrewd agnosticism flows beyond the stream of religion. There are many irreligious (or those who don't consider evolution as any threat to theism) who consider Neo-Darwinism to be pseudo-science. quote: I agree with most of this. The only problem is that Intelligent Design already offers very valid criticisms which identify Neo-Darwinian Evolution as unscientific. And the insights of ID (and most interestingly, the responses from the other table) have shown that Evolution as presently taught is indeed unfalsifiable. It is a truism that things change, and that organisms survive ... one discovers that that's pretty much all that is there. If ID is in the same boat ... If we're truly clueless about the how (from a scientific perspective at least), then let's hear it all. Presently there is a hegemony which assures consensus, not so much based upon scientific superiority, but upon a kind of tradition ... and yes perhaps even upon a kind of philosophic naturalism. But one thing is for certain, even the thoughtful and valid criticisms from the ID side cannot be brought into the classroom and discussed with impunity. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
