Feel my pain. Listen to this ignorant young woman lie and lie and lie about evolution: Charles Darwin was a theologian who just guessed and didn't do any science, there are no transitional fossils, the cell is very complex and therefore could not evolve, yadda yadda yadda. She has been grossly miseducated, and she's parroting creationist dishonesty with extreme smugness.
There. Now I've ruined your morning.
- Log in to post comments
Now, how many people would actually believe this when reality flatly contradicts it?
But that's the only way creationist dishonesty works. A smug tone is the only way to keep sounding like and idiot and 'being' and idiot from falling in to synchronicity and engulfing everything withing a 400 meter radius in a black hole of stupid.
Well, are there any pictures of Darwin in a lab coat holing a bottle of green, bubbling liquid?
A clear proof that he wasn't a real scientist.
I'm in Sweden, so you ruined my afternoon
:(
I know it's wrong but I really wanted to slap her.
You're right; you did ruin my morning.
Lady, to quote PZ Myers: "Your ignorance about the state of the fossil record is not evidence that there are holes in evolutionary theory."
The very definition of anti-intellectualism.
I can't watch it. It's too painful.
There's another clip from the same group on youtube that's almost as bad. It's pure Kent Hovind level nonsense.
Unfortunately the English language actually needs a new term to describe the attitude of complete ignorance combined with that arrogant air of authority on show here.
I think PZ's summation is enough and I do not intend to listen to the link.
PZ,
HA!!! You can't ruin my morning. The firewall here at work protects me from the Stupid. Of course my evening will be totally shot once I get a chance to review this crap when I get home. All thanks to you. Good going.
OWE!!!!!
Nice Tee Shirt.
Even if the woman put a dent in my morning (I can't view videos at work so she didn't), the paper PZ posted would more than make up for it, as it filled in another gap.
Sigmund: What's wrong with "Weapons-grade Stupidity". I refuse to listen to this person.
JC
#9 Sigmund - the English language already has plenty of words to describe that kind of $%&£*&£WQ$ "£$£*&% £&^$^*&£*.
There is fail, there is epic fail, and there is that SHITE!!!
PZ stop it. Just because you're having a bad day and having to deal with the consequences of evolution, there's no need for you to make us feel your pain so viscerally.
I made 2 minutes.
Worthless speculation is exacly right.
Once again, I'm reminded why I think there should be laws about lying in public or in a way that can be publicly viewed.
I just find it amazing that anyone this totally stupid is able to feed themselves without managing to poke their eye out with the spoon.
What a surprise. Comments have to be "pre-approved" for that video.
If you despise this crap so much, when then do you team up with those who teach this kind of nonsense to fight those of us in the middle (scientist/theists)? When someone sends me an email or posts on my blog and leads with the "incompatibility of science and religion" I have to read on a bit to determine whether the writer is Myers-like or Hovind-like—for the basic attack will be the same in either case. Those of us who are theists and scientists are very effective at reaching people such as this, especially the young. I can not tell you how many times, after speaking to believers on science, I have been told words to the effect that it was wonderful to hear that a pro-science position that didn't have to come at the expense of their beliefs. (True, some at such gatherings will use the heretic word—but one step at a time.)
I don't think you realize what you've done...
You just ruined my life.
Okay, my week. But still...
The smugness is a way to keep people from listening to anyone else and finding out that they are wrong. For a term to describe it, how about "religiosity"? We could just tweak the meaning a little, the way that certain people are trying to change the meaning of science to include "goddidit".
I won't listen and ruin my day. I'm all happy because scientists at Oxford University have solved the mystery of why locusts swarm, besides "God sent them," that is. I saw a Daily Planet science news segment that explained when they get crowded, their legs get tickled and they produce serotonin and change into the the swarming form. But I caught only the latter part of the news item. Then I found the YouTube segment that fills in the details: The trigger for the change is to have tiny hairs on the second segment of the leg stroked for five seconds every minute for four hours. That triggers the change and the locust then grows and moults five times over the next few weeks. It emerges burly, sociable, voracious and ready to fly long distances.
Ouch, the dumb flows.....
*RAGE*
ts'ok. it's afternoon here.
When I was teaching 8th grade social studies I would begin each class with a question. One day, to satisfy my curiosity, I asked the students how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be. Over 90% of my four classes responded with "God did it" (and many of them literally wrote only those three words). Granted, these were only 8th graders, but I examined their science books, and while evolution is touched upon, it is not explicitly CALLED evolution (now, there was a linguistic dance), the topic was covered in a single page and not mentioned in any other part of the text, and nowhere was human evolution touched upon.
Again, I know that these are just 8th graders, but considering the depth of knowledge these kids are expected to possess at that age - they are doing mathematics and covering science topics that I covered only in the mid- to late-years of high school - I was a little surprised.
Oh, and the 8th grade science teacher was a young earth creationist. At that point she'd already been teaching science for about 20 years. To her credit, she didn't push it in class.
I did what I could to ask questions to open the kids' minds, and even used some of my detentions to show them my "Cosmos" videos... got some excellent discussions out of that.
But the vast majority of these kids are products of their churches (mostly Baptist) and their culture (back-country North Carolina); they haven't been exposed to ideas that make them question their indoctrination, and what's worse, they don't WANT to examine the tenets of their "programming". In the schools where I have worked, I have been very disappointed by the intellectual laziness exhibited by the students, with full approval of their parents, and with the schools having no ability to confront these attitudes because of their fear of being sued and the requirement to "teach to tests".
Sorry for the lengthy rant, but this young woman reminds me of too many of my former students.
If you could call a time-out after each sentence spoken by the young woman and use it to explain what is wrong with what she just said, you'd have reproduced the entire talk.origins archive by the time her speech was done. She's the full creationist package and has no idea how ignorant she is.
But she is secure in her ignorance and prideful. (I think that might be a sin.)
Yay, you ruined my afternoon and in fact my whole day. Thanks. Ugh.
I've already seen this, so no need to watch it again. Parroting is exactly what she is doing. She's not even making anything up herself, everything she is saying has been said before. Hell, I'll just say it, like VenomfangX, she's a plagiarist.
wasn't the morning-(or afternoon)-ruining potential limited at least a little by the new transitional fossil discussed in the previous post?
I stopped the vid when she claimed evolution (which for her includes life, the universe, and everything) was a "fairy tale for adults". Damned irony meter almost put my eye out when it blew.
She didn't strike me as being particularly convincing - if I was a kid sitting on the fence about evolution / creationism then this attempt would probably push me the wrong way (from her POV)
This is all October Mermaid's fault.
This young lady would have no problem getting elected to the Texas State Board of Education.
I'm reading a very interesting book these days. "Flat Earth: The history of an Imfamous Idea" by Christine Garwood.
It tells with a great amount of detail the history of the movement proposing a plane earth, that originated in Britain in the mid-19th century and rose quite a fuss, drawing its support from religious circles. One thing that is clearly obvious, by reading the descriptions of all the discussions, papers and "experiments" conducted, is how a completely vacuous and absurd position can be sold to willing ears, just by delivering ridiculous ad hocs and plain lies- but with a smug, condescending tone and lots of bravado.
It's been 150 years since then, but people never change...
Sigmund @ #9
I'd like to nominate the adjective ignoritarian for english language word to describe "having an attitude of complete ignorance combined with an arrogant air of authority". Noun form - ignority
adjective - ignoritatively
I've watched this before. It annoys me that people can spout off so much about things that they're so obviously not taken even a minute to educate themselves about.
On videos like this, and on creationist debates in general, I always wanted to have a series of little lights in the background, controlled by a small handful of knowledgeable people in the audience. One light for "factually wrong--biology"; another for "factually wrong--physics"; another for "factually wrong--history", another for "logical error". That way, the audience can know, without disrupting her speech, that it ain't necessarily so.
A light, also, can be flashed in much less time than it would take to actually address the problem; this would serve as a partial antidote to the Gish gallop. If a ten-second sentence contains some 12 errors, each of which might take 5 minutes to address, the scientists are at a disadvantage--especially when addressing the first takes the gallop down another pathway, leaving 11 not addressed. Twelve flashing lights would make at least part of the point.
Creationist bingo would also work, if it were annotated.
Sadly, none of these would work in a situation like the "debate" here. But I would hope that somebody with better skills than I have, would take this video and give it the "screw loose change" treatment. A video fisking that shows up in "related videos" would be a sweet thing indeed.
"If you don't have the bone, leave my theory alone."
If God existed, he would smite her in an instant.
I'm not enraged, becouse I'm not uprised.
Hey, want to be labeled as special, convert to a new religion, and they will love you. Even if it is just for a while, you will still get love. Then, convert to something else when the flavor goes away.
The religious groups are so closed, that you can do this repeatedly and none of them will figure it out.
I don't believe she believes in a word of what she says. She's an attention seeker, and found those who need to be affirmed by a convert. Something in her voice and attitude makes me recall those BSers I've seen do this in the past.
I wonder if she knows that the claims she's making about how atheists views and thought processes are wrong are actually directly applicable to her. It's always amazing to me how they're really talking about themselves when they speak against us.
That really did ruin my morning, PZ. Her shrill over-confident voice is still ringing in my ears, and I too really want to slap that girl.
"Billions of years ago, time and chance magically came together and formed the universe"
There it started. And there I stopped.
I find the people cheering in the crowd even more annoying than her. It reminds me far too much of my church days... the more ignorant and extreme the claim, the more the sheep get excited.
...which leads me a little off topic. I had a Bible Study teacher who would talk about how it was somewhat offensive that Jesus refers to his followers as sheep, considering their not-so-bright reputation. He was so close to realizing he was getting fleeced... thankfully he helped me pull the wool from over my eyes.
My whole day is blown.
Pass the Glenfiddich...
Reminds me of a t-shirt slogan :
"arrogance+ignorance=thickness"
She thinks science suggests the universe was created by magic, but that God makes more sense? Well, she has magically given me a migraine.
Stunning. This would be no more incredible if she had been refuting gravitational theory. Funny too, how she talks about the lack of evidence for evolution, when her Bible, which she clearly hasn't read, is based on the premise of belief without evidence (i.e. faith).
This reminds me of the pentecostal cult I grew up in. These people are beyond hope. As a friend from Tennessee used to say, "That girls is dumb as a fence post."
Actually, I think a fence post could school this woman in a thing or two.
Mind. Boggled.
Couldn't make it more than about a third.
I kept hoping she was going to play that keyboard.
#42, you said you do not believe she believes what she says. I do disagree there. I do not find it difficult to believe she believes it. She's reciting practically the same thing that many people that believe the same thing say. I am not questioning her beliefs, however what you said about attention seeking, I think you are dead-on on that one.
One thing that does get me is the "EX-atheist" shirt. I suspect, like I suspect many other "EX-atheists," that she still believed in a god years ago, but has a complete misunderstanding of what atheism is, or is lying about it, like VemonfangX. VenomfangX seems to show that he was not an atheist when he claims to have been an atheist. I think he just thought accepting (sorry, believing in) evolution at one time in his life meant he was (same with this chick) therefore an atheist.
Au contraire PZ; you've ruined my afternoon.
Reminds me of a quote from an Australian comedian:
"She make two short planks look like a computer."
Why? Why? Why? ..............Why would you do this to your blog readers? This is the first thing I saw today!!
PZ, I don't know whether to laugh, or cry, after seeing that. She was so energetic, so earnest, and so wrong.
Let me paraphrase her presentation...
So and so said such and such. How much more evidence could you need?!?! Since I quote mined, quoted out of context, and repeated other peoples lies that must prove that I'm right and your wrong. Since I said evolution is wrong I must be right about my sky fairy. I win!
Humanisticjones [38], "ignoritarian" works for me.
On reviewing the locust video [24], I think it might be the first leg segment that has the sensitive hairs.
Because, Heddle, people like you will poke holes in the details of what she says without challenging the fundamental flaw in her thinking: that she can derive a deep understanding of the universe from her traditional beliefs in magic. Of course people like that appreciate your approach, since you don't make them really think and you don't question their most basic erroneous conceptions. You're an apologist who teaches the ignorant how to put patches over their foolishness so they can pretend to be wise.
OT (a little). There is a facebook group trying to get 200,000 people to wish Darwin a happy birthday in honor of his contributions to science and the world. They're at about 45K right now.
The group is "Can we find 200,000 by Feb 12 to wish Darwin a happy 200th birthday?"
Happy Monkey!
"He (Darwin) decided to create evolution!"
Unfuckingbelievable.
I don't think this young lady is lying. I think that she is simply stupid. As PZ said, she is parroting something someone told her. I'd guess the lines she's reading were not written by her. In any case, the writer obviously has never read a book other than the Bible and, maybe, some CSI textbooks.
Oh, and On-Topic: I worked with a JW and we argued about evolution all the time. It was like shouting down a well. Other co-workers, however, could not stand the fact that I was arguing 'against god' and HR told us both to stop talking about the subject.
I remember thinking, "Is your faith that weak? I listen to your blather all the time, and my belief in reality is still intact." Oh well.
Ugh, sad. I only managed a few sentences, honestly can't stomach stuff like this.
Although, whomever said her voice is shrill... uh, what? She has a smooth alto voice, hardly shrill at all. And even if it were, that really has no bearing on her arguments...
Just on my way to bed, didn't have time to read the comments. I did try ti watch the clip... managed to get about one minute into it before my brain began to melt. I'm deathly afraid now that I'm going to wake up a vegetable in the morning.
PZ
"You're an apologist who teaches the ignorant how to put patches over their foolishness so they can pretend to be wise."
Damn you're good.
Besides being a liar from the group "Amazing Grace", what does this woman do? Does she have an education beyond eigth grade?
This woman does not suffer from ignorance, this is malicious lying. Just what fundamentalists and fanatics always do.
One minute thirty one seconds. That's all I could stand.
This morning has been ruined. That was worse than waterboarding.
Did you guys not find it hilarious that she was spouting off bout the thousands and thousands of bones (fossils) that have been found and not one of them transitional... I kept scrolling down and spying upon the beautiful proto whale just below her video and smiling smugly. They don't know what a transitional fossil is. A lung fish is transitional. We are transitional (notice our "tail" bone?). Darwin developed his scientific profile through years of research over barnacles. He earned his stripes, then decided to explore this little natural selection idea he had been bouncing around in his brain. Can't she just pick up a biography over the man? And, why is she ridiculing him for being a theologian? I have a feeling that she may want to aspire to such great heights (stifling laughter).
@#51:
I have to be skeptical whenever I see a believer claiming to be an ex-atheist. A theist has a built-in incentive, in our culture, to be seen testifying that s/he used to be an atheist, but then accepted God. Their fellow believers will be happy to hear that their religion is correct, and there's no punishment by atheists for apostasy. A former Christian who turned atheist, however, could actually face social consequences.
For Heddle, from here
Everyone, if you haven't already read Sam Harris' response on the same page, or Dennett's, it is well worth it IMO.
Any lawyers out there, may I raise a question that must seem incredibly naive. Why do the laws of libel protect only damaged individuals but not objective truth? I only watched about three minutes of this, but she uttered lie after lie after lie after lie. Any court of law could easily establish the untruth of what she is saying. Yet she gets away with it unless some individual can prove they are damaged by it. Is it completely ridiculous to imagine a revised theory of jurisprudence in which objective truth itself was protected?
Argh! Had to quit at 2:06 having heard that Darwin made up big bang cosmology and founded a religion. Also loving the "a theologian not a scientist" claim based on his studying to be a vicar. I've never heard even the most raucously anti-religious atheist claim that training to be a priest made you incapable of learning anything else afterwards. She clearly hates the clergy more than we do.
#38 HumanisticJones
"I'd like to nominate the adjective ignoritarian for english language word to describe "having an attitude of complete ignorance combined with an arrogant air of authority". Noun form - ignority
adjective - ignoritatively"
Very good!
PlaydoPlato wrote:
Yeah ..... she needs teaching the kind of lesson that only a length of hundred-by-hundred can teach.
Lax firearms laws are wasted on Americans, if bitches like this haven't been shot.
Another failure of the American public education system. It makes me want to resign my teaching position.
You're right PZ, it ruined my day. And since I teach in Texas it's probably not going to get any better.
Wow, this is an incredibly stupid. If I didn't know better, I'd think she was parodying Christianity.
Evolution is "a fairytale."
Now, lets forget, for a second that she has no idea what she's talking about. That she openly claims evolution has had no impact on modern science and technology (aside, of course, from the advent of genetics and modern medicine, for starters). Does she really think he didn't have any support for the position? That it's such a powerful and dangerous idea because of wishful thinking?
Religion, it turns out, has a monopoly on wishful thinking.
Now I see where Kent Hovind sends his materials too. Isn't it dishonest for a woman, who clearly was never an Atheist, to wear an ex-Atheist shirt? Nah, she's a fundy, it's not dishonesty, it's lying for Jesus. I'll bet she's never talked to an Atheist in her life.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!
And I was having a reasonably nice day up until now.
Now I can't remember if it was on this site or a news site like reddit that I saw this warning sticker for the bible but it just seems more and more appropriate every day:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiangotlost/83308426/
Perhaps because the meek are supposed to inherit the earth? And stupid = meek? And if you can't be stupid, you can be willfully ignorant and self-righteous and that's kind of the same.
You know what I blame this on the break down of? Society.
You atheists have even gone so far as to MAKE UP fossils (or so I've been told by our speaker)!
Such as Nebraska Man, which turned out to be falsely identified peccary bones!
And Piltdown Man, which was a hoaxer's fusion of an orangutan jaw with a human skull!
And Lucy, who is an australopithecus who undisputedly displays a combination of ape and human characterist... oh snap. WTF mate?
Yup - that ruined my morning. I saw her before, and thought I might make my first YouTube video to refute it. I don't think she deserves the time though. Far too ignorant.
LOL - "founder" of evolution!
"Oh, and the 8th grade science teacher was a young earth creationist. At that point she'd already been teaching science for about 20 years. To her credit, she didn't push it in class."
Didn't she? Did she stiffen, frown, shift her body position, use different speech patterns and so on when a kid asked her about evolution? Obviously I've no idea, but my point is that there are many ways to push an agenda, some of them are subtle.
#9 - Sigmund
How about "smugnorance?"
I only got about two minutes in, but already I need an ice pack for my brain.
A bunch of ignorance and nonsense regurgitated, ratings disabled, comments not disabled but most likely HEAVILY moderated... yeah, your usual YouTube Christian crap.
Seriously, do NOT watch this video, because it'll only inflate it's viewing number with no option for giving it low ratings or giving reasonable directly accessible criticism. Besides, everything she says you've probably heard (and seen debunked) a hundred times before.
Rich Dawkins, that is her expressing her free will to speak to an audience. It is our duty to fight her at her own game, but no rule of law should have governance over what is truth. The reason we have libel, is to protect people from harm. While she is harming truth (and rotting her listeners' minds) she is not committing a crime. She is not holding them captive. They decided to sit there and listen to this drivel. I don't know if you were serious or not, but that sounded pretty scary to me that you would propose that.
If you despise this crap so much, when then do you team up with those who teach this kind of nonsense to fight those of us in the middle (scientist/theists)? - heddle
We don't, you lying toad. To "team up" has a specific meaning. Just because Christian dominionists and Leninists both attack liberalism, it does not mean they have "teamed up".
Heddle wrote:
Because there is no middle. Either you accept science -- and that means all of science, in its entirety, including the bits you don't like (heck, especially the bits you don't like) -- or you reject it. You cannot choose which parts you accept and which parts you don't. Science explicitly rejects the supernatural. Theism is concerned with the supernatural. See the problem?
Then, with all due respect, it couldn't have been very scientific.
Any religion that tries to explain natural phenomena -- including saying anything about how life originated -- is trampling on science's territory. We have to quit pandering to believers. After seeing the kind of toxic shit these idiots talk, I can say without a twinge of compunction that people like this do not deserve antibiotics, cars, electricity, flush toilets, the Internet, plastics, refrigerators, television or ..... well, any of the benefits of science. If they're that convinced there's a benevolent God, then let them pray instead of bothering us.
OK, thank you, I can see that. I suppose the nearest approach I can think of is the law against Holocaust-denial in Austria and maybe other countries. The historian David Irving was recently jailed for Holocaust-denial.
PlaydoPlato:
Yeah, like how to stop digging when you're in a hole, and how not to say anything when you know nothing about a topic... Fenceposts are really good at that.
Oh My! That truly messed up my morning for sure! I'm actually ANGRY at this point that there is such smug ignorance out there!
Here's something to get your mind off that:
http://carriefisher.com/?p=178
From Carrie Fisher's blog...
CVA
Bobber: "One day, to satisfy my curiosity, I asked the students how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be. Over 90% of my four classes responded with 'God did it' (and many of them literally wrote only those three words)."
They could, of course, be right, notwithstanding your belief that they're wrong. Truth be told, no one knows "how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be."
Dan: "She thinks science suggests the universe was created by magic, but that God makes more sense? Well, she has magically given me a migraine."
Quite a few scientists have thought that their science pointed to God. For example, in the fields of physics and astronomy...
1) "When I wrote my treatise about our (Solar) System I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose." - Sir Isaac Newton
2) "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
3) "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." - Sir Isaac Newton
4) "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover....That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." - Astronomer Robert
Jastrow, holder of the prestigious Edwin Hubble chair at the Mount Wilson Observatory
5) "The beginning (of the universe) seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural." - Cosmologist Arthur Eddington
6) "Certainly, if you are religious, I can't think of a better theory (than big bang theory) of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis." - Astronomer Robert Wilson, codiscoverer of the radiation afterglow in the universe
7) "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." - Astronomer George Smoot
8) "Astronomy leads to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan." - Astronomer and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias
9) "Here (in the anthropic principle) is the cosmological proof of the existence of God - the design argument of Paley - updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design." -Cosmologist Ed Harrison
10) "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light
and energy...For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the
final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow
Harris's is brilliant. His mock-apologism is hilarious and deadly. My favourite line: "If Francis Collins wants to believe that the historical Jesus was actually raised from the dead and still exists in an ethereal form which renders him both clairvoyant and mildly disapproving of masturbation, these beliefs do not even slightly detract from his stature as a scientist." That is comedy gold.
Latsot:
Of course you're right, there are certainly non-verbal ways to communicate. I guess the sad thing is that she didn't have to - the students already shared her point of view. She just didn't have to challenge them, nor do I believe she would want too.
Her daughter was in my class and would argue vociferously against evolution. I wouldn't engage her - it wasn't really the forum to do so - but I would try to reply with relevant questions, to try to get her (and others) to think.
Yes, we sometimes did go off topic in social studies class. But I also disputed some of the "facts" presented in their history books to. : )
I wonder why the principal didn't like me?
Daniel Florian of UnreasonableFaith.com beat you to this one, Dr. Myers.
Different videos, same ignorant, arrogant, useless excuse for a human.
Garfunkel. Nice cherry picking and quote mining.
She called it "irresistible complexity"...several times, I think. I'm NOT going to re-watch to check. I made it through the whole thing, though I admit, I kept pausing it to steel myself. Can't even get her lies straight.
"Lax firearms laws are wasted on Americans, if bitches like this haven't been shot."
Agreed.
PZ #57,
Um, no, that’s how you attempt rationalize it. The truth is simply that you hate religion—and so in spite of the obvious strategic advantage of encouraging people like Miller, you prefer to attack him, or to grind your teeth and barely restrain yourself from attacking him. You hate his religion more than you value his science. You don’t actually hate what this girl is saying—you exploit it. Your nightmare scenario is that there are no anti-science theists such as this gal, and only pro-science theists. What the hell would you do then?
Steve Ulven, #31
The same can be said about what Dawkins has to say about religion. There is nothing new, in terms of criticism of religion, in The God Delusion.
AJS, #88
Science does not reject the supernatural. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Science is not philosophical naturalism.
I always discuss modern cosmology. So I’ll have to disagree—I consider that subject to be scientific. You might have meant to say: It couldn’t have been only scientific, in which case I’d agree.
I'm stuck in Kuwait; my evening was ruined.
I actually feel stupider for having watched that. If I manage to run myself over with my own car on the way home tonight, I shall blame this video.
Steve Ulven (post 51), you seem to be suspicious of the shirt too, and the attention seeking.
I agree with #69 (duuuude!). I doubt a chruch going Christian that would have the word Athiest anywhere on thier bodies. Even preceded with an "Ex". I still think she is a poser.
Either way, seems we would have picked up on her other red flags, and called her out.
Too bad, she's a little cute. :)
Steve_C: "Nice cherry picking and quote mining."
How lame. Do you have anything substantive to say that would show that the scientists quoted didn't mean what they said?
Ruin my morning? Au contraire, mon ami..........YOU MADE MY DAY.
That's not MY kid.........I'm not the Mom whom raised that stupid child. My kids would watch this video (at least some of it) and laugh their asses off. And, if they had the chance to speak w/ this "genius", I have a feeling she'd be reduced to tears. (My kids have a mean streak when it comes to stupid people.)
Garfunkle,
Wow! How enlightening! Maybe you could blow our minds with Pascal's wager next.
Garfunkel,
Yes they could be right. Or it could have been the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezing. Or we could all be living in a simulation. So fucking what?
The so-called argument from the "anthropic principle" is as entirely worthless as your arguments from authority. In the first place, no-one has actually shown that the universe has to be as it is for life to occur. in the second, even if it were shown that values of constants very close to those we find are essential to life appearing, we have no way of assessing the probability of those constants having the required values. Third, even if we did, and it turned out that we live in a very improbalbe universe, all that would indicate is that we live in a very improbable universe - it would not go any way whatever toward showing the universe was designed for life. It is undoubtedly the case that if we can sensibly assign such probabilities at all, a universe in which I appear is far more more improbable than one in which life appears. Can I then reasonably conclude that the universe was designed to produce me? My ego is admittedly large, but not that large.
I cannot watch this. And I mustn't, I'm frustrated enough with their politics and their smugness...
Ok, I've watched 20 seconds and I'm crying rain :(
This calls for some Edward Current satire. It might relieve the stupid-burn.
The same can be said about what Dawkins has to say about religion. There is nothing new, in terms of criticism of religion, in The God Delusion. - heddle
Possibly so; but most of it has the advantage of being true, rather than unmitigated bilge and barefaced lies of the kind you and that unfortunate girl come out with.
#69:
I am an ex-Christian. I do feel social consequences, including from my parents. It hurts, but I can't simply undo all of my education in order to blissfully believe again, nor would I want to. It's tough having people you've known all your life avoid you because you refuse to buy into their shared delusions.
I grew up always having lingering doubts over claims from figures of authority. It bugged me enough that I eventually had to learn both sides of the issue to find the truth. It was only then that I realized there was only one side, and that religion requires the willful suspension of truth in order to make room for faith.
did she say "irresistable complexity"... twice? i can't bring myself to listen to it again
it burns indeed.
is she allowed to vote?
if so, should this be allowed?
i am interested in studying the philosophical social implications of people not fulfilling their intellectual responsibilities while claiming their legal rights.
@Chas Stewart:
Are you even listening to yourself? Do you truly believe people should be able to spout any nonsense they like without consequences? What about those late-night infomercials that promise to cure any- and everything with patches, creams and gels, without any scientific evidence? Should they be allowed to get away with it? Is that what you're saying?
We've recently had a case here in South Africa where a teenage girl claimed to have "seen" the virgin mary in a vision. People flocked to her house in pilgrimage, also wanting to see the "vision". This girl told them to stare directly at the sun and they would see the same vision. Guess what? Several people went blind! Are you saying people like that should get away with this nonsense?
BTW, do you actually have any idea who Dr Dawkins is?
Coming from the same sort of people who bring such gems as this bit of "science"
Enjoy washing your eyes and ears...
Do you have anything substantive to say at all? Arguments from authority don't hold much sway here. Try some evidence instead.
Garfunkel at #92:
(a) I don't believe just that they are wrong, I believe they are wrong because their belief is unsupported by evidence, and is a result of indoctrination, not scientifically informed investigation.
(b) I didn't say that I know how the universe and life began. I do acknowledge the work of experts in relevant fields (cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc.) whose investigations have contributed to an emerging consensus in answering these questions. There are always new discoveries, there are competing theories to explain observed phenomena,; yet none of the questions that science confronts has yet to be satisfactorily answered by the statement "God did it."
And while questioning what you consider to be my "belief" in a particular answer, I note that you quote a number of authorities that I assume agree with your particular answer (again, "God did it"). Please don't denounce what you think is my certainty when you present evidence of your own. I acknowledge that there are questions yet to be answered. Do you? Or has all been revealed to you?
I'm sure Newton said those things... he was quite religious.
But NOT KNOWING something doesn't point to god. It's not evidence of anything than ignorance... which research may one day solve.
That these scientists in the end come up with "god did it" isn't important or remarkable at all.
Oh my.
Not only did I somehow make it through all 10.5 minutes without vomiting in my hat, but I decided to learn more about the group that would have so many "vidiots."
They have even more of those t-shirts, with logos like "EX-Diva", "EX-Slave", "EX-fornicator", "EX-Masturbator", and my personal favorite for stunning levels of irony: "EX-Hypocrite".
This is what they say along with the entry that links to the anti-atheist lying screeds:
Nauseating, no?
Is anyone going to buy one of their ex-masturbater t shirts?
Dahan: "Maybe you could blow our minds with Pascal's wager."
What minds? In the Darwinian scheme of things, thoughts are nothing more than secretions of the brain (much like bile is a secretion of the liver). That being the case, you have no reason for trusting that your thoughts are more truthful than my thoughts. Indeed, if that's the case, neither one of us can trust that our thoughts are rational and valid. On the materialistic conception of the mind offered by Darwinism, the electro/chemical activity in your brain produces certain thoughts, and the electro/chemical activity in my brain produces different thoughts. On what grounds, then, can it be said that the electro/chemical activity in your brain is more likely to secrete rational, valid thoughts than the electro/chemical activity in my brain? Neither one of us would actually be in control of that activity, which would be entirely the result of irrational material causes (i.e., causes lacking reason and understanding). Thus we'd have no grounds for claiming that our thoughts are oriented towards truth.
Your nightmare scenario is that there are no anti-science theists such as this gal, and only pro-science theists. What would you do then? - heddle
Why don't you "pro-science theists" bring about that happy state of affairs, and then pose the question?
It does not seem to occur to you (indeed, how could it?), that if one has a conviction that science and religion are incompatible, it is a matter of elementary honesty not to pretend otherwise.
I really don't get it. Compare evolution and creationism, and conclude that evolution is the "magical" explaination. How fucking scientific!
I nominate "Ignorothy"? As in you are argueing from a position of ignorothy.
suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder. You cannot believe in a bronzeage superstitions, and at the same time, claim to be searching for natural explainations in the 21st century. In order to contribute usefully to science, you must acknowledge that all of these bronzeage myths have been falsified for at least the last 200 years.
Most religions emerged, well before science, and thus represent an unscientific and anachronistic philosophy. The only major exceptions is Mormonism and Scientology which really have no excuse for being batshit insane.
I can't stop RAGING. I lost the game in about 10 seconds.
#112
I like how atheists and non-believers are not all alike and we get to have incredible arguments on things other than religion. Those people were stupid. Sorry. Shamans did this type of thing all the time. Sometimes it worked (probably because these shamans made people secure and confident that they would overcome the disease, and being positive can go a long way) and sometimes they didn't. Sometimes, the shamans do damage instead of good. But, this is the kicker, the other adult (children need to be protected from this) decided to follow the advice. The other adult is the problem. If I was a Christian, Muslim... and decided to kill other people because my pastor or whatever told me that others were evil, then prosecute ME. I'm the one committing the crimes. Those people going blind did it to themselves all because someone suggested it to them. I'm sorry, but I don't want a human race that has to be protected from their own idiocy. I want smart people who are rational and know how to protect themselves.
That quote you put of me sounds bad b/c the court does have to protect what is true in this world, but what I mean is that they shouldn't have the right to stifle free speech. What if they judged truth from their own idea of truth. There's no reason to think that they would judge truth from our point of view (a point of view from science and non-theism) because we are the minority. She can yell and scream about atheists being naive but we know better and those people she was talking to didn't need any convincing any ways.
Evidence. It's not your friend, Miasha (Niasha?).
I like how easily she makes up stories, like the flagellum looks exactly like an outboard motor, and Behe used to be an atheist.
Hardly worth dealing with the same endlessly repeated canards, like no transitional fossils.... I sort of doze off.
It works better that way, though, sans evidence, sans truth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Science rejects supernatural explanations -- that is precisely what methodological naturalism means. And all religions, apart from watered-down Deism, demand supernatural explanations for some physical events.
@heddle:
You can be a scientist and a theist just as you can be a doctor and a chain smoker. No one is immune or void of cognitive dissonance or indoctrination.
Science and religion are incompatible in many ways. But putting the two at odds is neither the most accurate or effective discourse to be had. It's easy to say science vs. religion, which is exactly why it's said. But the nuances of distinction require far more time and articulation that an average pair, engaged in conversation, are willing to invest.
After the post about the suicide bombing recruiter, this doesn't really ruin my morning. In fact, it's a nice renewal of purpose, in a way. Still lots of work to be done, still lots of ignorance out there, but even in smug certainty, some people can be reached, some cognitive dissonance can be achieved to breakthrough realization.
For as long as people have been "coming to Jesus" (hello!) or other imaginary beings, people have also been abandoning the supernatural.
Granted, the numbers seem fairly skewed to the goddidits, but not all the minds out there are in supernatural shutdown mode.
No kings,
Robert
Garfunkle,
When not taken out of context, your quotes are often misinterpreted. I don't have the time or desire to lead you through them all, you're a big boy (I assume) you can do that for yourself. So I picked one at random.
"4) "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover....That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." - Astronomer Robert Jastrow
Here, the word that matters is "supernatural". What Jastrow was saying is that there was no "Nature" before the big bang. There were no natural laws. These didn't happen until the singularity expanded. He is not saying that there is a god that created everything.
Quote mine away, ignore context, argue from authority, go an and play the same games we've seen a million times before (only slightly exaggerating), it doesn't change reality.
This is Chas Stewart.
Yes, I know who Dr. Dawkins is (I'm anxiously awaiting his speech at OU and wish he could give a shout out to our local group, Oklahoma Atheists) but cannot anyone just write in that name? I hope that is him but I cannot be sure. And, him being Dr. Dawkins means that I cannot disagree with him?
On what grounds, then, can it be said that the electro/chemical activity in your brain is more likely to secrete rational, valid thoughts than the electro/chemical activity in my brain?,/I> - Garfunkel
Thoughts are of course brain activity, not secretions. I think an elementary physiology text might be of use to you. Rationality does not lie in the brain, but in the procedures we adopt - or in your case, refuse to adopt - to determine whether the ideas we come up with correspond to reality.
Knockgoats #120
Actually what occurs to me is related: if one has a conviction that science and religion are incompatible, it is a matter of elementary honesty to prove it, not just say it, as Coyne does. And most people on here do. (And saying “compartmentalization” is not a proof. It is a chant. Like the Krishnas.)
OMFSM!
I can't stand that much ignorance. Shutting the video at the first minute. I want to have a good day!
Anyone wearing an "EX-fornicator" might as well print another comment on the backof the shirt. "Ex-DatingNormalGuysButNowDatingOnlyNeuroticBluBallsGuys".
It could be written in a smaller font.
Dawkins asked:
"Any lawyers out there, may I raise a question that must seem incredibly naive. Why do the laws of libel protect only damaged individuals but not objective truth?"
Because only individuals can give voice to objective truth. I fear for who, as an individual, might be selected to fulfill that role. It could as easily be the featured young lady who is a member Passion for Christ 'P4C', who's income is based on the sale of "EX-Masturbator" T-shirts, as you or I.
If you can demonstrate an implied contract between the founders of the Western Intellectual tradition and yourself maybe I can sue her for tortuous interference (and soft tissue damage).
Knockgoats: "In the first place, no-one has actually shown that the universe has to be as it is for life to occur."
To the contrary, it has been shown that minute variations in the forces and constants of the universe would make life impossible. For example, it has been shown that if the expansion rate of the universe varied by even one part in 10^55 from the actual rate, no galaxies would form; if no galaxies formed, no stars would form; if no stars formed, no planets would form; if no planets formed, there would be no place for life to exist.
That would be a neat trick, given that the expansion rate is not a constant. Show your work, please.
Garfunkel: To the contrary, it has been shown that minute variations in the forces and constants of the universe would make life impossible.
Life of the sort we presently have. I suggest Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" so you might have a better grasp of how "simple" it can be to get arbitrary levels of complexity.
Garfunkle @ 119,
Well, I was using the word "mind" in the rather common usage. You know, the one where it's seen as the conscious and unconscious capabilities of an organism? Sorry if that got by you.
You didn't point it out, but I also used the term "blow". I should probably take time out to define that for you too. You may be expecting explosions or some sort of sex act, or both. I just don't know. You seem very confused.
In the future you may find you don't need to use nearly as many words to make a complete ass of yourself and show your ignorance. Something to look into, seeing as this seems to be your only mission.
Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009
What minds? In the Darwinian scheme of things, thoughts are nothing more than secretions of the brain (much like bile is a secretion of the liver).
So that is what has been running down the back of my neck.
New trolls are so much fun.
It has also been shown that if things hadn't happened the way that they did, then the way things would be would be something other than they are. Maybe. But who gives a shit?
Another fascinating point to be made about these 'such and such a constant must this exactly even for stars to exist' claims is it also doesn't really address the presence or absence of (a) complex systems and (b) complex self-reproducing systems (which may or may not reproduce with occasional errors) given such differences. (I can't claim to have made the insight myself--it was from some clever character's letter to Nature a while ago--I regret I cannot name him off the top of my head, as it did strike me as an excellent point.)
The point is: we really are back to Douglas Adams happy little puddle when we make such claims.
Evening spoiled here in Denmark...
Oh. My. Dog.
I couldnt watch more than half a minute of it before bursting out in laughter and shame.
The world "just came together magically" and "it's just a story". The self projection... it burns!
It's all the dishonesty that really gets to us. But she's not being dishonest, as PZ rightly points out. She's repeating something that I'm sure she believes. And she's doing it for the right reasons; her faith tells her it's imperative that she puts us on the right path.
I'm kind of grateful for that, for my part. But of course it's not about a comfortable middle-class student who already knows he can have confidence in evolutionary theory.
Several commenters make an assumption that science, now arisen, fulfils all the roles religion had as effectually as religion did. Well, for some it does, and for others it clearly doesn't and (it can be argued) cannot. There is an important human element to the argument they have not considered.
Furthermore, religious views alongside scientific ones in a human being are not the same as a paradox within an equation. Our ability to compartmentalize is continually astounding.
Phooey and Rats! I was hoping for a morning not ruined by someone/something. Thanks PZ.
"Evolutionary beliefs..." Hahaha. Evolution is a fact to be learned -- like 2+2=4 -- and not a philosophical opinion. This isn't ignorance, it's stupidity, and nobody can fix that.
Egnorance.
"The historian David Irving was recently jailed for Holocaust-denial. "
Sorry Dr. Dawkins but David Irving is not a historian. Also, as a complete check out Death of Christian Britain by Callum G. Brown. It's a pretty good postmodernist approach to the secularization of England and its clarity will change your mind about the usefulness and importance of postmodern theory and practice.
Bobber: "I acknowledge that there are questions yet to be answered. Do you? Or has all been revealed to you?"
Nope. As I've already said: "Truth be told, no one knows 'how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be.'" That's why it was so silly for Knockgoats to say that Dawkins's book ("The God Delusion") has the advantage of being true.
Garfunkel, you're taking it backwards. Backward thinking.
(Adding to 141)--in case anyone's missing this, note, of course, we'd be talking about systems that looked nothing like those we're familiar with--indeed, universes that look very, very little like ours. The very structure of matter could be wildly different. But that doesn't say on its own there wouldn't still be the interesting and long-lasting and complex structures like stars that exist as a consequence of the way things work there, nor the essential phenonmenon of localized complexity being distilled by natural algorithmic processes. All those 'the variable must be this' arguments tend to say is: well, it wouldn't look anything like it does now. But this on its own pretty much falls into the 'well, duh' category, from where I'm standing.
#72
I think that is exactly the reason libel suits cannot be brought without an injured party; since it is a civil suit there needs to be an injured party in order for the lawsuit to exist because only an entity (person or institution) can then be granted the settlement or court-enforced sanction. It's almost always a monetary award in civil suits.
I think you'd be happier if there was law on the books that allowed suit to someone for causing defamation or injurious slander of an entity like society. Not sure it would ever fly because Freedom of Speech probably protects opinions in this case and limiting the state's control over what can be said and what "hurts" the state (since the State is the representation of Society at Large in criminal court) is probably a good idea.
But there is a silver lining and it's been shown several times over; creationists are usually unwilling to testify in court and on the legal record for much the reason you cite. Their beliefs cannot be proven and subjecting them to rigorous cross examination where they could be easily made to falter is something they like to avoid.
OMFG I'm religious now all of a sudden now that I know it's not counter-intuitive to science!!!1
Thanks, Garfunkel! Thanks heddle!
So you don't say, Newton believed in god? Wow, I thought no one believed in magic in the 1600s!
Actually, I changed my mind. Fuck the Concern Trolls. Swear at them until they go away.
I love Bill Hicks! (Not in a sexual way or anything, you understand...)
Dahan: "In the future you may find you don't need to use nearly as many words to make a complete ass of yourself and show your ignorance. Something to look into, seeing as this seems to be your only mission."
Were you born an insufferable ass, or is it an acquired trait?
Libel is a cause of action for which damages rely on the injury to reputation. Someone can spout obvious lies freely all day without damaging anyone's reputation but their own.
The cause of action you want is for fraud, which is lying for pecuniary gain. Presumably, she's doing her lying gratis. Even if she's being paid, however, you might have some difficulty proving fraud if she's billing this as opinion.
And you'd have to get someone to sue, which is probably a bigger obstacle given her rather receptive audience.
heddle, I can't speak for PZ, but a bunch of scientists who happened to be theists would generally be okay with me. I'd still think they were fools for believing in a deity, but it would be a huge step up.
That you think it's a matter of elementary honesty to prove a conviction before saying it is fine with me. Now, let's start with religion.....
Garfunkel@119."What minds"
The crude Platonism,it burns!
The next person I see arguing on the basis of "a belief that X is a natural phenomenon is identical to the belief that X doesn't exist" is getting a copy of Darwin's Dangerous Idea shoved up their arse.
Thanks for the links to Harris.
heddle:
And, to quote Harris, the heart rejoices!
(I'm tempted to tell heddle to go suck an egg, considering his pattern of running away from substantive arguments against his and then soon thereafter showing up here or on another ScienceBlog with the same lameass claims as though the earlier discussion had never occurred, but I won't, as I'm sure heddle would simply quotemine along the lines of: "I ask atheists to prove their claims about the incompatibility of religion and an empirical approach, and people like SC just tell me to go suck an egg and other childish insults. That's the best militant atheists have to offer theistic scientists."
A couple seconds into the video and I find it utterly ironic how she uses the word "magically."
SC, FCTE, OM
You are a lying sack O' shit. You cannot point out where I have run from a substantive argument. The trouble I get in is I tend to hijack threads. But I don't run from arguments. Or can you prove that? No, you can't. So you know what? You can go suck that egg, jackass.
Jesus Christ. She skipped the part where Darwin spent years giving himself ulcers worrying that he was wrong. And the part where evolution was largely regarded as a huge joke by the scientific community at the time, having Darwin's soon-to-be Bulldog Thomas Henry Huxley himself as a vocal detractor. And the part where he actually got taken seriously because he actually posited an observable and imminently likely mechanism, natural selection, for how this is accomplished, a principle which is so self-evident that it didn't find mainstream attention until the latter half of the 19th century. And... well, she pretty much skipped hundreds of pages of Janet Browne's biography of Darwin. Who's the moron who will just throw out whatever idea comes to them because they have an agenda now?
Darwin was familiar with the likes of this young woman - From his autobiography : "Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."
If religion is in any sense "true" then it cannot be incompatible with science in any way.
The problem is that through the thousands of years of pure religion, without the knowledge system that science provide, no diseases were reliably cured, no real insight into the "how" of the universe came along, and no realisation of the tree of life were ever produced.
Prayer just doesn't work, either as a curative or as a contemplative aid - at least as far as anything universally true is concerned.
While it may be nice for religious people to have the unshakeable conviction that they, and only they, can know the mind of god this is, alas, an entirely useless insight for the rest of us.
That is really really sad. It takes nothing more than a child of a few years to understand the incompatibility of understanding how the world works as opposed to essentially Santa Claus type thinking.
It is a matter of honesty to admit that someone being raised from the dead is not a belief compatible with what we now of in science or that the myriad of religious beliefs from around the world are simply not square with the scientific knowledge of the day.
It is rank dishonesty to pretend that science and religion are compatible while trying to backdoor tons of material as 'outside' the realm of science.
Oh a new tactic from an apologist. How quaint. It is not a chant. It is a fact. People compartmentalize. Making snide comments doesn't make your silliness more palatable. It makes you look sillier.
i think she said 'palin-tology.' hmmmm.
Ouch! The stupid hurts...PZ, I need back the entire 10m32s of my life that I wasted on that thing.
Behold the product of not upsetting the little darlings in their 'belief'
Until the gloves are removed and text books state categorically the state of play and proudly...and teachers and educators do not have to skate around the E word then this is what the future holds...
Multiply that young lady a few thousand times and that will be the workforce in less then a few years!
Religion is far to far out of its kennel...time to chain it up firmly and muzzle personal belief in public...they can do their thang in their church or home environment if they must but it should remain their dirty little secret..not everyone else's!
It is nothing but spouting lies and ignorance because they are not challenged with incisiveness ...they are allowed to get away with any claim and no comeback...of course this free for all results in a feedback loop with them all trying to out do each other in the lying for jeebus stakes.
Everyone must pussyfoot around the nonsense...and the greatest betrayal is the fact that moderately positioned church bunnies say nothing and smile indulgently at the deluded!
That is the crux of the matter...have your belief by all means but be aware that scientific evidence is what it is...a fact that the majority of scientists can check double check and check again...and what walks quacks and looks like a duck....very often is a duck... rather then not!
That no one challenges this religiously barking nonsense at a meaningful level is the point...and it is a danger to the rest of us because it is simply wrong and very wrong at that!
It should be held that in a lawful sense parroting palpable rubbish is an offence...it is a form of terrorism against rationality..a few test cases might clarify that one...
Maybe part of lawyer training should be a science a based module that deals with...ahem! the evidence... they seem to think that aspect of any claim important...although admittedly only sometimes......
Anyway a module across a range of subjects with a few extra pages on evolution and the facts about transitionals and how the theory of natural selection operates at the micro and macro level...not to the level of equational manipulation but access to the present ideas relating to principles of science...
Maybe seminaries would benefit as well..more so in fact...going out into the world to preach lies and distortions is not a morally justifiable position in any religion...they have been getting away with that for far to long...but they will be better educated...they will have no defence...where before a mumbling about ignorant of detail could be made..now it would be a matter of ignorance is definitely no defence... and if they put themselves into a position to promote this nonsense then not only is it a crime against jeebus cos they are lying and they know it...but also in a court of law!
Until there is more honesty in the major disciplines that society is comprised of nothing will change...few will be persuaded by the odd voice they hear or see in the media that is critical of the delusion...and they damn well will not hear those voices in their community that is for sure!
About time society grew up a tad methinks!
About her shirt that reads "Anti-atheist" Technically, aren't all religious people anti-atheist? I mean, we start out holding no belief in any god, right? I think those shirts should be EVERYWHERE...
ANd, of course, she is outright lying. and the audience loves it, very odd...
Ow! Ow! Ow! This hurts soooooo much! I can't stand her la-di-da-di-da tone. Oh, and I think it's great how she's using phrases like, "magic" and "story." Oh, and I suppose those were just "suggestions" littering the deck of the H.M.S. Beagle. I hope she's not representitive of students at NYU. Oh, and transitional fossils are not the same as photo morphing, it's a little more complex than that, but you've already shown that you are unable to grasp it. Oh, and the whole countdown to death thing, what do you care? You're waiting do die anyway because the afterlife is the real party, right? Why waste your time on this one? No, I have to stop now. It really is too painful. Thanks PZ, I think...
Turn the other cheek, heddle!
KevinB, #164
In other words, you can't prove it. You can't detect it. You can't measure it. So you are just going to continue saying it. Like a chant. Like the Krishnas.
Doing precisely what I said you would do doesn't make your silliness more palatable. It makes you look sillier.
Geez, it's not captioned. Anyone has the script? If not, then I guess my morning is still intact;)
Not to belabor a point too much but come on;
What minds? In the Darwinian scheme of things, thoughts are nothing more than secretions of the brain (much like bile is a secretion of the liver).
Am I the only one to find this scream out loud funny?
And Newton was an objectionable nutter whose "research" was mostly years wasted years contemplating alchemy and mysticism. I don't see that his views on religion are in any sense to be taken seriously.
F = ma, fine.
Creation? Utter shite.
Dammit, PZ, I hadn't even had breakfast.
She's projecting like hell. Never seen better projection.
She seems to have respect for scientists and for evidence, really, but doesn't think it through. Why are all the bones being dug up, if they don't show anything new?
New York did just grow, really. I learned in my planning classes just how hard it is to fix the problems that should have been foreseen there.
It's really sad that anyone would think that video is convincing. Someone stands up, spouts some words, and I'm supposed to chuck a lifetime of thought? Ffffht!
I think that the key difference between religion and science can be summed up thus: A religious audience believes what the speaker says, while a scientific audience is thinking, "The bastard could be lying."
Geez, it's not captioned. I guess my morning is still intact.
heddle, you never actually prove anything. You just make really, really backass arguments until people quite literally run out of time/energy/get bored to discuss mindless clatter with you.
That there are pro-science people who are religious is not in doubt. But PZ is correct that accepting this as true does not deal with all the underlying assumptions that make people think their religion is correct in the first place.
Whether this is a good thing or not is often where the debate really is. From my perspective it is obviously false that the majority of religions are compatible with science. Especially the western forms. While one can be fideistic about it and be be fine, the other option is to allow the religion to operate in the social/emotional part of the brain and science in the reasonable part and hope they rarely comingle.
This isn't new and people have been asking questions about the sense of religion since it's inception. And really what are it's fruits? The charity that people do in it's name would likely be done in another form and the HUGE sums of money sucked from the populace through the years has in a much greater percentage gone to enrich those already in the priesthood than those needing a meal.
Um, evidence please? So far, your comments are lost in the melee.
I always smirk when people say "this post is going to ruin your day etc..."
This one actually made me despair. It's so, so sad.
Very impressive young lady:
Grossly uneducated and misinformed; contemptuous of science; repeats incredibly stupid things mechanically; fanatic about substituting faith for investigation; enthusiastic about training young people to believe that praising Jesus is all the knowledge they really need — and she’s perky!
She will go far as an evangelist . . . or maybe a Fox News woman.
Let's pharygulate this video:
http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/events/debate-series/give-up-atheism#comments
I've already started.
@ Heddle 131
"Actually what occurs to me is related: if one has a conviction that science and religion are incompatible, it is a matter of elementary honesty to prove it, not just say it, as Coyne does. And most people on here do. (And saying “compartmentalization” is not a proof. It is a chant. Like the Krishnas"
But Coyne just spent several thousand words supporting his position. Its you who is merely asserting a position, not him.
Address his arguments by all means but he can hardly be accused of just chanting like the Krishnas.
Sigmund @ #9
In Ireland we say gobshite.
Nope - still you. You're quite possibly the most intellectually-dishonest person I've yet encountered here.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/coyne_on_the_compatibility_o…
BTW, care to respond here to the challenge to your balkanization of epistemology (central to Coyne's argument in his piece, which I'm not sure you've even read)?
Or any number of prayers said by any number of religions. Why single out the krishna's? Or do you intend to demean yet another group of people?
And your wrong, we can detect when people are using different parts of their brain for different things. I suspect this would be relatively easy to detect and prove.
You have it exactly backwards. You are simply a creationist in fancy clothes. What you can't explain you simply say is outside of science. It's a dishonest dodge.
Around 5:20 She pronounces "Nobel" like "noble."
OK, then, so to repeat above, your claim that "Science does not reject the supernatural" is false in practice, because methodological naturalism does reject all supernatural explanations. And since all religions (Deism excepted) believe in some variety of supernatural intervention in the natural world, such beliefs must be opposed to science.
Want to take a crack at that, or will you continue to ignore it?
Geez, it's not captioned. I guess my morning is still intact. I pity the majority of deaf people because they are succumbing to all that religious nonsense left and right! I realize it's a gigantic undertaking to turn on the 'enlightenment' light bulb in their narrow minds. I have a son I will make sure to grow up to be a free thinker! I am glad I found your blog!
Knockgoats: "Rationality does not lie in the brain, but in the procedures we adopt - or in your case, refuse to adopt -to determine whether the ideas we come up with correspond to reality."
Given the materialistic conception of the mind offered by Darwinism, if we "adopt procedures" to check our thoughts against reality, the procedures themselves would be nothing more than products of electro/chemical activity in our brains - activity resulting from irrational material causes beyond our control. You are assuming that we have the ability to control our mental processes, an ability we can't have if mind is a material phenomenon (as it must be if Darwinism - a wholly materialistic account of human existence - is true). Indeed, if you accept the Darwinian account of the human mind, you have no warrant for using the word "we," which implies free will (i.e., the ability to think and act with at least some freedom from materialistic determinism). But free will is something that can't exist if the materialistic account of our existence offered by Darwinism is true.
(Note: To remind you, I'm using "irrational" to mean "lacking reason or understanding.")
What a load of fucking shite, Mr Garfunkel
Another fascinating point to be made about these 'such and such a constant must this exactly even for stars to exist' claims ...
The other side of the coin is that even though we don't currently understand why these constants have the values they do, that does not mean there isn't a physical reason for them. That is, these constants may not be arbitrary with a very low probability of being exactly right in order to "produce" life as we know it. It could be that they can only be the values that they are. Actually, shouldn't that be a requirement for a "theory of everything", that it actually predicts what the electron charge has to be, etc? Not just what the universe would be like if the electron charge was different? In much the same way that Maxwell's Laws predict the speed of light and then Einstein showed that inherent in the laws is the fact that the speed of light must appear to be the same in every inertial frame of reference. A good theory must be able to predict reality, not just catalog it.
"I won't listen and ruin my day. I'm all happy because scientists at Oxford University have solved the mystery of why locusts swarm, besides "God sent them," that is. I saw a Daily Planet science news segment that explained when they get crowded, their legs get tickled and they produce serotonin and change into the the swarming form. But I caught only the latter part of the news item."
...and at Cambridge and Sydney.
It's an excellent piee of work, but could it lead to a new way to control swarms? The authors won't commit at this stage, as a chemical to disrupt the serotoin pathway would need to be locust specific and applied to swarms very early in their formation, but it's possible that one could be developed.
"Could serotonin antagonists be effective locust control agents? Given the ubiquity of serotonin signaling in the animal kingdom, any agent would have to be specific for the serotonin receptor mediating phase change, which is yet to be characterized. To be effective, it would have to be targeted at regions of incipient swarm formation to prevent locusts coalescing further into groups."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5914/627
Garfunkel: "For example, it has been shown that if the expansion rate of the universe varied by even one part in 10^55 from the actual rate, no galaxies would form; if no galaxies formed, no stars would form; if no stars formed, no planets would form; if no planets formed, there would be no place for life to exist."
MartinM: "That would be a neat trick, given that the expansion rate is not a constant."
I should have said the *initial* expansion rate of the universe. If that rate had been too great, no galaxies, stars, and planets would have formed (neither would the heavy elements necessary for life, elements formed within stars). If it had been too slow, the universe would have collapsed on itself prior to the formation of galaxies, etc.
Now that galaxies, stars, planets, and life exist, it doesn't much matter that the expansion rate appears to be accelerating.
#189
Garfunkel,
You appear to be arguing philosophy rather than science. Just to clarify, do you accept the scientific theory of evolution, as opposed to the philosophical naturalism that you're calling "Darwinism?" How about the geological age of the Earth, and the cosmological age of the universe?
Actually what occurs to me is related: if one has a conviction that science and religion are incompatible, it is a matter of elementary honesty to prove it, not just say it, as Coyne does.
Yes, the video just screams compatibility between science and religion, doesn't it!
She's one of yours, heddle, every time you deny the evidence like the clip presented above and leaping into the fray to scream at us, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" How could anybody look at that video and believe that there is some sort of conflict between science and religion?
Piss off heddle, you lying sack of crap. You're too stupid to breath, and what's worth, you act as if you think we're as stupid as you are.
ennui> I'm glad I'd read Harris prior to that essay, or I'd have had to wonder about him... great satire though.
Fuck off heddle. Your Calvinist bullshit is just as stupid as this woman's crap.
Wow! I think my ears are bleeding. If ignorance is a religion this girl is pope.
Garfunkel, what is "darwinism?"
"Ex-Atheist" is different than "Anti-atheist".
And actually no, I think we really are born "theists", in a sense. In the sense that I think theism is just an adult holdover of the inherent trust an infant and child has in their parents. To an infant, the parents really are "gods". And evolution has wired us to believe so for our own survival. That this instinct has been abused so as to transfer trust in parents to trust in an etherial "god" is what we call religion. Religion is a desire to remain psychologically childlike. And religious leaders do not hide this fact, "our father who art in heaven...", the speak of the "childlike wonder" of spritual enlightenment, "The Lord is my shepherd..." it is all catering to that desire to remain a child in the protection of an all powerful parent. It represents fear of growing up.
How does free will have anything to do with evolution? The problems for free will would be just as knotty if we poofed into existence. Or do you also doubt the "materialistic account" of neurology?
@Garfunkel
But free will is something that can't exist if the materialistic account of our existence offered by Darwinism is true.
This may be well be true ... but so what? You or I will never know with certainty if this is the case, and in any event the inconceivable volume of inputs that contribute to your decisions, are so unfathomably vast, that to all intents and purposes you do have free will. Even if you don't:-)
Cheer up. You're probably conciousness and sentient, or at the very least, you think you are. Thats enough for me:-)
What'th worth? Throwing a shthew at that jackath heddle hath me tho angry I'm lithping.
Every time PZ presents battlefield footage of theists taking potshots at science and science lobbing grenades back, heddle wanders through in his little irreality bubble, demanding that we acknowledge there is no battle and that it's the atheists who should STFU. He's like Eyegore in Young Frankenstein, asking, "What hump?" except that the joke stops being funny for the one hundred and fifteenth time heddle pulls it.
Leh-NOOSE Pauling! Leh-NOOSE is loose! mwahaha!
(Small of me to pick on a person's mispronunciation, perhaps, but you could start anywhere on this one...)
*Inserts popular philosophy book in Garfunkel's backside*
More crude, stupid Platonism. More blatant assertion that denying that things like free-will and subjectivity are transcendent and outside of physics is the same as denying they exist. Nearly every religious poster on Pharyngula brings this same shit.
O Internet, I beg of you, send better trolls.
JamesF: "...do you accept the scientific theory of evolution, as opposed to the philosophical naturalism that you're calling 'Darwinism?' How about the geological age of the Earth, and the cosmological age of the universe?"
I use "Darwinism" to refer to "the scientific theory of evolution," but I think the chief props of the theory are philosophical, not scientific. If matter is all there is, something like Darwinism has to be true, but it is materialism (or naturalism) that provides (for Darwinists) the certainty that their theory is true. The evidence isn't good enough to provide that certainty.
I have no quarrel with findings showing that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, not thousands of years old.
There might be another explanation because it is difficult to believe that so much stupid can congregate in one brain without reaching critical mass and imploding.......
So playing devils advocate here...
It is a poe!
Could it be one of those famous debating societies where the topic is chosen and two teams...or two individuals... are asked to give a presentation representing the two sides of the debate?...whether or not they support one side or the other in reality?
It just seems she included every creationist fallacy that Talk Origins has documented...and then some...seems to cheap and raving to be a true position...one or two delusions at best float in every creationist heart...not this veritable ocean going leaky old liner full of holes larger then the hole that sank Titanic!
Just seems overkill!
I think the title "If U want to stay an Atheist don't watch this video" really says it all.
*shudder*
I had to stop it at "If you can't find a bone, leave my theory alone!", as the audio was becoming difficult to hear over my moans of anguish.
I have had the occasion to mentor several students with similar views who have participated in our Summer undergraduate research program. Many of them are medical school hopefuls. Many are chemistry or physics majors who want to get some experience in another science. The projects they undertake are necessarily very focused and self-contained, but they are clearly bothered by their inevitable brushes with evolution.
When they give their oral presentations at the end of the Summer, they invariably put "GOD" (all caps) first on their acknowledgement slide, before any (living, demonstrably real) mentors or hosts. It's more than a little bit sad.
I use "Darwinism" to refer to "the scientific theory of evolution," but I think the chief props of the theory are philosophical, not scientific.
That makes you an malevolently ignorant, doctrinaire buffoon.
I have no quarrel with findings showing that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, not thousands of years old.
And why not? Aren't the chief props of cosmic evolution (and that's what they call Astronomy courses at my college) philosophical, not scientific? Clearly, you are not hobbled by any consistency in your positions.
Hey Garfunkel, where's Simon? Do you maybe think there's a reason why he's always been more popular than you?
No, you shouldn't. The early expansion of the Universe was inflationary, which is by definition not constant. Try again.
You'd have considerably better luck if you could show your work. Of course, you can't, because you haven't done any, nor could you if you wanted to.
Matt Heath: "More blatant assertion that denying that things like free-will and subjectivity are transcendent and outside of physics is the same as denying they exist. Nearly every religious poster on Pharyngula brings this same shit."
In his 1998 Darwin Day address, Darwinist William Provine
(Cornell), an ardent atheist, aptly observed:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) no gods worth having exist;
2) no life after death exists;
3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and
5) human free will is nonexistent."
If human beings are simply the bundles of molecules in motion that Darwinism makes of them, how could they have free will? As wholly material beings, what is the source of their rationality and their desire to know truth?
Robin Brown,
No, he just spent several thousand words asserting his position. Miller also spent a bunch of words (I didn't count) asserting his counter-position. Neither is a demonstration of anything other than opinion. I could write a 3000 words essay on “If Richard Dawkins became a Christian, he would be a better scientist.” It wouldn’t prove a damn thing. Neither does Coyne’s argument. There is no proof by length of essay.
KevinB,
Yes, as in everyone. If “compartmentalization” means “people use different parts of their brain” then yes we all compartmentalize all the time. But you and others chant compartmentalization as a proof of science-religion incompatibility. If it is just “using different parts of your brain" then lots of stuff, including music and art, are incompatible with science. The “compartmentalization” creed proves nothing. Or it proves everything. In any case, it’s useless.
No, it’s a dodge when I say something within science is outside of science. Here would be an example of a dodge: We cannot explain how stars work. Therefore God Did It. That would be a dodge. Can you grasp the concept?
SC, OM, #184
Yes, linking to a thread where I posted probably 20 times, mostly in response to attacks or question, is compelling evidence that I run away. You are still a lying sack O’ steaming turds. What substantive question on that thread was asked that I didn’t try to answer? Now it is possible that I missed one--that is always possible in an N-on-1 scenario. Can you find one?
No. And do they teach this at the PZ school of logic and rhetoric: when asking someone about a book or an article, be sure to imply they haven’t actually read it—it will give you a short-lived but exquisite boost of self confidence.
Ken Cope, #195
Are you really that friggin stupid? Where did I say that this video was evidence for science/religion compatibility? I said (paraphrasing) that it demonstrated a serious problem and work to be done, and the best people to do it are theists/scientists like myself. Some (not all) anti-science Christians will listen to me and others like me. None of them will listen to you or PZ. Of course, I don't know why anyone listens to you.
In your case it is no act, because time and time again you provide ample evidence.
Tulse,
"
True enough. Methodological naturalism rejects supernatural explanations as a proper method of methodological naturalism. So when I invoke the supernatural to explain experimental data, then you will have a point. In attacking the IDers who say ID is science, this is a valid point.
This video is just sad. Ignorance heaped upon ignorance. Cosmology, biology, and theology all thrown into a food processor. Please tell me this video is the exception and not the rule.
Garfunkle,
"Were you born an insufferable ass, or is it an acquired trait?"
I don't suffer fools lightly. It's true. What percentage of that trait is nature and what comes from nurture, I'm afraid I can't tell you.
193*
Interesting points...where did you find these damning 'facts'
about this goldilocks scenario?
Cos methinks they sold you a pup in a basket and not the pie!
@heddle
"No, it’s a dodge when I say something within science is outside of science"
I don't understand your point. There is nothing outside science, because by definition, science and the scientific method involves the study of the entire universe. The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, and the belief is incompatible with experimental evidence.
By making the statement "outside science", you're just semantically obfuscating the issue.
Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009
I use "Darwinism" to refer to "the scientific theory of evolution," but I think the chief props of the theory are philosophical, not scientific.
Your Inner Fish. Largely a work of philosophy. The recent announcement of Maiacetus inuus, a philosophical work. The documentaries of David Attenborough, a series of talking heads waxing philosophical about Darwinism.
Garfunkel, you are insulting.
I said (paraphrasing) that it demonstrated a serious problem and work to be done, and the best people to do it are theists/scientists like myself. Some (not all) anti-science Christians will listen to me and others like me. None of them will listen to you or PZ. Of course, I don't know why anyone listens to you.
Then as long as you continue to deny that you are part of the problem that spawns morons like her and the people who create such monsters of stupidity, you are making things worse. Get off your ass and do something about the problem that you make worse with all your quacking here about theist/scientist compatitiblity on a forum that you claim (with biohazard levels of stupidity) nobody will listen to.
You are part of the problem. You are on the wrong side.
I don't know why anyone listens to you.
If I tried to address everything you don't know, heddle, I'd never get anything done. Fuck off.
She is cute, tho. :-)
This lost me at 14 seconds: "Topic: Why Atheist [sic] must reconsider their position"
On second thought, maybe it would be cool to be like moose, sheep and deer and not have to add that pesky "s" every time we made ourselves plural.
I found that last bit ironic.
I notice that the video is tagged "wayofthemaster" on YouTube. Why am I not surprised?
Garfunkel writes: "If human beings are simply the bundles of molecules in motion that Darwinism makes of them, how could they have free will?"
Ask Spinoza. They share one free will: the will of God, to put it in theistic--or pantheistic--terms. Freedom is possible; you just have to give up all the bullshite about individual freedom. That's not such a loss when you realize that each of us is a unique expression of that "divine" will.
Besides, "atoms are not things" anyway, so relax. Natural selection doesn't have to be strictly physicalist to be the beautiful science that it is. Just because one atheist suggests that Darwin annihilated all that is transcendent doesn't mean that he's right, or that he speaks for all atheists (non-theists).
What in the name of blazes are you talking about?
Darwin's Theory of Evolution has nothing to say about where thoughts come from.
Ken Cope,
I do, jackass. I talk to groups believers all the time about why they do not have to be anti-science. Even in my university my students know that I am a believer and a scientist, and this opens up many chances for discussion. What do you do, beyond sitting your ass down on this blog and backslapping your fellow Pharyngulites? Are you even a scientist? Do you know anything about science? Anything?
Simply stating that one person thought this doesn't make it so but I'd say 1 and 2 are almost certainly true and to believe otherwise is wishful thinking. However neither is a a necessary corollary of Darwin's theory.
3 and 4 are true but with the stress very strongly on "ultimate". This is the Platonist shit I was talking about. No ultimate foundation for ethics doesn't mean no basis for ethics and ditto for meaning. People had cobbled together meanings and ethics long before the question of an ultimate foundation even occurred to them. That transcendent foundations are not needed is not just something that comes from considering evolutionary biology or just from athiests. Consider Wittgenstein, the greatest anti-foundationalist of all. He was an observent Catholic and IFAIK had no real interst in natural sciences. He made a case (in Philosophical Investigations) that meaning doesn't have to be (and isn't) founded on a transcendent base that is almost universally accepted.
As for 5, well dismissing all that was ever written about compatibilism in one short sentence is rather weak.
I'm going to treat that as an honest question (although I fear it was in fact a mere talking point). The great problems of philosophy can't be solved in a blog comment but if you want accounts of human will free will, of meaning, of consciousness and of morality from a naturalistic (and specifically evolutionary) point of view you should look at the work of Daniel Dennett. He carefully demolishes the idea that these are all-or-nothing phenomena and describes how it is possible to go from a past without these things to present with them by purely natural means. He also writes well for non-specialists (such as myself).
This is an endless debate with these creationists/IDers that will likely never convince anyone in these forums to switch their ideas. Sometimes it's fun, other times it's just tedious. Anyone who takes the time to spout drivel like the above video is probably beyond the reach of critical thought. It is surely fun to tweak them, but that gets old after a while.
Probably more important is to speak/write to the greater numbers out there who don't think about this daily in forums where the sides have not already been drawn. I suspect that most of the time, our outrage expressed in this forum at stupidities like the above is preaching to the choir ... although I do periodically see postings like Garfunkel's.
I used to be much more "live and let live - they can think what they want, so long as they don't bother me," but there is more at stake now. Creationist/ID weak thinking is a proxy for general weak understanding of science and technology and leads to cop-outs in solving hard problems (uhh - I don't understand so it must be god who did it). It will be the death of us in competition with China and India.
Creationists/IDers can think what they want so long as they keep it to themselves and don't muck up important problems in society like stem cell research, family planning, gay rights, etc. They cannot be allowed to screw up the critical thinking skills of our kids through perversion of academic standards. We'll never convince them, but we have to fight them on substantive matters that screw up society, until they die out ... which will likely be generations.
". What do you do, beyond sitting your ass down on this blog and backslapping your fellow Pharyngulites? Are you even a scientist? Do you know anything about science? Anything?"
Hedddle, I want to get back to topic and address your claim of "outside science".
Specifically, how is a belief in a resurrected human being, or a virgin birth, compatible with modern science? How does one excuse such beliefs as being "outside science" when they make claims about the universe which directly contradict scientific knowledge?
Similarly, we know that prayer doesn't heal or work, through controlled experiments. Therefore, how is a religious belief in prayer compatible with science?
P.S I am a student of science :)
Couldn't get through it. I gave up after she said something about how Darwin was an ex-Christian looking for a way to justify his life, so he created evolution.
What I think is funny about the semantic arguments going on here about free will is that.... and this happens a lot with these kinds of open threads and talks... what's the point? What are you arguing? Where are you going with it? Seems to me the Garfunkel bottom line is a sneering attempt to say, "Well, if what you believe is true, then we are just chemical automotons and nothing is good and light and wonderful in the world..." or some such thing. Which is close to the arguments of "How can you love if we're all just balls of chemical reactions?" It's funny because the study of these questions is going on right now. Sam Harris is certainly one working on these questions. How do our brains work in these ways and how were these prcoesses affected by natural selection in human development? People are studying these most excellent questions right now. Yet, the anti-"Darwinist" or whatever just wants to sneeringly condemn "naturalism" by complaining that it somehow makes the human form less special in some way. Am I getting the argument ok? It's vacuous..... Sounds like run-of-the-mill existential angst to me. Just as I have no problem wondering about the intracacies of the universe without actually KNOWING, I have no problem with "naturalistic" explanations that might shed light on Love, Honor, Loyalty, Inquisitiveness, or any other qualities that people value as human beings, without having to think it's HUMAN MAGIC, or that it lessens the value we place on these things as a society. It's ok, Garfunkel, even if you are "just" a ball of Darwinistically motivated chemicals, you're still special.... to someone I'm sure. :-)
Isn't there a similar problem with an omniscient god? If god knows what will happen thoughout all space and time, how can there be free will?
it demonstrated a serious problem and work to be done, and the best people to do it are theists/scientists like myself.
Heddle here is taking all responsbility for the problem.
Every time we see another one of these videos, we'll just blame heddle. He's inviting us all to attribute every instance of these blithering theist science-denialists to failure by heddle to convince them that there is no conflict between the fatuous twaddle of religion and science. But there's a catch. Poor little heddle would be so busy trying to solve the problem, but instead he's got to park on these threads and claim theists/scientists can't crush the dwarf of ignorance because we pesky atheists won't STFU. I guess tenure gives heddle the privilege to behave here like any other useless framing concern troll.
I expect progress reports, heddle, every time you force a theist to their knees and make them come to Jesus/Darwin.
Garfunkel at #193 and elsewhere
Please provide a reference for your claim that it has been demonstrated that the initial expansion of the universe had to be precisely set to 1 part in 10^55. Absent some mathematical mapping which compresses a physically realistic range of the variable into a tiny part of the number line, I assert that our scientific knowledge is inadequate to make statements about the universe to that precision, or anything remotely close to it.
Garfunkel, if you really think science and religion are not at odds with each other, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
siddharth
Fair question, and one that seems to be asked honestly. (Aside: Do you know where you are?) When you mention something like the virgin birth, you are correct that it is incompatible with science. It is supernatural. But nobody makes the claim that the supernatural is compatible with science. That would be absurd. By its very definition it is not. The claim is about religion and science. Or, in terms of the supernatural, the actual argument is not over the compatibility of the supernatural with science, both sides agreeing that there is none, but rather a belief in the supernatural and science. Is a belief in the supernatural compatible with science?
And since all theists (and even deists) believe in the supernatural at some level, the question is equivalent to whether or not theism is compatible with science.
Ken Cope,
Can’t do that Ken, it is a struggle to find words small enough that I am sure you’ll be able to understand.
Here is the page if you want to see more of the EX t-shirts.
EX Diva
EX Hypocrite
EX Fornicator
EX Atheist
EX Slave
EX Homosexual
EX Masturbator
EX Rebel
EX Hustler
Time for me to find an EX Asshole tee.
Heddle at #237
You may not accept the story of the virgin birth, but perhaps you can clear something up for me.
Is there any basis on which someone should accept the claim of virgin birth for Jesus? Even if the gospels are historical documents, what evidence could have been presented to someone who associated with Jesus only as an adult that his mother was virgin when he was born? What evidence could have been produced at his birth? Or before?
Eh, who can take seriously a group selling t-shirts with a text, ex-wanker.
Can’t do that Ken, it is a struggle to find words small enough that I am sure you’ll be able to understand.
Why not let Patricia or Janine or SC know how your little project is coming along, heddle, they can explain it to me in terms even I can follow. I hope you achieve more success convincing theists that there's merit to science than you have on pharyngula convincing us that we're all wrong.
Matt Heath: "The great problems of philosophy can't be solved in a blog comment but if you want accounts of human will free will, of meaning, of consciousness and of morality from a naturalistic (and specifically evolutionary) point of view you should look at the work of Daniel Dennett."
As you may know, Dennett's trademark metaphor is that Darwin's theory is a "universal acid" that "eats through just about every traditional concept" of morality, or religion, or social order. Apparently this is a very selective acid. It eats through other people's views but leaves Dennett's own views untouched. No doubt he wants his views to be taken seriously, but on his own terms - terms derived from a Darwinian conception of human existence - why should they be?
As you may also know, evolutionary psychologists employ the idea of "memes" to explain mental states (memes being analogues to genes). Their favorite example of a meme is religion. Richard Dawkins has suggested that religion is tantamount to a computer virus that infects the brain. But what about Dawkins's own beliefs? On his own terms, his commitment to Darwinian evolution must also result from infection by a mental virus. Why should he suppose that his mental infection results in valid thoughts, while other mental infections don't? Evolutionary psychology cuts its own throat, epistemically speaking. Darwin himself sensed that his theory undercut human rationality. In a letter to W. Graham (July 3rd, 1881) he wrote: "The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
MartinH,
None that I know of. After all, virgin births are not impossible. But the claim is that Mary’s pregnancy was not the result of some unlikely set of circumstances or a medical procedure, but a supernatural intervention. Perhaps a strong case could have been made by examining Jesus’ Y chromosome.
Ken Cope,
I already have. But then again I actually try the former, not the latter. The latter is impossible. Any Calvinist knows that.
Ken Cope, some one would have to relay heddle's words to me. I killfiled him long ago. I was not able to follow his simple words.
Now now. Don't rush out and do anything harsh.
Any Calvinist knows that.
No, any Calvinist thinks they know that, which is among the reasons you're such a tedious fuckwit and laughingstock around here.
Garfunkle:
It's not "Darwinism" that says humans are material, it's science. It would be far more accurate to blame "neuroscience" for a materialist view of mind than it is to blame evolutionary theory.
And if human beings aren't just bundles of neurons that connect to other tissues, why is it that damage to the brain damages the mind? How is it that neurological disorders like Alzheimer's impact on "free will"?
For that matter, how does positing a God solve this problem? How does God change things so that matter also has free will (I presume you do grant that we are made at least partly out of matter)? What is the mechanism by which free will interacts with the neurons in your brain?
Janine: "Garfunkel, you are insulting."
And you're not? In my short time here, I've learned that hurling insults must be the primary purpose of Pharyngula.
Oh my GOODNESS this channel annoys me >>
Do these people not READ?
Also - I'm amused by the comment screening, switched off comment rating and switched off video rating.
And you're not? In my short time here, I've learned that hurling insults must be the primary purpose of Pharyngula.
Says the man who compares thoughts to bile and claims that evolution is more philosophical than evidence based.
Sorry, you are arguing from bad premises and will get insulted for it.
Late to the party as ever, but in answer to Sigmund at #9, the guy (Shea?) who read the Oxford English Dictionary in a year discovered the lovely word...
Bayard(n): a person armed with the self-confidence of ignorance
heddle:
The point, which I thought I made clear, is that all religions demand rejection of methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena, and thus are antithetical to science in that sense. Once again you have dodged this point.
"And you're not? In my short time here, I've learned that hurling insults must be the primary purpose of Pharyngula."
You come here as a pedantic and sanctimonious troll and are met with insults. You deduce from this that inulting people must be the primary purpose of Pharyngula. What an excellent example of your logic.
Heddle at #243
It seems to me that science, with its methodological naturalism, would readily respond to the existence of the story of the virgin birth by recognizing:
1. That there could be no practical evidence for such a claim available to people with the science of the day
2. That therefore such a claim must be hearsay at best
3. That it is not uncommon for people to lie and/or err
Given these, the simplest explanation, thoroughly and easily compatible with methodological naturalism, is that this supposed virgin birth did not occur. Unlike the other supposed miracles, this one could have no eye witnesses except, perhaps, Mary.
Of course, there are similarly strong reasons for rejecting the entire story of Jesus as mythical.
Given this, surely those who believe in Christianity have abandoned science, and the scientific method. Is this not, at least in this instance, a pretty clear incompatibility between science and religion?
Tulse: "It's not 'Darwinism' that says humans are material, it's science."
I've often argued that in the hands of Darwinists, science has become indistinguishable from metaphysical naturalism (or philosophical materialism). Science quite properly employs methodological materialism, but when methodological materialism becomes a limitation on reality (as is the case when science says that humans are wholly material phenomena), science becomes the handmaiden of metaphysical naturalism. I appreciate your willingness to corroborate that argument.
Garfunkel said:
Well you see Garf that is where the whole scientific method comes in with testable predictions to let the universe tell use when our memes our wrong. Something completely foreign to the cocksure ignorance of your memes.
Garfunkel also regurgitated:
Do you think your deity has absolute knowledge of your destiny?
The videos actually not that bad... as long as you turn the sound off.
Tulse,
I have not dodged that point, such as it is. It is certainly true if not “duh” quality obvious that, say, Christianity rejects methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena, such as the resurrection. Why is stating the obvious so important to you? What it does not do, except in the hands of the likes of the DI, is reject MN as the means for studying any physical phenomena that we might encounter. Ever. Anywhere. Nothing is excluded. Use science to attempt to explain all data ever encountered in the field or in the lab or in the observatory. Never invoke a miracle to explain anything you are examining. Christianity is compatible with that, and hence with science.
@243 Heddle:
Uh, how could the offspring be male, given that two like chromosomes define the female sex in humans? Even Hwang's artificially-induced parthenogenetic embryos were female.
Or are you using some definition of "impossible" of which I'm unaware?
It doesn't invalidate your point about supernatural causes, but it does make you look as if you're making shit up.
Christianity rejects methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena, such as the resurrection.
Begging the question that resurrection could ever be a physical phenomenon, but that isn't the punchline:
Never invoke a miracle to explain anything you are examining. Christianity is compatible with that, and hence with science.
Just because you use the word "hence" and tack it on where the conclusion would go in a valid deductive argument doesn't mean that it's what would have to be true with the premises you offered. That is some criminally tortured logic, but otherwise just more comedy gold from heddle.
OMG What a fool I have been I see now that evolution is just a ruse and that I have thrown my life away reading books other than the bible.
Tulse: ...all religions demand rejection of methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena.
No. There's variation and popular "vulgarization" contaminants but AFAIK neither Buddhism nor Taoism (harder to define) makes any such demands. Neither in principle does Hinduism at the same high level, unless we take the creation of the universe itself to be the phenomenon. Certainly not anything else.
MartinH, #355
You are correct, MN would lead to conclude that none of the famous miracles occurred. If MN concluded that the miracles could have occurred, then they are not miracles. Did I not just say that the supernatural is by definition incompatible with science?
The question is whether a belief that Jesus walked on water is incompatible with science. But MN does not say: MN is all that there is. You may not believe anything except that which is demonstrable by MN. MN says that it is the proper way to do science. The best way to study the natural world. I agree 100%. I do science just like anyone else—so there is no incompatibility until such time that I invoke a miracle to explain the results of an experiment. Then you would have incompatibility.
heliobates #260,
There are cases of women who become pregnant without intercourse. Artificial insemination, medically provided or accidental. Is that making shit up?
Garfunkel
I've been waiting for an hour for the reference that I requested at #239 to your claim about the required precision of the initial expansion of the universe. In the meantime you have made several other postings.
I suggest you withdraw your claim until you can support it with evidence that can be evaluated.
heddle :
In humans ? I'd really like to see that...
Garfunkel: "In my short time here, I've learned that hurling insults must be the primary purpose of Pharyngula."
Janine: "Says the man who compares thoughts to bile and claims that evolution is more philosophical than evidence based."
Well, if you see those remarks as insults, then I guess I've managed to fit right in.
If you open the youtube link its great to see that ratings are disabled for the video, as usual. Also, there are many more of these vids uploaded under P4cmDebateSeries and there are no comments on their user name page yet.
BdN,
I don't know if you can see it. But go read up on in vitro fertilization. Then imagine, say, a single woman using that method with donor sperm. Then imagine it was successful. Finally, consider the possibility that she was a virgin.
Congratulations heddle, you present some very convincing arguments. No, I really mean that. I'vr gone and read your blog since your first post here. Nuclear physicist, that means you are highly intelligent, and your arguments reflect that. But it just shows how strong the effect of compartmentalisation is.
Heddle at #264
I surmise that for you at this time, it is reasonable to say that Christianity is externally a collection of documents and of cultural practices and internally of feelings and experiences (I assume you are Christian). These are your experimental data, as it were, although we are dealing with historical science, but I think that is only a detail.
This is what you are examining, and it has a perfectly reasonable explanation within the context of MN.
There is no need to invoke anything supernatural to explain what you find around you and within you in Christianity. By your own lights, to be true to science, you should not invoke the supernatural to explain what you are examining.
However, to be religious in this context, you need to invoke the supernatural. To do so, you must disavow the explanations arrived at by MN, and thus demonstrate the incompatibility of the two.
You're such a fucking asshole, heddle. Sure - here are my posts that were in response to yours on that thread, #s:
196
202
214
220
225
237
243
428
452
453
455
473
485
Please read and make sure you've responded to them all, particularly #s 452, 455, and 473. I don't find a response from you after a certain point. You simply disappeared.
That should be evidence enough. If you've read it, and it's what the earlier post was about, why won't you reply to its arguments?
"There are cases of women who become pregnant without intercourse. Artificial insemination, medically provided or accidental. Is that making shit up?"
No, but this is...
(Mock surprise) So Mary was artificially inseminated by Space Aliens!! Finally it makes sense!
...and is way more "sciency" than the biblical account.
/smartass]
Well, I guess so. But that's a really distorted view of what the words "virgin birth". Usually, in biology, it refers to parthenogenesis, hence the response from heliobates (to which I concur).
I don't know why, but I kinda doubt they mastered artificial insemination that well 2000 years ago.
I managed only to listen to 3 minutes of this.
I think what it illustrates more than anything is that any old body can stand up in a church and say complete rubbish, and nobody for a moment questions what they are saying. In this case she happens to be talking about evolution, but the principle goes for just about everything else (including theology).
How many people in the audience thought to themselves as they listend to her - well that's interesting about lack of transitional forms, but I'm not sure she's right so I'll go research this myself when I get home (because of course she's utterly and blatantly wrong). How many do you think? I would predict zero.
As an ex-Christian, I've seen it first-hand myself (and believe a ton of ridiculous nonsense as a result). This is the real danger of fundamentalism and how it effectively chocks off our critical thinking processes.
No, Garfield, you do not fit in. If you think that evolution is mostly a philosophical enterprise, you know jack about the physical evidence and the physical hardships of the researchers going out and collecting their evidence. In other words, you have on your self imposed mental binders.
Your ignoring of physical evidence in favor of your unhinged philosophical flights of fancy leaves you open to mocking. Deal with it.
OMG I could predict almost everything she was going to say! Nothing new here... there's bad creationism, and then there's this.... regurgitated creationist vomit
Not necessarily. So you're suggesting that Jesus, if he existed, was dry-humped into existence? The heart rejoices!
heddle:
and
Aren't these two passages essentially contradictory?
Not just "experiment", but any phenomenon, such as the Resurrection or parting of the Red Sea. In other words, this position immediately rules large swathes of religious beliefs out of bounds to science. That's why religion is inimical to science.
Are you suggesting that there were techniques for doing artificial insemination 2000 years ago in the Middle East? And if Mary became pregnant through physical artificial insemination, why is his birth supposed to be miraculous?
Neil B:
I would argue that to the extent one excludes the "vulgarizations" of superstitious practice, these belief systems aren't really religions -- certainly that is the view my Buddhist spouse would strongly defend. And frankly, the exclusion of "vulgarizations" seems to be a rather Western phenomenon, and results in something that looks very different from the historical and current practice of most adherents.
If they become pregnant after artificial insemination=virgin.
Christian teenagers have anal sex to remain virgins.
So you can have a kid while being sodomized and still be a virgin. That's kind of a twisted religion/worldview/pseudo-philisophical stance
Allow me to clarify. Are you positing an entirely natural explnation of "virgin" births? Then why invoke anythig non-natural in one case?
OK, since we are infested with christianists, perhaps one of you could provide an answer to a couple of simple questions.
Jesus died in agony on the cross for our sins, correct?
(That's not one of them)
Well, if so, what distinguishes his agonising death from the billions of agonising deaths, man or god made, since then? And if he died for our sins, how come we still sin, and still die, mostly, in pain and confusion?
The only difference it seems to me it that we live longer and our children die much less frequently - thanks to science.
What are your "thoughts" on these troubling conundrums?
How about this?
"Ignorrogance" - the espousal of ignorant nonsense combined with an arrogant air of authority.
Anyone doing this would be considered "Ignorrogant".
Primitive turkey basters have been found in Mesopotamian archaeological sites dating back to the upper Iron Age.
#9 Sigmund - "Unfortunately the English language actually needs a new term to describe the attitude of complete ignorance combined with that arrogant air of authority on show here."
Religiot.
No, that's a rather vigorous equivocation on the term "virgin", given the social and mythological contexts of the gospel accounts of Jesus' birth. It does have the same effect on your credibility, however.
I'm trying to see how you could misinterpret MarkH's question to allow for the logical possibility that Mary's pregnancy was the result of Roman turkey-baster tech, a dry-humping incident gone badly wrong, or perhaps saddlebacking.
Why would you even float naturalistic possibilities when your point was to argue that the event was supernatural?
I've been nodding along with some of your arguments that "science != incompatibility with religion", but off-the-cuff stupidity like that doesn't score any points for your side.
Heddle's working from a little-known alternative reading of Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman virgin shall conceive commit an unnatural act with a turkey baster, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el"
I suppose Heddle is a proponent of NOMA. How very kosher for a Calvinist to keep a ritualized and make belief barrier between whatever one wants whether it be utensils for preparing dairy and meat, or religious belief and scientific findings.
Compartmentalizing is a human trait, nothing unusual about it; it is commonly applied in our every day lives. But some compartmentalizations can be maladaptive, allowing a person not to confront problematic situations like the clear incompatibility between science and religion. Or parents not embracing the reality that their baby has grown up.
Heddle is focusing on the mere ability to function as a scientist while holding theist beliefs as functional evidence that there is not a basic friction and an extremely troubling conflict between science and religion; hence several posters are calling out Heddle's intellectual dishonesty and his emotionally/psychologically challenged stance.
The baby has grown up, that is, our quest for understanding and deepening our grasp on what constitutes reality has developed into science, while religion remains as an obsolete means to acquire understanding. Heddle wants to keep both the infantile and grown-up aspects, and therefore is motivated to say that holding religious and scientific ideas poses no conflictual problems. As it is said in trading, he is talking his book though unlike his scientific understandings, he has no evidence for his religious beliefs.
But, the lack of evidence causes no problems, he can do science and do religion, just like those aforementioned parents can let their grown up baby work and bring home money while watching over their baby's every move, confining their child's self-determination and autonomy just like Heddle is doing to his mind and his understanding of reality. Heddle is a pair of warring bad/good parents, pushing and pulling himself, stay an infant, grow up, stay an infant, grow up, ad nauseam. But he has it under control, after all, not only can he do science, he can encourage others to do the same compromise he has (sarcasm).
Um, because that's the ENTIRE FUCKING ISSUE AT HAND?
Silly, they didn't have turkey basters back then because they didn't have turkeys. Or lesbians. No need, then.
Sven, just out of curiosity (I don't have any reason to doubt what you're saying) but could you provide a ref for the Mesopotamian turkey juice holders ?
Bad taste but that's how it must've happened.
Tulse, I would say Buddhism even w/o supernaturalism is a "real religion", but does you spouse consider it so? Yes, the gradation of religions into circles of outer/inner "vulgar"/savvy insider etc. makes characterizing them difficult, but it is a real force (e.g. the realistic beliefs of many liberal "Christians" etc. including or especially their clergy, versus the official fundamentals.)
Again though, I find it sad that we again see "science" as the basic investigatory activity facing off against "religion" the passed-down superstition, with little regard for third-way, cutting edge philosophical musings about anthropic fine tuning etc. as from Paul Davies. I'll spare you repetitions of my own take which is similar to his (or was), just mentioning the principle of the thing. BTW note that there are already quasi-scientific realms of study like history, which involve e.g. making judgment calls about whether to believe what someone wrote in a diary (and often not provable/disprovable claims, either - but most of us feel OK deciding whether to be convinced it's likely true, etc.)
Also, it seems silly to me that it could be OK to find the "beauty" or symmetry of laws etc. something reverential; it can be reasonable (if superstitious and unprovable) to believe in detailed features of God/s and their interaction and purposes in the World, but something in between like believing in a primordial purpose or meaning is "empty Deism" and the like dismissal.
And if he died for our sins, how come we still sin, and still die, mostly, in pain and confusion?
He did not die in order to stop us from sinning or from dying. His suffering was intended to take the punishment that we should receive for our sins. So when God says "you stole a candy, 10 lashes", you can reply, "Jesus already took the lashes for me" and just walk into heaven.
At least that's how most Christians seem to interpret it now. I think the "original intent" of the story was that Jesus' suffering on the cross was only to "pay for" original sin. Any sins we commit in life we are still responsible for. You see, God painted himself into a corner with the curse he put on Adam for his disobediance and so came up with this loophole in order to punish everybody's original sin all at once in the body of (well) himself suffering on the cross. Before Jesus, there was no way for people to atone for Adam's sin and so were barred from heaven. Jesus had to "take it for the team", so that people would at least have the possibility of heaven by atoning for their own sins.
And that this all makes so much sense is the reason I am an atheist.
Oh, I see. That's cleared that up then. But....oh never mind...
SC, FCTE, OM
Those questions were answered. Or at least the main questions about the Chicago Statement were answered over and over and over. I can’t respond to every minor variation on the same question—or simply repeats of a question that someone else has asked. And yes, sometimes I move on when a thread winds down. The bulk of our internal thread was about the Chicago Statement and I’ve answered it a thousand times. The gist of your complaint is it provides no room for compatibility with science i.e., the old earth. This is in spite of the fact of the circumstantial evidence: some people who believe in an old earth were on the committee, and your theory means they produced and signed a document incompatible with their own beliefs. And, IIRC, other commenters on that thread, generally unfriendly to me, nevertheless agreed that the wording was such that there was a loophole for old earthers to walk through. (Indeed, it was designed as such.) And not to mention that it is irrelevant whether you see a irreconcilable problem, the question is do I, having affirmed it, see a problem. I do not. If you or someone else convinces me there is an incompatibility then I’ll renounce my support of the Chicago Statement.
Yes, that is how an idiot such as you would interpret those comments in toto.
Wonders! An almost reasonable question!
What I said was (paraphrasing) that Christians believe that Mary's pregnancy was supernatural. That Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That's the miracle--not the virgin birth per se, which, while in that particular case was miraculous, is not impossible.
BdN
I didn't see it at first but, yes, you are a moron. But congratulations, you are a fine representative of Pharyngula commenters.
To clarify: Some think it is warranted and worthy to have reverential ideas towards the basic beauty and laws of the universe, others think it actually is reasonable/credible to believe in "detailed features of God/s and their interaction and purposes in the World." The former group doesn't agree that such is "reasonable", with good cause I accept; but both seem to gang up on the middle way and put it down as "empty Deism" etc.
IOW, the nonreligious mostly seem to accept the religious folks' framing of the issue of what should matter and have meaning or not. The nonreligious just don't believe in the being/realm that would have those implications. But I'm asking, don't assume that what religious people are most wrong about is whether or not God exists - maybe their idea of what matters about it is their biggest error.
So, in the meanwhile, where did they wait ?
SC, FCTE, OM
And now I have to go teach Electricity and Magnetism. (You know, And God said: let there be light!) Feel free to interpret my absence as having run away.
>>Garfunkel: "but when methodological materialism becomes a limitation on reality (as is the case when science says that humans are wholly material phenomena), science becomes the handmaiden of metaphysical naturalism.<<
See, again, what I find so funny is that a philosophical argument is being made with bold assertions and nobody on the other side really. Please point out where 'methodolgocial materialism' has become a limitation on reality... seems to me, only when it comes up against "beliefs". Otherwise, when a purveyor of methodological materialism (scientist) comes up against something that requires more investigation, he says "I don't know. We need to learn more about that', and investigation goes on. More or less what you would say science is all about. The things that we haven't figured out yet are boundless perhaps, but if they WILL be figured out, it will happen through inquisitiveness and investigation and hard work. Science. All of those things that are seen as "outside of the reality of materialism" will come within that sphere through investigation and necessity. Unless we're talking about faith in things that have no evidence, or belief. The question is moot. And, by the way, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who has any problems with the concept of a little bit of mystery or the unknowable or whatever when it comes to the larger questions. Dawkins himself would say that he's agnostic, that he doesn't KNOW, that it's "possible" that there is this great energy of consciousness or whatever in the universe, but that also has nothing to do with the personal Gods that people believe are answering prayers, or the 'small gods" that most people believe in. So, who exactly is "on the other side" of your point? Atheists or "darwinists" certainly believe there are things that we don't know, MAYBE even things we can't know presently in our evolutionary stage. But that is fluid and changing. And has nothing to do with how we will go about knowing.... has nothing to do with methodological materialism as a means to knowledge. It IS our means to knowledge; if we are to know, that is how we will know. What is the mechanism for 1)knowing that there ARE things outside of your knowability, and 2)studying those things outside of your knowability? I find the whold philosophical argument funny and worthless.... yet I comment.
Janine: "Your ignoring of physical evidence in favor of your unhinged philosophical flights of fancy leaves you open to mocking. Deal with it."
Janine, you ignorant slut. Not being persuaded by the evidence is not the same as ignoring the evidence. You're apparently as stupid as you are ignorant (how am I doing?). I suspect that I'm as familiar with the evidence for evolutionary theory as you are. The difference is that you find it persuasive, and I don't. If you weren't such a fuckwit (I think I'm getting the hang of it), you'd know that, you moronic sack of shit (yeah, that's it - can I have a gold star, PZ?).
Ruined indeed. Sadly, I recalled the sermons on the pentecostal church placed in front of my office back when I worked in Caribbean Nicaragua. How sad and sometimes discouraging to see these sort of things.
So, in the meanwhile, where did they wait ?
Hell. That's what Jesus was doing between death and resurrection, scouring hell for all the souls who could now go to heaven.
Dante puts them in Limbo, but I hear that Limbo has been retconned.
No. She is very clear on this point.
In the case of Christianity, I think you have that backwards -- it is the fancy theologians who use big words to talk about "immanence" and "uncaused causes", and the great majority of believers who pray to get over their cold.
Right, and we recognize that such is a judgement, and is provisional, and could be overturned were additional evidence found. Science, and more generally rationality, recognizes that there may be epistemic limits to the conclusions we can draw. That does not undercut science, that is simply how science operates. That is radically different than saying we can have certainty even without evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, which is what religions claim.
Who said that was "reasonable"? I certainly didn't. As an ex-Catholic, I can understand how someone could believe such, but such beliefs are not "reasonable".
Believing in such things is a variety of Deism -- I don't see why you object to the term.
Patricia! SC! A fuckwit just called me an ignorant slut! I win the thread!
Well, you reduced the argument to that in the first place. Your paraphrase was better than what you actually said. If you're going to offer the possibility for "virgin births" in general, saying "but Christians believe this was spiritual" doesn't make the possibility go away.
Quand on fait son lit...
heddle
Well thank you!
In case it wasn't clear, what I meant was not that anal intercourse and the virgin birth were in themselves related. My comment was about the fact that in both cases, anal intercourse and artificial insemination, it supposedly preserves the virginity of the participant. That was the idead behind my dumb comment. Sorry if it sounds that stupid. I should see how these are two inherently different ways of thinking.
I just still don't see how artificial insemination qualifies as "virgin birth". The only way it does is if the concept of virginity only applies to vaginal intercourse. That was my point.
And what will you teach them, exactly?
Evidence of your absence does not excuse your absence of evidence.
Et ça colle drolement au sujet!
No, I cannot. I was lying kidding.
HAHAHA. Gar-funkless has got to be a joke. No one is that stupid.
Blockquote fail.
Obviously :
If your grasp of cosmology is any indication, I highly doubt it.
Anyone can read that thread, in particular the comments I referenced, and understand what our conversation was about (including, but not limited to, that one issue). They can also read this one. You can pretend that people can't read, but that doesn't make it so.
Based on what? Why would you believe this?
Then why even talk about non-penetrative "virgin" births? A pregnancy without penetration is not impossible, and is indeed entirely natural. There is zero evidence, however, of supernatural pregnancy-miracles. You're neither confusing nor fooling anyone.
I rest my case. If I'm not around when heddle next appears, please link to this thread.
I love coming up with completely bizarre explanations for supposed miracles that allegedly occurred, having theists complain, and then pointing out how much better it fits in with our knowledge of the world than a deity.
It annoys them and does little to convince them, I think, but it's so much fun.
Argh! Stupidity napalm!
I kept watching, but I first wanted to hurl about 20 seconds in, when she invoked "magic".
It's always good for a laugh when Heddle stops by and tries to show that one can be a scientist and believe in god at the same time. Nobody says it's impossible, just not easy for most people. And his dodges and evasions show the cognative dissonance and compartmentalization required for this to happen. He fools nobody, and convinces nobody. He is just wasting both our times.
Tulse: Who said that was "reasonable"?
Those believers themselves, see my corrective explanation @ 297. And of course you referenced the definition of "Deism", I was defending it against dismissive attitudes of irrelevance from both sides. REM: look for attitudinal language in arguments, not just descriptions. Liberal Xtianity: the clergy of liberal churches are less likely (almost by definition) to believe in actual virgin birth, resurrection, heaven/hell etc. than their flock, I know because I have talked to enough of them and read their journal type writings (about which they must take care.)
@300: All of those things that are seen as "outside of the reality of materialism" will come within that sphere through investigation and necessity.,/i> Maybe so maybe not. Like many others you don't appreciate the logical difference and difficulty, between finding physical principles and applying them to their expressions, versus finding out why this stuff exists and has the properties it has, or whether it's all the sort of thing there can be, whether it is contingent on something else, etc. Your statement of faith in the future (not the demonstrated!) powers and scope of science is curiously ironic considering all the digging at religion here. And no, the latter is not my problem either since I'm working off philosophical method and not any revelation, "teachings" etc.
OK, sure, based on tradition, but heddle called me a lying sack O' shit, and he's a bigtime physics professor (we are none of us Doctors).
Where's Brenda, anyway?
Nerd, you are confusing different kinds of "religious" belief here. It does require compartmentalization to be both a scientist and believe in "miracles" like virgin birth and resurrections. It does not require any compartmentalization to believe that the laws of physics are the way they are, for the purpose of our (loosely, life of some kind) being here, or even to believe that a "god" (loosely) is behind all that. Not at all comparable to beliefs involving breaking such laws. It will be a problem only when it is clear, that the reason for anything at all, laws etc, is clearly self-sufficient and rationally explicated.
Sorry all, but work still has to get done, so this is a little late:
Heddle. Way back around the 200's you made a statement during some conversation about the virgin birth...
What I need your help to understand, then, is this:
If the supernatural is not compatible with science, how can religion be compatible, since without the supernatural foundation, religion is nothing more than philosophy and apologetics.
In other words - what the fuck are you talking about?
Tulse, so what "is" that type of Buddhism if not a "religion"?
BTW you have an inkling of the other part of my misgivings about traditional science/materialism (the first being, the interesting anthropic character of the laws), which is appreciation of how our feelings don't come across like "mere information". Whew is that a tough roe to hoe for some people ...
Neil B, you are entitled to your opinion, which I do not share. But, given your track record, I'm not going to get into an argument with you on it.
Anyway, back to the video. Somewhere buried in these 300some comments, someone noted that maybe this is simply a high school debate club and this was simply the "best" that she could come up with to argue the "Pro" side of "Resolved Atheist need to change". I tend to agree that maybe we are reading too much into this and belittling this girl's intelligence unfairly. I think the real stupid here is that "p4cm.com" thinks this video is sincere.
(but maybe I'm just gullible)
Got milt?
appreciation of how our feelings don't come across like "mere information". Whew is that a tough roe to hoe for some people ...
You got your horticultural idioms mixed up, there, Neil. It's not a row to hoe, it's a straw man. Nobody claims our feelings "come across" (and one of the most amusing things about dualist argumentation is the awkward evasion apparent in the treatment of such concepts: across where?) as anything other than feelings. Even when you're picking a fight out of the blue (was anyone talking about your stupid dualism here?), you can't argue honestly.
tony #321 wrote:
I think this is a good question, and I also think it first requires a definition of "supernatural" with some weight to it.
By that I mean, saying the supernatural is "that which is outside of nature" or "that which is beyond science's ability to examine" is too simple, or easy, or empty.
I do not "believe in" methodological naturalism. I think the term is silly, because there's nothing in the methods of science which, up front, rule out supernatural explanations. Scientists look for the best explanations, and don't stipulate whether these explanations have to be natural, or supernatural, before they begin looking.
There are all sorts of fairy tales and science fiction stories which give us possible worlds where the supernatural is real, observable, and testable by science. And in this world, theologians, paranormalists, and religious scientists are always trying to come up with scientific support for the existence of God -- or "mind forces."
The existence of the supernatural is compatible with the methods of science. It just doesn't seem to fit in with any of the current working theories.
Sorry I could only take about 30 seconds and then I had to turn it off.....
But I'd love an
EX-Believer
EX-God Botherer
EX-Rug Butter
EX-Catholic
EX-Protestant/Muslim/Buddist/Jew/etc etc etc etc
T-shirt !!! Shall we start selling them somewhere ???
Don't answer that! It's a russe!
(By the way, DiMilo, you're making me consider not emailing anyone from here ever again. Harumph.)
She was wearing a shirt labelled 'EX-atheist'. Is this a case of devolution? Or was she really ever an atheist? She is so screwed up mentally that I really doubt it.
I mean, the way feelings are for us. What do you mean, by "come across as feelings" if you agree with that much, and what do you think they are? Some would just say, "the way it feels" and not use come across as if you don't like that. If just describable as signals, then what about the "way they feel"? Are you a feigner of anesthesia? Why is pain worth being afraid of, if just patterns of activity with no qualitative nature of its own?
BTW it is not necessary to believe in two substances because things can have relative aspects. One way we find out about things is by studying interactions with them. That merely shows us the result of the interaction, we get different aspects depending on what we study (as in particle, or wave, the illustration not being involved with whether that is an active distinction in this case.) To be the system itself is just not the same as looking at interactions with it. It is not a genuine dualism since there aren't two separate things there, but some call this view "property dualism". Don't criticize it unless you know what it's saying.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
Neil B:
Right, which is Deism, which is pretty much the only "religious" belief that is consistent with science. However, a belief in Deism would mean that one doesn't believe in a personal God that responds to worship, pray, or praise, so it would pretty much rule out a lot of the aspects of religion that most people find important.
Philosophy. Life orientation. Therapy. Social structure. In other words, similar to what Confucianism and Taoism are.
Sastra:
I think that may be equivocating on what is meant by "supernatural". Explanations in science are predicated on a unity of description of the physical world -- one can't invoke ad hoc principles to account for specific phenomena, but must instead posit that the effects seen result from some more general feature of the universe. If something is literally irreducible to other physical principles (even if one postulates emergentism), then you don't have a scientific explanation.
If we found beings who could control the physical universe through sheer force of will, and we could never provide an explanation for that in physical terms, using principles that we either currently understand, or principles that we uncover and also apply to other aspects of the universe (i.e., there is no ad hoc special pleading) then no, such would not be explainable by science.
On the other hand, if we find "ghosts", but discover that they are subject to certain natural force such as a proton beam and that they can be contained using physical fields (as in Ghostbusters), then there is good reason to think that it is merely our understanding of what is "natural" that is at fault, and not that such beings are "super"natural.
In other (shorter) words, if we can study it scientifically, it isn't supernatural.
Don't criticize it unless you know what it's saying.
Fuck you, Neil. I know perfectly well what it (by which you mean Chalmers) is saying, and I disagree that property dualism rescues anything important or interesting or in need of explaining from the materialist defeat of substance dualism. It's just mysterianism, to wit:
To be the system itself is just not the same as looking at interactions with it.
No fucking duh, genius. Now apply the same reasoning to any other scientific explanation. When do we ever get to "be the system" that we are studying? You are the one who doesn't understand what he's criticizing, you fucking waste of glucose.
I agree with this. It's the core of monism, I think: "supernatural" is meaningless. If some phenomenon can be empirically analyzed and systemically categorized, then knowledge of that phenomenon is science — even if all of the underlying mechanisms of the phenomenon are not known.
Regarding your example of "beings who could control the physical universe through sheer force of will" (which sounds like what would more commonly be called "Gods") — I quibble with "and we could never provide an explanation": "never" implies a sort of epistemic despair. How would we know that we could never know? But this gets us into hair-splitting of definitions, I think.
As a sort of tangent, windy pointed at an interesting-sounding book, @#593 on the teapots thread:
Which certainly suggests to me that even with beings that appear to be able to do anything, it's possible to analyze them and figure out what limitations they might have, and perhaps even come up with some sort of testing regime.
Or something like that, anyway.
The Evolution Denial Movement is just as blinkered as the 9/11 Denial Movement.
PZ is right. It should be "open season on fresh meat." We should all handle them just as Christopher Hitchins handled this 9/11 Denier, starting at 1:50 into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veekHo8krOM
When do we ever get to "be the system" that we are studying?
When the system is our own mind, brain activity, you stupid, dingleberry-encrusted puke! Of course we don't get to be the rest of the time, that's the point (and why our understanding of the rest of the world is different.) And I don't believe any claim of philosophical acumen you make either, you're the idiot who didn't know what "naive realism" means in philosophy, nor that many otherwise intelligent people (including Dennett's teacher Gilbert Ryle, who clearly ridiculed the other position in The Concept of Mind. Instead, you said:
It's an artless term of abuse that describes no one's actual views.
Wretched little tramp, you bitch about me and yet you are demonstrably philosophically illiterate. You are probably stupid enough to be one too, since almost all anesthesia-feigning eliminativists have to deny the visual image of our phenomenal experience as being "Cartesian theater" and because it is too stunning a case of phenomenology to evade. (Adjusting the nature of it per details etc. is understandable.)
As for " ...rescues anything important or interesting or in need of explaining from the materialist defeat of substance dualism." If you really don't think feelings are inherently qualitative, you are either too stupid (like Ken Cope, Windy, etc.) to understand the issues involved, too much a blinded ideologue, or too literally pathological to have normal experiences. Consciousness denial is a psychopathology, not a philosophy (and denying the qualitative, "special" nature of it is denying it.) BTW you never did answer to my objections, like all of your tinny gray kind you evade such probing or throw up dishonest rationalizations.
OK, in light of recent events, let me correct my #330:
(By the way, Bill Dauphin, you're making me consider not emailing anyone from here ever again. Harumph.)
:)
Garfunkel said "But free will is something that can't exist if the materialistic account of our existence offered by Darwinism is true."
Brian Coughlin said "This may be well be true ... but so what? You or I will never know with certainty if this is the case, and in any event the inconceivable volume of inputs that contribute to your decisions, are so unfathomably vast, that to all intents and purposes you do have free will. Even if you don't:-)".
Hear Hear. I've long been confident that this is the case. Technically speaking we don't have free will but for all practical intents and purposes we do. Its like the reality that technically speaking there are a finite number of grains of sands on the beach and theoretically we could predict the movement of each grain by angle of incidence equalling angle of refraction but practically speaking for all intents and purposes we can't perfectly track the motion of every grain.
*sigh* Okay. I tried to have this in the background while proofing a paper (to submit to a scientific journal)--I could not even subconsciously listen for two minutes. To have a voice triumphantly declaring that evolution does nothing for science while I'm reading a paper about a protein in both humans and mice that contributes to skin tumorigenesis in both species--it was too much. The cognitive disjoint was so severe that my auditory networks have separated from the rest of my brain.
Thanks, PZ.
the profound ignorance spewing from this girl's mouth is giving me heart palpitations and acid reflux -- if god is such a perfect designer, why am i not impervious to the effects of such rampant stupidity.
Like tony said,
Then exactly how is religion, which is largely codified supernatural beliefs, compatible with science? As for birth from a virgin, all good little Christian "virgins" know you can get pregnant from saddlebacking. Why believe it was a miracle when a) it probably is a mythological story just like all other virgin births, b) Mary could have been saddlebacking or some other non-devirginifying sex act, and c) Mary (or her handlers) could have been lying about her being a virgin in the first place.
You ruined my morning, you bastard!
Demonstrably philosophically illiterate, because I can recognize that, in your mouth, the term "naive realist" is a straw man term of abuse reserved for materialists who aren't impressed by your douchebaggery? Tell another one, lackwit.
Stupid, just like windy, eh? You really know your put-downs. Hell, you should aspire to be twice as stupid as windy; it's hopeless, but even asshats need to dream. If I didn't answer all of your inanity on the other thread, it's because you're a complete waste of time. SIWOTI syndrome resisted, at least that once.
Tulse #334 wrote:
How do you define 'supernatural?'
I think that, if we discovered that there were such supernatural mind-forces, then science would have to recognize their existence, study how they work, and incorporate them into its larger models of how the cosmos works.
Owlmirror #336 wrote:
No, I think the core of (materialist) monism is that the supernatural doesn't exist (or, from the other end, that the material world is made out of consciousness, and thus only the "supernatural" exists.)
The reason supernatural causes are kept out of science isn't just because they're often too vague to mean anything other than "we don't know." It's also because those supernatural hypotheses which are not just garbled metaphors for ignorance are wrong.
Yet why call them "supernatural" if they can indeed be fitted into those models?
Just as an example, aren't radio waves "supernatural" in the same sense as telepathy; that is, without the explanatory framework of electromagnetic radiation and resonant circuits, it looks like magic? If you didn't know that there was an explanatory framework, would it be correct to say that a radio or cell phone was a device that allowed on to access supernatural powers?
I believe that in the past couple of weeks Neil B. has called windy, CJO, truth machine, Ken Cope, thalarctos, and KnockGoats stupid and/or ignorant. That should tell anyone who reads this blog regularly all that they need to know about Neil B.
If he had also called me a genius there would be no doubt.
SC, FCTE, OM,
Yes they can, and can see that there was no running away. And the last post you referenced from the previous thread is too long. It looks like a post from the GEM of TKI guy on UD. And please remember that I try to answer all substantive questions. Not all of your questions meet that threshold. Let's try something different, just give me one question that you claim I have avoided or Sir-Robbined. I'll answer that, then if you want to ask another you can.
Yes anyone can read that thread and see that I did not run away. Not that I would expect them to say so, because honesty is not exactly a hallmark of many of the commenters here. Instead what I would expect is mindless "Family Feud" style good answer SC, good answer! backslaps, such as from the drone known as...
Nerd of the Redhead,
And your stupidity speaks for itself. I don't believe you are, as you claim, a scientist. At least I hope not, for I never read one who is so incapable of constructing a self-consistent argument. Now please go look up the definition of cognitive dissonance. And please tell me how you test for compartmentalization.
Heddle, I will continue to laugh at you as long as you think you have a point. Keep coming and posting here. I love a good laugh at godbots.
Hm. That's not exactly how I'm using it though, so perhaps my usage is idiosyncratic.
If there is something, however ill-defined (and I think accurate definition is a crucial part of science in general, although not the entirety of science), that interacts with that which we can perceive, no matter how intermittently or weakly, that "something" is part of nature — and is part of the theoretically knowable. That is, it is natural, and accessible to science.
If some hypothetical something is defined as never ever interacting with that which we can perceive, that "something" might well be called "supernatural", but as such, it is utterly vacuous in meaning, and parsimony demands that we ignore it, if not reject it utterly. From (my) monistic point of view, if we absolutely cannot ever perceive it, or anything connected to it, it's not part of the natural universe, but it's also not anything that anyone can claim has anything to do with anything our universe, by their own definition. Or in other words, it might as well not exist.
I think that's how I would put it, for now. I may modify it if someone finds a problem with it.
Owlmirror #348 wrote:
How are you defining "supernatural?"
Here's my definition (so that you can see where I'm coming from):
Supernatural:
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a top-down view of reality in which pure Mental being, properties and/or products somehow precede, ground, influence, connect with, or integrate material nature. Complex systems such as life, intelligence, consciousness, and values have some special element or essence which is not ultimately reducible to, or supervenient on, material processes.
Something is supernatural if it both:
1.) uses laws different than those which apply to the familiar form of the universe we share in common experience (ie matter, energy, time arrow, etc.)
2.) is directly related in a significant way to the existence and direct causal power of thought, personhood, Mind, intention, emotion, intelligence, or values such as Good and Evil (or combinations thereof.)
Examples of supernatural phenomenon which would now fall under this definition: disembodied souls, ghosts, ESP, psychokenesis, magical correspondences, vitalism, karma, prana, God, cosmic consciousness, mind as "energy force," a universal tendency towards the harmonic balance of Good and Evil, progressive evolution towards Higher States, mind/body substance dualism, and holistic nonmaterialistic monism.
I like this definition because it seems to capture what people actually mean when they talk about something being "supernatural." It's fuzzy at the edges, of course, but not as fuzzy as having a definition which allows ghosts, God, angels, magic, miracles, ESP, and PK to be reclassified as "natural" if science discovers them. I'm more or less following Richard Carrier here...
No; under my definition, radio waves are natural, and telepathy is supernatural. The mechanism matters.
In the old thread from January of 2008, I thought he was thought-provoking, at least. But I am now convinced that the various philosophers invoked in that thread are more likely to argue their positions more clearly in their own words, so if I wish to go further, I will investigate them directly.
Neil B. hasn't become any more coherent since then, so I find no point in trying to hunt through his typical word salad for a crouton of intellectual worth.
Precisely why I don't engage him. I recognized his type almost immediately from my university days.
WTF?
'Kaaaaay. And that relates to anything how?
Run, heddle, run!
Let's try this: You answer the questions or arguments that have been put to you in response to your accusations, or you go away and stop showing up here making the same stupid fucking arguments over and over again. You can begin with 1) the one I asked above on this thread about the balkanization of epistemology (when I asked if you would respond, your curt answer was "No," followed by a snide remark - of course no one could interpret that as evasion...); 2) since you acknowledge that fundamental principles can be in conflict even if individuals can in practice through various devices avoid the consequences of said conflict (as in my hypothetical example), why won't you acknowledge that this is possible in the case of religion and science?; and 3) since you've requested "experimental" proof of the conflict between religion and science while, albeit bizarrely, defining an "experiment" as any systematic empirical observation bearing upon hypotheses, why do you reject existing historical or sociological evidence of this conflict, insisting that only your "experiment"* qualifies?
*Which is ludicrous for a number of reasons. I've noted some but would be happy to describe them in more detail at your request.
Thank you in advance.
By my definitions in @#353, no, that isn't what I mean by supernatural from my monistic perspective. Again, if this immaterial substance, whatever it is, which might be called "Mind" or "vital fluid", exists and interacts with the natural world according to certain discoverable rules, it is natural.
I would probably agree that the above definition is a more typical usage of the term supernatural, and I would understand it as such. But my point is that the distinction of such dualism as such is itself incoherent. Why call "vital fluid" or "ghosts" supernatural, and not "electromagnetic radiation", if they were both references to things that could be detected, analyzed, and understood?
I understand that my careful philosophical point might well be lost in the weight of common usage, of course.
SC, FCTE, OM, to Heddle
"Anyone can read that thread, in particular the comments I referenced, and understand what our conversation was about (including, but not limited to, that one issue). They can also read this one. You can pretend that people can't read, but that doesn't make it so."
Heddle said "Yes they can, and can see that there was no running away...I try to answer all substantive questions. Not all of your questions meet that threshold. Let's try something different, just give me one question that you claim I have avoided or Sir-Robbined. I'll answer that, then if you want to ask another you can."
You're running away is obvious and your claim that you haven't answered questions becaus they aren't "substantive" is just a cheap excuse. To an objective observer its clear you avoid answering many questions and/or make fun of them because if you followed them one by one and answered them honestly and fully it would lead to a refutation of your non-sequitors and baseless assertions.
For example, on this thread you ran away from a blatant contradiction you made:
Tony said "Heddle. Way back around the 200's you made a statement during some conversation about the virgin birth...
You (Heddle) said "But nobody makes the claim that the supernatural is compatible with science. That would be absurd. By its very definition it is not. The claim is about religion and science."
What I need your help to understand, then, is this:
If the supernatural is not compatible with science, how can religion be compatible, since without the supernatural foundation, religion is nothing more than philosophy and apologetics?".
I am now convinced that the various philosophers invoked in that thread are more likely to argue their positions more clearly in their own words
It doesn't matter whether he is championing or savaging the position, Neil can't help but mangle and misrepresent any subject he splats up against, blustering and frothing at the mouth.
I just got back from shopping in Napa with some olives, and a copy of Hofstadter's recent book, I am a Strange Loop, which is what I'll be reading while continuing to ignore Neil, who is more of a Stale Rut.
Thanks a lot, Myers!
Now I've got stupid ALL OVER me.
Arrgh! My Bullshit-Metre assploded at 1:29. Nearly another whole 9 minutes of that crap to go! I'm not going to make it!
Even so - how could she start her rant with a description of Genesis ("everything magically appeared") and then attribute it to a scientist and start tearing it down?
Didn't she ready that piece of paper before she got up there?
Indeed the stoopid is strong with this one.
PZ, I know we don't talk much, but I want to say that I really, really love your blog.
I think it's useful to quote the conclusion of Coyne's piece:
If heddle is going to define science narrowly as the professional activities of a group of people and religion in a way that doesn't comport with lived reality, well, then so be it (although his case even then is still eroding under his feet), but he's not responding meaningfully or honestly to Coyne's argument.
I'm glad people here are willing to call Heddle on his shit. As a newcomer, I'd see him spouting off over at Ed's place and everyone handled him with kid gloves, as if he were some sort of revered Elder Statesman. I was forced to conclude that I must be missing something, but I guess I wasn't.
This whole "chanting like Hare Krishnas", though, that slays me! Chanting about Krishna (the anointed one) is just mindless repetition, because it's not, well...Greek. Khristos, now, chanting about him isn't mindless. (Same meaning, same root, but totally different.)
Moran.
Owlmirror #358 wrote:
Because the critical distinction between natural and supernatural isn't whether it's capable of being detected, analyzed, and understood, but what sort of thing it is. Those first two (vitalism and ghosts) are fundamentally non-material, mindlike beings or forces -- and the second one (electromagnetic radiation) is reducible to matter/energy which is both lifeless and mindless.
People who believe in the supernatural believe it can be detected through the senses in the natural world. Using a definition which puts everything that can be detected through the senses in the natural world into the category of "Natural" isn't tracking with how the word is being applied. It either rules out the supernatural by definition, or allows damn near anything and everything to be called "natural," once we can detect it.
If science finds God, I would rather say that this means that we metaphysical naturalists were wrong and the supernatural exists after all. I think it would be silly to say that no, we're right -- naturalism is still true. It's just that God is now natural.
Naw, that would be a word game.
As I see it, metaphysical naturalism is a working theory -- it's not a prior commitment. Science supports it -- so far. But, like all theories, it can be overturned, given new evidence.
Garfunkle asked "If human beings are simply the bundles of molecules in motion that Darwinism makes of them, how could they have free will?"
As Brian Coughlan suggested to you, yes we are simply bundles of molecules in motion and although we technically don't have free will the huge bundle of influences on our our decision making processes for all intents and purposes give us a damn good illusion of free will".
Garfunkel asked "As wholly material beings, what is the source of their rationality and their desire to know truth?"
Intelligence is the ability to store, retrieve, and manipulate information in order to achieve goals. Our brains have the ability to store a model of the world and to play out scenarios in 3-D space and time. This model is constructed out of our sensory inputs and ultimately comes down to neurochemical model of many of our experiences and how we've observed the world to work. Rationality is a function of the nature of the world and our ability to store a model of it in our brains allowing us to know how things interact in the world. The development of specific patterns of interconnections in our brains during fetal development force certain patterns of thoughts to occur at certain times in our minds to cause us to respond to things like hunger, pain, and pleasure signals with actions that cause us to reinforce or counter those signals such as the accumulation of knowledge used to create physical states that produce patterns in our brain the structure identifies as success. The desire to know truth beyond a meeting of our primal needs is a side effect of the survival necessity of knowing what is and what isn't an accurate representation of reality.
Shoot! Left off the first paragraph (which PZ quoted in his post):
He/she is hardly worth the trouble, but CJO is a lying skunk trying to avoid admitting being a dumbfuck about "naive realist": It's an artless term of abuse that describes no one's actual views - that's nothing to support any pretense it was just about my use of it, and of course the term does describe very specific and long-windedly argued views as I noted. (And no one acknowledged, you can be dumb about X and not Y so their accomplishments in other fields proves nothing.)
Yes Owlmirror do read those original thinkers, but they have exactly the same thing to say about perception being qualitative and not describable by informational terms, etc. on down the line. Furthermore, they use many of the nearly word for word expressions and examples I use to make the point, I know because I have read them. And they are attacked with the very same types of arguments used against me here, and so on. Can you accept that much of the reason, at least, for someone like me thrashing around with "salads" is the obtuse hostility and misunderstanding of those who hate an idea for what it is driving at and are first to throw childish boogers? Consider the venue, OK? We're not even talking about disproven things like a young earth, but the nature of "experience" and e.g. known features of mathematics such as its deterministic nature. How can I sound anything close to like a decent professor with "students" or "colleagues" like that?
Priya Lynn #367 wrote:
I think this is a good illustration of my point regarding the basic divide between a natural view of reality, and a supernatural one.
William Dembski put the divide this way:
“Is reality fundamentally mindful and purposive -- or mindless and material?”
Priya is explaining how complex systems arise from simpler states. Mind and life are assembled out of lifeless, mindless components. He or she is building explanatory cranes from the bottom up. It starts out mindless and material, but builds up to mind and meaning through layers and patterns of complexity.
Garfunkle, on the other hand, seems to be looking at reality from a top-down perspective which depends on sky hooks. You can't get mind from not-mind. Mind is an irreducible essence which precedes matter, creates it. Meaning comes from a universe that has meaning as part of its underlying structure. Like comes from like, and all reductionism is greedy reductionism. If molecules can't think, then a bunch of them moving around can't think, either.
Dawkins says “A universe which begins with creative intelligence has got to be a very different kind of universe than one in which creative intelligence grows up.”
Liberal, science-friendly theists disagree. No, they might look exactly the same, both working through evolution and mechanical laws. They want to posit a disembodied Intelligence which doesn't conflict with anything science has revealed, or can deal with. This assumes, though, that the whole idea of a disembodied creative intelligence itself isn't conflicting with anything science has revealed, or can deal with.
I think it is.
But word games are the crux of the matter.
Science is about finding the best and most accurate definitions for words for things in the natural world through empirical verification — and acknowledging when the definition is necessarily fuzzy, but still within the boundaries of the more accurate definition.
Religion, and politics, and other fields, are all about using words in whatever manner is convenient for the speaker at the time. Consider how creationists mangle the concept of "evolution", for example. "God" is one of the most flexible words there is, and can mean almost anything and everything ("God is love", to offer an obvious example).
If science could and did find evidence for God, giving the word a definite and specific meaning, I bet one of the first things that the religious and political would do is say "That's not God! We mean something even more completely ineffable than that, when we say 'God'."
When the other side is playing word games to begin with, why not play right back, and play to win?
Hm. The Wikipedia article for metaphysical naturalism has an interesting codicil:
SC, FCTE, OM,
You are mistaking “running away” with not being interested. I’m obligated to answer questions regarding things that I claim, and may choose to answer questions that I find interesting, but I’m not obligated to answer questions that do not relate to any claim that I have made, just because Your Worshipfulness asks. I found Coyne’s review boring and Miller’s response spot-on. I have no interest to add to the volumes that have already been written, beyond what I stated earlier which is manifestly true, that neither Coyne nor Miller proved anything, they both editorialized. You can’t prove science and religion are incompatible and more than you can prove atheism and science are incompatible. You can only editorialize. If I stated that Coyne’s argument was stupid, and that he made logical errors, then it would be fair to ask me to defend my statement. Otherwise your question has an implied would you care to? Well, I wouldn’t. If I asked you to address Calvin’s commentary on Obadiah, would you be running away if you didn’t answer? On the other thread you asked me about the Chicago Statement, as you always do because you consider it to be proof of something, but since I originally opened the door on that and stated my affirmation thereof, I felt obligated to answer your questions, at least to the point of diminishing returns.
Priya Lynn,
No it is not obvious. I didn’t run away from that question, I answered it in #237. You apparently ran away from my answer. The supernatural by definition, if it exists, cannot be explained by science. Otherwise it would be natural, not supernatural. It is indeed incompatible—although orthogonal is a better word. But belief in the supernatural is not incompatible with science, because nothing compels me only to believe things that science addresses. There are plenty of things in my life (that are not religion) that I believe and yet science has nothing to say about them. The only way my belief in the miracles of old affects my science is if I invoke supernatural explanations to explain experimental data. I don’t, so it doesn’t. I bet you will run away from this question: How can you detect the way in which a theist-scientist’s belief in the supernatural affects his science? Everyone on this blog has run away from that question. Everyone. But it is a fair question—if science and theism are incompatible, show me the measurable effect. The only answer is the Krishna Commmmm-partmentalization. Commmmm-partmentalization.
Lurkbot,
What you were missing is that on Ed’s blog people generally debate and ask each other questions. There is still a lot of fighting, but some really good exchanges. Here the proportions are reversed. Here are mostly drones. You’ll like it here, I can tell.
Moran?
Someone needs to send that girl a science textbook and a Greg Bahnsen lecture
heddle@#372:
Hm.
How about if said scientist specifically invokes the supernatural as the only possible explanation for some physical phenomenon?
Owlmirror #371 wrote:
Science is about finding the best explanations in reality, using methods that try to eliminate subjective error and bias as much as possible. If the supernatural exists -- or even exists as a working concept -- then it ought to be describable, and distinguishable from that which is not supernatural. That's what Richard Dawkins and PZ and other scientists are doing when they look at religion: they're trying to pin down a definition of the supernatural which is clear and reasonable enough to allow it to be examined in the light of modern science.
And that's why the religious are howling. When the definition of "God" or "supernatural" gets too specific and clear, it becomes falsifiable. Thus the need for word games, and the constant trips to the Land of the Bad Analogy, the Island of Category Error, and the Pit of Obfuscation and Handwaving.
So the "traditional meaning" of metaphysical naturalism allows belief in spiritual substances? Huh?
That bothers me.
One question , if religon is bad for science ,how come the fairly religious United States produce so much more scientific output than any one of those godless European nations they love so much
Heddle,
facilis and heddle in the same thread? This could get interesting.
Anyway, heddle, 'Moran' comes from what you'll see in this picture this picture - the irony is, as they say, delicious. I can't remember exactly who he was directing it towards, but it's from the US.
Somebody needs to send Facilis even an eighth of a brain. No hope for his stupidity. He needs to show a glimmer of intelligence by ceasing his posts.
#35
"This is all October Mermaid's fault."
If I have to suffer, everyone will suffer!
But actually, I find it comforting knowing I'm not the only one gritting my teeth at this. Maybe our collective irritation can give her a migraine or something.
heddle #372 wrote:
By their failure to apply the scientific method on any belief they consider "supernatural."
If we're lucky, they keep the "supernatural" category very small.
Bears, facilis! Big, hungry, child-eating bears are coming to eat you alive!
Facilis, over 90% of the Nation Academy of Sciences are atheists or agnostics (mostly the former). They produce most of the science. Reliqion equals stupidity, like yourself.
They've been in the same thread before. As I recall, they avoided each other.
You know what, heddle? I just came back here planning to apologize for any unkindness in my post @ #357.
...OK, I'll do so anyway (I'm not a mean person and life's too short), but you've really shown yourself to be an evasive doofus. You turned up on that other thread, which was about Coyne's article, with no response to it - only another repetition of your ridiculous "challenge" and more "But where are all the fossils???" I'm convinced that you have no intention of trying to defend that challenge or respond to honest, substantive arguments or questions. It's just one dodge after another, and you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
So do kindly go suck an egg.
Er, apologies for the link fail. Never underestimate the value of the preview option.
facilis wrote:
A question, facilis. I doubt you'll stop at one.
Anyway, just think about how much more science the US would produce if science and scientists weren't badmouthed so often by idiots like the one in the video. There are probably people who would otherwise be great in science but don't go into certain fields because of their religion - e.g. if someone who could be a great doctor was born to Christian Scientist parents. And without religion scientists wouldn't be forbidden from doing stem-cell research because of retarded religious beliefs either.
Funding is also important, as was illustrated by anti-science idiot Sarah Palin and her contempt for research. There are plenty more people out there who are preventing science from getting the funding it needs.
Overall, I think US science could be doing better.
Eugenie C. Scott is rolling over in her grave--and she's not even close to being dead yet!
@Facilis
Why not just point a gun at her head? Apparently, whatever she says, you'll still win the argument if you shoot her.
In case anyone's wondering, this and heddle's other statements were addressed (by me and I'm sure others) on that earlier thread, and he didn't respond. Then he appears here refusing to answer those questions and singing the same tired old songs. That's why he's such an annoying git.
Facilis asked (accidentally I think)
What are the stats 'per captita'? How much of the science in the US is driven by capitalism (such as 'big Pharma')? What is the source of funding? How much of the 'US' Science is actually 'GLOBAL' Science?
Like I've said many times - I'm NOT a scientist - so I'm not the person to ask for such information (other than anectodal that you can get from anywhere) - but I'm sure you'll find real answers among the folks on this blog - real scientists, doing real science.
The US is lucky to have some truly world class research centers - but they are becoming more 'results oriented' (if they were ever anything different). I've noticed a trend (certainly since I was in college) that researchers seems to be extremely closely tied to the grants process, and that grants too often come with stipulations (such as the Bush constrains on NIH funding for *anything* that might smack of stem cell therapies).
What seems to be missing is basic science for the sake of science. Business doesn't care about sciecne per se. It only cares about it's bottom line - the results. I wonder if this is truly making an impact of science - from the perspective of 'grassroots' scientists - of if this is only the incorrect perspective of an occasional observer.
Behold, the power of the rhyme!
"If you don't find a bone, leave my theory alone!"
Hah! I'm convinced.
Facilis #376
Assuming this is true (and it's not simply related to relative sizes or something), one possible explanation is the diversity and competition at the top levels. The US gets a lot of scientists from other countries coming in due to the reputation -- and the US has traditionally been known for its competitive nature.
Science is a social process, a competition among peers to see who can find something new that stands up to critical scrutiny, which oversets something revered and respected. That's one reason the religious mindset has trouble understanding it. They tend to frame it as a form of worship of the past -- look at how this girl in the video says that Darwin "founded evolution." They can believe in a vast conspiracy of close-minded scientists because they don't get that something new and different is gold to a scientist.
If there was anything to Intelligent Design, scientists would be crawling all over it like hungry jackals, trying to be the first to disprove key parts of the theory of evolution -- vying for funding for experiment and research. They wouldn't care if it "messes with their materialist world view." Discovery! Money! Fame! Sex! (well, eventually) Especially if you prove God! Forget the Templeton Foundation... you're going on Oprah! Where your mom sees you!
If a Christian demonstrates that Jesus Christ was wrong, and didn't know what he was talking about, he doesn't "advance" Christianity. He undermines it. If a scientist -- no, when scientists have shown that Charles Darwin got it wrong -- that advances science. It would be considered progress.
You can't have a hegemonic conspiracy of old fogies in that kind of group. They feed on blood and controversy. If they're ignoring Intelligent Design -- or ESP research -- or homeopathy -- or some other "groundbreaking" theory that's "too far out there" -- then there's something wrong. It's not "too far out there." There's no there, there.
Somehow, I find framing of the brick wall totally appropriate.
George Sanders and Martin Stephens (Village of the Damned) in reverse!
"the" framing of the brick wall...
heddle:
How come the proportion of theists among scientists is significantly smaller than in the general population, at least in Western countries? I don't recall if you have proposed an explanation.
She lost me at "no evidence, no science, no methodology or anything..."
I turned this off. Life is too short.
P.S. If people want to "teach the controversy," there is a HUGE, REAL controversy, with real consequences (think of the Cheney e-mails) going on in archival science right now. Have you heard of it? No. Neither did I until recently.
This girl's sermon and knowledge base are even more clueless and inaccurate as Chris Farley's in "Tommy Boy" and "Black Sheep."
"This is one small step for man, and one big...I have a dream!"
And who was that prominent signer of the Declaration of Independence? Herbie Hancock.
Trust me dear, I am an expert in the use of sarcasm. Whatever you are saying in a sarcastic tone has to be at least somewhat accurate and truthful in order to have any real effect. Otherwise, you're just caricaturing yourself.
Hey lady,
We got us many a fossil, and we're not about to be docile!
You do know the proportion of Black and hispanics is also significantly lower than the general population. By the same token if we conclude that religion is bad , we should also think black people are opposed to science.
On www.p4cm.com, the DEBATE COACH link at the top left leads to the DVD extra on debating skills from the Denzel Washington film The Great Debaters. I commented there to say this was likely breaching copyright as well as breaking a commandment, but I doubt it'll be published.
Anyone feel like letting MGM or Weinstein know where a cease-and-desist letter is needed?
or maybe due to fuckwit, hegemonistic white educational policies?
Fail.
But you can have another try.
Facilis the Fallacious Fool is still missing the point. Scientists are very intelligent. They also do not use god in their work. There is an inverse correlation between intelligence and belief in god. So it is not surprising that top scientists have little belief in god. Comparing other minority groups to scientists is like comparing apples and oranges.
Thanks for the daily dose of rage PZ. I was wondering where I'd get the energy today for the evening's boxing classes, but it looks like you've solved my problem.
Well, I'm off to mercilessly pummel a sparring partner or two in a bout of fisticuffs!
You ruined my night. But I'm still an atheist so all is well.
what is that bonehead facilis still doing around?
It appears he's given up on the presup über-failure and is back to making silly claims based on dubiously obtained and misinterpreted statistics sans context.
Sastra @#375
Hm. Maybe that should be my argument for my concept of monism: That even if there is such a thing as "supernatural" that can is distinguished from "natural", then given that they are both part of reality; the total entire universe; everything-there-is-that-has-any-testableness-at-all... then my monism is the concept of that universal testableness.
I'm still not sure I'm expressing myself clearly, here. Oh, well.
Heh. I think we are entirely in agreement, here.
Well, I didn't write it (although I think the writer was trying to express what I have been). Maybe flag it with a "[citation needed]" ?
Oh that's good. Maybe he's picked up a book on the scientific understanding on behaviour and realised that morality is not given by the good grace of God, though probably not.
I made it nearly two minutes into that video.
If she is right, and there is a hell, I'll spend it listening to arguments of that exact logical and factual consistency.
Has anyone set up a fund where we can contribute to some sort of entity that will sue this girl's biology teachers for negligence? This has to be considered contributing to the delinquency of a minor at least.
"Nice Tee Shirt."
Nice bod, actually. Let's just put a bag over her brain.
...
WTH
If anyone has seen the Billy Madison movie, the scene where the guy says "We are all now dumber for having listened to that." I totally get that now, my head hurts. Biggest load of tripe I've seen spewed in a long long time. I find it hard (impossible) to believe this woman was ever an atheist, barring as a child before indoctrination.
(And Craig, think I'm gonna have to steal that bag over her brain thing)
@Kel
I haven't given up. I still am here unrefuted.
I think I should write some kind of book with a script because atheist responses here are getting too predictable it would go like
Chap 2
FACILIS' TRANSCENDENTAL PROOF
1) God is the necessary precondition for logic and reason. the existence of logic and reason proves God.
2)If the atheist calls your argument a fallacy (argument from ignorance, circular logic....etc) ask, "By what standard of logic and reason do you call it a fallacy?'
2)If atheist asks you to support premise 1 say "By the impossibility of the contrary".
3)If atheist accuses you of being dishonest say "Account for standard of morality by which you accuse me of immorality".Also Refer to argument from morality in Chap 4.
4)If atheist says anything else ask "Are you CERTAIN?" and "How do you KNOW this?". Then refer to argument from certainty in chapter 5.
5)Repeat steps 1-4 until atheist confesses God or concedes defeat or leaves.
6) The Christian godbot concedes that his argument rests on inane repetition, not logic or reason. The theist fails.
7) Send in the bears!!!
lol, really?
lol, can you not see how absurd that line of thinking is? It's like you are impervious to the shortcomings of your own position to the point where you parade your own mistakes as proof of disproof.
Facilis, the only reason why you remain "unrefuted" is because you have never demonstrated how "God = logic"
Can you please demonstrate how this is so in an example or three?
Like, explain how God being the be-all and end-all of logic and reason can explain how Vetulicola and its cohorts figure into Deuterostoma, or why that deranged gentleman from Colorado demanded to know what religions his hostages were so he could kill all of the non-Christians, and fatally shot a Catholic man, even though Catholics are Christians?
SATAN'S TRANSCENDENTAL PROOF
1) Satan is the necessary precondition for logic and reason. the existence of logic and reason proves Satan.
2)If the Christian calls your argument a fallacy (argument from ignorance, circular logic....etc) ask, "By what standard of logic and reason do you call it a fallacy?'
2)If Christian asks you to support premise 1 say "By the impossibility of the contrary".
3)If Christian accuses you of being dishonest say "Account for standard of morality by which you accuse me of immorality".Also Refer to argument from morality in Chap 4.
4)If Christian says anything else ask "Are you CERTAIN?" and "How do you KNOW this?". Then refer to argument from certainty in chapter 5.
5)Repeat steps 1-4 until Christian confesses Satan or concedes defeat or leaves.
-The Christian godbot concedes that his argument rests on inane repetition, not logic or reason.-
It was a joke man. Atheists are unable to account so you have to keep repeating until they do and realize that they should not deny that God is the source of all logic and reason. Then you've won the debate.
Well, I am convinced.
Hail Satan!
Aw. That's so nice to hear.
How come you refuse to demonstrate how God is the source of all logic and reason?
Is this because you can not demonstrate how God is the source of all logic and reason?
My irony meter blew up... the fact that your proof is circular means that your position cannot be true. Come up with a non-circular proof and then come back.
Someone please explain to me how facilis can't see that his circular arguments and assertions are completely devoid of reason.
It's like he's saying "the bible exist. The bible is the word of god therefor god exists."
And he thinks he's won. Pathetic.
Christians are unable to account so you have to keep repeating until they do and realize that they should not deny that Satan is the source of all logic and reason.
I thought you were the source of all accountants and barbeque recipes.
DAMMMMMN! I missed all the fun. It isn't everyday Janine get's called an ignorant slut.
I see heddle is still standing up for his stupid bullshit religion. Do you teach your students about total depravity heddle? Abomination go over big with the gay youngsters? How about the superiority of man over woman?
Inquiring minds care about your students.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I swear (by Bob) that I will accept facilis' argument - if and when he can justify why his proof cannot be used to prove any god - past, present or future - other than his own. Or, of course, why it can't be used to prove my own candidate: Sideshow Bob.
He hasn't managed so far. He just makes up rules about revelations that he can't justify. But every other time I've brought it up he's run away, which is almost as much fun.
So? Don't accountancy and barbecue follow from logic and reason?
Come on. Work with me here.
Actually, I am afraid that Satan has rather convinced me as well. Impeccable logic, don't you know.
Hail Satan!
Satan, I humbly beseech your aid in killing one naughty little brat, named Bartholomew Simpson.
Well, given your submission to Me, I think I can fit you in as My Holy Prophet. So I'll get a couple of bears sent off post-haste. He'll be torn to pieces in no time flat!
Facilis:
I pointed out to you the imbecility of this argument in the Russell's Teapot thread, but you (surprise!) never acknowledged it.
Millennia of experience in counting objects and measuring land led, through a process of abstraction, to the invention of mathematics. Centuries of experience doing mathematics led, through a similar process of abstraction, to the invention of logic.
This is what made Russell and Whitehead's effort to derive mathematics from logic such a back-asswards enterprise. Logic is not the ground of all being, it's the codified observation of how mathematics works, and mathematics is just the codified observation of how quantity works. So you're several layers of abstraction off from logic being the ground of everything and "God" being responsible for logic. Aristotle is responsible for (one form) of logic.
Thanks for playing though, your arguments are good for a laugh.
A friend of mine who follows your blog gave me this link. I've been subjected to this kind of "teaching" very recently, so the horror is still fresh in my mind. What freaked me out was how many of the people around me just ate it up.
Oh, great. Sideshow Bob's come to life and joined up with Satan. This is what happens when you don't keep your deity on a short leash.
Facilis @411:
Yeah, I'm going to jump straight to 2). I'm a layman when it comes to logic, but it looks like you're begging the question this time.
(A is a necessary precondition for B, the existence of B proves A -- but you don't demonstrate A is a necessary precondition for B!)
In other words, your logic may be valid but it is not sound.
And if your first argument isn't even logically sound, we might as well stop at step 2 because the rest of your argument kind of depends on you getting your logic right.
But, because I've started writing this now, I might as well propose an alternative to your premise:
* Thought originates with the evolution of the brain
* Reason originates with an advanced brain (not necessarily
just humans)
* Logic is an emergent property of reason.
The "laws of mathematics" state that 2+2=4, but it's not a law granted from on high. If you've got two things, and you put two more things next to them, you'll have four things. That's just the way it is. And it doesn't matter how complex or esoteric the math gets; it's all derived from counting stuff.
Likewise with logic; how you formalise it might be a matter of language and culture, but fundamentally it's just looking at the world and using your brain. "This rock is different from that tree" is pretty self-evident, but think about it enough and you end up at "A is not B" and off you go.
There is no "law" to be dictated. It's just thinking about how things are.
Kahegi, I'm sorry, but that's been already pointed out to him.
Look at step 2 in his script @#411. That's what he does every fucking time any logical fallacy is pointed to him. It doesn't matter what the fallacy is! He doesn't give a shit! He doesn't care that his argument for the source of logic and reason is logically fallacious! All he does is just babble babble babble! It's pathetic! We all realize it's pathetic! He doesn't care that it's pathetic! He doesn't care that he looks like a moron!
Gaaaaaah!
Really, we're all far beyond *facepalm* at this point.
PS: Hail Satan!
Er, sorry, Kagato @#432, not Kahegi.
But really, facilis has been doing this for weeks. He quite possibly has mental processing problems. I'm starting to suspect Asperger syndrome.
Just look in the "I'm in good company" thread, there facilis continually did exactly the same thing. Pointed out that without a means to describe logical fallacies that a logically fallacious position is still more sound than one that can't account for the fallacy in the first place. It's a mental mind-fuck, and I don't know how someone arguing that logic makes God a necessity would have a position so full of logical fallaciousness, but that's facilis for you. He's pretty ignorant when it comes to the matter of morality too, but when your answer to everything is Goddidit, it's at least understandable why he keeps himself in a state of perpetual ignorance.
Yeah, I get that. The first half was more ragging in him for committing yet another fallacy, on top of the ones he complained about. :)
Also a bit of logic practice for me. How'd I do?
The second half wasn't really even directed at Facilis, because I figure he'd just "declare victory" at the first paragraph...
Oh, please. I transcend time and space, don't I?
But alas, I fail at omnipotence. That Bart keeps slipping through my fingers — but not, I hope, through the teeth of bears!
Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
bigjohn756 @60: "I don't think this young lady is lying. I think that she is simply stupid."
Alas, I think you overrate her honesty, and that she is engaging in "divine deception", casting aside concern for factual truth as a hindrance when fishing for souls.
Valis @154: I do not speak for Bill Hick or represent him in any way, so I cannot presume to guess at the depths of heartbreaking disappointment your present reservation has left him with. May I only and humbly suggest that you not rule out the possibility entirely until you've met him and discussed the question openly and honestly with him and any significant others you or he may have?
Garfunkel @213: "no gods worth having exist"
Except Ronson, the God of Apathy, who looks after his followers on condition they not bother him (quite a challenge in discretion there!)
In another thread - or possibly earlier in this one; it's hard to remember - facilis expressed his admiration for the arguments of one SyeTenB and linked to his blog; I believe it's he who facilis is plagiarising the arguments of. They're pretty much word for word on the 'but how can you know that unless there are laws of logic and reason and they must come from somewhere, therefore my god exists' tripe.
Posters there presented all manner of refutations; he either ignored them and/or simply repeated himself in the same way facilis does.
I loved that bit where he utterly refused to address any thought experiment using his own logic to show it's shortcomings because that's now what we truly believed. Nope, sorry, can't address the Sideshow Bob argument, you don't truly believe that so therefore it's inadmissible. pfft
I went to their P4CM site and they're selling "ex-masturbator" t-shirts. Seriously. So the people who thought THAT was a good idea also think they have a handle on science and logic? Awesome.
I tried to leave a few comments there, but, naturally, they are moderated. I wasn't even mean about it. I just warned them that some poor dyslexic person might mistakenly believe they're promoting the dreaded Masturbator Ex, first and most powerful of all masturbators, he who sits atop a sticky throne and holds the fate of many in his iron, Freudian grip.
I'm your worst enemy Sideshow Bob, and I know where you live. Muahahahaha
It is, sadly, the West -- with a schismatic Pope who fled the Orthodox Church centuries ago, and has in turn suffered schismatic departures since then -- that has had the worst schisms of faith and reason, of religion and science.
In Eastern Orthodoxy the traditions are less confounded, and the identity of God is still declared to be Truth. So how could anyone accuse scientists -- the devoted servants and seekers of truth -- of being enemies of God?
Niiice Wowbagger!
I swear by Eris, Thor, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that I will accept Facilis & Heddles gawd as the one true gawd, and fall back down on my knees and worship him when he appears in his biblical persona on Earth. Nothing new required.
Let's go Facilis & Heddle, trot out your gawd.
Oh, Patricia, show at least some credible semblance of self-interest!
Require that Gawd show up with a sign written in mile-high letters of flame, containing the winning numbers for the next lottery, with time for you to buy tickets.
Or sumpthin' like that.
I made it through, oh, a minute and a half or so. My key takeaways from that:
1) Only an idiot would believe that the universe was poofed into existence using some sort of magic.
2) We should ignore everything Darwin said, because he was a theologian and therefore didn't know anything about anything.
I don't think I missed anything out.
Kagato,
How's it go? Ah yes, "Dude, this is Pharyngula!" If you'd made an error, someone would've pointed it out :)
Yeah, you can't get away with much here. Start waffling or talking shit and there's bound to be someone who will call you out.
"This is madness"
"No, THIS. IS. PHARYNGULA!" *kicks facilis into a bottomless pit*
Okay my day's already been ruined by all the damn snow we have been getting here in the UK. This ignorant cow just rubs salt into the wounds. The arrogance with which these ridiculous arguments are espoused always amazes me. As does the hatred of Atheists, the wooing and cheering in the background was almost as disturbing as the actual talk itself.
Pyre - Thanks, I'd love to do that, but I've made it an honor issue never to ask anything new of gawd.
Making asses (other than heddle and facilis) speak, snakes talk, blazing messages, and just showing up in person - hey I'll that that as proof. Or gawd could turn me into a pillar of salt. Dragons and Unicorns I'm luke warm on.
take that as proof.... damn germy Chimp!
How does this thread get to 449 comments? Did I miss a cracker desecration?
So she's all "Millions of bones, and how many of them are transitional?", and I'm like "Um... all of them." But she's like "None!" She must be expecting a crocoduck.
I was more curious about the story (if any) behind her shirt. But her web site just crashes my browser... I could only see it long enough to catch the "Ex-masturbator" thing. Yeah, that'll bring 'em in.
Nemo - there's a discussion about the shirts, and where to find them, and the possibility of similar but...uh..differernt shirts upthread.
I think that you haven't missed too much here - tedious, sanctimonious crap from heddle, facilis, and some twerp called "garfunkel". Apparently god exists. Who'dve thought it?
Sastra,
Not true. Bring me the resurrected Jesus, and I’ll apply the scientific method to his claim. I apply the scientific method to the origins of the cosmos all the time. Part the red sea? The scientific method says it cannot be done. God exists? If you tell me the test, I’ll apply it. There is not one belief that I have that I have put off limits for the scientific method. I have no objection whatsoever to proving that you can't part the Red Sea. So you are dead wrong.
Owlmirror,
If it one that he is studying, definitely. Suppose you and I wrote separate papers on the possibility of walking on water. We publish simultaneously. It turns out we did the same analysis, ran the same experiments, and reached the same conclusion: it is impossible. Outside the lab, you might state: therefore Jesus didn’t walk on water. I might state: no he did, that’s why it’s called a miracle. In either case our science would be indistinguishable. If it is indistinguishable, it means my faith has no ill-effect on the science, nor did your atheism.
Windy,
I did several times. The possibilities include
1) It really is true that smart people are less likely to be believers.
2) Christian schools and colleges do an abysmal job of teaching science and encouraging its study, reducing supply. Sort of the same reason why there are fewer women.
3) Really smart people are more confident and so are less likely to buckle to the familial, peer, and cultural pressure of declaring as a believer. That is, they are more willing to come out and admit they are atheists. Thus the low percentage of professed believers among scientists might be far more accurate than the high percentages claimed in the general public.
In any case none of those imply say anything about incompatibility. If there were only one rare theist who was smart enough to be a scientist I could still ask: show me where his theism is incompatible with his science, and nobody would have answer.
SC, FCTE, OM
In case anyone is wondering they should do what and go read that thread, as you suggested, and if they are honest rather than a lapdog they will, I am confident, conclude that I did answer the questions to the point of ad nauseum. SC, FCTE, OM can repeat the running-away lie, but that won’t convert it to a truth.
Liar—I never said anything remotely analogous to “where are all the fossils”
You are a liar many times over. I came on this thread with a legitimate debatable point—that theists/scientists are more effective (though by no means certain) of reaching kids like the girl in the video than are antagonistic atheist scientists. And a side point that many of you, given the choice between the girl staying as is or being a pro-science theist, would actually prefer the former. Your first response included a whine about running away on a previous thread, which is demonstrably false. The real point is you should have done one of two things: ignored me altogether or addressed my post. Several people on this thread (Windy, OwlMirror, Sastra come to mind. in this recent go-around) ask legitimate questions. Hundreds or thousands of others just ignore me. Instead you chose to be a confrontational liar.
Given the materialistic conception of the mind offered by Darwinism, if we "adopt procedures" to check our thoughts against reality, the procedures themselves would be nothing more than products of electro/chemical activity in our brains - activity resulting from irrational material causes beyond our control. You are assuming that we have the ability to control our mental processes, an ability we can't have if mind is a material phenomenon (as it must be if Darwinism - a wholly materialistic account of human existence - is true). Indeed, if you accept the Darwinian account of the human mind, you have no warrant for using the word "we," which implies free will (i.e., the ability to think and act with at least some freedom from materialistic determinism). But free will is something that can't exist if the materialistic account of our existence offered by Darwinism is true. - Garfunkel
You are quite wrong. Free will can indeed exist in a purely material and determined world. Read Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" if you want to understand fully, but briefly, you are confusing "determined with "unavoidable". A determinist account of free will says we have free will because we can anticipate the possible outcomes of our actions, and decide whether or not to perform them. Sometimes, of course, this is not so: you cannot avoid making a reflex movement in certain circumstances, so with regard to such movements, you do not have free will. Again, if you are in the grip of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or severe depression, your free will is impaired: you are physically capable of performing or not performing certain actions - you have the necessary anatomy, strength and dexterity - but your psychological state makes action (or inaction) unavoidable. It is no good telling me that this account is still compatible with everything being determined at the level of elementary particles, because I already know that; instead, you have to show that this account is incoherent. (A side issue: materialism does not imply determinism, but this is irrelevant to the question of free will because it does not make any relevant difference whether decisions are determined or the result of chance processes.)
Before I converse with you any further, I require a brief account of what you understand by "free will" - just repeating the words like a mantra will not do. I suppose you think there is a non-material "soul", but then the same range of possibilities arises as in a wholly material universe: either the decisions taken by this "soul" are determined, or they are the result of chance. If you insist that neither of these possibilities is compatible with free will, you have to give a coherent explanation of a third possibility.
heddle:
You've just stated that, outside the lab, you'd believe that which you've scientifically demonstrated is impossible inside the lab, in a post where you defend your view that there is no effect on your science.
It's a paradigmatic case of compartmentalisation; you apply different beliefs in different occasions.
You've also stated that something you consider to be scientifically impossible can simultaneously be empirically possible, yet you don't consider this affects your science.
You really don't see this as perceptual blindness used to avoid cognitive dissonance, do you? :)
As I've already said: "Truth be told, no one knows 'how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be.'" That's why it was so silly for Knockgoats to say that Dawkins's book ("The God Delusion") has the advantage of being true. - Garfunkel
I said most of it is true. Dawkins makes no claim to absolute certainty that there is no god, and most of his book is about either the flaws in arguments for the existence of god, or about religion and its effects on individuals and the world. That we do not know "how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be" (science is of course making progress on both these questions while religion never makes any progress past "Goddidit"), is irrelevant to the truth of my claim.
To the contrary, it has been shown that minute variations in the forces and constants of the universe would make life impossible.,/I> - Garfunkel
No, it most certainly has not. It has been claimed, but that's a rather different thing. For example, there was a brief article in New Scientist of 2 August 2008 arguing against the claim, and another recently in Nature (sorry, don't have the exact citation - anyone got it?) It is often claimed - as you have done - that if some constant had been different, there would have been no galaxies or whatever - but even if true, this does not mean there would have been no life, because we do not know the necessary conditions for life to develop. In addition, of course, you have not dealt with my other two points against the so-called fine-tuning argument for God.
I'm somewhat puzzled Garfunkel: do you really think you have brought out anything that those here have not heard a thousand times before? That's what's so boring about theists - they so seldom have anything new to say.
I couldn't get to the end of that video, it made me want to scream.
isn't there something in her primitive little death cult about not being a liar? I'm sure i read that somewhere.
- heddle
What a dishonest little shit you are, heddle. You have no hesitation in spouting off about your religious convictions - I believe you even indoctrinate children with this filthy rubbish - yet you have never proved them. I suggest you STFU until you have done so.
John Morales ,
Maybe--but I would say it doesn't quite fit that description. For example, the cold fusion guys continued to insist that cold fusion was scientifically demonstrable in spite of what was happening in labs outside of Utah. They claimed others were doing the experiments wrong. At some point you can argue their beliefs affected their science.
With walking on water I do not dispute that science demonstrates it impossible. I concur. If a trial needed an expert witness to demonstrate the scientific impossibility, I'd be happy to take the job.
Your point is, I think: how can I still believe it, even in the one isolated case of Jesus? My answer would be that you are putting a demand on me that the scientific method does not place on me--namely that I only believe what science tells me. The method does not require that. It says: if you do science, this is the way you do it. These are the steps. Now I practice the scientific method and I believe science, but in principle even believing in science is not a requirement. Only the method is a requirement. A scientist could wake up one day and say: hell, I don't believe any of this science stuff, but life is good and I want tenure and I know how to do it even if I don't believe it. And that person could contribute mightily to the field because science is a methodology and while it is not advisable one could do the work and make contributions without believing any of it. In the same way that a pastor could wake up one day and realize he is an unbeliever but nevertheless say: what the hell this is a comfy gig, I can do this.
So I think you are confusing my failure to live up to an ideal: I can only believe something if science tells me it is possible, with what science really is: a motive-agnostic time-tested methodology for studying the natural world.
Knockgoats,
I'm somewhat puzzled Knockgoats: do you really think you have brought out anything that those here have not heard a thousand times before? That's what's so boring about atheists - they so seldom have anything new to say.
Infuckingdeed. *headdesk*
FFS! You'd really have to do research to find this? And Coyne and everyone else has included "outside the lab" in our discussions of incompatibility. It was one of the major points made by Coyne, as shown in the passages I quoted above. Your "science" isn't at all indistinguishable. Belief in miracles and other supernatural interventions in the physical world is fundamentally incompatible with secular, scientific reason, as Coyne argues. If you're not going to address his arguments, which was what the earlier post was about, then piss off. The point is that the existing evidence concerning what's possible in the natural world, as well as any research you perform yourself, if they show no support for something you believe, or indeed that it is physically impossible without supernatural intervention, should have an effect on your beliefs. What the hell is the point of an empirical approach if you've no intention of adjusting your beliefs in accordance with what you or others find?
When you say you hold other beliefs without evidence (in the social and political arenas), you're also admitting to an approach that is not only antiscientific but also immoral. We have a moral responsibility to base our beliefs, which are the basis of our actions, upon real evidence.
First, the one about science education in religious schools certainly implies something about it, particularly in historical context. (It's not like the case with women - it's specific to religious schools.) Second, your references to intelligence are mistaken and misleading - "smart people" are not what's at issue. Scientists, specifically, are. No evidence has been presented that these percentages hold across academic disciplines, which surely are also made of of smart people. The evidence is suggestive that this pattern is true of scientists, and that the number of theists decreases as the levels increase. Your list of proposed explanations (the first one of which you may wnat to think about a bit more - where does it lead you?) fails to include the one that seems to square with the evidence provided by scientists themselves about the reason: an honestly- and consistently-applied scientific approach has led them to conclude that religious beliefs or explanations for natural phenomena are useless, wrong, and/or unsupported by any evidence and therefore not reasonable to maintain. This hypothesis has the strongest support going in; it could be tested further through more in-depth surveys or interviews with scientists (and this kind of thing is what I do).
You've been saying something entirely analogous all along. "I don't think they're incompatible, and will reject all real-world evidence of incompatibility in any form other than my silly challenge. So where's the evidence?" The evidence is not only in the fact of a large percentage of scientists becoming non-theists, but in things like this video, in religious persecution of scientists and rejection of scientific findings and interference with science education over several centuries, and so on. The evidence is in a fundamental conflict of epistemological principles between the two, which you simply refuse to acknowledge. The evidence is in your own sad balkanization. As I said, more research can be done, and I'm confident that my hypothesis will be supported by that as well. Why do you not accept any of the above as "measurable effects"? How do you justify this?
Sure. I'm the liar.
And PZ responded to you. (Did you respond to him?) You have your own definition of "reaching" which does not really mean reaching them in an honest or meaningful way when it comes to science, which is unsurprising as you yourself are deluded.
I pointed out that this is a pattern with you, and that it's obnoxious and dishonest behavior on your part. I also asked you a question related to something else on this thread.
Right. That's why I linked to the previous thread, then listed the relevant posts, then again asked you the questions I had earlier. You ran away again.
This isn't your blog, dear, but take your own advice. What you should have done is address my posts on the earlier thread before starting with a new stupid argument on another. You've had several weeks now.
All you've said is that my questions are "illegitimate." You've given no explanation as to why, or to why, even if you feel this way, you can't simply answer them to end the whole thing. It's pathetic evasion.
Now I have to get ready for work.
heddle:
No, my point is you're compartmentalising (though I'm not doubting or trying to impugn your scientific integrity or methodology).
No, I'm saying that you've stated you consider the scientifically impossible to be empirically possible, and that your cognitive blinkers prevent you from seeing you're thereby dismissing at least two of the major metaphysical bases of science: replicability of phenomena and causality.
I can see what heddle is trying to get at, though really it's nothing more than compartmentalisation that at one point is going to hit together eventually. Walking on water is unfalsifiable, but that wasn't the only miracle in the bible; and there certainly were passages where the events described would have left evidence in one form or another. At some point there has to be a compromise of evidence or an elimination of biblical inerracy.
No there is no evidence, just chanting. Evidence to a scientist means data, predictions, falsifiability. There is none of that in Coyne's article, or in Miller's reply. .
Because they aren't measurable. A meaurable effect is to demonstrate how the science a theist produces is different from that an atheist produces. Anything else is just words.
No, you are running away from my challenge by calling it silly. But I'll accept another challenge that demonstrates the incompatibility rather than talks about it. Demonstrates it with an experiment. I proposed one experiment, which you call silly because you do not know how to deal with it, but I'll accept another experiement--but not words. I have made the point over and over including recently that if OwlMirrow and I both studied walking on water that we would in principle produce indistinguishable papers on its impossibility. Tell me, how would you tell which paper was written by the the believer and which by the athiest? Your Answer: Oh that's so silly! They are incomaptible but don't ask me to put that to the test! No, as long as I use words like compartmentalization and balkanization then I have proved it!
No I didn’t, you are repeating the lie. Running away does not mean getting bored with your repetitive questions. Running away is when someone posts a really good showstopper question and the person to whom it was addressed declines to answer and just goes away. I challenge you to reproduce from your list of posts on the previous thread one question that a reasonable person would say: yes, that or something close wasn’t already asked and answered, and it is a substantive question, and it is on topic, and heddle simply refused to answer. C’mon, do it.
Yes I did. In the following post I cast aspersions on his motives for not wanting that girl to come to a pro-science position.
Heddle:
The mind boggles.
You're seriously -- seriously -- arguing that there is no incompatibility between science; but if the results you reach don't match your preconceived ideas, you're willing to completely ignore the results??
Oh sure, you might be capable of performing the mental gymnastics needed to actually complete a scientific study that runs contrary to your beliefs. you might even be able to isolate those beliefs enough that you don't let them bias your research.
But if, in the end, you look at your work and say:
"There is no reliable data that this event took place. This event was not even scientifically possible. All evidence says this could not and did not happen. But you know what, I say that it did anyway!"
...that right there is your fundamental incompatibility between science and religion!
No one has said it's not possible to go through the motions of following the scientific method. But science is used to guide us to the truth; and if you can say that the scientific results for any specific topic (even if you're willing to reach them yourself) are irrelevant to the truth of that subject, then you are declaring that the scientific method does not apply there.
How is that anything other than incompatible?
All the talk of compartmentalisation is not about proof of incompatibility; it just explains how, in the face of that incompatibility, some people manage to work around the problem. Your quote above could be used as a textbook example of the concept! (While I've got my science hat on, proposition A is true. But when I take it off, proposition A is false!)
heddle (#461)
If you can arbitrarily reject science on a whim, then what fucking use is it? Motive-agnostic does not mean purpose-agnostic, and your definition of science neglects its purpose: to give us a self-consistent (and therefore useful) description of reality. If you strip science of its purpose, it becomes only so much philosophical masturbation.
Furthermore, if not science, what do you use to determine the validity of your beliefs? If they are immune to falsification, how do you demonstrate and distinguish false beliefs? That is, how can you leave reality open to your preferred superstitions and not leave a gap for everyone else's at the same time?
Good way to start off the morning. Laughing at Heddle's tap dancing logic. Hahaahahahahhaa
Did anyone notice the commenter on her youtube page who said he had a degree in "bio-medical science"? What is bio-medical science?
A. Noyd @468
If you had the right presuppositions you wouldn't have said any of that. I'm a Calvinist because in a miracle God told me I'm going to heaven and you're not, and he also told me there is no conflict between science and religion because without God, there can be no science and religion.
And then God stepped on a rake, you ignorant slut. Did I tell you I'm a physicist and the Bible is inerrant? Besides, the burden of proof is never on me, thou bald pate. Wait, what? She-bears? GAH
#470
"What is bio-medical science?"
It's a common enough degree course in various parts of Europe. Its basically human biology taught for those who are interested in working in healthcare or going on to do a PhD.
You guys don't get it. Without God as the necessary precondition for the laws of logic there is no standard of logic and reason, so all our objections that I am using "circular reasoning" are meaningless.
Account for the laws of logic and reasoning before you accuse me of fallacies.
Turns out she is removing dissenting comments from her video so it looks like there are just supporters.
You first.
It would make sense that these immaterial laws of logic come from some sort of immaterial being. This being would have to have absolute knowledge so he could know they applied universally.This being would have to be unchanging or the laws of logic could change and that would be absurd. The being would have to be eternal or else we can say there was a time where the laws of logic did not apply and that would be absurd. This being must be personal because he would have to reveal the laws of logic to us.
Please note that the transcendental argument is only the 1st step in the presuppositional method. If I had an opponent who believed in some other kind of revelation, I would take both our revelations and examine them to see which provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience.
@A. Noyd
1) Are you saying science is the ONLY way to determine the validity of beliefs? If so please provide scientific evidence for this belief.
My guess would be that heddle holds to a particular epistemology (since he is a reformed Christian it would't be much of a stretch to suggest he holds to reformed epistemology) that he uses to justify belief.
2)What is your epistemology? Does it make epistemic certainty possible?
Heddle @454: "Part the red sea? The scientific method says it cannot be done. .... I have no objection whatsoever to proving that you can't part the Red Sea."
Good grief, in a volcanism- and earthquake-prone region such as that, the Red Sea "parting" story practically screams tsunami, doesn't it, like the water running all out of a harbor, leaving boats grounded and fish flopping, only to rush back in later and destroy half the town (not to mention killing all the happy folk who were picking up fresh fish).
Biomedical science is common enough, but "Bio-medical science"? It is usual to be able spell your own degree subject. (Maybe English is their second language? Maybe...)
A.Noyd, #468
Sure it does.
If I look at a paper on neutron absorption cross sections, I cannot determine any of these:
1) The author's real purpose is the advancement of basic science.
2) The author's real purpose is the production of electricity.
3) The author's real purpose is to build a bomb and kill people.
4) The author doesn't actually believe what he published.
5) The author is a Moslem.
6) The author is gay.
7) The author is black.
8) The author is a pedophile.
9) The author beats his wife.
10) The author is a Calvinist.
11) The author is a "New Atheist".
The science is agnostic about all of these. All that I can do is evaluate the paper on its scientific merit. Any fluff you attach to science in order to, by definition, make it incompatible with religion--or to demand noble goals as you define the--is just that: fluff.
Nerd of the Redhead,
Sigh. Let us pause to lament the grade-inflationary decline of the OM. When it was people like Kristine and some others--well then it was understandable why such a person's comments were selected for special recognition of laudable acumen. Now the OM is just a shell of its former self.
@Facilis
That's a remarkably accurate description of Sye's argumentation. But you left out two additional steps:
That should cover it.
Heddle, all you have is invective. The amusing part is you being the poster boy for what happens when a scientist believes in god. The mental tap dancing required is hilarious. I'll enjoy laughing at you until you stop trying to pretend the two mix. You can always stop posting here.
As an engineer, I lean toward a physical analogy. Science, reason and research are like a sewage treatment plant, accepting a flow of ideas and filtering out the shit. Religion is a bypass pipe which allows ideas to pass through unfiltered by testing or dispute. Heddle is plant manager who insists that the effluent from the northeast part of town be permanently connected to the bypass pipe because their shit doesn't stink.
Nerd of Redhead, OM,
Only in as much as it involves replying in kind. If people want to engage with me in a normal manner, I am always quite willing. When did you ever ask me a question as an adult? Never--so why should I treat your comments with any respect?
You can always add me to your killfile. Or just ignore me. Or you can address my comments, as you always have, with nothing better than: heddle you effin' moron or the very easy and cheap and evasive false bravado: it is so funny, tee-hee, to see heddle and his twisted logic, that's always good for a few chuckles!
Today is one of those days I'm so very glad that I have blocked access to YouTube on my corporate network. It didn't have a business purpose and was eating up lots of time, and now it would actually be damaging the brains of my poor innocent users if they could see this thing.
So you didn't ruin my morning, you made me feel good about my job. Thanks PZ!
The rage is strong with this one, difficult to get through in one sitting. You actually ruined my afternoon PZ. :P
heddle, as I understand it, you're saying that while science would generally influence your opinion of the likelihood that some event happened, it would not affect your opinion on what your religion believes to be historical miracles. Is that correct?
If so, doesn't that completely vitiate the notion that religion does not affect science? By what scientific principle do you distinguish between possible miracles and physical events? Do you think that historians should also adopt such an approach, with the religious among them saying "Well, such an event is physically impossible, but my religion tells me it happened, so I'm sure it actually did"? Do you want your CSIs to testify in court "The DNA evidence came back negative, but God told me this man is the killer, so in my opinion he did it"?
To be clear, no one is saying that religious scientists can't do good work in domains unrelated to their irrational, contrary-to-scientific-understanding, empirically unsupported beliefs. Coynes' point, which others have explained and which you still haven't really addressed, is that such scientists cannot do good work in science in general -- their worldview is ultimately not scientific. And once you open that hole, once you abandon scientific reasoning for certain physical events, all bets are off -- any belief about any physical event can be justified via the supernatural, and no one can object.
For example, if you think that, despite scientific understanding, virgins can literally bear male children via divine insemination, then why can't other scientists believe that Mohammed literally flew on a winged horse, or that two beings literally created the islands of Japan, or that there was literally a sunken continent called Lemuria that was once home to a seven foot tall, sexually hermaphroditic, egg-laying race who were precursors of humanity? If you abandon science for determining the probability that some event actually occurred, why should your specific Christian beliefs be privileged over those of Madame Blavatsky's? You are stuck accepting that literally anything can happen, because anyone can now say "Regardless of the science, this actually happened."
How does that make for good science?
Heddle, I won't engage you for the mental tap dancing you do. I tried, but the evasions you engaged in are not worth the effort. If you quit the evasions...
Until then, you are comic relief. If you don't like being comic relief, you need to do something to change that. Like stop posting here for a while.
Facilis the Fallacious @ #473:
No, YOU'RE the one who doesn't get it.
WHAT "laws of logic", Facilis? What are these "laws" you keep babbling about? List them. Name them. Tell us what the fuck you mean!
I know you won't, you've been hiding from this question for almost a month. But you claim that there's some set of "absolute, invariant, immutable, universal laws of logic and reason" which somehow can't have arisen form any other source but your imaginary friend. You have fled in abject terror from every opportunity to support this claim. In order to support your claim you would need to first show that such laws actually exist, which would require listing them. You refuse to do so, you refuse to even acknowledge that the question has been asked. And that's just the minimal first step!
There is no magical infallible cosmic logic source. Your own statements prove this, you babble about logic but are obviously operating from a position that assuming your own conclusion, hiding from questions, making shit up, repeating yourself, and murder are valid forms of "logic". Your version of "logic" is utterly insane, much like yourself. Logic, as practiced by sane people, is a product of understanding the world, not a mystical energy field that comes from some invisible being from beyond the universe. But you can't understand this, because you are not a sane person and you understand nothing about the world you live in. Your entire life is based on a delusion.
Nor will you give any sort of definition to the supposed "god" that you claim created these "laws". And of course you hide from all questions of why it has to be YOUR personal imaginary friend. You can't even bring yourself to explain what the fuck you're talking about!
I wonder if someone put a gun to your head and demanded you list these "laws" of yours or die, how would you react? Probably shit your pants and scream for your imaginary god to save you from your own total failure. And since you're the one who decided that murder was an acceptable way to win an argument, you've just lost by your own standards. So go fuck yourself.
Tulse,
I don’t. If confronted with a puzzling observation that arouses my scientific curiosity, I would study it just as you did. Exactly the same way you would.I would have no intention of proving it was a miracle. If it turned out it was a miracle, I’d simply die without having found an answer.
Not if they are publishing a scholarly history article; i.e., “doing history”—in which case they should follow the guidelines of their profession. If they are assessing the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, they should evaluate and report on the evidence the same way a (professional) secular colleague would do, no matter where it leads.
C’mon, this question is not up to your usual standards.
That’s just ad absurdum. What practicing theistic scientists are going about invoking miracles? The only examples I know about of practicing scientists ignoring the evidence because of their beliefs are atheists. That would be Hoyle and especially Eddington resisting the Big Bang because of perceived religious implications.
They can believe whatever the hell the want, including, a la Sam Harris, in Eastern Mysticism and the efficacy of torture. As long as when they are doing science they follow the scientific method I won’t care about nor will I be able to detect their beliefs.
How does it make for bad science? Show me how you can detect the ill effects of Miller’s or Collins’s etc. beliefs on their science.
Nerd of Redhead, OM
No, you never tried. Tulse, above, is an example of trying to have a conversation. You were unclever insults and unoriginal snide comments from the beginning. I really think you should ad me to your killfile.
I like the cut of your jib!
Goddamn. I want that synth behind the bitch!
Sorry if I missed you explaining this, but how would you determine that it was a miracle and not that you just have not the tools or time invested to determine a natural explanation for it?
Oh, phantomreader42, while you're at it, see if you can get Facilis to explain how the presuppositionalist theory of truth accomodates or answers the Gettier problem. When I asked the great Sye Tenb. this exact question, he didn't seem to know what I'm talking about.
Say, you don't think that "justified true beliefs" and "universal, absolute, invariant laws of logic" are just part of some script, do you? I mean, Facilis couldn't just be throwing these terms out there, ignoring the refutations and then declaring victory, could he? It's unpossible.
Han and Warda, Proteomics (which was what I was referencing in #374: "More logically, the points that show proteomics overlapping between different forms of life are more likely to be interpreted as a reflection of a single common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator than relying on a single cell that is, in a doubtful way, surprisingly originating all other kinds of life.")
Closer to your own field, I understand that Frank Tipler has made some rather radical claims about physics and cosmology — albeit not in an actual peer-reviewed paper.
There are probably others, but those are the ones that leapt to mind just now.
Rev. BigDumbChimp ,
I would never investigate something and determine it was a miracle. I have no way of determining what is miraculous. I wouldn't know how to try. I can only assume, as every other scientists secular or theistic assumes, that everything we collect experimental data on has a natural explanation.
Ok, I guess I misunderstood this to mean you would determine it was a miracle
instead of you never knowing it was one.
heddle #554 wrote:
Do the findings of modern science suggest that people can resurrect from the dead or part the red sea? Can one study physics, evolution, and neurology and arrive at the conclusion that self-awareness and cognition are forces which exist separate from brains? Does science find God?
The answer, as you recognize, is 'no.' But because science is a method, you point out that someone can correctly follow the method and arrive at answers which they need not accept. They can set some arbitrary areas aside, and say that "science cannot go here." They do so for emotional reasons, and because they don't want to have to do science all the time.
The scientific test for God is this: does it follow from the science? If not, it fails the test. Your solution for covering this failure is to reject the result and place it in another compartment. The Not-science compartment. This is what we mean by compartmentalization and inconsistency. You are not arguing against compartmentalization, but for it.
The practice of science requires that one first hold the ethical value of truth-seeking and humility, of following the evidence only where it leads, and being as objective as possible. As you point out, you can effectively use science as a tool for those areas where you wish to seek truth -- and then cast it aside in those areas where you wish to seek certainty and comfort.
From our point of view, that feels like situational ethics. It would be like someone in your church being honest with their religion, but dishonest in business. A crook can still make an excellent theologian and wonderful minister. You would not be able to tell how a minister-thief's occasional shoplifting antics affects his sermon, or his ministration to the sick, or his scholarly exposition of Paul's letters. But you might still hesitate to say that it does not effect his religion.
I think that, for maximum effect, both approaches are needed. From a smaller, closer perspective, convincing creationists that they can keep their religion and accept evolution is more effective for getting people to change their minds about evolution, than trying to argue them to atheism.
But, for the larger perspective which values science and the scientific mindset itself, we need arguments for consistency, science all the way down, cranes vs. skyhooks, and atheism.
Besides, PZ and Dawkins being the Bad Cops makes you and Ken Miller into the Good Cops. That's a strategy, too.
Our plastic pal who's fun to play with, theist/scientist poster child heddle, has invoked Francis Collins. I've just read atheist author Sam Harris's review of Collin's execrable book, The Language of God, which starts with this paragraph:
No wonder heddle admires Francis Collins so. I've heard Collins interviewed numerous times and his capacity to mangle science and religion in his pompous discourse sets the bar. Ken Miller, at least, does not use his grasp of science to claim his reasons for belief are scientific. That heddle does not distinguish between the two authors is a testament to heddle's dishonesty and hypocrisy. Read the essay for an enjoyable dissection of Collins's nonsensical theology and theodicy before you challenge Harris's concluding paragraph:
heddle:
Why don't you go try to reach her, then? You're not accomplishing anything here. I'm not even sure what you think you can accomplish.