tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6018175712500566091..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Religious Hypocrisy: Denial of Our Own BeliefsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger170125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19150635945086691932012-06-27T01:28:19.782-07:002012-06-27T01:28:19.782-07:00CH: If that ["...if we define the terms in th...CH: <i>If that ["...if we define the terms in the way I have done, we can infer that the postulated God is not supported by the evidence … there is no "belief" here at all.”] were true then you wouldn’t make the claim that the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Instead, all you could claim is that the evidence substantially infirms a particular postulate regarding an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, </i><br /><br />Which is EXACTLY what I am doing, Cornelius! This has been my POINT ALL ALONG! Excuse me for shouting, but shouting appears to be what it takes!<br /><br /><i>not the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, period. </i><br /><br />Well, if the "period" denotes an undefined concept, of course. Scientific inferences are only as good as their operationalisation.<br /><br />As I've said many times, if you make your god-concept woolly enough, it's unfalsifiable. The moment you start to get specific, it becomes falsfiable. And I'd like to see an operational definition of "omnibenevolent" that you would consider not falsified. But I expect I will be waiting for some time.<br /><br /><i>You see you are contradicting yourself. You cannot say (i) I am merely testing a particular postulate which I just happened to choose even though I don’t believe in it myself and (ii) because that particular postulate reveals a failure I conclude that the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. These statements are consistent only if you indeed do believe your postulate is likely to be true. </i><br /><br />Nope. They are consistent as long as I define the terms of my inference in the same way as I did in my hypothesis. Which I do. As I've said many times now, I am making no inferences outside the operationalisation of my hypothesis. We don't, in science. That's why your repeated allegations that scientific inferences are "religious" are so wide of the mark. You seem to have forgotten what you ever knew about the intrinsically limited nature of scientific claims, and assume that the rest of us have too. We haven't. <br /><br />Clearly my inference does not extend to <i>any</i> definition of those terms. If I had operatioinalised "omnibenevolent", for example, as "reward in heaven for whatever suffering a creature experiences on earth" then, clearly, my inference does not apply. But I did not operationalise it that way. <br /><br /><i>That of course is a religious claim, which you are strenuously denying making. </i><br /><br />Nope. It would be a woolly and unfalsifiable claim not worth making, and I am not making it.<br /><br /><i>If, on the other hand, you hold no beliefs about the truth value of your postulate, </i><br /><br />Obviously not. If I did, it would not be a "postulate".<br /><br /><i>then you cannot make any claim about how the evidence bears on the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.</i><br /><br />I can make a claim about how the evidence bears on the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god as operationalised.<br /><br />That's all we can ever do in science. That's why the operationalisation of hypotheses is so important. That's the part of scientific methodology you seem to have forgotten, judging by your repeated misreading of the nature of scientific claims.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43055391472810666302012-06-27T00:02:57.317-07:002012-06-27T00:02:57.317-07:00EL:
EL: I would agree with PZ Myers that the evid...EL:<br /><br /><i>EL: I would agree with PZ Myers that the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.<br /><br />CH: There you go again, making your religious claims, just after denying your own religious beliefs.<br /><br />EL: First of all, we need to operationalise the hypothesis, so I will operationalise it thus: … omnibenevolent: seeks to promote human welfare, <br /><br />CH: A religious claim.<br /><br />EL: It's not a claim at all Cornelius! It's an operational definition! Sheesh. If you want to use a different one, fine. My inference only extends to the definition I have used. … I'm not claiming that my definition is either "right" or "wrong". That would be absurd, seeing as the whole thing is a postulate anyway. I'm saying that if we define the terms in the way I have done, we can infer that the postulated God is not supported by the evidence. … In fact, if you give me an operational definition I will test it against the evidence. … I'm perfectly happy to use an alternative. … there is no "belief" here at all. It is not that I "believe" that "omnibenevolent" means "seeks to promote human welfare". It's that I chose that as my operational definition.<br /><br />CH: So first it is “the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God” but after the evolutionist called to account for the religion it suddenly becomes “the whole thing is a postulate … I'm saying that if we define the terms in the way I have done, we can infer that the postulated God is not supported by the evidence … there is no "belief" here at all.”<br /><br />EL: no, it is not "after" the "evolutionist called to account for the religion" that the "hypothesis" becomes “the whole thing is a postulate"" - a postulate is what the whole thing is in the first place! That's why we call it a HYPOTHESIS!!!! … I'm saying that if we define the terms in the way I have done, we can infer that the postulated God is not supported by the evidence … there is no "belief" here at all.”</i><br /><br />If that were true then you wouldn’t make the claim that the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Instead, all you could claim is that the evidence substantially infirms a particular postulate regarding an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, not the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, period. You see you are contradicting yourself. You cannot say (i) I am merely testing a particular postulate which I just happened to choose even though I don’t believe in it myself and (ii) because that particular postulate reveals a failure I conclude that the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. These statements are consistent only if you indeed do believe your postulate is likely to be true. That of course is a religious claim, which you are strenuously denying making. If, on the other hand, you hold no beliefs about the truth value of your postulate, then you cannot make any claim about how the evidence bears on the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.<br /><br />I hope the UK schools are a little better than this.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17129858335079567202012-06-26T05:38:10.923-07:002012-06-26T05:38:10.923-07:00Yet he's first author on those, and they are a...Yet he's first author on those, and they are about model-fitting.<br /><br />He must have had a scientific training.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8567859567041497112012-06-26T04:39:43.527-07:002012-06-26T04:39:43.527-07:00A scientist Cornelius is not. He published 3 paper...A scientist Cornelius is not. He published 3 papers with his research advisor, got his PhD, and switched to Christian apologetics.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76307413927001686082012-06-26T00:26:04.730-07:002012-06-26T00:26:04.730-07:00CH: So first it is “the evidence substantially inf...CH: <i>So first it is “the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God” but after the evolutionist called to account for the religion it suddenly becomes “the whole thing is a postulate … </i><br /><br />Cornelius, do you know what a <i>hypothesis</i> is?<br /><br />It's when we <i>postulate</i> an explanation.<br /><br />So no, it is not "after" the "evolutionist called to account for the religion" that the "hypothesis" becomes “the whole thing is a postulate"" - a postulate is what the whole thing is in the first place! That's why we call it a HYPOTHESIS!!!!<br /><br />And of course it is not that "first of all" that we make the inference that the evidence infirms the hypothesis. First comes the hypothesis, then comes the inference. This is scientific methodology 101, Cornelius. In fact, it's not even 101 - the content above is actually taught in UK primary schools.<br /><br /><i><br />I'm saying that if we define the terms in the way I have done, we can infer that the postulated God is not supported by the evidence … there is no "belief" here at all.”<br /><br />Oh what a web we weave.</i><br /><br />The web woven here is simple scientific methodology, Cornelius. I operationalised my hypothesis and tested it against data.<br /><br />I also invited you to provide an alternative operational definition of omnibenevolent.<br /><br />The silence is deafening.<br /><br />I am not sure whether that is because you really do not know how to operationalise a hypothesis, or because you really cannot come up with an operationalisation that does not lead to the same inference when applied to the data.<br /><br />The first would make you remarkably incompetent as a scientist. The second would make you dishonest.<br /><br />I hope there is a third explanation.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84583621372833028982012-06-25T20:16:58.674-07:002012-06-25T20:16:58.674-07:00Elizabeth Liddle
Pedant: That's the idea, to ...<i>Elizabeth Liddle<br /><br />Pedant: That's the idea, to talk nonsense until you surrender.<br /><br />Is it? I'm still unclear as to whether Cornelius really doesn't get it, or <b>he does and is blowing smoke to try to prevent others getting it.</b></i><br /><br />Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!<br /><br />We have a <b>WINNAH!</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1126271785568417992012-06-25T15:47:31.370-07:002012-06-25T15:47:31.370-07:00EL:
EL: I would agree with PZ Myers that the evid...EL:<br /><br /><i>EL: I would agree with PZ Myers that the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.<br /><br />CH: There you go again, making your religious claims, just after denying your own religious beliefs.<br /><br />EL: First of all, we need to operationalise the hypothesis, so I will operationalise it thus: … omnibenevolent: seeks to promote human welfare, <br /><br />CH: A religious claim.<br /><br />EL: It's not a claim at all Cornelius! It's an operational definition! Sheesh. If you want to use a different one, fine. My inference only extends to the definition I have used. … I'm not claiming that my definition is either "right" or "wrong". That would be absurd, seeing as the whole thing is a postulate anyway. I'm saying that if we define the terms in the way I have done, we can infer that the postulated God is not supported by the evidence. … In fact, if you give me an operational definition I will test it against the evidence. … I'm perfectly happy to use an alternative. … there is no "belief" here at all. It is not that I "believe" that "omnibenevolent" means "seeks to promote human welfare". It's that I chose that as my operational definition.</i><br /><br /><br />So first it is “the evidence substantially infirms the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God” but after the evolutionist called to account for the religion it suddenly becomes “the whole thing is a postulate … I'm saying that if we define the terms in the way I have done, we can infer that the postulated God is not supported by the evidence … there is no "belief" here at all.”<br /><br />Oh what a web we weave.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80171352008407416582012-06-25T15:08:26.815-07:002012-06-25T15:08:26.815-07:00Pedant: That's the idea, to talk nonsense unti...Pedant: <i>That's the idea, to talk nonsense until you surrender.</i><br /><br />Is it? I'm still unclear as to whether Cornelius really doesn't get it, or he does and is blowing smoke to try to prevent others getting it.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68259257879287366692012-06-25T15:06:14.688-07:002012-06-25T15:06:14.688-07:00CH:
omnibenevolent: seeks to promote human welfare...CH:<i><br />omnibenevolent: seeks to promote human welfare<br /><br />A religious claim.</i><br /><br />It's not a <i>claim</i> at all Cornelius! It's an operational definition!<br /><br />Sheesh.<br /><br />If you want to use a different one, fine. My inference only extends to the definition I have used.<br /><br /><br /><i>Says the evolutionist after making religious claims and denying any such thing.</i><br /><br />Do you understand the difference between an operational definition and a claim?<br /><br /><i><br />Ah, progress. Now that you’ve tried to explain your reasoning, it is clear that your conclusions are contingent on your religious premises. </i><br /><br />Obviously not. Did you really do a science PhD Cornelius? Did you never do programs in methodology?<br /><br /><i>But you still seem to think your premises are the “right” ones. </i><br /><br />I'm not claiming that my <i>definition</i> is either "right" or "wrong". That would be absurd, seeing as the whole thing is a <i>postulate</i> anyway. I'm saying that if we <i>define</i> the terms in the way I have done, we can infer that the postulated God is not supported by the evidence.<br /><br />If you want to test a different postulated God, one, for instance, for which the attribute "omnibenevolent" is defined differently, be my guest.<br /><br />In fact, if you give me an operational definition I will test it against the evidence.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps after some more thought you’ll realize you are way outside of science. </i><br /><br />Nope, I am insisting on remaining strictly within it. That's why I stated my operational definition. I'm perfectly happy to use an alternative.<br /><br /><i>It is precisely those religious beliefs that seem so obvious and true that drive evolutionists.</i><br /><br />Except there is no "belief" here at all. It is not that I "believe" that "omnibenevolent" means "seeks to promote human welfare". It's that I chose that as my operational definition. I could also have chosen "seeks to promote the welfare of all sentient creatures".<br /><br />I'd have come to exactly the same conclusion though, given the evidence that the welfare of lions depends on the excruciating death of zebras.<br /><br />But feel free to supply an operational definition of your choice. I'm sure there are some that are compatible with the evidence. In which case, we will have discovered a set of attributes of a deity that are actually consistent with our observations.<br /><br />I look forward to your response :)Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83994777360741552962012-06-25T14:50:08.397-07:002012-06-25T14:50:08.397-07:00EL:
omnibenevolent: seeks to promote human welfar...EL:<br /><br /><i>omnibenevolent: seeks to promote human welfare</i><br /><br />A religious claim.<br /><br /><br /><i>You seem very confused about the difference between science and theology, Cornelius.</i><br /><br />Says the evolutionist after making religious claims and denying any such thing.<br /><br /><br /><i>There are alternatives, of course - you could define "omnibenevolent" in some way other than "cares for human welfare", or you could even argue that it meant "cares for humans after death" or something.</i><br /><br />Ah, progress. Now that you’ve tried to explain your reasoning, it is clear that your conclusions are contingent on your religious premises. But you still seem to think your premises are the “right” ones. Perhaps after some more thought you’ll realize you are way outside of science. It is precisely those religious beliefs that seem so obvious and true that drive evolutionists.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35752625758416706522012-06-25T13:40:15.746-07:002012-06-25T13:40:15.746-07:00EL:
You are Making Stuff Up again, Cornelius. It...EL:<br /><br /><br /><i>You are Making Stuff Up again, Cornelius. It's getting very tiresome.</i><br /><br />That's the idea, to talk nonsense until you surrender.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54990922221613942462012-06-25T12:55:55.194-07:002012-06-25T12:55:55.194-07:00Believe me, atheists hold religious beliefs.
I t...<i>Believe me, atheists hold religious beliefs. </i><br /><br />I thought we were talking about scientists? Sorry "evolutionists"? Now we are talking about atheists?<br /><br />No, they don't. An atheist is a person who doesn't hold religious beliefs. That's the definition of an atheist. You need a dictionary, Cornelius. <br /><br /><i>It is just that the existence of God is not one of them. But that doesn’t mean they don’t hold religious beliefs. </i><br /><br />So a "religious claim" is one about God, even if it is a simple scientific inference about a specific postulated deity, but a belief that is not about God is can still be a religious belief?<br /><br />You seem confused.<br /><br /><i>In fact, their religious beliefs are denied, go unexamined, and are more dogmatic. That’s fundamentalism.</i><br /><br />And that is unsupported assertion, Cornelius. You repeatedly attribute beliefs to us that we do not hold; when we deny those beliefs, you regard that as evidence of our lack of understanding of our own beliefs! Circular much?<br /><br /><i>You say an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God would not have created pathogens, the female pelvis and so forth. </i><br /><br />Yup. Because the female pelvis does not promote maternal welfare, so the postulated deity must be at least one of the following: unable to create a functional female human pelvis; unwilling to design a functional female human pelvis; unable to foresee what a crap design the female human pelvis actually is.<br /><br /><i>That is a religious belief, no matter how many times you deny it and claim it is a scientific refutation. </i><br /><br />Of course it isn't a religious belief. It's simple human reproductive anatomy. Or are you saying that the female human pelvis is optimally designed for the welfare of human mothers and their infants?<br /><br /><i>Perhaps it would help if you tried to provide a scientific explanation for why claims about what an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God would or would not create are not religious.</i><br /><br />One more time, and I'll stick with the female human pelvis as it's such a good example. The human pelvis results in a high rate of maternal and infant death, as the size of the human cranium is too close to the size of the maternal birth canal (partly because of the width between the hips, but also because of our vestigial tail, which further constricts the canal). Many mammals - most - have much more efficient reproductive tracts, and, as a result, have much lower maternal and infant mortality.<br /><br />Is this because the postulated deity could not make a better birth canal? No, because the postulated deity is omnipotent.<br /><br />Is it because the postulated deity wanted human mothers to die in agony, and their infants to be still born? No, because the postulated deity is omnibenevolent.<br /><br />Is it because the postulated deity didn't know how to make a decent birth canal? No, because the postulated deity is omniscient.<br /><br />Therefore, the human birth canal infirms the postulate of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient creator deity.<br /><br />It's that simple, Cornelius. Not religious, just simple logical argument with evidence to support it.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83988923186191289872012-06-25T12:55:32.633-07:002012-06-25T12:55:32.633-07:00All you are demonstrating is (in addition to the r...<i>All you are demonstrating is (in addition to the religious premises in your reasoning) the irrationality of your reasoning. That is, you have no basis for your religious premises. To summarize: You say an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God would not create pathogens. That is a religious claim. You are in denial of your own religious beliefs. And you have no basis for your belief in the first place.</i><br /><br />Oh, for goodness' sake, Cornelius. You accuse me of saying something I a) have not said and b) makes no sense, then regard my denial as evidence that I am making no sense!!!<br /><br />Sheesh.<br /><br />Please read my posts above.<br /><br />CH: <i>Furthermore, you are in denial of your own irrationality. Rather, you think that your disbelief in the existence of God demonstrates that you could make no such religious claim.</i><br /><br />Absolute rubbish. I would have made exactly the same claim 10 years ago when I firmly believed in the existence of God, and it would have been no more a religious claim then than it now. In both cases it is simple logic.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63954466312036616702012-06-25T12:32:37.236-07:002012-06-25T12:32:37.236-07:00CH: Evolutionists believe that their beliefs are n...CH: <i>Evolutionists believe that their beliefs are not beliefs, but rather brute facts. </i><br /><br />Nope. Evolutionist regard models as models and data as data, and models fit the data well are better models than models that fit the data less well.<br /><br /><i>Evolutionists do not even realize they are promoting religious beliefs. </i><br /><br />That's because they aren't.<br /><br /><i>They think their religious premises are just givens. </i><br /><br />Nope. And when I asked you to give me an example of such a premise (one you were ascribing to me) you couldn't do it. You gave me my conclusion instead.<br /><br /><i>It is all so obvious to them that they think their conclusions are necessary consequences of undeniable truths. </i><br /><br />You are Making Stuff Up again, Cornelius. It's getting very tiresome.<br /><br /><i>So when they say an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God would not have created pathogens, they think this is just an obvious, undeniable conclusion that only a religious fundamentalist would deny.</i><br /><br />Because it is. See my post above. There are alternatives, of course - you could define "omnibenevolent" in some way other than "cares for human welfare", or you could even argue that it meant "cares for humans after death" or something.<br /><br />In which case fine. But that would render the postulate unfalsifiable (and indeed circular). But if we regard "benevolent" as meaning "having human welfare as a priority" then, clearly, if the universe has a creator deity, then that deity did does not have human welfare as a priority. <br /><br /><i>In fact, it is the evolutionist who is the fundamentalist.</i><br /><br />Rubbish. It is the evolutionist who has a grasp of simple logic.<br /><br />It's the fundamentalist who has to tackle the Problem of Evil. The rest of us don't even have a problem because we don't posit a clearly impossible deity. If we posit one at all, we posit one that is compatible with the facts.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60406635502960940702012-06-25T12:24:39.682-07:002012-06-25T12:24:39.682-07:00CH:EL:
Claims about gods are not necessarily reli...CH:<i>EL:<br /><br />Claims about gods are not necessarily religious …<br /><br />That’s a new one. What are they if not religious? They certainly are not scientific.</i><br /><br />They might be religious or they might be scientific. A claim that the evidence infirmed the hypothesis that a deity created the world in 6 days within the last 10,000 years would not be a religious claim, it would be a scientific claim.<br /><br />A claim that a deity did not create the world in 6 days within the last 10,000 years because actually it was created by spirit serpent 5,000 years ago would be a religious claim not a scientific one. This isn't hard.<br /><br /><i>EL In which case absolutely any scientific falsification of a religious claim is "religious", including the falsification of any creation myth.<br /><br />CH: No, that’s different. Your claim that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God is disproved by what we observe in nature is not a “scientific falsification of a religious claim.” </i><br /><br />Firstly, I did not say "disproved". You Made That Up. Again. I said (as did PZ) that the evidence is against it. That is a scientific inference from a test of the hypothesis against the data, and, like all scientific inferences, is provisional and probabilistic.<br /><br /><i><br />If it were you’d be able to explain it. </i><br /><br />And indeed I did. Let me do it again. First of all, we need to operationalise the hypothesis, so I will operationalise it thus:<br /><br />omnnipotent: can do anything<br />omnibenevolent: seeks to promote human welfare<br />omniscient: knows everything.<br /><br />In a universe created by such a deity we would expect to see an absence of pathogenic organisms because:<br /><br />An all-powerful deity could make a universe without such organisms<br />A deity that sought to promote human welfare would not want to create an organism that jeopardized it<br />A deity that knew how to avoid creating such organism could avoid doing so.<br /><br />And yet they exist. Ergo the world was not created by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient deity.<br /><br />It could have been created by a deity with some other attributes, I guess. One that loved nematodes at least as much as people, for instance. <br /><br /><i>As it stands you’ve provided no scientific explanation (because there is none).</i><br /><br />Explanation for what? I'm not trying to explain anything. I'm simply showing you why the inference that the world we observe was unlikely to have been created by an omnipotent an omniscient deity with human welfare at heart is a perfectly valid scientific inference, just as the inference that an child with marks of beatings and neglect is unlikely to be the offspring of a loving family.<br /><br />You seem very confused about the difference between science and theology, Cornelius.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54897711405311677932012-06-25T10:17:16.669-07:002012-06-25T10:17:16.669-07:00EL:
Claims about gods are not necessarily religio...EL:<br /><br /><i>Claims about gods are not necessarily religious …</i><br /><br />CH:<br /><br /><i>That’s a new one. What are they if not religious? They certainly are not scientific.</i><br /><br />Tell that to the anthropologists.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religionPedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32710783879837473752012-06-25T05:13:26.449-07:002012-06-25T05:13:26.449-07:00Hunter: Believe me, atheists hold religious belief...Hunter: <i>Believe me, atheists hold religious beliefs. It is just that the existence of God is not one of them. But that doesn’t mean they don’t hold religious beliefs. In fact, their religious beliefs are denied, go unexamined, and are more dogmatic. That’s fundamentalism.</i> <br /><br />My irony meter blew up, Cornelius. I'll have to send you a bill to replace it. <br /><br />It's an interesting world you have invented. Black is white, up is down, and fundamentalism is frowned upon. At Biola, the place where Christian fundamentalism was born. And raised. <br /><br />But tell me, what exactly are my religious beliefs? Or are you planning to examine them first, 'cause, you know, they have gone unexamined but are definitely more dogmatic? <br /><br />In fact, this paragraph is signature-worthy. I might appropriate it for myself or put it up for grabs.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41875764411792017722012-06-25T01:15:58.899-07:002012-06-25T01:15:58.899-07:00EL:
Claims about gods are not necessarily religio...EL:<br /><br /><i>Claims about gods are not necessarily religious …</i><br /><br />That’s a new one. What are they if not religious? They certainly are not scientific.<br /><br /><br /><i>In which case absolutely any scientific falsification of a religious claim is "religious", including the falsification of any creation myth.</i><br /><br />No, that’s different. Your claim that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God is disproved by what we observe in nature is not a “scientific falsification of a religious claim.” If it were you’d be able to explain it. As it stands you’ve provided no scientific explanation (because there is none).<br /><br />Evolutionists believe that their beliefs are not beliefs, but rather brute facts. Evolutionists do not even realize they are promoting religious beliefs. They think their religious premises are just givens. It is all so obvious to them that they think their conclusions are necessary consequences of undeniable truths. So when they say an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God would not have created pathogens, they think this is just an obvious, undeniable conclusion that only a religious fundamentalist would deny. In fact, it is the evolutionist who is the fundamentalist.<br /><br /><br /><i> EL:Why would I, or PZ, be claiming to know the mind of an entity we do not believe either exists or has a mind?<br /><br />CH: But that is precisely what you evolutionists claim to know.<br /><br />EL: Of course nobody claims to know the mind of something they think neither exists nor has a mind!. That would be like claiming to know that nonexistent unicorns have two horns.</i><br /><br />All you are demonstrating is (in addition to the religious premises in your reasoning) the irrationality of your reasoning. That is, you have no basis for your religious premises. To summarize: You say an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God would not create pathogens. That is a religious claim. You are in denial of your own religious beliefs. And you have no basis for your belief in the first place.<br /><br />Furthermore, you are in denial of your own irrationality. Rather, you think that your disbelief in the existence of God demonstrates that you could make no such religious claim.<br /><br />Believe me, atheists hold religious beliefs. It is just that the existence of God is not one of them. But that doesn’t mean they don’t hold religious beliefs. In fact, their religious beliefs are denied, go unexamined, and are more dogmatic. That’s fundamentalism.<br /><br />You say an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God would not have created pathogens, the female pelvis and so forth. That is a religious belief, no matter how many times you deny it and claim it is a scientific refutation. Perhaps it would help if you tried to provide a scientific explanation for why claims about what an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God would or would not create are not religious.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65847870341860131482012-06-24T05:46:26.403-07:002012-06-24T05:46:26.403-07:00Hunter: What is striking is that you think this is...Hunter: <i>What is striking is that you think this is a relevant analogy to evolutionist’s UCD claims which are based literally on a tiny amount of evidence while ignoring substantial problems.</i> <br /><br />No analogy is perfect, of course. But the copious physics examples refute your reasoning concerning falsification of scientific theories. You seem to have missed that point.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29720594401516530642012-06-24T05:44:39.718-07:002012-06-24T05:44:39.718-07:00Hunter: The paper claims that the results are powe...Hunter: <i>The paper claims that the results are powerful evidence “corroborating the monophyly of all known life” and that the results are “very strong empirical evidence” for universal common descent are absurd. They are arrived at by adding metaphysics to the reasoning. Specifically, by comparing to some toy alternatives, and by selecting a couple dozen proteins while ignoring substantial evidential problems.</i> <br /><br />In what sense are Theobald's alternative models "toys?" Which features (or lack thereof) set them apart from, say the UCA model? What would constitute a non-toy model? You hint at these ominous problems with his methodology but you never explain what exactly the problems are. It's a typical obfuscationist tactics that I have seen in interactions with Paul Nelson. Hardly a surprise.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15473626339677666102012-06-24T02:59:16.168-07:002012-06-24T02:59:16.168-07:00CH: EL:
No, it is not a religious claim, Corneliu...CH: <i>EL:<br /><br />No, it is not a religious claim, Cornelius.<br /><br />Denials do not alter reality. When you say an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God is disproved by what we observe in nature, you are making a religious claim. Claims about God are religious. But this is the way evolutionists think. Such gratuitous expression of their religious dogma, and even denials of their dogma, are standard. Then they claim it’s all about science. Rationalism tends to have a high view of its axioms, and evolution is an extreme example.</i><br /><br />Claims about gods are not necessarily religious, unless you want to define a "religious claim" as one that involves the concept of a god. In which case absolutely any scientific falsification of a religious claim is "religious", including the falsification of any creation myth.<br /><br />And if that is all you are saying, then what you are saying is utterly trivial.<br /><br /><i>"God would not do it this way" would be a religious claim.<br /><br />That too.<br /><br /><br />That is not the claim I made, despite your (unsupported) that I did. You need to retract that accusation.<br /><br />Of course you made that claim. Evolutionists are so drunk in their own metaphysics they don’t even know they are drunk.</i><br /><br />I. Did. Not. Make. That. Claim. <br /><br />Either link to where you think I did, or retract it. In the face of my denial, and your absence of any quotation from me that supports your accusation, I can only infer that you are lying Cornelius.<br /><br />In other words, that you are deliberately telling the world something you know to be false.<br /><br /><i>EL:Why would I, or PZ, be claiming to know the mind of an entity we do not believe either exists or has a mind?<br /><br />But that is precisely what you evolutionists claim to know. </i><br /><br />Or, conceivably, extremely dense. Of course nobody claims to know the mind of something they think neither exists nor has a mind!<br /><br />That would be like claiming to know that nonexistent unicorns have two horns.<br /><br /><i>Evolutionist’s repeated denials to the contrary, and demands for a retraction of my pointing out the obvious, make it all the more obvious that they are in denial of their own underlying motivations.</i><br /><br />No, it makes it all the more obvious that you are either being dishonest or obtuse, Cornelius. If you are honest, I suggest you re-read the exchange for reading. If you are not, I suggest you consult your conscience.<br /><br />But let me summarise the issue for you one more time:<br /><br />Many religious claims are made about god or gods. Many of these claims are falsifiable, scientifically. For instance we cand falsify the claim that the earth stands on the back of a turtle; that earth is at the centre of the universe; that the earth and universe were created 6,000 years ago; that god inundated the entire world with a global flood; that intercessory prayer works in any systematic way; that seizures are caused by evil spirits.<br /><br />These falsifications are not, in any normal English usage "religious claims" - they are merely falsifications of religious claims. Indeed, modern science is the result of the triumph of empirical methodology over superstition.<br /><br />I am saying that the religious claim that some deity with human welfare at heart made the world is falsified - probabilistically, as all scientific falsification is - from evidence within that world. That falsification is not a "religious claim" - it is merely a rebuttal to a religious claim.<br /><br />The onus is therefore on those making that religious claim to demonstrate why their postulated deity's postulated concern for human welfare is consistent with, for example, the mechanisms of the female reproductive tract and the efficiency of microorganisms that cause suffering and death to small children.<br /><br />The ball is in your court.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13068327004170437802012-06-23T23:36:08.328-07:002012-06-23T23:36:08.328-07:00oleg:
No scientific theory is born fully develope...oleg:<br /><br /><i>No scientific theory is born fully developed. Fresnel's theory of light was an important step toward the current understanding of light, which is much more sophisticated. It was the right thing to prefer the wave theory of the corpuscular theory in the 19th century, even though the corpuscle made a triumphal return a hundred years later. We now think light exhibits bothwave and particle properties.</i><br /><br />Yes, it was the “right thing to prefer the wave theory over the corpuscular theory in the 19th century, even though the corpuscle made a triumphal return a hundred years later. We now think light exhibits both wave and particle properties.”<br /><br />What is striking is that you think this is a relevant analogy to evolutionist’s UCD claims which are based literally on a tiny amount of evidence while ignoring substantial problems.<br /><br />Furthermore, your own example demonstrates the very problem with the paper, as we now view any simple wave-theory-versus-corpuscular-theory as a false dichotomy. Such false dichotomies are well known in the history of science, but it matters not to evolutionists because their dogma mandates their theory.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25507687268108307222012-06-23T23:14:39.292-07:002012-06-23T23:14:39.292-07:00oleg:
LOL. As if I needed your help!
Please see:...oleg:<br /><br /><i>LOL. As if I needed your help!</i><br /><br />Please see:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/darwins-god-institutes-stricter-comment.html where it says:<br /><br /><i> Up until now the only guideline on comments in this blog has been no foul language. The new guidelines adds no disrespectful language. For example, personal attacks and derision (e.g., "LOL," HAHA") are now not allowed.</i><br /><br /><br /><i>I read the paper and summarized what Theobald had done right there, at the beginning of this prolonged slugfest. In the same comment I pointed out that Theobald had not engaged in anything resembling "God would not make the mosquito" nonsense. You then switched to criticizing the methodology of the paper.</i><br /><br />No, I switched to correcting your misrepresentations of the paper. You mischaracterized the paper saying that it “finds that the model of universal common descent is the best among the models considered.” That mischaracterization just happens to leave off the metaphysical part. In fact, from a couple dozen proteins the paper makes the absurd claim that its results are powerful evidence “corroborating the monophyly of all known life” and that the results are “very strong empirical evidence” for universal common descent. Those claims don’t come merely from the results.<br /><br /><br /><i>If you don't find the methodology to your liking then that's fine. But you have no leg to stand on when you say that Theobald's argument is based on a religious claim. None. What. So. Ever. This is something you refuse to acknowledge. Keep refusing the obvious.</i><br /><br />The paper claims that the results are powerful evidence “corroborating the monophyly of all known life” and that the results are “very strong empirical evidence” for universal common descent are absurd. They are arrived at by adding metaphysics to the reasoning. Specifically, by comparing to some toy alternatives, and by selecting a couple dozen proteins while ignoring substantial evidential problems. The only way those results could provide such powerful evidence for universal common descent is if those toy alternatives--as represented by their predictions for the couple dozen proteins--are the *only* alternatives. If these toy alternatives were not the only alternatives, then there would be no basis for the paper’s claim to have confirmed the overwhelming probability for universal common descent. But since the paper assumes those toy alternatives are the only alternatives, then yes, it can say that it confirms universal common descent. For all alternatives are astronomically unlikely. Hence in interviews about the paper Theobald was able to assert that creationism was a horrible hypothesis. You can read the paper or you can continue to make blind assertions.<br /><br /><br /><i>So let us ponder. Is the use of the contrastive approach, i.e., comparing theories to one other rather than evaluating them in absolute terms, an acceptable scientific practice? Cornelius thinks it is not.</i><br /><br />And yet another strawman. The problem is not the paper’s contrastive approach, per se, but it’s non scientific conclusions based on the contrastive reasoning, as I have explained several times.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5849155822413269752012-06-23T09:07:33.439-07:002012-06-23T09:07:33.439-07:00I do have a reply coming, but first have a new pos...I do have a reply coming, but first have a new post.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11754868409860242272012-06-23T09:04:32.798-07:002012-06-23T09:04:32.798-07:00What, no further discussion on Ayala? :)What, no further discussion on Ayala? :)oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.com