tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7894566414051244796..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Richard Dawkins is SureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45367220730944804252012-03-06T19:00:25.845-08:002012-03-06T19:00:25.845-08:00Lino D'Ischia Feb 29, 2012 06:31 PM
[...]
Do...<i>Lino D'Ischia Feb 29, 2012 06:31 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Don't you find it odd that you're accusing Christianity of abandoning science when, in fact, science had its origins in the Christian West?</i><br /><br />I am not denying that Christianity played a role in fostering science in Europe, just as it flourished under a more benevolent Islam for a period. But there is a good case to be made that science in its broadest sense was being done in other parts of the world long before the Christian era.<br /><br />What is "odd" is watching some Christians, on the one hand, claiming that their faith gave birth to modern science while, one the other, hastily distancing themselves from any scientific findings which they regard as inimical to their most cherished beliefs.<br /><br /><i>If there is a movement away from reason, and towards fundamentalism, it's to be found in scientific materialism.</i><br /><br />I am reminded of the tragic story of the girl who dies on her living-room floor from the complications of untreated diabetes while her devout family stood around praying fervently for her survival. Prayer failed where the treatments developed by materialistic science could have saved her as they have millions of others.<br /><br />Remind me again which is better, scientific materialism or unscientific immaterialism?<br /><i><br />Troubled by the theological implications of an actual "Big Bang", physicists want to use quantum mechanics to 'skip over' that first instance. Troubled by the theological implications of a "fine-tuned" universe, they espouse 'multiverses'. </i><br /><br />You <i>really</i> think physicists come up with things like the multiverse theory to escape the theological implications of so-called "fine-tuning" and the Big Bang? Sorry, but I really doubt the the field takes your faith that seriously.<br /><i><br />IMO, 'skipping over' nothing to find something on the other side is the height of irrationality; and proposing an almost infinite (if not, infinite) number of multiverses, none of which, by definition, we'll ever be able to have contact with, as a bona fide scientific conjecture----well, this is beyond the pale. And it is the secular left---not the religious right---who's serving up this nonsense.</i><br /><br />I doubt that political considerations were taken into account any more than religious ones when developing the concept of a multiverse, although I can see how it might make you feel better if they had been.<br /><br />Besides, there's nothing wrong in science with playing around with all sorts of outlandish speculations just so long as they are not claimed to be something more solid without good evidence. Remember that Popper encouraged scientists to be bold in their conjectures? It's still good advice.<br /><br /><i>So, if you're concerned about the health of science, I'd look at what the atheists are doing. Let's face it, we're living through the downfall of science. </i><br /><br />Science will do just fine as long as religion stops trying to bend it to the service of any particular theology. Atheism is one line of defense against that sort of subversion. As for the downfall of science, a friendly word of sdvice: don't hold your breath.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63826270167348422712012-03-02T05:06:45.551-08:002012-03-02T05:06:45.551-08:00It's very quiet around here.It's very quiet around here.Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216381429665486830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52168944996416099342012-03-01T00:46:12.794-08:002012-03-01T00:46:12.794-08:00Corn-holeous Hunter, Jesus nutter extraordinaire.
...Corn-holeous Hunter, Jesus nutter extraordinaire.<br /><br />Here's a design from Corno's mighty god that deserves a blog post.<br /><br />http://jezebel.com/women-with-two-vaginas/kilo papahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112057471953902453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83266164859170146762012-02-29T18:31:26.040-08:002012-02-29T18:31:26.040-08:00Ian:
Science offers a method for finding out. Rel...Ian:<br /><br /><i>Science offers a method for finding out. Religion used to embrace that method and some believers still do.</i><br /><br />Don't you find it odd that you're accusing Christianity of abandoning science when, in fact, science had its origins in the Christian West?<br /><br />If there is a movement away from reason, and towards fundamentalism, it's to be found in scientific materialism. Troubled by the theological implications of an actual "Big Bang", physicists want to use quantum mechanics to 'skip over' that first instance. Troubled by the theological implications of a "fine-tuned" universe, they espouse 'multiverses'. <br /><br />IMO, 'skipping over' nothing to find something on the other side is the height of irrationality; and proposing an almost infinite (if not, infinite) number of multiverses, none of which, by definition, we'll ever be able to have contact with, as a <i>bona fide</i> scientific conjecture----well, this is beyond the pale. And it is the secular left---not the religious right---who's serving up this nonsense. <br /><br />So, if you're concerned about the health of science, I'd look at what the atheists are doing. Let's face it, we're living through the downfall of science. And just like it was Catholicism that saved Western culture during the Middle Ages, it will be the Christian West that will have to save science (and scientists) from their own undoing. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802863833/ref=cm_sw_su_dp" rel="nofollow">Here</a> and <a href="http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/" rel="nofollow">here.</a>Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44485640310653272212012-02-29T08:59:29.531-08:002012-02-29T08:59:29.531-08:00At this point, reading and commenting on this blog...At this point, reading and commenting on this blog is just a bad habit of mine. I've learned a lot from this forum, mostly about rhetoric, but about science too. Lately though it has been boring, and keeping up with the comments is such a big time drain. I still don't like this threaded system either. It fragments the conversation and makes commenting more tedious.T. Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18062068766512116726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74207517647269664522012-02-29T08:01:52.901-08:002012-02-29T08:01:52.901-08:00Derick: Do you not see how silly your argument is?...Derick: Do you not see how silly your argument is? Why do you persist?<br /><br />Because his argument regarding "Evolutionists" is parochial in nature. <br /><br /><b>parochial</b> <br />adjective<br />of or relating to a church parish: <i>the parochial church council.</i><br />• having a limited or narrow outlook or scope: <i>this worldview seems incredibly naive and parochial.</i><br /><br />Specifically… <br /><br />- It assumes "Evolutionists" are all naive empiricists, justificationists and inductivists, which ignores other forms of epistemology, the problem of induction, etc.<br />- It assumes "facts" are justified purely by observations, rather than being the culmination of a long chain of explanatory frameworks, which are open to revision. <br />- It assume that "problems" for evolutionary theory would also not be "problems" for all other fields of science. <br />- The knowledge of how to build the biosphere has always existed, or was spontaneously generated, rather than being created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. <br />- It assumes there is no difference between taking someone else's argument seriously to criticize it and actually believing it's true. <br /><br />For example, if *WE* create knowledge by conjecture and refutation, we create explanations via conjecture, then determine if they would have necessary empirical consequences for the current state of the system. This doesn't mean we must have believe they are true, in reality. Rather, we assume they were true, in reality, for the purpose of criticism and refutation. <br /><br />However, Cornelius' argument hinges on the assumption there can be no difference between taking an explanation serious for the sake of criticizing it and actually believing that something is true, in reality. <br /><br />As such, it's unclear how Cornelius thinks science works, or how criticism fits in to our ability to make progress, if at all. <br /><br />So, not only is Cornelius' argument parochial in that it assumes there is no difference between taking someone else's argument seriously to criticize it and actually believing it's true, it's parochial because it apparently excludes the ability to criticize methods of finding errors in our explanations. <br /><br />In other words, by presuming "Evolutionists" all fit into one group, it would seem that Cornelius either assumes our ability it make progress is "magic", in that it cannot be criticized, or that the biosphere was created in such a way that makes a theory of biological complexity impossible to criticize.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51113631882941640612012-02-28T19:19:38.567-08:002012-02-28T19:19:38.567-08:00I think it's worth re-posting a modified versi...I think it's worth re-posting a modified version VF, as that was an apt analogy.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13738358449722593442012-02-28T19:18:04.705-08:002012-02-28T19:18:04.705-08:00Cornelius, I've been puzzling over your respon...Cornelius, I've been puzzling over your response all afternoon. Had it not been your name and avatar attached to it, I would have been sure it was being posted sarcastically, poking fun at the silliness of your post. Even then, I wondered if someone had hacked your account. (I'm still leaving that open as a possibility) It's the most perfect own goal I've ever seen. <br /><br />Do you really not see how silly your accusation is? Am I missing something? Please elaborate.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92138699614187420572012-02-28T14:56:47.568-08:002012-02-28T14:56:47.568-08:00Troy
"I'm out of here."
You better...Troy<br /><br />"I'm out of here."<br /><br />You better be back or else!Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78837954334982795162012-02-28T13:35:54.043-08:002012-02-28T13:35:54.043-08:00Cornelius: "Of course I do, have you never ob...Cornelius: <i>"Of course I do, have you never observed lightning? If you really look at it, you'll see why. Not only does it kill people for no reason, but it's terribly jagged and disjointed. Clearly there is no creator of lightning.</i>"<br /><br />Wow. I wasn't expecting it to be that easy. I sense you're being sarcastic, but to what end? Is that not the actual accusation you're making? Do you really think that the rest of us don't believe that Zeus creates all lightning bolts simply because we have beliefs about Zeus that don't comport with how lightning behaves, rather than the fact that there simply is no positive evidence for lightning coming from Zeus and adding him into the explanation is simply unnecessary? (independent of whether we understood where lightning <i>does</i> come from or not?)<br /><br />I feel it would be patronizing to point out that by your own criteria, you must 'believe' in Zeus the way atheists like Dawkins must 'believe' in a God. <br /><br />Do you not see how silly your argument is? Why do you persist?<br /><br />"Religion drives meteorology and it matters."Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70992707854278371692012-02-28T11:13:03.048-08:002012-02-28T11:13:03.048-08:00CH: Of course I do, have you never observed lightn...CH: Of course I do, have you never observed lightning? If you really look at it, you'll see why. Not only does it kill people for no reason, but it's terribly jagged and disjointed. Clearly there is no creator of lightning.<br /><br />Is this poe?<br /><br />For example, isn't it possible the designer want's to kill specific people for some very important reason which we simply cannot comprehend? However, this designer doesn't want to call attention to itself, or it's targets.<br /><br />As such, the designer intentionally makes lighting appear random. And, due to the importance nature of the designers goal, even kills innocent people so the identify of it's targets are obscured. <br /><br />Are you "sure" this isn't' the case?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64276883229055900412012-02-28T09:41:46.067-08:002012-02-28T09:41:46.067-08:00I have to concur troy. I think perhaps if we sta...I have to concur troy. I think perhaps if we starve these blogs of their oxygen maybe they will just fade away. I've completely stopped reading Uncommon Descent for the same reason (especially now that the Barry Arrington thought-police are now in control). CH is just punching air and there really is no substance to anything he's saying. I suppose if he keeps repeating (clicking his heels) "Religion drives science" somebody at some point might be taken in by it. But in truth, despite numerous people patiently explaining why, the argument is erroneous (actually it's just pure rubbish). <br /><br />I'm outta here too...let's leave CH to teach his fundie students at his fundie Bible college and get on with our lives.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85983230320830191062012-02-28T04:51:17.995-08:002012-02-28T04:51:17.995-08:00Question for CH: If I re-post the original dialog ...Question for CH: If I re-post the original dialog using a less juvenile example, would you allow that? Or is it the dialog itself that you object to?Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37557712509612119062012-02-28T04:32:25.584-08:002012-02-28T04:32:25.584-08:00Seriously. Over the last week or two there have be...Seriously. Over the last week or two there have been some truly pathetic attempts to smear Dawkins. I take heart at these since it demonstrates so ably that they cannot attack his actual arguments.<br /><br />http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/shocking-newsflash-infamous-atheist-wears-mismatched-socksRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77650305710923077882012-02-28T03:24:23.868-08:002012-02-28T03:24:23.868-08:00One thing that I love about this entire "agno...One thing that I love about this entire "agnostic atheist" episode is that it really highlights how few of the people that "disagree" with Richard Dawkins have ever actually familiarized themselves with his arguments. People are reacting as though he was forced to admit that he was an agnostic atheist, when in fact it's something that he has explicitly stated on his own over and over again in the past. Only someone whose knowledge of Dawkins consisted entirely of what they read on their favorite christian blogs would think that it's some kind of guilty admission.Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72084124532875207902012-02-27T21:46:12.225-08:002012-02-27T21:46:12.225-08:00Seriously?Seriously?Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14830750962222035342012-02-27T16:47:53.128-08:002012-02-27T16:47:53.128-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55054044631082329182012-02-27T16:43:39.910-08:002012-02-27T16:43:39.910-08:00Cornelius Hunter
Derick: Cornelius, do you believ...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />Derick: Cornelius, do you believe that Zeus is not the originator of all lightning bolts?<br /><br />Of course I do, have you never observed lightning? If you really look at it, you'll see why. Not only does it kill people for no reason, but it's terribly jagged and disjointed. Clearly there is no creator of lightning.</i><br /><br />So things that are terribly jagged and disjointed can't be designed? One look at your OPs disproves that idea.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7064173490369134222012-02-27T15:40:51.794-08:002012-02-27T15:40:51.794-08:00Kudos for the Adams reference.Kudos for the Adams reference.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45774476881011706282012-02-27T14:57:37.524-08:002012-02-27T14:57:37.524-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29447247539684103502012-02-27T14:50:44.547-08:002012-02-27T14:50:44.547-08:00Derick:
Cornelius, do you believe that Zeus is no...Derick:<br /><br /><i>Cornelius, do you believe that Zeus is not the originator of all lightning bolts?</i><br /><br />Of course I do, have you never observed lightning? If you really look at it, you'll see why. Not only does it kill people for no reason, but it's terribly jagged and disjointed. Clearly there is no creator of lightning.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62225659641412399132012-02-27T11:33:20.993-08:002012-02-27T11:33:20.993-08:00If a person were to say that the sky can't be ...<b>If a person were to say that the sky can't be blue because of flatulent unicorns, so it must be leprechauns sneezing, it might be a closer analogy to the point CH is making.</b><br /><br />That may be true, but it is where Cornelius is exactly wrong.<br /><br />He thinks ToE is based on the assumption that divine creation is impossible. In actual fact it is based on no such presumption.<br /><br />The analogy would be complete if we posed the scientist proposing an intricate and extremely well-evidenced theory which explains why the sky appears blue, all to do with light dispersal and atmospheres, and Cornelius claiming such a theory is based upon the presumption that the magic uncorn COULDN'T have done it (and was therefore a religious theory).Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80454431984717091922012-02-27T11:08:55.907-08:002012-02-27T11:08:55.907-08:00The only virtue of pure insult against Eocene and ...The only virtue of pure insult against Eocene and JoeG is the lack of lies. That's a low standard.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18698735209086558262012-02-27T08:18:15.065-08:002012-02-27T08:18:15.065-08:00Venture Free:
If a person were to say that the sk...Venture Free:<br /><br />If a person were to say that the sky can't be blue because of flatulent unicorns, so it must be leprechauns sneezing, it might be a closer analogy to the point CH is making.<br /><br />And if he where to respond, "how do you now that a unicorns intestinal gas is malodorous, anyway?" and you where to respond "well, I t just makes sense to me since humans flatus smells." that would also be a make accurate analogy.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38572346203343893092012-02-27T06:24:46.333-08:002012-02-27T06:24:46.333-08:00I wish comments could be up-voted. Well put.I wish comments could be up-voted. Well put.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.com