Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology


Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157587741.003554.271880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157584571.145789.258400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157581578.109800.239890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157579560.445558.103120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:

<snip for brevity>



S: What do you need a faith FOR?

Z: Because I choose to have faith.

And people will argue that love is very real indeed without any
requirement
that it be justified to you or any justification whatsoever.
That
you
don't
like the answer is immaterial to its relevance. (I think you
will
find
the
problem in your understanding of "reality" in your previous
comment.)

S: why do you say that god exists?

Z: because i have faith.

OR

S: why do you say that god exists?

Z: because i love my children.

can you guess which of these scenarios NEVER happens?


You should at least try to get the scenarios right. They are
parallel
arguments, not equivalent terms.

S: Why do you love your children?
Z: I don't know. I just do.
S: That's not an answer.

actually, "i dont know" is an answer. but VoU couldnt even do that
much!


He said he chose to believe. That is an answer. That you reject it,
then
accuse him of not answering is rather obvious.

no, it is not an answer. that he chose to believe tells me nothing at
all about the circumstances that lead to the belief.


S: Why do you like chocolate?
Z: I just do.
S: That's not an answer.
Z: I did answer.
S: You're lying. You did not.

You can see how quickly such a discussion degenerates and actual
communication ceases.

yes, because Z isnt answering the question. the fact that Z utters
intelligible sentences after my question does not mean he is answering
it.


Perhaps the question is faulty. You are assuming that a purpose is required,
or even that an answer is required.

when Z insists that he can claim that various beings exist due to his
faith, then Z is required to explain how this "faith" is supposed to
work and why it cannot be applied to any arbitrary idea whatsoever.



what Z is doing in your example is fallaciously arguing in a
circle. he likes chocolate because he likes chocolate. a sufficient
answer to the question must make references to things outside his like
for chocolate as a justification for that like. if he doesnt know, then
he should be honest and admit he doesnt know.


Now that you rephrased it in detail, I do believe it is your question and
your insistence on a specific type of answer that are at fault in the
breakdown of communications. The conversation is so typical that it is hard
to believe that you can't get past the opening dialogue.

no, at fault is the faith user's refusal to answer the question as he
would answer it in any non-faith matter. the meaning of the question
doesnt change simply because the word it is applied to is "faith."
faith is not your magic get-out-of-jail free card. if you want to be
taken seriously as a reasonable person, then you play by the rules of
reason.











S: Why do you believe in God?
Z: I just do. I have no rational basis for my belief, or any
objective
evidence.
S: You may as well believe in fairies dancing on the lawn.
(Z: Ok.)

and indeed, if you reject rational bases and objective evidence for
beliefs, you really might as well believe in fairies dancing on the
lawn, or maybe, creationism.


I have no problem with people's beliefs. I only have a problem when
they
claim to have objective evidence when they don't.

if they have FAITH that they have objective evidence, and you accept
that FAITH is valid, you are using special pleading to say that their
faith is somehow less coherent than anybody else's.


The word "objective" has a meaning, just as the word "faith" does. If
someone claims they have objective evidence when they don't, either they
are
wrong on the evidence, confused on the meaning of "objective", or are
lying.

the word "exists" has a meaning too, so when people claim to arrive at
the conclusion that god exists through faith, they are claiming that
faith can tell us things about what exists. if faith can tell us what
exists, then faith can tell us that objective evidence for creationism
exists.


"Exists" does have a meaning.

exists, to have real being whether material or spiritual.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/exists

what does it mean to "exist" spiritually? can you name any things that
exist in spirit, and ways to determine that those things actually
exist? if you use faith to determine it, then why do others who also
use faith arrive at contradictory answers?











S: Why do you believe in God?
Z: I have had mystical experiences I attribute to God.
S: You're insane.

indeed, your answer shows insanity.


Obvious exaggeration and overgeneralization. Many people have
religious
experiences and are quite well-adapted. Some of these people are truly
the
"salt of the Earth". Some may be more loyal, more reliable, and more
trustworthy than some atheists.

schozophrenics can be loyal, reliable, and trustworthy too.


As a rule, schizophrenics are not reliable.

says who?


Is this really necessary?

Merriam-Webster
schizophrenia, a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with
the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in
everyday life.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/schizophrenics

American Psychiatric Association
Schizophrenia is a major psychotic disorder... psychological and behavioral
characteristics are associated with a variety of impairments in occupational
or social functioning...disorganized behavior and poor attention...
http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/treatg/pg/pg_schizo_2.cfm

National Institute of Health
Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disease... symptoms
may leave them fearful and withdrawn.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/family/sz.overview.htm

so, according to you, schizophrenics cant have jobs, cant have fruitful
marriages, and certainly shouldnt be allowed near children? i wonder
what those sites you quoted think about that.






they can
even be famous mathematicians!


Schizophrenics can be famous mathematicians. But that doesn't make them
reliable persons.


but that doesnt mean their delusions are
real, or that they should go unchallenged when they choose to share
those delusions with others.


There's a reason why schizophrenics have trouble coping, but most
religious
people do not. Perhaps you would care to ponder this.

the reason religious people have no trouble coping is because they live
in a world where they are the majority.


Zachriel: Is this really necessary?
I guess so.


I can't believe you are conflating people (and their families) who suffer
the terrible affliction of schizophrenia with people who go to church. That
is simply awful. I only hope it is ignorance on your part.

when you see a schizophrenic talking to thin air, what do you make of
this?

when you see a bunch of churchgoers talking to thin air, why do you
think there is any difference?



however, if you look at
non-schizophrenic people that have non-religious wacky beliefs, like
alien abductions or CREATIONISM for example, they do have trouble
coping.

i see you didnt comment on this crucial part. you claimed that
religious people dont have trouble coping; but i responded that it is
only because their beliefs are in the majority. when we look at other
faith beliefs that arent so high-esteemed, those people really do have
trouble coping. this brings your entire argument down crashing. its no
wonder youd ignore it.







when i ask why you believe in god,
presumably you were once without a belief in god, then something
happened, then you believed in god. you cant say that you attribute
mystical experiences to god unless you have previous god-belief, in
which case my question goes unanswered.


That's a non sequitor. There is no reason why someone can't have a
mystical
experience and convert, or to recognize that life itself is a mystical
experience that might be explainable within a religious context. It is
also
conceivable that someone could have a mystical experience without any
knowledge of gods whatsoever. After all, we can make a presumption
that
belief in gods does not predate humans.

one wonders why you chose to respond in this manner when my very next
paragraph deals with the scenarios you present. for some reason, you
think you can respond to points that are necessarily tied together in
isolation.


You made a specific statement that appears capable of standing in
isolation,
"you cant say that you attribute mystical experiences to god unless you
have
previous god-belief".

I do not believe that this statement is supportable. At most you would
have
to have intellectual knowledge of the god, but not necessarily belief.
And
we could even suppose that someone could have a mystical experience while
isolated from all religious thoughts, and he might attribute this
experience
to the wind or an animal or an anthropic spirit.

if we can suppose that people have mystical experiences isolated from
religious thoughts, then the idea that mystical experiences imply gods
is nonsense.


The experience may very well precede and be independent of the thoughts.

then you agree that people who believe in gods are being unreasonable?
if the mystical experience isnt good evidence for the conclusion - even
when it is non-objective, then the conclusion cannot be justified.










if you are trying to say that you take the mystical experience as
evidence for god, then you are back to rational bases and objective
evidence - however you are making a non-sequitur.


A mystical experience is not "objective evidence", but may be
considered
very real to those who have that experience. It is not objective
evidence,
but it can be personally persuasive.


After a review, I still believe I answered your point. Someone doesn't
look
for objective support for love or faith to consider them real aspects of
human existence.

thats news to me. when a girl tells me she loves me, i have certain
objective expectations from her as a result of this, and if she fails
to meet those objective expectations, i discount her claim of love as
false.


Oh my.

That's a very sad instance of avoidance. You are 'someone' too. What about
your own experiences?

The rest of us don't look for objective evidence that we love someone.

maybe thats why theres so much domestic violence in the world, eh?







personally persuasive of what? that the mythological characters
currently espoused by the person's current culture are really real?
...


I suggested that you closely examine your definition of "real", but for
some
reason, you didn't bother.

perhaps you should suggest that theists do so, since they are the ones
who think faith can determine reality.


If you have a case in question, please let us know. But you have repeatedly
used the word. And here you avoid telling us what you mean by it.

"But if evolution is true, there is no 'need' for a deity to create,
organize, and shape the world. What we see around us is explicable in
exclusively natural terms. That is actually a knife in the heart of
Christian belief.

VoiceOfUnreason replies: Only for those with very weak faith.

the implication here is that VoU has strong faith, and that the science
of evolution does not affect his belief that *reality* coincides with
his own personal version of christianity. VoU, being a christian,
presumably thinks that the jesus of the bible *really* lived, *really*
healed people, and *really* died and rose from the dead. he thinks that
the god described in the christian bible *really* exists and that there
is *really* a heaven he goes to when he dies.

he thinks that his "faith" in these ideas is ample justification to
believe in their actuality, and presumably he will act in an according
manner. he does not care if none of these ideas have evidence, he does
not care that all known evidence is against these ideas. he does not
care if these ideas are false, he will believe them anyway.

i see no difference between that attitude and the attitude of a
creationist.



--
Zachriel
"When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours..."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/beauty-is-truth.html

<snip>

.

Relevant Pages