Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology


"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157823573.348168.46420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157819591.715479.148620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157812683.098213.179640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

roger_pearse@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snex wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
the evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles.

Another unsupported assumption. Absence of evidence is not
evidence
of
absence.

absence of evidence indicates that reasonable people refrain from
believing until evidence arrives.

You need to decide whether you are arguing

1. That the "evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles."

or

2. That there is no evidence of miracles.

if you hadnt dishonestly snipped my next paragraph, youd see that
your
question is already answered.


Just for the record, this is the snipped portion.
and the fact that magicians can fool people is positive evidence
*against* miracles, but i suppose you missed that part.




Neither position is true, but you need to be consistent, surely?

I wonder if you could offer any evidence for what you no doubt
proselytise for, conformity to some subset of the societal values
of
the period in which you happened to be born. If not, your comments
about absence of evidence would seem to need qualification.

where do i proselytize for this? how is promoting logic and science
proselytizing anyway? we already know that they work.


Let's look closely at this last claim. "Logic and science work." Now,
"work"
in this sense means to expend effort to achieve a desired goal. If the
desired goal is understanding of the natural world, then certainly
science
has shown great utility in this regard. If you want to juggle
abstract
ideas, then logic has been found particularly useful. But if you want
to
understand the human condition, meaning the subjective reality that
humans
directly experience, then science and logic have exhibited only
limited
power to reveal these answers. Sometimes poetry and metaphor may
contain
more wisdom in this regard.

Your claim is an example of Petitio Principii. You have entailed your
conclusion in your premise.

poetry and metaphor dont attempt to, as far as im aware, make claims
about actual historical events.


Sure they can. Historical dramas often try to inform us as to the
characters
and motivations of historical persons and events. Sometimes, when done
well,
they can tell us more about an era than any recitation of dates or
places.

so do you believe that an ancient mariner was actually cursed by an
albatross he killed? do you believe that the intent of the poem was to
make you believe that one was?


The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is an allegory of how a single unthinking
act can lead to tragedy and misfortune, then eventual redemption. It is not
meant as an historical narrative. It's actually a tale told to a passerby
who has trouble making sense of the narrative himself.





thus, poetry and metaphor stick to
their proper domains. religion does not do this. religion attempts to
make truth claims about actual historical and current events, but this
is the domain of history and science, not religion.


Not all religions make historical claims, and not all religions expect
their
sacred literature to be taken as modern histories.

which religions are those?


Variants of Pantheism, Deism, Zen, Taoism, among others.










do you believe that god exists? yes or no?

do you believe that the bible is his inspired word? yes or no?

I notice that you don't want to discuss your preferred alternative!

im merely trying to get VoU to stop engaging in pagano-style
sophistry
and state his position.


you mean you dont want to answer my question, yet you still think
your
views should be respected.

Can you even state the views by which you live your life, other
than
in
words borrowed from the media of our day?

how is this relevant to anything?


Basically, it is relevant because of the suggestion that our
philosophy
or
world-view is entangled with our cultural milieu; yours, as much as
anybody's. You say you are trying to get VoiceofReason to state his
position, but won't admit to your own subjective experience.

i am attacking VoU's unreasonable position that it is ok to attack
creationists for denying evolution science while at the same time
denying anatomy science.


It's a miracle! An unexplained and possibly unexplainable event. You
don't
have to believe it. Just as many Christians don't believe in a literal
Resurrection. They take it as myth or metaphor and draw hope from the
possibility. Others do believe it literally, of course. Science remains
skeptical of such claims. But then, science is always skeptical.

i dont think you mean "many." i think you mean "very very few."


Most Christians are not fundamentalists, fundamentalism being often defined
as a literal interpretation of sacred texts. The Christian world includes a
wide variety of differing beliefs. And might I add that most believers have
doubts.










you admitted to belief in the resurrection. you are a science
denier.

Another unsupported assertion. Dude, you're getting boring with
this.

your science denial is boring. stop pretending that creationists
should
accept evolution when you dont accept basic anaotmy of humans.

Another non-scientist. If you knew anything about science, you
would
know that it does not commit to religious opinions such as "the
resurrection did not happen." Your 19th century rationalism is
amusing, but scientists are not rationalists.

"the resurrection did not happen" is not a religious opinion.


Out of any context, it certainly could be. Or it might be a tentative
scientific assertion.

if it were tentative, people wouldnt believe it were absolutely true
because an ancient book says so.


All scientific assertions are held tentatively.




Well, there are a lot of absolutists in the world. You appear to be one
of
them. But most people, religious or non-religious, are not.

how am i an absolutist? all you gotta do is show me the evidence and
ill agree.


Well, I won't insist on the point. I don't want to be 'on your case', or
inadvertently misrepresent your views.

But consider that you stated "'the resurrection did not happen' is not a
religious opinion". This is clearly incorrect and depends on context. 'The
resurrection did not happen' can very well be a religious opinion. For
instance, many Jews would reject the resurrection on purely religious
grounds. And Gnostics directly challenged the physical resurrection early in
the 1st millenium, 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the
soul'. So you were wrong on this point. Instead of just admitting it, you
went off into the irrelevant point of how some people believe it is true
because (their interpretation) of an ancient book says so. This is typical
behavior in someone not willing to examine the fundamental tenets of their
beliefs. And yes, there is a overriding philosophical viewpoint that colors
your views.



--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres - one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/









--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet
Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/



it is a
statement about actual historical events. science requires that
historical events obey the laws of nature just as much as it
requires
current and future events to.


All the best,

Roger Pearse





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... "Logic and science work." ... attempt to depict history, and can on ocassion do so with great insight. ... religion does not do this. ... resurrection of jesus to be literal history. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... "Logic and science work." ... attempt to depict history, and can on ocassion do so with great insight. ... religion does not do this. ... resurrection of jesus to be literal history. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... Absence of evidence is not ... "Logic and science work." ... religion does not do this. ... is the domain of history and science, ...
    (talk.origins)