Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology


Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157908587.841447.316040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157864231.368214.18360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"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:
<snip excess headers>


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.

exactly. nobody thinks there was an ancient mariner. samuel taylor
coleridge doesnt *want* anybody to think there was. he is making up
fiction to convey a point. the gospels (so it is claimed) are not; they
are meant to be conveying fiction. at least, this is what mainstream
christianity says and believes.


You claimed, "poetry and metaphor dont attempt to, as far as im aware,
make
claims about actual historical events." I stated that historical drama
does
attempt to depict history, and can on ocassion do so with great insight.
For
a counterexample you point to a piece of poetic fiction. That is a non
sequitur.

and yet you have no counter-counter-examples.


Are you seriously claiming not to be aware of historical literature? (This
aspect of the discussion should have ended as soon as someone reminded you
of the existence of historical literature. For some reason, you keep on
about it.)

Start with Shakespeare. About a third of his plays are histories and purport
to analyze the characters and relationships of important Kings of English
history. Many serious scholars consider them masterpieces of psychological
and social perception.

name some historians that use shakespeare's plays to determine what
happened in history. show me a quote by shakespeare saying his plays
are meant to be taken as actual history.












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.

deism claims that god is responsible for the creation of the universe;
thats an historical claim.


It's an untestable claim. It's specifically designed to be outside
history.
The claim has no meaning whatsoever in historical scholarship.

it doesnt matter that the claim is untestable. it is a claim about what
*actually* happened in history. either a god created the universe or it
did not. such things are not amenable to resolution by faith.


Sorry, no. It's before history. It's outside history. Such things are "not
amenable to resolution by" science.

either it happened or it didnt. it is a claim about *actual* events.
faith does not determine what *actually* happened.






pantheism seems to me to be atheism without
the stigma of the word.


It is a spiritual claim. Like most spiritual claims, it comes in various
flavors, such as the character of God/Nature's consciousness.

so some pantheists claim that nature is conscious? well thats another
claim about the natural world, and again usurping on science's
territory.


Some do. Some don't. It's not subject to scientific investigation, so it's
not "on science's territory."

it is a claim about the *actual* world, so it is on science's
territory.






im not very familiar with the other 2, but dont
they claim some type of reincarnation?


Some do. Some don't. Even then, many who do claim reincarnation make
non-historical claims, as only the soul is reincarnated, not the physical
body. Many Zen masters consider reincarnation irrelevant. You attain
Enlightenment in the Now, or it is unattainable.

either reincarnation happens, or it does not. either there is
"enlightenment" or there is not. faith is not how we determine the
actuality of nature, science is. if these claims happen to be
untestable by science, then reasonable people do not believe them.


You are perfectly free to hold whatever arbitrary beliefs you wish. Don't
expect others to necessarily share your beliefs. Also, keep in mind that
many things we know are not testable by science. Science is a rather blunt
tool and very limiting in terms of human experience.

im not the one holding arbitrary beliefs. people with religions are. im
telling them that they are *not* perfectly free to hold whatever
arbitrary beliefs they want and still maintain an air of intellectual
honesty. they are no different than creationists who hold their own set
of arbitrary beliefs.





You want to overgeneralize about religious beliefs. As you know such
beliefs
are not constrained by empirical methodology, you should then realize
that
these beliefs can span a huge variety of world-views. Many of these
world-views are completely spiritual in nature and do no make historical
or
scientific claims. And even those that make historical claims, they may
only
refer to a single event or body of events. Others make stronger claims,
but
that is not in dispute.

Saying that modern Christians deny anatomy shows how your own
metaphysical
beliefs have forced you to adopt your own silly position. A mother may
pray
for her sick child at hospital, but she took her child there because she
understands that medical science has signficant practical benefits. She
doesn't deny anatomy by praying.

Can't you see that?

cant you see that you are referring to a tiny fringe group of people,
of which you cant even demonstrate exists, to deny that the vast
majority of christians are science-deniers?


That vast majority of Christians and other faiths take their children to
hospital when appropriate. Hence, they do not deny anatomy.

Do you need statistics on this? Only a tiny minority of Christians do not
take their children to seek appropriate medical treatment. Most other
Christians consider this minority criminally negligent.

and yet they think a man can get up 3 days after dying. thats science
denial. most also think that prayer can heal people. that is science
denial also.






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.

fundamentalism is irrelevant. most christians take the life, death, and
resurrection of jesus to be literal history. the single largest
denomination - the catholic church - definitely does so. so do
baptists, methodists, lutherans, and most major protestant groups.


Yes, and many don't. And even among those that believe in a physical
Reincarnation, most consider it a singular circumstance. There very few
Christians who deny the anatomical sciences, despite your claim.

where are these christians that dont take it literally? the ones that
do take it literally deny anatomy science. men dont rise from the dead
after 3 days. they invoke magic and miracles to special plead, and that
is science denial.


Constantly repeating your assertion doesn't strengthen the argument. Most
Christians don't deny science. It wouldn't be much of a miracle if it was
rationally explainable. It's a miracle *because* it is a singular violation
of known laws of nature.

if its a "violation of known laws of nature," then those that believe
it are science deniers.




if a christian is allowed to deny science to make jesus rise from the
dead, then i can just as easily claim that any historical figure rose
from the dead on the same grounds. i can also claim that the speed of
light was much greater in the past, allowing the light from distant
stars to reach us. when you explain why this would have observable
effects that we dont see, i can trump you with a miracle.


Of course you can. Everyone knows the universe was created Last Thursday.

maybe you should actually read my paragraph, because it validates what
creationists do under the guise of faith.

















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.

yes, and the vast majority of christians do not hold the resurrection
tentatively.


That's a clue that it is not considered a scientific claim, even by those
that hold it.

no, it is christians making a special pleading fallacy in order to
maintain an obviously false belief. if you require a miracle to
maintain belief in the resurrection, you have already given up all
intellectual honesty and all grounds to critisize creationists.
<snip>


Intelligent Design claims to have scientific evidence to support their
assertions. They do not. On the other hand, if you want to believe the world
was created Last Thursday (or Zen-like every moment is all there is and all
there ever was) have at it. Just don't claim you have scientific evidence of
this assertion.

ah, so its ok to lie, as long as they dont use the word "science?"
maybe certain scientists feel that way, but i think lying about the
nature of reality is unacceptable whether or not scientific support is
claimed.



--
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

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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. ... Saying that modern Christians deny anatomy shows how your own ...
    (talk.origins)
  • ebooks share lits 200
    ... Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium ... Reformation in Britain and Ireland Oxford History of the Christian ... Literature and Culture, State and Nation, ... Historical Guide to Edgar Allan Poe Historical Guides to American ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: News-WSJ: Man vs. God pt. 1- Karen Armstrong
    ... majority of Christians believe about it. ... I'm proud to be simple in my beliefs about, ... interpretation would have come from the priest, ... of "Christians have, in the majority and for most of their history, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: BHARATS (INDIAS) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORLD
    ... perspective of western history to the contributions of other cultures has ... >of essays explaining how the ancient Egyptians used ... Teresi was promptly ... a science writer and former editor ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: BHARATS (INDIAS) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORLD
    ... perspective of western history to the contributions of other cultures has ... >of essays explaining how the ancient Egyptians used ... Teresi was promptly ... a science writer and former editor ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading