Re: So much for "teach the controversy", an antidote for "Expelled"

On Feb 8, 12:51 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:33:05 -0800, snex wrote:
On Feb 7, 7:29 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Hey, either parallel lines exist or parallel lines don't exist, right?
If parallel lines exist in this domain, then they exist for all of us.
If they don't, they don't.

and as far as the evidence shows, parallel lines in our universe
probably do meet sometimes. that is unless general relativity turns out
to be wrong, of course. but that has nothing whatsoever to do with
abstract geometries that operate under their domains.

You have evidence that lines exist in this universe? Of course you don't
-- lines are not subject to investigation by methodological naturalism.
Are they any less real for that? I think the parallel (pun absolutely
intended) to God is obvious.

if youre using a precise mathematical definition of "line" then no
such thing exists, nor is it even meant to. mathematics are
abstractions that we can use to model the actual world. what this has
to do with gods is anyone's guess.




Sure, I can image domains where parallel lines exist and I can imagine
other domains where parallel lines don't exist. So what? What about
*this* domain?

yes, what about *this* domain? do gods exist or do gods not exist? faith
cannot provide an accurate answer to this question or any other.

And methodological naturalism cannot give you geometry. Why are you only
complaining about people who have faith in God? Why aren't you
correcting the topologists, too?

which mathematicians claim that geometry created the universe and sent
its son to die on a cross for us, but then made him rise from the
dead?


You're making a category error. Axioms aren't proved.

axioms arent chosen at random either, but then thats what religions
try to do.

When you make silly assertions like this, does it even cross your mind
that you could be wrong? Or does it just kinda happen?

have you ever wondered HOW they chose their axioms? go ahead and tell
me.

I'd start with Lessa's _Reader in Comparative Religion: An
Anthropological Approach_ 4th ed. I haven't read it, but it looks
promising.

whats the matter, dont YOU have an answer?


The axioms of religions are obviously not chosen at random. This is
high- school comparative religion here. Why are you so passionate
about something you know so little about?

whats not random about them? lightning is complex. goddidit! animals are
complex. goddidit! religion is full of completely arbitrary (and wrong)
answers to questions about the world.

Oh, by "religion" you meant "a tiny offshoot of conservative American
protestantism". I think I see where the confusion lies.

no, thats not what i meant. "moderate" christians claim that god is
responsible for creating the universe, and tinkering with it 2000
years ago via supernatural means.


<snip>

why is *anything* taken on faith?

Utility.

what utility is there in making *** up and then asserting that its
true?

Now that's an excellent question. Why would someone do that? Let me
know if you're curious and I'll see if I can't come up with a book
suggestion or two.

i suppose there is utility if you want to control ignorant people and
make them do your will, but i dont think thats the way you think things
should be, is it?

That's not the utility I'm thinking of, no.

and yet you offer no actual utility other than that. how am i supposed
to take you seriously if you cant back up your claims?


<snip>

yet thats exactly what they do. ask them why they believe in god.
"because of faith" is the answer!

And based on this faith, do they try make any measurements that have
some component of accuracy?

if they dont, then they should drop the belief, because its clear that
faith doesnt give accurate answers.

Does beer? Does cuddling by the fireplace? Does Mozart? What a
horribly barren place life would be if it were only populated with things
that gave accurate answers.

nobody uses beer, cuddling by fireplaces, or mozart to draw
conclusions about how the universe was created. why do you keep
bringing up these strawmen?




Why do you believe in infinite parallel lines? Or the non-existence of
infinite parallel line? Or are you agnostic?

loaded question, false analogy, and already dealt with.

As analogies go, I think it's pretty apt. It shows you that many
Christians' view of Christianity is nothing at all like yours, and to
them asking for evidence of God is just as silly as asking for evidence
of parallel lines.

except that they dont claim that god is an abstraction that we use to
model reality and make predictions about it. they claim that god is a
very real conscious and intelligent being that created the universe
and sent his son to die for us 2000 years ago, and then rose from the
dead 3 days after dying. and thats what the MODERATE ones claim!


<snip>

axioms are usually chosen based on what is readily observed

No, only the axioms you're familiar with.

present some others.

Lexicographic set theory is one I'm playing with now. Also Zermelo-
Fraenkel set theory, specifically "all individuals in the universe of
discourse are sets".

and which of the ZFC axioms are not based on some common experience with
everyday objects that we like to call "sets" in common parlance?

I'm unaware of "individuals" being identified as "sets" in "common
parlance", but I'm happy to admit my error if you can provide a citation.

you forgot to answer my question. which of the ZFC axioms is not based
on some common experience with everyday objects that we call "sets" in
normal conversation? take a set of paperclips, for example. which of
the ZFC axioms are not based on operations you can perform on a set of
paperclips?


, not fairy
tales written by our ancestors.

Like Euclid?

what fairy tales did euclid write?

Parallel postulate. Lots of stuff about infinitesimal points and
infinite planes. Nobody can prove a bit of it.

doesnt sound like a fairy tale to me. sounds more like mathematics. it
must suck to not be able to tell the difference.

It's the difference between Platonism and Constructivism (but the two may
look identical from your point of view). May I recommend _The
Mathematical Experience_ by Davis and Hersh? I have the 1981 edition,
and it's wonderful. The 1999 edition is probably just as good.

irrelevant. math isnt a fairy tale.




even the axioms themselves are not
unquestioned in science.

Of course.

when are the axioms seriously questioned in religion?

Usually Wednesday and Sunday nights, at least in the tradition I'm
familiar with.

what tradition would that be?

Quaker and Unitarian/Universalist.

and when you asked "why do we believe in god when there is no
evidence" what was the answer?

Sorry, why do you believe in parallel lines when there is no evidence?

But to answer your question: actual Christianity (as opposed to the
caricature you're familiar with) understands that one does not come to
know God by reasoning and evidence (some guy named Aquinas came up with
that, you might have heard of him). If you require evidence, well,
there's simply nothing more to discuss. And despite understanding this
perfectly well, they find a great deal of utility -- *measurable*
utility -- in this belief.

i require evidence because evidence is the way we come to know things.

It's *one* of the ways we come to know things. There's also inductive
and deductive reasoning, intuition, reading (which you need to do more
of), etc.

which "way of knowing" can help us to know god, and if it can, why
cant people seem to agree on facts about god?


if you got no evidence, then you dont "know" god.

If I have no evidence, then I have no evidence. I have several other
avenues to knowledge. You don't appear to.

which avenues would those be? how have you gaged their accuracy?


youre just making ***
up and calling it true.

Again, a Platonist might agree with you. But then a Platonist believes
that somewhere outside of this old universe there are actual, Platonic
parallel lines (or some equivalent). If you asked them for proof, I'm
not sure they'd be able to provide any. A constructivist would say that
you're right: mathematics is just making up rules and seeing what
follows from them. Mathematicians have been described as Platonists
during the week and Constructivists on Sundays.

and thats what we call dishonesty.

Or mathematics.

<snip>

Oh, now we're finally getting into *usually*. Well, if we're talking
about some *subset* of people who believe in gods, you might be getting
close to having a point.

and as a christian, YOU are in that subset, so dont try to weasel out of
it.

You did forget. We had this conversation earlier. I've been an atheist
for fifteen years or so.

ok then, but you cant deny that "moderate" christians are in that
subset. 1 billion catholics recite the nicene creed.




either these events actually happened or they did not happen. there
is no "useful system that can be constructed" that is true for you
but false for me when it comes to creators of the universe.

If I wake up tomorrow and decide that the Flying Spaghetti Monster
created the universe, what measure of utility are you proposing that
would register this change?

if you wake up tomorrow and decide that, then youre still a dishonest
*** with no interest in discovering how the universe actually came into
its present state of being.

I mostly leave the physics to the physicists, but I am collaborating with
a team that's doing some abiogenesis work. I hope we can get our first
publication submitted in April.

which is irrelevant, as im addressing your hypothetical example.


What you do you?

youre intellectually lazy for wanting to
avoid doing the hard work of science and instead adopting a completely
random axiom (remember how you said religions dont do this?

I do "the hard work of science" eighty hours a week, silly. I'm a grad
student. What do you do?

which is irrelevant, as im addressing your hypothetical example.


wtf do you
think the FSM is, if not random?) and asserting its truth no matter what
the facts show or dont show.

I think you're gibbering now.

are you asserting that the FSM is not a deliberately random axiom
chosen to demonstrate the absurdity of faith? if you think it isnt,
you clearly missed its key point.


<snip>

what have i claimed to discover?

Brainwashing, I had thought. And several facts about all religions
everywhere that turned out to be wrong.

you are completely brainwashed if you think the differing axioms of
different mathematical systems has anything whatsoever to do with people
asserting that gods exist, created the universe, and punish us for
masturbating.

Yep, you're gibbering.

When you've lost an debate, it's generally better to stop talking than
say whatever falls into your head. You'll look a lot smarter that way.

its theists that claim they have
discovered something - god. im asking for the evidence. put up or
shut up.

Well, as you're not willing to put up any evidence for infinitesimal
points or lines heading off to infinity, I suppose you're in the same
boat.

i also never brought up these ideas. you did.

That's correct. I used it to show how shallow your reasoning is.

so why dont you stick to
dealing with the positions i actually claim to hold

I did. I showed your juvenile epistemology cannot handle simple concepts
like geometry.

You have some reading to do.

<snip>

.