Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins

On May 31, 11:06 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:02:11 -0700, snex wrote:
On May 30, 11:48 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:36:45 -0700, snex wrote:
On May 29, 12:57 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Again with the overgeneralization.  *Some* mainstream Christianity
espouses such beliefs, and even among those denominations, there are many
members who do not.  Religion does not require violation of natural laws.
Deal with it.

which denominations are you thinking of? every major one requires
those beliefs. do you even know what "mainstream" means?

Perhaps you should read the NCSE's "Voices for Evolution" sometime.
Perhpas you should get to know more than one or two religious people.

perhaps you should climb down out of your ivory tower and get to know
some religious people yourself. it sounds like the only religious
people youve ever talked to are people who arent actually "religious"
at all in the traditional sense of the word, but your fellow ivory
towerists who simply pay lip service to the word "god."

somehow i doubt that you ever even bother to ask your religious peers
questions about their beliefs. if you did, you might find that their
beliefs are a lot less enlightened than you pretend they are.

Now you're using a variant of the "not a True Christian" argument.  Are
you really a creationist?


no, im pointing out to you that you are simply not acquainted with
what the actual vast majority of religious people actually believe.
either that or you simply deny that they believe what they tell you
they believe. so, how many of your christian colleagues have you asked
about the virgin birth?


there IS a contradiction between "science is the proper way to
evaluate and form beliefs about the natural world" and "i believe
that a virgin gave birth because my religion tells me to." these
beliefs are not compatible AT ALL.

And who besides you holds that first belief?

anybody who has seen the effectiveness of science at evaluating claims
about the world.

I suspect the vast majority
of people realize that some beliefs about the physical world are not
best formed and evaluated by science. [inserting a line break for
individual replies] These include subjective beliefs,

subjective beliefs are not "beliefs about the physical world."

That's not clear to me, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument.
Especially since it completely demolishes your argument, since religious
beliefs are subjective.

"a virgin 2000 years ago gave birth" is not a subjective claim. and
you yourself declared this to be a religious claim.


beliefs about uncheckable one-time events (what did I have for
breakfast on May 30, 1970?),

name a system that is better than science at evaluating beliefs like
this.

Creating fictional stories.

how is creating fictional stories a better system? show its efficacy
compared to science and some other systems.


and occasions where science would impractical or not cost-effective
(could I avoid the traffic and get there faster today by taking the
next exit?)

name a system that is better than science at evaluating beliefs like
this.

Intuition.

how is intuition a better system? do your travel times show a
significant decrease when you use intuition as opposed to the traffic
report on the radio? where is this data published?


you seem to be under the assumption that if science cannot address a
particular claim, religion or some other system can. where is your
evidence for this?

Seeing firsthand that religion or some other system addresses claims that
science cannot address.

show how religion successfully addresses any claim whatsoever, even a
subjective one. merely asserting an answer is not sufficient to
address a claim.


if science cannot address some claim
about reality, then the proper attitude towards that claim should be
(weak) agnosticism, not to invent some silly system called "religion"
that pretends it has the answer.

Weak agnosticism and religion are compatible.  For some people, they are
inseparable.  (Haven't we been here before?)

no they are not compatible. weak agnosticism would be refusing to take
a viewpoint. religion takes a viewpoint. you cant both take a
viewpoint on subject X and refuse to take a viewpoint on subject X.


 They also include occasions where one simply does
not care what science has to say.  And not caring what science has to
say about every last thing does not mean one cannot be a scientist.

why be a scientist if you dont care what science has to say?

Again with the overgeneralization.  Science is not an all or nothing
switch.  Have you ever considered that someone who is enthralled by the
biology of spittlebugs might not care about the geology of carbonates in
the deep aesthenosphere?

how ironic. creation "scientists" are exactly like this. so why do you
call them anti-science?


if what you really care about is virgin births and the like, then join
the priesthood.

Don't be a fool.  That's not what priesthoods are for.

right, i forgot theyre for a club to diddle little boys and collect
untaxed money that they use for golden palaces, funny hats, and
lawyers to defend themselves against charges of diddling little boys.



people can maintain incompatible beliefs. they do so all the
time.

Then, by definition, they are not incompatible.

um, no. you are distorting the meaning of the word. by your
definition of "compatible," ANY two beliefs are compatible because
people can always maintain them both at the same time if they
employ enough cognitive dissonance.

Where's the dissonance?  They coexist without problem, which is the
very definition of compatible.

they do not coexist *without a problem.* and the problem lies in
their logical incompatibility.

It is apparent, though, that you are the only one who has the problem
with it.  If you go away, the science and religion become compatible..

bull***. people have been pointing out the logical incoherence of
religion for centuries. if *you* dont like that, then maybe you should
stop maintaining/defending contradictory beliefs.

First, I must say yet again that contradictory does not mean
incompatible.  As you yourself have pointed out, people can hold mutually
contradictory views.  As is plainly seen, people can do so happily.

yes, contradictory DOES mean incompatible.


Second, there is nothing wrong with defending contradictory beliefs, when
the purpose is to defend against bad arguments leveled against those
beliefs.

no argument is necessary. admitting that the beliefs contradict is
admission that at least one of them must be wrong.


Third, What specifically are you talking about?  I have no clue.

Fourth, you are overgeneralizing yet again.  (Actually, it seems like a
constant state with you.)  What about the parts of religion which do
without the logical incoherence?

what parts of what religion?




People -- all people, albeit some more than others -- are
irrational, emotion-driven, careless, and generally wonky.  All of
these are at least as "incompatible" with science, by your
definition, as religion is.  But science has one important strength
that you don't seem to appreciate: namely, that it is possible to do
it.  Yes, people are able to perform science despite the handicap
of being human.  But you have a problem with this.  Your
relentless campaign in this and related threads is directed more
against science than against religion.

science discourages irrationality by weeding it out and insisting
upon objective reliability.

So you would say that irrationality is incompatible with science?  How
about emotions, carelessness, and general wonkiness?

are the anti-vaccine crowd anti-science? homeopaths? UFOlogists? 9-11
truthers? creationists?

if your answers are different for each of these, then what are your
criteria for deciding? why do "moderate" christians who accept the
virgin birth literally count as pro-science when christians who accept
genesis literally count as anti-science?

People who choose to believe stupid things for themselves are not
(necessarily) anti-science.  People who say that others should believe
them too are.

you mean like moderate christians who bring their children up
christian?

most religions claim to be the only way to salvation, and that
includes christianity. jesus himself stated it.

and why do you think that people who choose to believe such stupid
things despite what the scientific evidence says are not anti-science?
when all the scientific evidence points towards a single conclusion,
rejecting that conclusion is rejecting the science that points to it.


religion *encourages* irrational behavior.

Religion encourages rational behavior, too.  You really, really, need
to learn something about religion beyond what you see from the likes of
spintronic and madman.

which religion would that be?

I would expect all those religions covered at Berkeley's Graduate
Theological Union, for a start.

i guess the pollsters just happened to miss them, huh?

.