Re: The ToE kept alive by governement grants.

On Aug 11, 8:05 am, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:38 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 10, 1:57 pm, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 10, 3:46 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 5, 9:46 am, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 5, 11:13 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 5, 7:42 am, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 5, 2:26 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message
<e99833bf-d9e9-44e7-a1e9-06162b9b3...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes

On Aug 4, 6:36 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-08-04, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 4, 4:50 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-08-04, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 4, 4:23 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-08-04, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 4, 3:20 pm, Nashton <n...@xxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

- People are a natural part of this natural world.
- People believe in the supernatural.
- People's behavior is affected by the belief in the supernatural.

and this is exactly why it is so important to have evidence on the
table.

As I have also said many times before, "evidence" can be defined
differently in the context of different epistemologies. For example,
the fact that millions believe in a particular deity seems like pretty
solid evidence, to those who believe, for the existence of such an
entity. It's not important that they offer "scientific" evidence for
this belief, it's only important that they understand that their
evidence is not scientific.

Now, please think a moment before you give the usual knee-jerk answer
(which I expect to be something along the lines of "Evidence is
evidence, there's only one kind!").

if you knew the perfect answer that would rebut you, why did you
bother saying what you said?

I would guess it's pretty obvious that I don't think it's the perfect
answer, nor do I think it rebuts my argument. Equally obvious is the
fact that I was pretty sure you would think things were that simple,
as you demonstrate below.

the other types of "evidence" you mention
in your post arent evidence at all. they are logical fallacies.

"Not evidence," by the standards of which method?

logical fallacies do not lead to correct answers. claiming that it is
a different epistemology does not make the reasoning any less
fallacious.

"Fallacious," by the standards of which epistemology?

it just makes you look foolish for clinging to the fallacy
so desperately. again, your point was that people's behavior changes
based on the fact that they believe supernatural things. and this is
the exact reason that it is important that people have a correct
understanding of what actually constitutes "evidence" for something.

"Correct," by the standards of which way of knowing?

when people hold the supernatural belief that god is riding a comet
and you have to kill yourself to meet him before the comet leaves, a
bunch of people are going to kill themselves. if those people had
chosen better ways to evaluate claims put forward to them, they would
not be dead.

They believed they would be better off dead. How do you know they are
not?

This may seem, to you, to be stretching things too far, but it goes
right to the point in question. People believe stupid things. You
believe stupid things, I believe stupid things. Neither of us wants
the other in charge of deciding what he gets to believe (what's too
stupid to accept). We've institutionalized this concept because it
fits with the nature of human individuality as well as the nature of
analytical methodology. I can't know (for scientific values of "know")
all that you know, thus I cannot know that some particular extra-
natural belief of yours is invalid. I can be pretty sure, based upon
knowledge of how natural reality works, but I can't "know."

So we're left with a situation where we all get to believe what we
want provided we don't infringe upon others. Francis Collins gets to
believe anything he wants (mostly) without disqualifying himself for a
job for which all of the evidence suggests he should be very good. You
get to believe you're going to win the lottery every time you buy a
ticket, and I get to believe that dropped screws roll under some
obstruction (thus becoming irretrievable) far more often for me than
they do for anyone else. None of us is bothering anyone else (except
maybe my wife when I indulge in expletives).

Unfortunately, that freedom is inevitably going to lead to extremes,
such as the Heaven's Gate people. In our society you can't completely
avoid this, but you can limit its negative effect on others as we try
to do with Ken Ham, and Gish and Wells and Dembski and Behe etc.

you can sit there and bring up all sorts of "counter-examples" all you
like where supernatural reasoning lead somebody to do something good,
but it doesnt defeat the point. supernatural reasoning is garbage, so
it can lead literally *anywhere,* and thats the very problem.

Your point being I can show you all the evidence I want, but you will
remain unconvinced based upon dogmatic principles. As long as we're
clear on where your "reasoning" has led.

since you readily admit that beliefs about the supernatural
cannot be empirically validated, there is no way to determine
"correct" supernatural beliefs from "incorrect" ones.

There is no way to *scientifically* distinguish "correct" supernatural
beliefs from "incorrect" ones." However there clearly are ways,
acceptable within the appropriate epistemological context, of doing
so. They may not happen to work the way you think they should, but,
well...they'll just have to struggle along under the weight of your
disapproval.

no, there is no way *at all* to do so. why else do you think there are
so many different religions in the world and nobody can agree on which
one is the right one?

Because there are lots of different historical traditions in the
world, and it is not a requirement for internal coherence that any of
the religions sprung from them necessarily agree with any of the
others. Why do you feel compelled to demand of non-scientific
institutions scientific validation?

and if you cant
do that, you cant claim that francis collins' beliefs should remain
free from criticism while ken ham's should not.

Well, I happen to think all belief in the supernatural is incorrect,
so I would never try to develop the distinction you suggest (nor is
that important to this discussion). However, it has always been, and
remains, particularly easy to determine that Francis Collins' beliefs
- as they reflect on his suitability as a lead scientist/administrator
- should be free from criticism, as opposed to Ken Ham's. Collins does
not push his beliefs as science, and more importantly does not deny
established science. Ham does.

collins does in fact deny established science. he denies that
evolution can account for morality. in fact, he asserts that only god
can do so.

Everything I have read indicates that you are very much (and at this
point knowingly) overstating that case. I would ask that you back this
up with a reference, keeping in mind that what you must establish is
that he is actually *denying* science, not offering gap-filling
conjecture.

he denies that the laws of human reproduction work on all
humans. he denies the chemistries of water and wine. he denies the
surface tension of certain lakes. collins' beliefs are full of science
denials, and he hasnt a lick of evidence that any of them are correct.

For one who is so sensitive to being lied about that he reads such
behavior into situations where it does not exist, I would encourage
you to be more circumspect with these kinds of accusations. As you
have done with Miller in the past, you are deliberately misstating
Collins' positions based upon your own strawman versions of what
theists *must* believe. You are very close to lying, if not already
there.

and not only that, but the actual important matter is that collins has
arrived at his beliefs using *the very same method* that ken ham
arrived at his with. thats the real kicker here. if the method itself
is what led ken ham into his predicament, then the method itself is
the problem.

If in fact there is a problem, then that would seem to be a reasonable
conclusion. But you have yet to convince me (or anyone, that I can
see) that that which you see as a problem really is one.

- We cannot determine the truth or falsity of their claims that they
are able to detect, or interact with, the supernatural.

then why do you insist that creationists are wrong?

For one, and only one, reason: because they hope for, campaign for,
and are willing to compel, the teaching of their personal views as
science.

but how can you blame them? if you are willing to grant that theology
is a valid way to reason yourself into true statements, then from the
creationists' point of view, it is you that is pushing lies onto their
children. not just lies, but lies that will lead them to eternal
suffering in hell.

I am willing to grant ground for other epistemologies based upon the
provisional nature of the understanding I get from my preferred
epistemology. As for creationists, that becomes a matter of self-
preservation - if other points of view are not willing to recognize
their place within the greater commons, if they are intrinsically
hegemonic towards other knowledge systems, they will be resisted.
Creationists are not some mutual or even commensal symbiont, they are
a viral infestation. They threaten my way of life in ways that theists
who recognize the constraints of their own systems do not.

Creationists wish to force their beliefs upon others. I resist them
because they are theocratic, not because they are religious.

if theology is a valid reasoning method, and theology leads one to
believe that a theocracy is the best form of government, then how can
you argue against it? you cant, without attacking the premise.

Try to escape the bonds of your fundamentalist assumptions. Have I
ever said anything about the product of, e.g., a theological method of
reason? Have I ever argued for the validity of applying the product of
one system of reasoning to situations outside its remit? Had I done
so, I would have left myself in a world of (philosophical) hurt, as
the ultimate conclusion would be that all epistemologies would be
equally valid in all situations.

The obvious answer is that we have developed systems for governance,
and while none seems to be perfect they are, for the most part,
preferable to one based upon theology.

- Thus "supernatural things" do make a difference in this world while
remaining uninvestigable by science.

"Supernatural things" are, therefore, not equivalent to nothing at
all - *unless* one is speaking about empirical physical data. For one
who might suggest there is no other way to evaluate the world but
scientific methodology that distinction will seem meaningless. But
that person must, at least for the purposes of argument, recognize his/
her obligation to understand that few share this scientistic
philosophy. Neglecting to do so, simply insisting that there can be no
other perspective, is to resort to a shallow kind of naturalistic
fundamentalism.

wrong. science is a perspective that *works.* none of these religious
perspectives have shown to do so, by any sensible meaning of the term.

This is where your sentiments show you to be deluded. This is where
your dogma runs up against reality, as happens with so many other
fundamentalists.

All a religious perspective, or any epistemological perspective other
than science, needs to do to show that it "works" is to have criteria
that are fulfilled by its use. Other "ways of knowing," or
perspectives, or epistemologies are not required to satisfy scientific
criteria for applicability and reliability.

wrong. if what you claim to have is a "way of knowing," and not just a
"way of living" or a "way of feeling good," then you *do* need to
satisfy scientific criteria for applicability and reliability.
anything less is an abuse of the word "knowing."

Ahh, I neglected to consider your lexicographicall credentials. Could
you provide those now, please?

Are you really going to play word games here? If so, at least come up
with one that doesn't require we restart and rehash the entire
argument.

If the religious context
determines that the improved contentment of an adherent is all that is
required to demonstrate that it "works," then such demonstration can
likely be amply documented.

The "sensible meaning of the term" is determined by the context, not
by your prejudices.

religious people claim that intercessory prayer works. we all know
what they mean by this. where is the evidence?

The *scientific* evidence is non-existent, or incredibly sketchy at
best. The religious evidence, I must assume, is voluminous and
convincing since so many people seem to believe in the phenomenon.

if people who hold these beliefs wish to be taken seriously, then they
are the ones that need to bring the evidence to the table. holding
default respect simply because it was the dominant view in the past
just doesnt cut it.

As usual, you confuse respect for the individual, respect for the
provisional nature of empirical knowledge, and respectful acceptance
of my own fallibility, as respect for some particular religious
belief.

i dont confuse anything here at all. youve never once criticized a
post by a religious person containing a statement that that person
could not possibly justify unless that person was a creationist. when
people like dana tweedy assert that god did this or that in the past,
you are silent. you never challenge him to demonstrate how he knows
this, you just let it slide because hes "on our side."

Well, I have not read all of Dana's posts, but I have to say I am
unaware of any comments from him that would suggest he thinks
established science should give way to his personal beliefs. Can you
point me to anything along these lines, or is this once again about
you imputing your shallow strawman interpretations on the beliefs of
others?

Also, please try to keep in mind the purpose of this group, and the
diversity of opinions and purposes of those who participate. My main
reason for participation is to resist the spread of creationism. There
have been quite a few theists here over the years who've shared that
goal; guys like Stanley Friesen and VBM and Dana. Although I might be
able to have a spirited conversation with any of them about the logic
of their religious beliefs, that's not what I'm primarily here for.
Additionally, I happen to think that the theistic evolutionists who
understand and speak out in favor of science and science education are
a powerful ally in this debate. For virtually all of my purposes, they
are on my side.

Religion is not the enemy, ignorance is.

sorry, but
thats unacceptable. poor reasoning is poor reasoning, no matter which
"side" uses it. and you dont do science any favors by letting people
on the pro-science side make absurd claims that they cant possibly
justify.

Says the guy who's made more absurd claims in the past couple of weeks
than anyone here (okay, barring Ray).

you would never accuse somebody of "naturalistic
fundamentalism" for laughing at a grown adult who seriously believed
in santa claus and justified it by saying "its supernatural, and its
my religion."

How do you know this? It's possible that I might initially take the
claim as a joke, I suppose. But were it held with the same passionate
life-altering conviction as any other religion, and had it a similarly
broad historical context within which the believer might find
community and guidance, I would certainly try to respect the belief,
and would think anyone who laughed at this person a complete boor for
doing so.

youre so full of *** here and you know it. no grown adult who takes
the santa claus story seriously would avoid ridicule.

We're not talking about "the santa claus story" anymore, you ass. Try
to read what I've written (and try not to accuse me of lying).

We're talking about a fully-fledged tradition that has ordered the
childhood, the moral growth, the life choices of an individual, one
from which he has derived guidance and contentment. Try to get this
through your head - it's no longer just about a guy in a silly red
pantsuit, just as other religions aren't really just about walking on
water, or the sun standing still, or a down on his luck salesman
finding golden tablets that only he ever saw or read. It's about a
reticulated and hierarchical collection of stories, traditions,
communal gatherings, spiritual events and moral precepts that help
people get beyond their fears and insecurities and baser instincts.

It doesn't have to make sense to you or me. What about my perspective
could have possibly given you the impression I would think one
religious mythology would be any more acceptable or believable than
any other? It doesn't matter if it's Santa Claus or the Virgin Mary.
If it's woven into the kind of tapestry I describe above, it's
religion, and I react to it all the same way.

As I implied below, your analogies are shallow and obvious in their
attempts to trap. I'm guessing it's because you just can't think about
these issues any deeper than that, but that doesn't mean the rest of
us don't.

so why do you do it for a grown adult who seriously
believes in a virgin birth and resurrection from the dead? you hold
double standards that cant be justified.

Apparently not, once you allow me to clean up your very messy
analogies.

so which is it? can supernatural things affect natural things, and
therefore they are natural?

The perception that they exist can affect natural things, but the
putative source of the effect cannot be studied by science.

and the perception that astrology is real can affect natural things
too. but we both know that astrology is bull***, so why are you using
this awful argument?

Well, first, I don't accept your qualification of my response as an
argument. It was not offered in support of any position of mine, nor
was it meant to attack one of yours. If you read just a little bit
further back you'll notice it was an answer to your question. If, in
the process of attempting to clear up your misconceptions, I happen to
describe a reality you don't want to accept, try not to confuse that
with me arguing anything.

Second, even if it was an argument (in favor of what, I don't know) I
fail to see the relevance of astrology here. Yes, I may happen to
agree that astrology is nonsense. So what? When has my opinion of any
particular belief been germane to this discussion?

if you agree that astrology is bull***, why dont you also just come
out and say that religion is bull*** too? they use the same types of
reasoning, the same special pleading, the same fallacies. what are you
afraid of? just say it. religion is bull***.

Do you have to be hit over the head with a hammer? I've said it many
times. I think belief in non-natural phenomena is irrational. But
astrology, though it is pseudo-science, is not equivalent with
religion. Religion plays such an integrated, intertwined role in
peoples lives (often to the good, as far as I can see) that it will
not do to use the same tactics in challenging it that one uses in
challenging astrology or ESP. It calls for empathy, forward-thinking,
compassion, and a recognition that religion's influence is so
pervasive and interlaced in our traditions and behaviors that it's
removal would require a surgeon's touch. I'm not that that wise or
skilled, I know you aren't, and I don't trust anyone else to be.

What I do trust is that eventually reason will out. I think that way
lies our best opportunity to get through this with the least
collateral damage

RLC

.

Loading