The challenge in arguments about religion is knowing when they’re over.
For example, when an atheist writes this:
“As a maximally good, aseitic being, everything was once part of perfection. That’s what aseity means. There was no-thing that was not already perfect…Creation, therefore, destroyed this eternal harmony, this purity, and by this fact alone, the act of Creation can only be called maximally evil.”
After looking up the word, ‘aseity’, a theist can point out:
- If God doesn’t exist, neither does evil.
- If evil doesn’t exist then ‘maximally evil’ is incoherent.
- You’re using incoherence to accuse Christianity of incoherence.
And the atheist responds (eventually) with:
“Atheism isn’t a philosophy…Atheism is content-free.”
And the argument is over.
…But the intrepid atheist is oblivious.
When your philosophy isn’t a philosophy…
When your thesis is ‘content free’…
Why are you blogging?
Why keep shaking the box when you know it’s empty?
Lemme take a crack at answering that!
You shouldn’t mind since you’ve no point of view of your own.
You blog because you’re smarter than the rest of us.
Smarter than everyone who has lived before!
(Those primitive, superstitious ancestors who somehow passed the genius on to you they were incapable of utilizing it themselves.)
You’ve got it all figured out.
And you’re hoping we don’t notice the inconsistency.
Because you’re too smart not to have noticed it yourself…
Atheism is NOT, in fact, ‘content free’.
It’s brimming with arrogance, outrage, and irrationality.
It offers a lush landscape of bitter contradictions and depraved futility.
And evil.
It’s full of evil.
Why else would you deliberately destroy the glimmer of hope you see in other human beings?
How does your war on faith ease the suffering of mankind?
Are you fit to take God’s place when you’ve convinced us He doesn’t exist?
Will you tell me my purpose?
Are you going to comfort the grieving widow?
Will your non-philosophy speak to the soul of a dead child’s mother?
I shouldn’t ask questions.
It’s not your job to answer questions.
“An atheist doesn’t have to explain evil. Evil is a theistic notion. It does not exist in nature, just theology.”
Ah…helpful insight from your ‘content free’ box of cynicism.
If you’re truly concerned by the problem of evil, I have a suggestion.
Take a monk’s vow of silence.
Close down your blog.
Burn your books.
When you stop talking, the world gets brighter.
If you’re sure the Titanic is going down, don’t tell the band to stop playing.
Let the doomed dance.
It would be swell if you’d pick up an instrument.
But that’s not reasonable so…
…at least do your part to combat wickedness…
…shut up.
189 Responses
Oh, and it’s accompanying theme is quite excellent.
Reciprocity, dick. I infact have a post discussing that very subject. While primarily involving the subject of romantic compatibility, it’s nevertheless generally applicable to socializing.
Don’t worry about that. I learned a great deal from them, even if it was awful.
The point is: yes, be exceptionally wary of all comforting ideas. The brain.. simply put, is untrustworthy. I wish I’d finalized that topic on the blog, but it’s tricky as fuck, and will take me a great deal of time, so I’m working around it first.
Extremely summarized: our brain’s have a natural tendency to self-deceive. It’s sort of a crossing of wires: the brain is supposed to memorize and revolve behavior around what comforts us. Unfortunately, we’re also capable of simulating comfort through imaginations. Combine the two, and the brain perpetuates self-deceptions.
I’m no psychologist though – barely went to college. Taking my word as truth would be almost as bad as any other.
Ding Ding Ding!!! You win the title for ‘most honest and thoughtful’ commentor in this discussion! (I can’t award myself that title…I’m too humble for that.)
Recognizing our capacity for self deception is a crucial first step in attaining wisdom.
Please contribute on some of the other posts in the future.
Let me give you an example from my life. Recently, I fell in love. I shouldn’t have done so: they left me. Looking back, my love was unrequited. The signs were obvious, but when I complained to them, they gave me reasons – ones that I wanted to believe.
Instead of finding supporting evidence for my suspicions, I trusted them. This lengthen the relationship, and deepened my attachment. It’s been 2 months. At this very moment, I’m still piecing it together, as I need to understand my problems for there to be closure.
I love them, I wanted them to love me. So I believed what they told me. Now they’re gone, and I’m overhauling my entire damn life.
I am sincerely sorry you were hurt. Matters of the heart are especially painful.
This won’t comfort you, but overhauling your life isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
No, I’m suggesting that any comforting thought should be given extra examination – especially ones involving cosmic forces that protect us from.. them.
What about comforting thoughts that involve non-cosmic forces? Do I need to do extra examination on the assumption that mittens will keep my hands comfortable in cold weather?
Not only do we all make assumptions – every idea, thought, and conclusion, we have is an assumption built on an assumption. [Don’t make me write it out; it’s on my homepage, at the top of the labeled second section.]
But Christianity, and most other religions, have a core tenet which does require blind faith. In Christianity, it’s the existence of their god, and it’s influence over their lives. Around that assumption, everything else is built. Otherwise, you wouldn’t bother, right?
Assume for the moment your [I assume] god doesn’t exist. Now reassess all the assumptions you’ve built up around it. Now question, very specifically, how many of those assumptions are comforting to you. And if you find yourself incapable of doing so, stop doing so: your conscious thought is likely severely hindered, and tinkering around will do damage.
Are you suggesting that assumptions are invalid when they’re comforting?
Em, “faith” is just another word for “assumption”. The religions assume whatever cosmic force they have exists and controls everything. Not a very sound method of reasoning, given that to take assumption as fact, requires more assumptions taken as fact to support the original assumption.
Like covering up a lie with more lies. It just keeps growing. So, since the tenets of most religions demand unquestioning “faith”, the practitioners adopt a pattern of self-deception which grows until encompassing the majority of their minds. Then, the worst possible thing happens.
That pattern of self-deception overrides their conscious reasoning – since any form of rational self-assessment would reveal the self-deception. Now, all you’ve got, is a mindless animal. So, ya, religion bad; atheists have every right to be mad about the whole thing.
And thanks for acknowledging how special I am. Nobody else gets me.
Hi Louis,
Everybody makes assumptions. The reasoning method is what we use to test our assumptions.
Christianity does not require ‘unquestioning faith’. In fact, the scripture demands we be able to give a reasonable explanation for our faith.
Self-deception is not a phenomena unique to theists.
Hello there. I’m here from Godless Cranium’s post. I figured that responding to your post here directly would be more efficient. However, I’d first like to make sure that I’m understanding your point in this post correctly first.
If I’m understanding your position correctly, it’s that not believing in the existence of deities (atheism) has other beliefs attached to it, like not believing that everything in the universe is created, or that people have a divinely planned purpose to fulfill in their lives. These are distinct beliefs in addition to not believing in deities, and therefore atheism includes more beliefs than just a lack of belief (or disbelief, or not believing, etc.) in supernatural deities.
To put it differently, atheists aren’t buying anything from the Christian buffet for more than one reason.
Would this be a fair characterization of your point in this post?
*thump*
…sorry, I fell on the floor after reading your post. I’m not used to such a polite summary of my arguments . I’m going to need some coffee before I reply.
*gets coffee*
The primary issue I’m challenging is the statement, “atheism is content free”. You are correct that atheism will cause other beliefs to be attached. (I suspect that your Christian buffet concept is probably accurate as well.) But conversation can’t go anywhere until BOTH parties admit that there is something to discuss! My conversations with atheists tend to go something like this:
Atheist: You are naive for believing in God.
Me: So you don’t believe God exists?
Atheist: I didn’t say that! You’re putting words in my mouth!
Me: Sorry. What do you believe?
Atheist: Atheism is not a belief.
From there, it usually becomes a pile-on where several atheists marvel together at my stupidity. They ‘non-believe’.
I understand the allure of ‘non-belief’. From their position, they can throw rocks at everyone else’s worldview and retreat to their comfortable ‘void’ when asked about their own ideas. Specifically, the original post was about the incoherence of suggesting that ‘evil’ doesn’t exist in nature while simultaneously accusing God of being ‘maximally evil’. The guy who posted that gem actually explained that he ‘put on my theology hat’ to discuss morality. How much more obvious can it be? The dude has to grab hold of religion to even talk about good and evil!
Atheists talk at length about the horrendous damage done by religion. I can’t understand why any religion bothers a person who is truly ‘content free’ in their worldview.
Thanks for clarifying!
I suppose the first issue is whether operation of logic constitutes an affirmative belief. Let’s say I tell you that dessert dragons exist. They poop cupcakes and frost them with their frosting breath. Do you have an affirmative belief that dessert dragons don’t exist, or are you saying you reject my assertion because I haven’t convinced you?
Arguably, both roads lead to the same place. One perhaps is more precise than the other. Importantly, both can be used simultaneously in a discussion. And it would be okay for you to use both, because it’s my job to convince you of the existence of dessert dragons and not the other way around.
What if I expand my assertion to tell you that dessert dragon cupcakes cure cancer? Does that mean I’ve created a new system of beliefs concerning dessert dragons? Does it mean that you now have created a system of belief for opposing the existence of dessert dragons? To answer yes to the second question means that human imagination not only creates a belief when it imagines something, but also when it rejects that thing.
Ultimately, these discussions are frustrating because they chase down responsibility for ideas. One important thing that might help you is that not every statement an atheist makes (even concerning religion) relies on not believing in deities. For example, when an atheist states that religion is harmful, that idea actually can pass on the question of deities existing. Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean all my beliefs rely on atheism.
Perhaps I could put this point a little differently. Just because one Christian expresses a belief in something doesn’t mean that Christianity informs that belief. Think of the Christians which believe their deity loves their favorite sports team. I can’t think of the Bible verse that says Jesus liked football.
I’d say that the Dessert Dragon analogy is similar to Russell’s Teapot. There is no reason to posit a cupcake pooping reptile because we already have a perfectly rational explanation for the existence of cupcakes. The Universe does not have a similarly simple explanation.
I’m in agreement with you that the atheist’s beliefs are not wholly spun from atheism. Making that point has proven to be a challenge. My objection remains that no belief comes from a void.
I’m an enthusiastic proponent of your comment about Christianity too. One of the tedious aspects of Christian fellowship is the brethren’s tendency to insert ‘thus saith The Lord’ into their own theological concepts. From my study of scripture, I’m almost certain that Jesus was a basketball fan.
JZ, I’m not getting notified when you comment on my conversation with Allallt. If you want to talk to me directly, you’ll have to comment here.
Did you come up with something you’d tell a suicidal college student yet?
I can’t seem to reply directly to the Ken Ham and testable hypotheses debate, but yes I absolutely agree with the astrophysicist in the video.
Religious claims, when the speaker claims they are compatible with science, are an exercise in picking up literally anything and then coming up with an excuse for how that is evidence of a God.
When it comes to Big Bang Cosmology, it works the complete opposite way around. Science predicted the Higgs Boson before they found it, it’s not a case of them finding it and then trying to make it work. Science predicted there would be a microwave background radiation to the universe before they found it. Science predicted that radiation would be heterogeneous (uneven), then discovered it.
Religion finds things and then retrofits it into an increasingly flexible religion.
It’s an important question to ponder: which method you trust more: one that is demonstrably predictive (and adjusts its views when it’s demonstrably wrong) or one that keeps the exact same conclusion no matter what the evidence is.
“Which method do you trust more: one that is demonstrably predictive (and adjusts its views when deomstrably wrong) or one that keeps the same conclusion no matter what the evidence is.”
Totally agree.
What’s frustrating about Ken Ham is that he just keeps thumping his Bible…(I mean LITERALLY thumping his Bible, in most of his videos. lol)…and refuses to even consider that his understanding of creation may be wrong.
My favorite example of when scientists adjusted their views was in 1965, when Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang. Prior to that point, most scientists believed the universe was eternal. (There actually was a survey in 1954, and two-thirds of those questioned agreed, “The Universe had no beginning.”)
That’s what made the Big Bang theory so jarring.
It suddenly agreed with what the writer of Genesis said about nature thousands of years before: “In the beginning…”
“In the beginning…”
Yes… read on…
To where the universe was created from nothing to full complexity in 6 days, with the literal creation of complex life from nothing… etc.
I find it entertaining that those three words–“In the beginning”–are held up as evidence the Bible got it right.
I haven’t just read it further–I’ve actually studied it extensively.
Your problem with the next few verses is similar to Ken Ham’s. “The Bible says six days!” And he believes that Christians like myself are only caving to pressure to change our interpretation of the Bible, now that scientists are convinced the universe is 15 billion years old.
But, what I’ve learned as I kept digging, is that Jewish philosophers as early as the 11th century were questioning why the Hebrew in the first three chapters of Genesis reads so strangely.
Mind you, I don’t speak Hebrew. So I’ll have to take their word for it. But ancient biblical scholars such as Raphi, Maimonides, and Nachmanides suggested that “day” could actually mean “era”–such as when we use the phrase, “back in the day of pilgrims” or “in the day of our lord.” In other words, they were debating the age of the earth (and concluded that God could have taken much, much, much longer than the assumed week), even 700 years before Galileo invented the telescope.
Just one example of the fact that “day” doesn’t always mean 24 hours: a few verses after the six “days” that God created the heavens and earth, Genesis 2:4 says, “This is the account of the DAY that God made Heaven and Earth.” Clearly, that’s using the word to mean “a period of time longer than 24-hours.”
Ken Ham would say “day” in Genesis 2:4 refers to a week. I would say that “day” actually took several billion years…
That’s the flexibility thing I was worried about. Suddenly “day” means what ever you need it to mean. Suddenly “being created” permits evolution.
We have to be honest and say, simply, that the Bible does not give this information and does not give you anything from which we can make predictions.
What do you mean “suddenly” day means whatever I need it to mean?
I just explained that biblical philosophers were discussing that possibility in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries.
I will honestly say the Bible does not say, “the earth is 15 billion years old,” but it’s not meant to be a physics text book, so I cut it some slack. 🙂
Now, you’re getting ahead of yourself with evolution. The age of the earth and whether complex life evolved all on its own are two different arguments.
I don’t believe humans came from apes, and I will tell you why.
We don’t have any testable models.
When the Bible says “Created/made/fashioned/formed,” there aren’t multiple interpretations of that word. God did it, no question.
And that definite, absolute claim could serve as the basis of a testable model, couldn’t it?
Your claim is that God created life as it is, without evolution and “earlier” species. Is that correct?
I’m claiming there’s not enough evidence to support the theory of inter-species evolution.
It was a perfectly fine model to test.
But it has come up wanting.
I changed that sentence at the last minute, and it should say, “not enough evidence to support TRANS-species evolution.”
(There is plenty to show that species evolve–as in, change–within the same species.)
So, what sort of thing do you think evolution predicts? Give an example of a proposed “trans-species” evolution you think evolution predicts that you don’t think there’s evidence for.
Primates to humans, for example.
I think that (some) scientists are just as guilty as (some) Christians of reading their interpretations into the studies, instead of following the evidence where it goes.
Darwin, for example, came up with the theory after FIRST removing the idea of God, because he was grieving his young daughter. (Paraphrasing, he said, “God couldn’t have created such a cruel world.”)
Again, that’s a fine hypothesis. And I shouldn’t have said it’s not testable–but it has failed the tests so far.
We are primates. “Primate” is not a species.
Okay–I’m trying to convey ideas without having to define too many terms, and I think I’m causing more problems. 🙂
From what I understand, two animals are in the same species if they can mate–and if the offspring they reproduce would be fertile.
So, I’m trying to differentiate between monkeys/apes and humans, since we’re not in the same species. (I’ll grant you, that “primate” wasn’t the word I should have used.)
Anyway, I read recently that humans “split off from apes” about 500 million years ago, and I reject that. I believe it’s Science-y dogma, but not proven scientific fact. 🙂
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/HUMAN%20EVOLUTION_zpsmru6uxwc.jpg
Thanks, JZ. But this doesn’t prove the genes of monkeys/apes mutated and then BECAME humans.
It only shows that monkey-ish (or humanoid) creatures walked the earth.
The fossil record is important, but you also have to consider the math involved. And, the more we learn about cells (and specifically the DNA within cells), the more impossible it is that those cells mutated their way to more complexity.
Okay, but you can’t seem to articulate what you think evolution actually predicts.
So, what do you think explains:
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus afarensis
Homo habilis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus (hehe)
Homo heidlbergensis
Homo neanderthalis and
Homo sapiens?
This is not what the Bible predicts. The Bible predicts well defined ‘Kinds’. Not such thing exists. If you listen to Kent Hovind, he thinks “canines” are a kind, as well as “bacteria”. I cannot begin to explain to you how monumentally different those two classifications are in taxonomy.
Not only the question ‘Why do all those exists?’… but also, given that I’ve listed them by age according to various radiometric dating, why does that list in order show progress in cranial size, locomotive efficiency (that’s hips and knees and feet), teeth etc?
The definition of a species that you share has a lot of problems. Take, for example, ring species. Ring species is a term given to a species that exist in adjacent environments that all very much look like the same thing. The best example I know off the top of my head is newts.
There are a series of adjacent newt communities that exist in line. Community 1 can breed with community 2 to produce fertile offspring. Community 2 can breed with community 3 to produce fertile offspring. Therefore, all 3 communities are a part of the same species, right? Well, no. Community 1 cannot breed with community 3 to produce fertile offspring.
This is the stage between stable breeding populations and speciation. Evolution does predict this.
In fact, evolution predicts the pre-evolutionary practice in taxonomy of using static and definite lines between species wouldn’t work.
The common ancestry between humans and other great apes was called into question a few years ago when it was discovered that humans had 23 chromosome pairs, and the other great apes had 24. The loss of that level of genetic material is too big over the proposed timeline to make sense. However, there was no loss: chromosome pair 2 in humans is a fusions of chromosome 2 and 3 in the great apes. (You can tell from a protein arrangement called telemeres; these normally are at the ends of chromosomes.)
There’s actually a really simply genetic test you can do, and if you study biology post 16 in the UK you have to learn it. You can measure the chemical similarity in genes between different species by using antibiodies. If you map the chemical similarity of genes between species, it falls in the same pattern (with a couple of exceptions) as the phylogentic tree of life when it was based on anatomy. This is part of the genetic evidence people often talk about.
Allallt, I think the problem you’re having is with the classification system. Not the Bible.
Again, it wasn’t meant to be a science text book. So, when it says “kinds” I honestly don’t know whether it is talking about community 1 or community 3 of newts. 🙂
At the end of the day, I don’t really think it matters.
Again, my frustration is with the fact that genetic and DNA research is positively EXPLODING–and regardless of the fact that two human chromosomes are fused, there is not enough time and far too much complexity for an ape to make that transition into human.
Negative mutations are way, way, way, way (way, way) more common than positive or beneficial ones.
When genes mutate, they USUALLY lead to problems–not solutions.
We didn’t know that when Darwin thought that fish might have become birds which might have become mammals which eventually became self-aware. But we know now that the odds AGAINST all of this happening on it’s own are growing….
(As for Kent Hovind, I feel about the same way about him as Ken Ham. I’m sure we’d have much in common. But not a lot of it would have to do with natural science.) 🙂
Wait a second, you’re unsure as to whether different communities of newts belong to the same kind, but all canines belong to the same kind?
And what do you mean not enough time? How many thousands of years do you think it should take?
And what exactly do you think you understand about genetics that basically all the scientific community doesn’t get?
And what is your explanation as to how chemical similarity in DNA maps almost exactly onto anatomical structures?
Where is your citation for the odds against evolution?
In fact, that doesn’t even make sense. If you imagine some abstract space where a ‘subphylum’ (say ‘vertabrata’) could have evolved into one of any 1,000,000,000,000,000 conceivable ‘superclasses’, then the division we belong to (superclass: tetrapoda) could be said to be 1,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 — but that’s meaningless as any subdivision would have those odds against it.
But still, I’d love to see a peer reviewed paper explained the probability against genetic change.
Again, humans are still apes. We didn’t transition from apes; we became a distinct group of apes, worthy of being our own species. That’s how it works.
You’re dodging the conversation by never pinning any species down. So, let’s try this as a simple question: from what species do you think evolutionary science currently thinks humans evolved? And what evidence so you require to accept this claim?
I was under the impression the Theory of Evolution involves single-celled organisms became increasingly complex until they became swimming creatures…which eventually mutated to became bigger and more complex until we arrived at birds…which mutated to become mammals… Is that wrong? I thought ALL life was purpoted to have the same ancestor. (Or at least the same type of ancestor–a single-celled one.) But I might be mistaken.
(I admit, I’m not a Biology expert. I prefer philosophy–but all the disciplines cross with one another, so one has to be as up-to-speed as possible with all of them.) 🙂
Okay, so to the initial context of this comment, we were talking about whether you prefer a method of making testable predictions which can then be confirmed or rejected, or a model of making all observations fit the model you already have, thus never changing, refining or correcting it.
Somewhat regrettably, we got into evolution (first time in maybe 3 years I’ve made that mistake, after vowing not to do it again). In that discussion you demonstrated that you don’t actually know the claims and predictions of evolution, let alone the methods by which biologists come to understand it. Also confusing the situation is the sweeping nature of how you refer to groups: modern day fish share no real semblance to the fish that existed in a pre-mammal world; they didn’t stop evolving. Single cells of 3.5bn years ago are thought to be so simply that calling them cells barely makes sense.
Despite that, you still seem to hold to the idea that genesis presents a testable model of biology that better explains biology than scientific models. I have no idea how you can make that claim, when you have such little understanding of evolution.
I’m not an expert. I am a very long way from an expert.
Yes, all life likely came from a single ancestor around 3.5 billion years ago. It is probably inaccurate to call it a ‘cell’, more of a ‘proto-cell’. (This is worth a watch.)
Imagine this is similar to your family tree: If you are the human, then chimpanzees and bonobo apes are your siblings; you share parents. Gorillas are your cousins; you share grandparents. But bananas are your great uncle twice removed great grandchildren; a distance relative, sure, but you still share a great great great grandparent.
Now take that idea of a family tree and the concept of being ‘distantly related’ to varying levels of distance, and extend it to all species. We all fall only a “family tree” called the ‘phylogenetic tree of life’ (example).
Initial attempts to create this tree were based on physiology alone. Bacteria were compared according to cell structure, proteins used in transport, similarities in wall structure etc. Mammals were similarly compared to each other to establish ‘distance’ of relationship, but animals provided a big advantage over bacteria: fossils. Fossils helped to inform judgements in physiology.
In reality, it’s not difficult to see how this discipline grouped primates together, and concluded dogs were more closely related to cats that humans were to sperm whales (all mammals). Hippos were closer relatives to whales.
But, these are not defined ‘kinds’, they belong on a gradated scale. This gradated scale is predicted by evolutionary science, but not by the Bible.
The techniques of creating this ‘family tree’ have grown more sophisticated. We can now tell the ‘distance’ of a relationship between species by a chemical test on genes. In an overwhelming majority of cases, this sophisticated method lined up exactly with the tree of life the earlier (and cruder) methods created. This is also predicted by science, but not by the Bible.
When I say it’s not predicted by the Bible, I’m not arguing that it can’t be forced to fit the narrative. That’s the very intellectual problem with flexible ideas. I am saying it never predicted these things.
========
As a side note, I am aware that there are a lot of challenges I have posed that you have simply not answered. I’m not going to demand you answer them to me, but I will ask you to honestly reflect on why you don’t want to answer those questions.
Allalt,
Been following along with the discussion (and always learning). That final sentence of yours is quite astute. 🙂
Thank you very much. I hope it will be interesting to see where the discussion goes from there. But, if nothing else, I hope she can be honestly reflective with herself about why she defaults to evasiveness over answers.
I’m glad you’ve been enjoying the exchange.
Thanks for taking the time to walk through all that. I know it took a lot of effort–which is why the topic of evolution is tedious.
(Your sentence: “somewhat regrettably, we got into evolution” made me smile. Apparently we agree that evolution is usually a black hole in internet conversations.) 🙂
So, I would be happy to drop the evolutionary branch we’re standing on–with one last response. It’s not that I didn’t want to answer your questions. It’s just there are so many! (A compliment.) And I’m trying to boil each of our perspectives down to the major points, to cover as much ground as possible. Besides that, I’m not an expert in ANY scientific field, so you can’t take my word for ANY of it. Which means providing each other with hard data would require out conversation to become a link-war, where each of us has to read dozens of scholarly articles before we can respond each time.
And who likes that?
(I guess some do… but I’m trying to balance an interesting, intellectual discussion with raising three, small kids. And I’m afraid I’m failing, as my youngest is currently crying!)
So, maybe the simplest thing to do is outline a proposal for a biblical model for you, so you can do your own research to see if it measures up? Here is the website for one of the research teams that is working to construct a testable, predictable model for creation. http://www.reasons.org/about/our-creation-model-approach
The problem is, there will necessarily be areas where the “No-God” and the “God” model overlap, which means certain evidences may point to BOTH possibilities.
But, I don’t agree that creationists are “forcing” their model to work any more than I think Evolutionists are doing that. There are smart people searching for the truth in both camps. (And there are also dogmatic “thumpers” in BOTH camps that aren’t helping.)
Anyway, you asked for scholarly articles about genetic mutations. So I’ll include a couple. This one concluded that apes and humans specifically have HIGH rates of the bad type of genetic mutations (http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/pkeightl/publications/eyre-walker_keightley1999.pdf) And the scary math regarding how quickly we would need to evolve to avoid extinction is below, but I think you need to have a subscription? Sorry about that. :/ (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/full/397293a0.html)
But these are just places to start.
My biggest advice, if you want to test a biblical model, is to step away from the Ken Ham or Kent Hovind videos. They are the most well-known talking heads of “Creationism,” but they don’t speak for everyone any more than Richard Dawkins speaks for every Naturalist. (I believe Victor Stenger said of Dawkins, “He makes me embarassed to be an Atheist.” lol. I totally understand how he feels.)
Check out Dr. Hugh Ross–which is the name of the astrophysicist in the video I shared. (He’s the president of Reasons.org) Also you can look at “Answers in Creation,” which is a different organization dedicated to studying Old Earth Creationism.
Finally, I’d love if you’d read through this synopsis of Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s book Genesis and the Big Bang, which suggests that perhaps God created the Earth in BOTH a literal week AND 15 million years: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
That would have sounded crazy 3,000 years ago. But, thanks to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, we are learning that it’s actually possible…
And, I promise, I will watch that video you included some time today, between diaper changes.
It would be interesting to know what you think you understand from the Letter to Nature that you shared. I understand (a) it’s a letter and thus not yet peer-reviewed (b) it has a lot of estimates put into place (c) that I don’t understand most of the actual content (d) that what I do understand is not talking about masses of deleterious mutations per diploid per generation; it was talking about 4: that’s 4 mutations parent to child; without mention of beneficial mutation (e) there wasn’t a lot of data in there for their point (f) there’s no mention of mutation and random selection not being the natural process.
I’m not sure how that Letter to Nature supports your point, so I would really appreciate a summary of what you understand from it.
The 1999 Nature article that you shared is behind a pay wall and it’s not one that my university has access to. However, the abstract suggests the rate of deleterious mutations lead to the favouring of sexual reproduction as an error correction mechanism (i.e. you get a mutation from your father, but your mother’s gene can override it).
It’s an attempt at an answer to a difficult question in evolution: why favour sexual selection? And fidelity to genetic information may well be the answer. I don’t know what progress has been made in the 17 years since this article.
With regard to the AISH article, I’ll ignore the strange consistency with which religious commentators cite this 15 bn years thing (it’s 13.8, and has been for a long time; science advocates sometime round to 14, but it seems unique among the religious to pick 15 — no point, just an odd little thing that happens). But there are some problems with that article. Firstly, in the 1st paragraph of “Universe with a beginning” it puts something in quote marks that isn’t actually a quote. It seems to really confuse the answers given to the question. I cannot find the actual answers given; what I can find is a lot of religious commentators all spinning the same 2/3 story. Now, it’s not impossible that 2/3 of scientists believed in an eternal universe. However, the correct answer for them, at the time, given the evidence they had, would have been ‘We have nothing but Aristotle’s argument for an eternal universe; there is no science, yet, on that topic’. So, all of the the scientists should have rejected the idea they could say anything about the “beginning” of the universe in 1959. That would not be the same as saying ‘there was no beginning’. Without seeing the actual answers, I have no way of knowing whether the religious commentators who address this issue engage with the nuance here. (My experience is that no one engages with nuance they don’t like.)
Take also the article’s understanding of relativity: it massively exaggerates the effects. Perhaps it is doing this just to educate people, but it relies on this ‘exaggerated relativity’ to make its points. It also doesn’t understand e=mc^2, but scientific illiteracy (or, ‘convenient literacy’ — only understanding as much as you need to create intellectual wiggle room) isn’t the most damning thing about the article.
The article goes on to confuse the effects of expansion (red shift) with the effects of high-energy (relativity). Newtonian physics explain red shift quite easily; it’s not relativity that makes the Doppler effect. It then very much pulls a number out of its hat and claims that’s exactly what it didn’t do. I cannot find any reference to the ‘time from the beginning of time’ point it makes at all. Then it makes the claim “Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half”. That’s simply the point I gave up. This simply isn’t accurate. The article has shown no real desire to be scientifically accurate.
Having read the “Reasons.org” article claiming to have developed a model, and a few of the links provided in it, all I can say is that it hasn’t presented a model at all. There’s nothing predictive, there’s nothing that even makes a good account of history. There’s nothing there worth commenting on.
Keep in mind that Dr. Shroeder is a Jewish Quantum Physicist, trying to explain very big, complicated things to an audience of Jewish lay-people.
I’m sure he understands the difference between “the universe is probably eternal” and the conclusive statement “there was no beginning.”
But–yes–nuance often goes out the window when you’re trying to catch up the Average Joes in the fewest number of words. (The presenter in your TED talk did very similar things: oversimplifying, to get to his point without boring the audience to tears. Personally, I really appreciate it.) 🙂
Quick, honest question: Is there a place where the specific predictions of the Spontaneous Evolution model are outlined?
(1) If Dr Shroeder is actually making any sense in his writing, I wager that he should get it peer-reviewed. He’s my issue: I read a book once that argued that anti-depressants don’t work any better than placebo. It was written my a medical research Dr. The problem was that I looked up the peer-reviewed research published by this same person, and their peer-reviewed paper said anti-depressants did work better than placebo. His book explicitly disagreed with his research papers. So, I don’t care what he writes on a blog as much as I care what he can get published in peer-reviewed journals. I also reviewed a book by a PhD graduate who said he could predict the lottery; the upshot is that he massively cannot (I did the control experiment myself).
(2) Spontaneous evolution? I have no idea what that is.
We’re once again running into a word problem, then.
I’m trying to find a way to test our two theories against each other.
Mine is God did it.
Yours is nature did it, by itself. But that’s not a totally fair way of describing it, because to say nature “did” something is to imply intention…which is requires mind/intelligence…
Maybe a better way to ask my question is: how would Evolutionary theory be falsifiable?
(And, if you’re already familiar with the philosophy of Karl Popper, we can save ourselves some time. I’m basically just taking his view of science.)
How could evolution be falsified:
(a) Irreducible complexity
(b) bunny fossils dated from the pre-Cambrian era
(c) Spontaneous generation
I’m not entirely sold on falsification, however it is a good way of establishing whether a model is predictive, it’s far from perfect.
What would the falsification of your model look like?
(Also, are you going to offer a summary of your understanding of those articles? Because I’m becoming concerned that this conversation is a practice in me bringing up uncomfortable talking points for you and you conspicuously moving on without addressing them.)
“I’m becoming concerned that this conversation is a practice in me bringing up uncomfortable talking points for you and you conspicuously moving on without addressing them.)”
Yes, I’m seeing that playing out time after time after time.
And the video offered above presents a surefire way Evolution could be falsified: the chimp/human genome.
No, I was planning to let the conversation about specific articles fall by the wayside, remember? 🙂
I gave you the link to the scientists who enjoy the technicalities, if you want the details of how gene mutations cast doubt on purely-natural origins.
But I’m honestly not trying to change the subject. I just believe that all of human experience is intertwined with the topic “Where did we come from?” (and it informs the next question “Where are we going?”) All the scientific disciplines are tangled with philosophical problems–and they do a complicated dance with what goes on in each of our minds, to make up what we call “reality.” So, it’s hard to not to jump around.
How would my model be falsified? Well, I propose that God is an intelligent, relational, eternal God.
So…
a) Anything that shows the universe is random or hostile toward humans.
b) Also, bunny fossils dated from the pre-Cambrian era. 🙂
c) Also, spontaneous generation (because the Bible says God is finished creating “from nothing” until the end of this age, when He will establish a whole new reality, outside of time and space).
I just wanted to let you know, in case you hadn’t heard, that people are working on an Old Earth Creation Theory which is every bit as valid as the Evolutionary Theory. In all the ways they are limited and imperfect, they are BOTH imperfect. But, as far as natural, epistimelogical disciplines are capable of discovering truth, they are BOTH attempting to do that. (Check out the book “Who Was Adam?” for the Creation model’s theory of the origin of humans, and more than 80 predictions they have made with this theory.)
“Anything that shows the universe is random or hostile toward humans”
Before I list how terrifyingly hostile the universe is to human life, and how difficult it is just to live on Earth, do you care to expand on what that means? Because the universe is too cold, most of planets are the wrong temperature. You can see where that is going.
“I just wanted to let you know, in case you hadn’t heard, that people are working on an Old Earth Creation Theory which is every bit as valid as the Evolutionary Theory”
Errr… citation needed. Where and who are the scientists doing respected research in that field? Do they belong to a national science council?
“I gave you the link to the scientists who enjoy the technicalities, if you want the details of how gene mutations cast doubt on purely-natural origins.”
None of the links even nearly do that. That’s why I asked you what you understood the articles to say.
Yes, I get that you’re letting the discussion of the specific articles fall to the wayside. You presented them as being your point, and when I challenged them you just let them go. A lot like when I asked what species you think humans evolved from, and what evidence you would need.
After being gone yesterday and coming back, a new analogy popped into my head.
JB’s op-ed was a criticism of a MACRO perspective on life (Naturalism) and yet we have gotten buried in scrutinizing the MICRO details of Naturalism vs. Creationism.
So, maybe a different example would be helpful.
Are you familiar with the Grand Unification Theory of Pixar movies? (You can read for days at: Thepixartheory.com)
Long story short: a nobody named Jon Negroni wrote a blog post three years ago theorizing that all the Pixar movies took place in the same universe. And now there’s a book (and the official website) which works night and day to update and revise the theory, as both skeptics and believers have criticized the films.
One (tiny) sample of Jon Negroni’s deduction process: “[In the movie INSIDE OUT] we get to know Riley through a montage of her early life. When we get to the point where she’s 11, it appears to be modern day. Much of the technology we see throughout the movie — like a Skype surrogate that closely resembles the one used by Trixie in Toy Story 3 and the presence of smartphones — point to this being a film set in 2015. That means Riley was born in either 2003 or 2004, depending on her exact birthday. Interestingly, that would mean the movie opens during the same year as Finding Nemo.”
It makes me smile just picturing the way this guy–and now thousands of others–are pouring over these cartoons, picking away with a fine-tooth comb, to find the things hidden in the subplots.
Do they all agree on all the details? No. But the overarching question is: are the writers of the movie leaving messages for us?
In Negroni’s own words, this is what he said: “The Pixar Theory…is a fan theory I wrote in 2013 about how every single feature film made by Pixar Animation Studios is INTENTIONALLY set in the same universe. Or unintentionally, if you believe in miracles.”
We’re talking about intentionality here. Regardless of the details–is there a reason to believe it’s being done on purpose?
The fact that we happen to be standing on the only habitable planet suggests the opposite of randomness. It suggests careful planning and intentionality, much like the subtle clues being left in each of Pixar’s movies.
Only habitable planet? We’re not even only habitable body in this solar system.
Allallt – are you frustrated yet? 😉
Oh, ages ago.
It almost feels like I’ve been wildly unclear in what it is I’m saying, because none of my points seem to survive to the next comment.
Also, feel free to ignore this, because I’m copying and pasting this bit. But if you want an example of one (out of thirteen) predictions made by Dr. Ross’ team, here is the first:
“One example from the biblical creation model is the predicted discrepancy between the origin dates for male and female genetic lines. The Bible claims that there was a genetic bottleneck at the Genesis flood.
Whereas all females can trace their ancestry back to Eve (through the three wives of Noah’s sons), all males trace their Y-chromosomes through Noah (through his three sons). This predicted discrepancy for molecular dates of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data is actually seen in the scientific literature.”
If DNA is your thing, I can’t recommend the book “Who Was Adam” enough.
Mrsmcmommy – you DO know there was no such thing as Adam and Eve, don’t you? Francis Collins (a Christian) confirmed this with the Human Genome Project.
I accept this. If true, it would line up with predictions of the Bible (in really very broad terms). Once one looks at the numbers and dates, that falls apart. We’re talking in terms of 100,000 years ago.
But, also, it’s not accurate: the two genetic common ancestors (Adam and Eve) were actually very close in time. http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
Keep thinking critically, Allallt. It’s good! You were given a critical mind…
I’m just not equipped to delve into the details of the problems DNA analysts have when creating their computer models and interpretating their data–just like you’re not equipped to discuss how evolutionary theory interacts with the Hebrew account of creation.
We each have to listen to the “geeks” like Jon Negroni, who are scrutinizing the tiny details, and then reach our own conclusions. (see my other comment, for the reference)
Also–as for peer-reviews–that’s exactly what I’m trying to provide for the studies and theories that are still uncertain. I’m giving you access to peers who are skeptical of SOME OF the conclusions of your Naturalist authorities. 🙂 But, again, you’ll have to look at the literature from the Creationists, if you want the dirty details regarding RNA and mitochondria. I’d butcher it.
I’m trying to open your circle to the various theories being worked on by Old Earth proponents (i.e. not the Ham and Hovind low-hanging fruit with which most Atheists are familiar) so that THEY can serve as “peer-reviewers” of the literature with which you’re already familiar.
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/01/19/christian-responses-physical-spiritual-status-neanderthals-original-sin-theology/
That’s the thing, I don’t have to go to the Creationists. I’m an MSc student, I study in a university alongside academics who are actually going the research. And–this is important–there is no overseeing body or authority that dictates unacceptable topics or some “acceptable” truth. The people do their research and they publish it in one of any number of academic journals, after other academics have scrutinised it.
I have access to a huge number of those respected scientific journals through my university (although, it seems to be fewer than when I was an undergrad — budget cuts, I guess).
And in all of that, there is no creationist literature. There is no well designed experiment with robust data that leads to creationism. That simply doesn’t exist in the scientific community.
What “authority” do you think I have? Are you of the impression there is some monolithic “science” with an ordained truth? Because that isn’t how it works.
All the words I wrote, and you hyper-focus on the word “authority.” ?
I think you answered your own question when you say “I don’t have to go to the Creationists” because “[my professors] are ACTUALLY DOING THE RESEARCH.”
I proposed that Creationists are also doing research. And if your qualification for actually looking at the study is that one of the bigshots at your school has to tell you they’re worth looking at, then what am I to make of that?
Secular scientists have created a system for themselves in which they won’t consider someone a “peer” until they have been criticized by someone who’s already a peer. But they also won’t give Creationists the time of day UNTIL they reach “peer” status.
Do you see the circle?
“We’ll take you seriously when you get your research reviewed.”
(Well, will you review my research?)
“No–I don’t have time for someone who can’t be taken seriously!”
Carmen is worried that you are frustrating your interlocutors (that means ‘people-you’re-talking-to’…in case Carmen reads this).
I think it’s time you apologize for being such a dimwit. The discussion has gone long enough that if you can’t see the reasonableness of the other positions it’s because you’re just too stupid.
You are bedeviling the geniuses.
I have another profile picture suggestion for Carmen.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/1/12/Randall_Telling_Finster.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121227191511
See? You’re doing it again!
I suggested that you’re a dimwit and you ignored my point. I’m feeling frustration myself now.
As you well know, I have a brother who used to get “frustrated” whenever a conversation went over his head.
It’s not a rational response, of course. But I understand. Actually, Tim used to be downright mean when he didn’t understand a concept.
So you’re saying I’M the stupid one?!!
How does your religion let you do that?!!!
Lol. Hurry up and post your next blog.
Having some insider information about the topic, I’m preeeeeeetty excited…
Already working on it. (Hope I’m not too stupid to finish it…) 🙁
(I tried to make an angry emoji but I’m too stupid for that apparently…)
“Secular scientists”? At least one of those words is irrelevant.
Just like you didn’t understand evolution, you’re not showing that you don’t understand what science is or how it operates. My entire point was that it’s not uniform enough to contain some sort of conspiracy. One of my lecturers is in an academic disagreement with someone from a Canadian university about the utility of a model of resource use that combines carbon, water and food into a single unit. There is no oversight committee arbitrating that. That’s simply not how science works.
The reason I don’t have to go to the Creationists is because if the Creationist “science” is actually science, then the Creationists will make it to the science journals. And they haven’t.
We’ve talked about science and the need to make predictions. We’ve talked about how evolutionary models do that. We’ve talked about how Creationists models do not. But you’re throwing all that away to now ignore what science is.
Creationist ideas can always be floated, as you’ve floated them here. And they can always be criticised, as I have also done here.
Admittedly neither of us are the best representatives, as I’m no expert in cosmology, physics, relativity, or evolutionary biology and you’re no expert in them (or the creationist interpretation of them) either. But it’s conversations exactly like this that have been happening for at least a century. Creationism simply doesn’t hold up to even amateur scrutiny, let alone professional and expert scrutiny.
So, the science journals are your authority?
You’ve not studied a science, have you?
Look, this is going anywhere. If you still have energy to invest into this, and you intend to use that energy in the pursuit of knowledge instead of the defence of what you already believe, I’d recommend you invest that energy this way:
Read back through the comments and make a note of every challenge I’ve made that you’ve decided not to address. Literally, write down notes on a scrap of paper somewhere. Then, ponder to yourself why you didn’t address them. Be as honest with yourself as you as possibly can. (You don’t have to talk about this with anyone.)
Then, if you still have energy left after that, do the research. If you find any articles behind a pay-wall that you can’t access, let me know. I might be able to get the PDF for you.
Good luck and happy meditations.
I’m getting the subtle suggestion that MY ignorance is more serious than YOURS…
….that “neither of us are experts” in any area, yet *I* am still in more need of self-reflection and consideration of my assumptions than yourself… 😉
It’s okay. I’m not mad.
I appreciate the well-wishes, Allallt. And I promise to do plenty of research and introspection because, really, I can’t help it! The questions I ask others are ones I’ve genuinely wrestled with myself.
Where do you think my question to JZ came from, about offering hope for suicidal people?
I’ve searched science for answers desperately, like my life depended on it…
because it did.
So, since we’re assigning homework, that’s what I’d ask you to “meditate” on. You know, it’s really easy to put on a white coat and hole up in a laboratory–only reading literature written by “peers”–but what are the real-world consequences of your hasty conclusions?
It’s fine to spar with strangers on the internet and pretend the issue is mainly scientific. But my original statement still stands: you have to take ownership for what happens when “science” meets the Laboratory of Life.
How does Stenger’s belief that “we are all frozen nothing” impact people who want to do more argue in internet forums until they die?
You get hungry because you have a biological need for food. We thirst because we NEED water. So, what can we conclude when humans have a deep, profound need for goals and purpose? And how can science provide that?
I hate being accused of “dodging” questions, so I won’t do that to you. (It’s impossible to follow EVERY turn in EVERY thread.) But, I admit, I wish you had addressed my Pixar Theory. Maybe you’re waiting for a peer-reviewed paper on the topic? 😀
All the best! Jeremiah 29:13
This will be a reply of many chapters:
Addressing suicide and the fallacy of appealing to emotions
I’m not happy lying to suicidal people. I can’t pretend the claim of a God makes sense to me so that I can make some reassuring platitudes.
I was suicidal a long time ago. A combination of things. I can tell you what my dad said to me, approximately, cleaning up the language a little: ‘Grow up. You’re stronger than that, and you know it. People are going through real hardship, struggling to feed their children and watching loved ones die from disease; why do you think they struggle on? So grow up and face the real world with some enthusiasm and bravery’.
I didn’t appreciate that at the time, in fact I was fumingly angry with him. But, he was right. And I didn’t try to kill myself. And, you know what, I don’t know what I’d have done if he patronised me with some nonsense about God loving me.
My dad was right, there is beauty and there is something worth fighting for and not being able to see it right now is challenging, sure. But you’ve seen it before, you know that experience is still there. You can work to get that back. (My dad’s rant included calling me “self-obsessed” and “ignorant” for thinking my problems could be so bad.)
Honestly, the fact you can’t find comfort from a secular world view is on you.
But, in relation to our discussion, that has precisely nothing to do with ‘truth’. If that’s the point you rest on (I know it’s not, I’m just making a point) then you make God a ‘convenient lie’.
Trading ignorances
As for the not-so-subtle suggestion that my ignorance isn’t as severe as yours, I answered all of your challenges except for the Pixar Unified Theory one, which I assumed was an analogy and not point in its own right. When you shared links I read them, and where they rested on claims I could understand I addressed them. The Jewish Dr misrepresented relativity and the Doppler effect, and he presented a figure he claimed was easy to find, which wasn’t. If his idea still worked with the maths done accurately, applying relativistic principles to a constant observer, then it would be published somewhere where rigour takes place. Instead it was on a blog. Not that that really mattered: even if the maths was right (which I doubt, because he couldn’t get it published) the idea still didn’t carry any weight. At best, it was compatibilism, not data-driven.
By contract, you dodged questions, and if you need me to go through and copy and paste them into a single comment, I can. Although, as a former teacher, I think there’s a lot of value created in you identifying the challenges for yourself.
A nerdy brain-dump of unresearched ideas pertaining to the Pixar Unified Theory
As for my answer to the Pixar Theory, I haven’t seen enough of the films nor do I remember them in enough detail. And, I don’t care enough to read the article. But, there are predictions we can make, if that were true: unique features to a Pixar film should appear in other Pixar films. Things like characters or buildings or, in news stories (the traffic jam caused in Toy Story 2 would be worthy of a new broadcast). Now, this doesn’t lend itself well to falsification. Here’s why: you, presumably, have a mother and said woman probably lives in this universe, as do I. But there’s no evidence of us in each other’s lives (i.e. films).
But I will say that characters from A Bugs Life make it into the ‘outtakes’ of Toy Story 2.
Which leads us onto definitions (always happens). How would you distinguish between occasional ‘Easter-eggs’ and ‘in-jokes’ over a larger and contrived narrative that ties all the films together?
Here’s a falsification idea: if something in one film references another Pixar film explicitly as a film (instead of as an assumed reality) then the films do no exist in the same universe. For example, if there was a promotional poster in Finding Nemo for the film Monsters Inc then Monsters Inc is clearly a fiction in the Finding Nemo world.
But, the films could never reference each other, and thus there would be no evidence either way. (This is the same as the me/your mum issue; we never reference each other and there’s no overlap, despite us living in the same universe.) In this case, we’d need to go back to the proponents and wonder what the evidence was that convinced them. Maybe it was that singular outtake at the end of Toy Story 2. Which gets us into the definitions question.
Pixar humans are very stylised. I’d need an artist’s opinion to really say this with confidence, but Andy in Toy Story didn’t really show any ‘style’ improvements through 13 years of digital technology improvement, and that style seems consistent in the Darla(?) and the dentist in Finding Nemo. Similar style consistency doesn’t happen in Disney.
Now, there’s an important philosophical point here: this is me making claims I am aware are far-fetched and poorly supported and I’m aware I haven’t yet consulted other thinkers who have thought more about this than me. I don’t “believe” the theory just because I am discussing it, I am entertaining its possibility, outlining the sorts of things I could expect and calibrating evidential expectations before I am biased by convincing rhetoric.
First, Pixar: you don’t need to distinguish between Easter Eggs and the rest of the theory before you accept that there’s something being done on purpose. Some people enjoy the details. But, I was making the point that “something intentional” is happening, remember? Even if the only thing you can identify is an “Easter Egg” here and there, doesn’t it still show intentionality? Haven’t the artists left clear marks on their work?
I really, really like my Pixar analogy. 🙂 But, let’s stick to hopelessness and suicide.
Actually, it’s not an appeal to emotions. It’s the EXACT line of reasoning I went through almost three years ago, and it’s flawless, given the constant that “God Doesn’t Exist.”
If your dad had tried talking to me about “beauty” and “things worth fighting for,” I would have been more than fuming/angry… I would have concluded that philosophy is over his head and that he had been more brainwashed by his own instincts that he realized.
In a godless worldview, “emotions” are just chemcials. So what’s the point of seeking even “happy” ones? Concepts like beauty and joy and hope have no place in a natural worldview. They were selected by nature to trick us into sticking around and reproducing, just to keep the relentless cycle going…
Right?
If you think the “truth” of God can be defended because everything else lacks platitudes to placate sad people with, then you are exactly offering emotional reasoning.
If you can’t get past your own reductionist view, philosophy is over your head. If you can’t focus at a view taking into account more than chemical processes, that’s your failing.
Yes, it probably is mathematics at bottom: chemistry and physics. Does that mean you don’t experience joy and beauty and love? That’s complete denial. People do experience those things. If you simply can’t bring yourself to value experience, but you can bring yourself to value “God” you’ve lent one philosophy a lot more of your criticism than the other. That’s your failure.
And, to be honest, if you allow that level of discrepancy into your thinking, the difference between religions and no religion wouldn’t be enough to stop you killing yourself.
I’m trying to engage you honestly about facts. I have let you completely lead the conversation. You (metaphorically) walk away from every single question and challenge that is mildly uncomfortable — a habit that will mean you cannot progress.
And now we’re talking about which world view is the most comfortable. Fine, if that’s your priority why ever start a conversation about facts if it’s just trumped by ‘nah, that’s not comfortable enough’.
What is it, exactly, about God that stopped you killing yourself?
So I was right, I never needed to address the Pixar thing because it was just an analogy and your point was only ever the ‘intention’ thing. You gave the real example of us “The fact that we happen to be standing on the only habitable planet suggests the opposite of randomness”. And that’s not true.
We’re not even the only habitable body in this solar system.
There’s millions of habitable places.
Now, you can argue that having millions of habitable places is also evidence of “careful planning and intentionality”, at which point you fall foul of my initial criticism: complete flexibility on what ‘evidence’ fits the conclusion you refuse to budge on.
By contrast, I was setting up specific evidential expectations.
Is that what you would have said, when I was holding my husband’s gun in my hand? “Philosophy is over your head.” 😉
You can’t complain about platitudes when that’s exactly what your father gave to you. “Platitudes” are my way of cutting through the Humanist bullshit that tries to manufacture purpose in a purposeless world. Scientists encouraged us to reject anything that doesn’t get a write-up in Scientific American, but that necessarily includes their own religious-y assumptions, too.
It’s really simple.
If natural truth is the ONLY truth, then a mother savoring the smell of her newborn’s head is no different than a crack-head doing a line. They’re seeking chemical reactions. And BOTH are legitimately experiencing “happiness.”
What’s the practical difference between what I feel for my babies and what an alcoholic feels for his drink?
Humans know–through instinct–that one is good, selfless, and objectively beautiful, and the other is bad, selfish, and leads to physical AND emotional decay. But, when you strip God from the equation and turn scientists into Priests, then the “Why” for those instincts is purely electro-chemical.
Here’s a fact for you: three years ago, I was actually asking these questions of myself, and “defending God” in some banal internet conversation was the furthest thing from my mind. So please stop trying to make me supply you with answers that I never promised.
My reasoning (and yours, before you accepted a “platitude”), was sound.
What if we really did evolve, and everything those plebians view as “good” and “beautiful” is just an elaborate trick of their own minds? If that’s true–I’m witnessing the end of human civilization. We’ve advanced to the point that we recognize advancement is meaningless. As more and more people are unlocked from the bliss of their ignorance, then more and more will choose to take our own lives.
I reasoned that I (and others like me) had reached the “next level” of evolution–but it came with a horrible, unlivable price…the loss of our REASON for living.
When you ask, “What exactly about God kept you from killing yourself?” it seems like you’re asking for a clincher. I’m sorry, I don’t have a silver bullet. God didn’t show up in my house bodily and say, “It’s okay. It will be fine. Trust me.” (And a true skeptic would assume it was a hallucination if He did. So, at the end of the day, there’s no “Super” evidence that would have worked for me then or that would convince you now.)
My road to recovery started when I stopped seeing THROUGH everything and decided to test God’s claims about Himself.
The Bible says God is good and that truth will set me free. So I started by listing all the things I thought were true…
The reason I asked how God stopped you from killing yourself was my attempt at getting under what reasoning you do accept. You think you’ve found a flaw in naturalism, that somehow it leads to destructive nihilism, and so you’ve thrown that out as false. And then you’ve accepted God. And you accepted God pretty quickly if you had your husband’s gun in your hand — a three month spiritual journey and enquiry is a lot slower than a bullet.
Your reasoning is still not sound. Nothing about truth owes you objective beauty and value. So, concluding, as you did (and I think wrongly) that naturalism excludes beauty and value can’t lead you to soundly concluding its falsehood. That is bad reasoning.
And yes, actually, if you were holding a gun and talking about killing yourself I would tell you you’re not actually thinking about value clearly. I would tell you the fact phenomena can be reduced to chemical processes in no way detracts from the fact of human experience, and love, and beauty. Just like paint being an organic oil based chemical mix doesn’t detract from the beauty of art. The fact that music is nothing more than the vibration of atoms to create movements that are detected by ears and turned into electrical impulses in the brain does nothing to detract from the beauty of music.
And nothing about a God deeming something beautiful helps to make something beautiful, especially if you’ve already descended into destructive nihilism.
I cannot see how anyone can possibly move from the abject rejection of the objective experience of value, to accepting it because it is ordained by God. If that pitiful excuse is enough to convince you of value, then you already knew it was there.
If you refuse to notice there is an objective difference in conscious experience between living happy and dying, you’re simply being obtuse. And if you can’t see the point in living happy, then you really aren’t thinking. And I don’t think many people would be happy putting a bullet through their own skull on the basis of poor thinking.
And I repeat the important part: this is entirely emotional. It is not reasoning to say God exists because all other alternatives are too bleak for you. God is not “true” because it’s comfortable.
Allallt, in order to test a hypothesis, you have to start with an assumption.
I started with the assumption that God made EVERYTHING–including the very mind and body I was using to try and reason him away. It was only when I used the laws of logic and the laws of nature as constants, and only when I assumed for just a moment that God KNEW what I was going through and gave me the tools to get through it, that I was able to get out of the infinite loop of “how do I know that I know that I know….” long enough to examine the more concrete evidence.
I find it strange that most Naturalists charge God of “hiding.” But then they argue that the Grand Unifying Theory of Life is “too flexible.”
I’ve heard it said that there are two ways to look at the world: as if nothing is a miracle and as if EVERYTHING is. When I showed the tiniest modicum of faith in the latter, then the problems started falling like dominoes…
That made no sense. And I am now regretting wasting my time with this.
Yes, sure, once you assume God exists and everything is a miracle, then anything can make sense. If only I’d seen such impeccable logic before.
“Logic” is either a created thing (“a miracle”), or it’s a law that has ALWAYS existed, or it is something that humans essentially made up, as a “contract” for living together…in which case, it’s imaginary.
You can Google the flaws in presuppositional apologetics.
(Another fine example of you directing the conversation.)
I’ve Googled and Googled and Googled lots of things in my relatively short life. And I’ll keep Googling, as my curiosity directs, probably for the rest of my life…
One of my more recent Google adventures took me to the “We Are All in a Simulation” theory/debate. Have you seen it?
Oh, I thought I was talking about criticisms for presuppositionalism. Okay, let’s talk about Google and the possibility we are all a simulation…
Alright, fine, I’ll take yet another red herring as you clearly have no intention of dealing with challenges.
It shouldn’t just be a case of Googling things and seeing what people have written. It should include some level of evaluation and critical engagement. You presented the beginning of a presuppositional argument, so why not go look up why presuppositionalism simply doesn’t work?
Yes, I’ve seen the argument. If we can create AI in a simulation, then that AI may not be able to tell it is in a simulation (like characters in the SIMs). If it really is AI, then it should be able to achieve things we achieve, like AI-containing universe simulations. And those second-layer AIs should be able to do the same. If true, the number of AI persons in a simulation would infinitely outnumber “organic” persons.
Yay, red herring addressed.
No, that’s not quite what I’m talking about. The theory is that EVERYTHING that we call reality is actually a simulation… (Someone like a Matrix situation.)
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
This is the article I actually meant to share with that last comment. (http://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/what-are-the-odds-we-are-living-in-a-computer-simulation)
People criticizing the pressupositional argument are using pressupositions. They’re presupposing they can trust their own experiences including their minds, and they take patterns of nature as REAL and CONSTANT, in order to argue against “Pressupositionalists.”
It’s enough to drive a person crazy, trying to find the end of questions like: What can I trust, and where do I even start? So, eventually, I HAD to pressupose that I wasn’t the first person to reason through all of this…
First, I tried pressuposing that everyone who concluded “life is valuable” is a self-deluding idiot. I toyed with the idea of ending it. But, then it occurred to me that I need to be SURE there’s “nothing” after death, because I didn’t want to risk finding an even worse hell in my attempt to escape this one.
So I tried pressuposing that we’re living in a constructed, time-based reality, and that other dimensions could exist. (Interestingly, quantum physicists have used “presupposition”-style calculations to describe there are likely TEN dimensions. And they can describe them, theoretically. I can’t even wrap my mind around. All I know is their mathematical formulas work when they presume “10” dimensions.)
Likewise, when I pressuposed that I was put in THIS place with THESE laws (and that I was given THIS mind) for a purpose, then it finally ended the infinite loop of questioning and made sense of everything from the behavior of the smallest cells to the fact that my brain “short circuits” when I try reasoning outside the limits of the “program.” Maybe the God of the Bible exists in the 10th dimension. Or maybe a high-tech, post-human race created a “game” of sorts, using sentient, SIMS-characters, and we’re discovering evidence of the code they’re using.
But the presupposition that life is INTENTIONAL is the variable that made all of my formulas work. I no longer wanted to kill myself.
You can claim it’s about “comfort.”
But you have to pressupose that “comfort” isn’t a good indicator of reality, while maintaining that your OWN framework and formulas are flawless.
Meanwhile, God is my Super String theory. (Two minute video outlining String Theory: http://www.faena.com/aleph/articles/the-10-dimensions-explained-in-2-minutes)
This is my main point, and I’m going to say it more than once so that when you dodge it I can be increasingly confident you’re dodging it on purpose. I asked you to look up challenges to presuppositional apologetics, and you came back with cliché defences; you did not try to engage with criticisms.
It’s not quantum mechanics, it’s string theory. It’s not always 10 dimensions. And it’s not a presupposition, it’s a conclusion from the maths. And the discipline is not an evidential science: it cannot be said, by any stretch of philosophy, to be ‘knowledge’.
People who value life are deluded. It’s wellbeing we value. That’s why it mattered to you whether you spent eternity in Heaven or Hell: wellbeing. That’s the significant variable all after-death scenarios. (But I’m glad you finally made a comment that revealed that.)
People do not trust their minds to be perfect to challenge presuppositional arguments. However, they can point to increases in uncertainty in using divine presuppositions. Here’s a criticism you won’t have seen because you didn’t look up criticisms, you looked for more support:
Presuppositionalists assume the mind cannot be trusted. So, if I gather the evidence and my mind leads to conclusion A, the process by which that happened, a presuppositionalist would argue, isn’t reliable.
But the presuppositionalist also has a mind, which is unreliable, and in that mind has a concept of a God (the concept is equally subject to unreliability) and applies that concept (unreliable) to justify their other processes. It’s not just the concept of a God that may be unreliable: so may God. That’s 2 extra layers of uncertainty that the presuppositionalist wants to paint as increasing certainty.
That’s just 1 criticism. I challenged you to go out and read challenges to presuppositional arguments, and you came back with cliché defences.
I don’t have to presuppose comfort is a bad metric for truth at all; I can investigate the claim. I can literally just have conversations like these with people and listen to their comfort-based demands of reality. Your comfort-based demands don’t line up with my girlfriend’s, in fact they contradict. Therefore, the method doesn’t work (that’s the law of noncontradiction). It’s not corrective, like science; it doesn’t admit mistake; it’s a dogmatic demand of reality. Where you demand purpose from reality, other comfort-based demands are the rejection of totalitarianism, and other are existentialism. These are incompatible, but all reached by the same method: comfort-based demands. Therefore, the method is bunk. It’s not a presupposition, I can investigate it. And so can you. (Just look at the people who say atheists are just people who hate God; that is also the accusation of comfort-based demands.)
I don’t have to think I’m flawless at all. In fact, it’s very important that I don’t think that; that’s how I can be prepared to adapt and change when given meaningful challenges.
I’ve also seen much better visualisations of many dimensions. I’ll see if I can find it. (I think it referenced 13 dimensions.)
String Theorists know they are dealing with conjecture without supporting evidence. It’s kind of a joke science at the moment for that reason: a mathematical game and challenge in ontology. But it is not an evidential discipline.
How are you getting on with understanding why you refuse the challenges I set you? Have you got as far as noting the challenges down on a scrap of paper?
I literally have no idea what “answering challenges” would look like…and at what point my honest problems with naturalism qualify as “cliche defenses” instead. I’m serious–other than me getting out a paper and searching your comments for solid reasoning that isn’t there, what do you want? (That’s not happening, by the way.) 🙂
Fine, Mr. Word-Play. Change my statement from “life is valuable” to “wellbeing is valuable.” It’s still self-delusion. The definition of wellbeing either is an established concept in this universe, or it’s an invention of humanity. You suggested that morality is based on an unwritten “contract” which most humans can agree upon. But anything that depends on humans to construct can also be deconstructed by the same humans…
Self-delusion is a perfectly fine description of what’s happening when we assign metaphysical meaning to purely natural stuff. You keep trying to get away from the fact that you claim it’s all material and mindless. ALL of it… Well, except that, at a certain point, we material beings became aware of ourselves… and that’s when the material became immaterial, right?
What I’m trying to explain is that you have an infinite chicken-or-egg problem, according to philosophy. Which came first: the brain or logic?
Well, I am now more convinced than I need to be that you are unwilling to even attempt to understand my view, incapable of engaging and not worth my time.
I hope you’re not in Orlando, and if you are, stay safe. But I don’t see the value in continuing this discussion.
Is that how it works in education today? When someone points out the flaws in your lectures, they just aren’t trying to understand?
It’s not because you did a crappy job explaining it?
You said:
“String Theorists know they are dealing with conjecture without supporting evidence. It’s kind of a joke science at the moment for that reason: a mathematical game and challenge in ontology. But it is not an evidential discipline.” (Of COURSE ontology is important. That’s what I was trying to say–about coming out of your laboratory every once in awhile to answer the questions in the real world. Natural sciences have their place, and they are fascinating. But–to repeat–you can’t hide in your white coat and ignore that obvious FOUNDATIONAL problems with treating “evidential science” like it’s the only real source of truth.
That’s your major, fatal presupposition. You won’t accept anything unless it’s “evidence based.” But your criteria for what counts as “evidence” is almost-literally microscopic… Test and repeat, test and repeat, test and repeate. But so what that you can test and repeat things? I hate to break it to you–but the average person in the real world isn’t interested in oil-bodies converging and breaking apart in a petri dish.
Not unless you can explain to them how it affects their daily existence, and you can’t, without solving the Where Did We Come From question. (It turns out, natural scientists are great at observing, but they are lousy philosophers.)
The Ontology problem is precisely what’s wrong with that TED video you shared. I mean, the experiment was solid. And the presenter (aside from a few oh-so-professional jabs at ID-ers, who weren’t there to defend themselves) he did a great job explaining the results. But I have a very hard time believing the study left Intelligent Design arguers “speechless.” Even without a background in biology, *I* wasn’t left sputtering. The problem with concluding “therefore nature is the only god” is obvious:
Let’s supposed we could fill the petri dish with enough energy to last a million years, and then hid behind a two-way mirror. Would the oil-bodies grow and reproduce and evolve to the point of sentience? It’s a pretty long shot, but maybe scientists could figure out how to provide the exact right conditions to manufacture life that becomes mindful “on it’s own.”
But it’s not really on it’s own, is it?
What I’d really like to ask that TED speaker is: how would the Evolved Oil-Body Creatures deduce that “Scientists” exists on the other side of the glass?
Yeah, sure, let me just teach genetics a creationist who doesn’t want to learn. An adult, no less, who should take some of the onus of understanding what the science actually says on herself. That’s why I asked you to tell me what you understand from those articles, a challenge you happily side stepped. You also didn’t reply when I sent an article saying that genetic Adam and Eve were a lot closer in time that the article you sent claimed. And that’s before we deal with the fact both article talk in terms of 100,000 years, and the flood was meant to be 4,400 years ago.
Okay. Like what? I haven’t said evidence and science are the only ways of coming to understand something. I’ve simply been using science and evidence because we are discussing evidentiary questions.
It’s related to falsification. If you are making a claim where the truth and falsehood of that claim would look different, then we are looking at an evidence-based claim. That’s why I asked you from what species you think science claim humans evolved from, and what evidence you would need to be convinced.
Then they don’t care about the question being asked. That’s why I challenged you on why you entertained a fact-based conversation when you’re happy to trump evidence with what makes you comfortable. Why are you so happy wasting my time like that?
Oils converging and replicating in a petri-dish is a part of the question of where we came from. It doesn’t affect your daily life. It’s quite simple really: if you don’t care about the answer, you don’t care about the question.
The TEDtalk didn’t mention ID at all.
It should be leaving ID proponents speechless, though. Here’s the repeated trajectory of conversations like this:
“There’s no evidence for evolution!”
*Presents evidence*
Either *denies* or *ignores* followed by “Yeah, well, I accept variation, just not evolution. That doesn’t explain where consciousness came from!”
*Points out this is an argument from ignorance*
“It’s not just consciousness, it doesn’t explain where life came from either!”
*Presents current understanding of abiogenesis, which is not evolution and the confusion is stupid, but presents it anyway*
Either *denies* or *ignores* followed by “That’s scientists working with stuff that already exists! Where did stuff come from?”
And then suddenly we’re talking about cosmogony.
And that’s why ID propoents don’t care about evidence, because all they do is deflect. And I think understanding why they deflect and change the subject is important to understand. I think that desperate move from evolution (which is complex but demonstrable) to chemistry and abiogenesis (which is esoteric and a lot harder to understand, as a hypothetical discipline) to physics and cosmogony (a literal unknown) is a blatant deflection. And they deflect so quick that they can leave the discussion like they’ve never seen or heard any evidence for any of them. But that’s dishonest.
No one concluded that. I raised the video to point out that the early “cells” aren’t thought to look like modern cells. That was the whole context in which I presented it.
And also, good for you. Not even you were affected. You, the expert in chemistry, philosophy and theology who can determine exactly how profoundly this affects your belief (and open engages with that effect) wasn’t phased. I suppose I should take that as evidence for the irrelevance of the discoveries, right?
Energy and material. The right material, too: the kind of stuff we think existed in the pre-life Earth.
Even if they did evolve sentience, the humans observing it in 1,000,000 years would either accept evolution or deny that the 1,000,000 year experiment had ever produced any transitional forms. It wouldn’t help, because one of the groups doesn’t care for the evidence
But, also, in a million years? Seems doubtful. Perhaps this video will be of some help. It’s most relevant from 2:42, the bit before that is an anti-ID introduction that you don’t need to worry about.
Oh, good. You’d like to ask a completely irrelevant question. What possible purpose could that question serve? You want to ask how something without a nervous system can comprehend things. Look at you, cutting right to the nub of the issue.
‘They don’t know about the scientists in the same way we don’t know about God’ I can almost hear you jibe. Well, you don’t get it epistemically both ways: we either can’t know, in which case tough shit: you don’t know; else we can know and you have to present the related evidence or argument.
“I asked you to tell me what you understand from those articles, a challenge you happily side stepped. You also didn’t reply when I sent an article saying that genetic Adam and Eve were a lot closer in time that the article you sent claimed. And that’s before we deal with the fact both article talk in terms of 100,000 years, and the flood was meant to be 4,400 years ago.”
Yes, I did reply. I confessed that I’m not an expert in any scientific field and that my goal with my very first comment was to show that Ken Ham’s literal-week interpretation of scripture isn’t what MOST Creationists believe, regardless of the softballs they are hitting on your favorite atheist blog. Apparently, you’re still not quite clear–since you referenced “flood 4,400 years ago.” That would be Ken’s hypothesis. (For the last time: I think he’s wrong.) 🙂
I showed you several places to find the predictions of some Old Earth Creationist’s. And then YOU “happily side-stepped the issue” by appealing to the authority of scientific periodicals. So, from that point, I’ve dropped the specifics. You need to understand that “Secular scientist” is no more redundant than “creation scientist.” They use 99% of the exact same peer-reviewed papers you do, to inform their discipline. And you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart, unless the Creationist had “outed” him/herself.
The research is great, but the underlying assumptions color a secular scientist’s conclusions more than they realize. They allow their philosophy to creep into their abstracts and conclusions–where they like to anthropomorphize the mechanisms of nature to make it sound like its intelligent. (Hint: a creationist would argue that anything appearing intelligent had to get its intelligence from somewhere.)
By the way, I rewatched that TED video, and you’re correct. It wasn’t Dr. Hanczyc who made the jab at ID-ers. I confused him with Dr. Victor Stenger, in this video I watched the same day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3j7vYfegaQ. Sorry for the confusion!
“I haven’t said science and understanding are the only way of coming to an understanding of something”
Ah! Progress! Okay, what’s another way?
The episomological questions are relevant because it proves that naturalists are stuck in an infinite loop of chicken and egg.
I noticed you didn’t answer my question about whether the brain or the laws of nature (including logic) came first.
The laws of nature came first.
One can understand (but will be unable to communicate to anyone) by personal experience.
Some things can be discovered by logic and argumentation.
The thing with knowledge is that it is communicable. You should be able to explain the reasons you hold a belief and those reasons should be open to evaluation. And, if the reasons are bad or if you are claiming too much based on it, the claims should be open to change.
You don’t understand science, or peer review, or why journal articles are reliable (and creationist literature isn’t).
Secular scientist is a redundant term; a tautology. Creation scientist is a contradiction; an oxymoron.
I’ve never watched anything with Dr Stenger before (although his name comes up a lot). Do you mind if I don’t start with that 2 hour video? But, thanks for recognising the mistake.
Are the laws of nature eternal?
I don’t know.
Then what, exactly, is your problem with the hypothesis that they are part of the created order?
Hypothesis? Nothing.
Present some evidence for it.
First, a clarification: is it possible to answer my question of whether the laws of nature are eternal? (In other words, what kind of evidence would you need to be convinced the laws of nature aren’t eternal?)
I don’t know.
Okay, we’re talking about the nature of eternal (or possibly eternal) things here. So what kind of evidence would you accept for God?
I don’t know.
Well, that explains why you haven’t noticed all the times I’ve provided it…
God’s not going to send you an email, Allallt. 🙂 (And, even if he did, you would (understandably) suspect it had a mundane explanation.) Likewise, thousands of testimonies of people having near-death experiences or receiving healing…
You can come up with natural explanations for those as well–especially if you give Nature a capital N, by giving it the power to “select,” as if it had intelligence.
If nature “selects” on its own, and if it has always existed (i.e. if its laws have always existed), then it is a god.
I don’t know what the evidence would be ahead of time.
But I recognise evidence.
You haven’t presented any.
You called String Theory a “Junk Science” because it’s not “evidence based.”
So, if math equations that work out aren’t considered “evidence,” then I need to know why not.
Just like when you claimed I was offering “cliches” when I described (what turns out) is called the “Presuppositional” problem. What’s the difference between evidence and a “cliche.” (Because I’m starting to think that “cliche” is just another way to say “evidence I’ve gotten before, but rejected.”)
I explained that the Bible lines up fabulously with the natural sciences, and you won’t consider it.
And I’ve explained that logic is, itself, a logic puzzle which can’t be “proven.”
So, if you’re convinced that logic is reliable and/or that reality actually exists, and/or that getting something to repeat is a solid way to discern truth–then what evidence convinced you of those things?
(a) I didn’t call it junk science. I said even string theorists acknowledge it’s not evidence based, and they know they’re a joke.
(b) The maths is nothing more than a prediction. The prediction (wait, you’ll like this) needs to be confirmed by (ooh, exciting…) evidence. Some sort of observation of how reality is different from a description of reality that doesn’t include String Theory.
That’s what evidence is: it is some observation of reality that is different from a description of reality without the claim being made.
(c) It’s not the presuppositional problem. It’s presuppositional apologetics.
(d) There are an unfathomably large number of ways of being wrong in regard to any given question. There are incredibly few ways to be right in regard to any given question. When someone is wrong in the exact same way that huge swathes of people on the internet are wrong, mostly copying ideas from Matt Slick, the claim they make of being well read on the issue is apparent. When the claim then isn’t even declarative, but is instead a poetic argument by analogy or really bad comparison, then it’s also a cliché.
(e) The Bible doesn’t “line up fabulously with the natural sciences”. And you haven’t “explained that”. You have asserted that an offered fundamentally wrong blog posts from people with qualifications.
(f) I haven’t claimed logic can be “proven”. (I don’t believe anything much can be proven.) I’m happy with a lesser benchmark than “proof”. Proof is to do with certainty. I don’t like certainty.
(g) Evidence-based reasoning works. Logic works. I didn’t wait until someone could prove logic to me and then use it. When I was a kid I used all sorts of methods, including wishful thinking and demanding, and that didn’t work. But following basic logical rules did. Caring what the evidence was also worked.
String theorists know they are a joke. lol. Well, that comment made me laugh, at least. (Maybe you should become a String Theorist?)
The fact that it works on paper is evidence, Dude. At least, math is part of MY reality. If you can make the theoretical numbers work on paper, then there’s evidence that it works in physical reality, too. It seems what you mean by “confirming” is being able to see the tenth or thirteenth dimension with your own eyes….? (Or something else you can’t describe now but would definitely recognize later.)
Glad you laughed.
Strong theory is incredibly complex, and contiguous mathematical expressions have lead to predictions that are contradictory. If you’re happy with maths being sufficient, then you must believe contradictory things.
Of course, you’d know that if you knew much about string theory. In fact, certain parts of quantum mechanics fall into the same problem (and trying to combine quantum mechanics with relativity–for things like blackholes–leads to paradoxical maths).
Most mathematical equations we use, like Newtons laws, are evidence based. Others, like force, work, energy, mass and velocity equations, are tautological. But entire mathematical functions were created for String Theory. I have to trust my mathematician friends that the maths is justifiable. (Not all maths is: naive set theory, for example, is not defensible.)
You seem to be happy with a “truth” claim where reality would appear entirely the same regardless of whether that claim were true. I’m not sure that works.
String Theorists expect to find evidence in the LHC experiments or from the Planck satellite to confirm elements of certain predictions. I don’t really understand what, because I’m not a string theorist (I’m not even a physicist). But they do expect to find evidence, and that is the only thing that will vindicate the discipline.
So, you want to talk about string theory now? Because I know only very little more than what I’ve just shared. (I know there’s a multiverse model based on String Theory, and that there’s a lot of uncertainty about the implications of membranes.)
Believe it or not, I actually agree with just about everything in that last comment. 🙂 (Including the part about being uncertain. Good thing you don’t like certainty!)
Yes! Things in both math and logic start getting contradictory, from our point of view. The paradoxes are exactly the type of stuff I’m asking you to consider. Because I don’t think it makes sense to just use math to the extent it suits our physical purposes and then assume it’s “junk” when it starts churning out unexpected projections about things we can’t see or understand completely… (But this is why I said natural scientists don’t make great philosophers…. they like to toss out the results that can’t be tested with PHYSICAL observation.)
The law of non-contradiction and the restriction on paradoxes are physical laws… They are rules we’ve agree upon because they make the most sense within our CURRENT reality. But, by definition, they would NOT apply to a limitless God who is outside of time and space. (Importantly, the Bible is the only Holy text that describes God as this way. “His day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day.” And other references as well. All other religions describe God as a sort of beefed up human.)
Anyway, the reason paradoxes are no-nos now–in the study of history and the study of dirt and cells and the study of our own minds–is because we are restricted by time. Something can’t be both true and false AT THE SAME TIME. But, if time didn’t travel in a linear direction, then… well, mind blown. But it works on paper.
The fact that we get results that are hard to wrap our mind around is exactly the kind of thing you would expect when limited, time-locked beings start trying to stretch our minds into the infinite.
It’s not proof. But it’s compelling evidence.
I thought of another analogy just a moment ago. Are you familiar with the Indian guy who discovered the number zero? (I have to Google quickly to remember his name…)
You may remember that bit where I said the maths works to create a prediction. You may also recall that I didn’t say the maths is junk just because it’s difficult to understand or unexpected.
As a result, it may not surprise you that I make the following request: don’t misrepresent me to me.
Do you believe in white holes? They’re a fair prediction from Special Relativity, but there’s not evidence. Do you believe in them just on the back of the maths? What about the fact they should be chucking out matter as a rate to massive we have good reason to expect to be able to detect one? And still there’s no evidence. Evidence is important.
Citation needed. There are loads of mathematical idea that currently can’t be tested. Supersymmetry and white holes are just two examples. But, what scientists do is try to think of ways of gathering evidence: ‘in what way would the universe be different if this claim were true, compared with if not, and how can we observe that difference?’ They don’t ‘toss out the results’, but they also don’t just accept it as true, blindly.
They are actually logical laws, and the idea of logical laws applying to God is the only answer to the paradoxes that surround omnipotence, omniscience and freewill. So, you’ve got a lot of other theologians to argue with about that comment.
And, ooh, look, we just discussed a truth claim that doesn’t depend on evidence and I didn’t just throw it out.
I’m not going to claim to be a master of comparative religion, but I might consult with JZ about whether that is true; he does seem to have a lot of comparative religion knowledge in his head.
Of course, it might not be worth the effort, as that’s a completely irrelevant point anyway.
Nothing about nonlinear time helps anything avoid the constraints of logical laws. And the Bible passage you shared describes something completely in keeping with linear time: it could literally be solved by simultaneous analysis of straight line equations.
The fact that we get results that are hard to wrap our mind around is exactly the kind of thing you would expect when limited, time-locked beings start trying to stretch our minds into the infinite.
It’s not proof. But it’s compelling evidence.
False. Put it the other way around and you can see why. You’re making the claims: (a) We are time locked and (b) there is a “the infinite”. And from there you are making the prediction (c) reality will be difficult to understand, as if (c) is the observation we could make that is the difference between your claims being true and not. But there are numerous more reasons, that do not rely on interpretation of maths relating to arrows of time or the concept of ‘the infinite’ to explain why reality is hard to understand. It’s vast, for one, with qualities in massive extremes of what our daily life requires us to understand.
We invent mathematics, with in an incomplete and imperfect tool, to explore ideas. (Arithmetic may seem to be self-evident, but a lot more of maths is not.) Oddly, a Christian blogger shared this video last night, which makes me point here.
So, the evidence you point to―“We get results that are hard to wrap our mind around”―is not an observation that would be unique to your claims.
Just think about the fact that Newton (or Leibnitz, whatever) invented calculus, and then just enter a philosophical question in your head about what the identity of the results of calculus are. Are they angular momentum?
I thought of another analogy just a moment ago. Are you familiar with the Indian guy who discovered the number zero? (I have to Google quickly to remember his name…)
I am curious as to where you’re going with that.
You keep doing this in analogies and then moving on when I obliterate the analogy.
In the Pixar thing, I outlined expectations of evidence before I got into a discussion that may well rely more on convincing rhetoric over evidence.
I didn’t point out the bigger point: Pixar is an author and it’s works are works of literature. Every single thing is intentional. Nothing could ever be dismissed as a coincidence because everything had to be intentionally designed placed painstakingly by computer artists and CGI experts.
Reality can have coincidences, unless you’re going to presuppose intention and authorship (in which case I bow out of the conversation; what is the point in discussing a topic with someone where there answer is not reasoned or evidential, but their presupposition?)
Here we’re talking about intention in an overtly authored an intentional universe (Pixar) and saying that applies to this universe too. But that’s the very topic in question. What would could as an intentional message in Pixar is literally everything. It’s a computer animation.
The String Theory analogy falls apart because String Theorists do not believe their work is ‘true’ just because the maths works. This is especially true when you realise they invented the maths that works. They know they need evidence for supersymmetry and other elements of their discipline. And they know they are 20 years behind on gathering evidence.
Not that that matter, because you haven’t presented any maths on your topic. If I played Devil’s Advocate and said ‘fine, whatever maths concludes is true’, we still don’t have a God in the mix.
“Every single thing is intentional. Nothing could ever be dismissed as a coincidence because everything had to be intentionally designed placed painstakingly by computer artists and CGI experts. Reality can have coincidences, unless you’re going to presuppose intention and authorship (in which case I bow out of the conversation; what is the point in discussing a topic with someone where there answer is not reasoned or evidential, but their presupposition?)”
Yes, you’re understanding exactly what I’m trying to say with my analogies. The fact that we disagree about presupposition is 100% the problem. So, it’s okay if we need to keep leaving the analogies to hang in the air while we bicker about whether it’s a foul on the play when I presuppose God. (I’d argue essential.) 😉
I’ll pay you an honest compliment: most atheists don’t follow my analogies as well as you have. I think you already see where I’m going with the number zero, since you mentioned humans “inventing” calculus. I don’t believe that’s a good way to phrase it. I believe humans DISCOVER natural laws. And I believe we DISCOVER the laws of mathematics.
A few hundred years ago, this wouldn’t have been controversial. Most scientists presupposed a rational God and trusted He had created a rational universe. So, that’s actually where the scientific method came from. But now, whether humans “invent” or “discover” laws is basically the main argument of atheists vs. creationists.
Anyway, I think that arguing we “don’t need God” is as much a misunderstanding as when I–as a child–tried to figure out why we need “zero” in math. If you take zero away from a number, it’s still exactly the same. Likewise, if you add zero, two is unchanged. When all I was doing was simple arithmetic, it seemed logical that we could do without zero. (Zero is NOTHING, I thought.) And–yet–without zero, we wouldn’t be able to do anything.
…I’ll be on a fieldtrip with my kids today, watching cows give birth. 🙂 But let’s discuss presupposition some more later. All of science is presupposing something and then watching the results. In my life, I presupposed no God, and the results were bad. When I presuppose God, the entire Universe makes sense.
The bottom line is that you either trust the human mind to be able to reason, or you don’t.
You may be able to convince yourself to trust your mind through the presupposition of a God. Fine.
Just the functioning mind should then be trusted. You don’t get to protect your presupposition by saying that every time your functioning mind brings it into doubt you can just call that some sort of malfunction — but generally your mind is trustworthy.
So, if you started with a presupposition to create trust in your mind, but then your trustworthy mind calls that presupposition into question, you should throw out the presupposition at which point you would be left with two choices: believe the mind does not work, else believe it works by some other mechanism than your presupposition supposed.
You do not get to assume your mind works in all areas except those pertaining to the presupposition. And so, the presupposition is not evidence of itself.
To word that differently: the fact that God is the only way you can imagine a mind to be reliable in no way makes God real.
Based on the consistency of human minds, and the efficacy of human mind and the systems they have created, I am of the belief minds can basically be trusted. I don’t know how. And that trust in the human mind is not absolute. And there are rules they have to follow. And there are many other caveats.
Science doesn’t have presuppositions. It might have assumptions, but all those positions can change. Your presupposition is designed specifically not be changeable.
(As we’ve discussed, I don’t actually care–from an epistemic point–that presupposing no God didn’t make things comfortable for you. That’s not a question of truth. That’s a question of comfort.)
I hope you had a good day out.
Well, Allallt, I really appreciate the way this conversation has gone, overall.
And, just to throw this out there, I broke pretty much all my personal rules about talking with atheists online. I know you’re probably still unsatisfied with my “evasiveness.” But, for what it’s worth, I’ve engaged with you WAY more than I usually would…
I guess I like you. 😀
I still don’t think presupposition is only MY problem. It’s everyone’s. (And calling your presupposition an “assumption” instead doesn’t fix it.) You assume the Universe is constant and testible. You expect it to be logical. And you recognize that everything APPEARS to be designed… But maybe it just feels too easy?
The Bible says the skies display God’s glory, and that we humans are without excuse for not noticing what’s going on. Even my 5-year-old was asked the other day, “If you saw a sandcastle on the beach, where did it come from?” She answered: “Someone made it.”
I’ve never had the presuppositional conversation with her…but…?
Meanwhile, as we learn more about how the Universe works, it’s getting harder to attribute the intricacy to blind chance. We’ve come up with dozens and dozens of theories to explain how the obvious miracle of existence isn’t really that special. (Multiverses to reduce the odds; turning Nature into a type of god that “selects;” and now theorizing that perhaps our future selves have programmed this Universe as a simulation…)
I don’t trust the UNGUIDED mind, because I’ve seen how determined it is to serve as its own source of truth–causal loop be damned. :/
Anyway, after spending today with my kids, I decided I should let this particular thread end in order to be more present the rest of the week. But I look forward to reading your last comment here, if you have one.
But, I really hope you’ll stick around on JBs blog, for future conversations. 🙂
May you find what you’re looking for!
I had a notification that I had a comment from you, a comment I did manage to read, but has now disappeared from the thread and my notifications. JB must have done that, because only blog owners have that authority in a comments-thread.
Firstly, I wanted to say thank you for engaging me. I don’t know exactly what rules you broke, nor how frequently. But, nonetheless, thank you.
I no longer have the comment for reference, so my ideas pertaining to it may seem a little disorganised, but:
(1) The difference between assumptions and presuppositions in that assumptions can change readily.
(2) I do not assume the universe is logical, ordered and predictable. We have weather forecasts that predict the weather with about 80% accuracy a week in advance. We have combustion engines, the internet. We have all this technology that relies on order and predictability; it’s demonstrable.
(c) None of that means I’m not a brain in a vat, being deluded by a sophisticated sensory hallucination (a cliché philosophy point, I know). I could well be a brain in a vat. I don’t see any evidence to support it, but it’s a possibility I entertain. If I were to claim that being a brain in a vat is the only way I can make sense of the human mind (as well a demanding that I need an answer, because “I don’t know” is unacceptable to me), would that seem like evidence to you?
(d) Part of entertaining that idea is about how to emotionally deal with such a possibility. My answer is that I care about wellbeing and conscious experience, therefore I care about the world I do occupy: this one. That’s regardless of whether I am in a brain in a vat.
(e) Imagine a world where sometimes when you let go of a marble, it drops to the ground. Other times it floats. Other times it turns into a gazelle and runs down the street. Other times it turns into a stream of consciousness remembering great works of literature. If the human mind existed in a world with that kind of unpredictable, unintelligible, unknowable chaos, then you’d have a point.
(f) There’s a philosophical school of thought that says it is possible that there is no cause and effect and every moment bares no relationship to the moment that preceded it. If enough universes run with that system, then some of the universes would appear to have strict rules by sheer coincidence of each event appearing that way. It’s an idea that gets entertained. But, are you going to accept that without evidence?
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Nexus.html
That’s naive set theory. It doesn’t follow.
(It’s also a great example of maths being created for a purpose, because this is not a case of maths being ‘discovered’, because it’s not ‘true’.)
P.S. If you keep it up with the Music and poetry metaphors, you could deliver the sermon at my church on Sunday. 😉
It’s certainly a long way to travel to confuse a congregation.
There is actually something to be said about Stephen J Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria. In part, the merit of that idea is similar to what JZ posted earlier, about not caring if you believe unicorns live in your shoes until you start trying to change the order of things in line with that belief: that belief has no position is societal or political discussions.
But, Gould’s NOM also applies more deeply to this post: the appropriateness of a position to provide discussion on certain topics. That’s a rather dense sentence, so I’ll unpack it a little:
I do not believe in a God. I also do believe porridge is a good breakfast food. The fact those two positions are held in the same mind does not mean they are related; there is not, necessarily, some position that answers questions of God’s existence and of morning food stuffs.
Similarly, JZ uses the descriptor “atheist” for himself. Applying this idea of the ‘appropriateness of magisteria’, we can see that does not mean JZ’s political ideas, moral ideas, societal ideas or preference for Cinnamon Flakes as a breakfast food in anyway relate to the descriptor: atheist. If we really explore the ‘appropriateness of magisteria’ for atheism, we can see that its magisteria is incredibly narrow; it relates only to the question ‘Do you believe in at least one god?’ with anything other than the affirmative. This includes positions of agnosticism and belief that Gods do not exist. Atheism is, in fact, content free. It is not a worldview, but a lack of a single position on a single question. If JZ makes value claims or science claims, those claims will belong to a magisteria other than atheism: perhaps humanism or conjecture-based critical realism; who knows? Certainly for the author of this post, as they don’t appear to have taken the time to ask.
Instead, the author appears to have taken what Nietzsche’s Mad Man did — taken their own Christian view, with Christian mechanisms of enriching things with “value” without a considerable for the plausibility of other mechanisms, and then removed God to see what is left. I call this “religious nihilism”. My reason for this name is that the religious person assumes nothing possible can have value, except when enforced by a God.
That is an incredibly biased position from which to judge JZ’s input.
In summary, here are the steps I think that have led the author to assume JZ should have no input on any discussions:
(1) The assumption that atheism is a full worldview, instead of understanding its magisteria as a narrow one addressing only one question.
(2) The resultant inability to perceive of actual worldviews, like humanism, secularism and critical realism.
(3) The position of ‘religious nihilism’, cutting the author off from any other type of discussion about values.
Thanks for the comment, Allalt. I’ve had this kind of conversation with JB before, to no avail. The mindset of many fundamentalists is frustrating, to say the least. Trying to make any kind of headway with them and their narrow confines of belief about atheists is rather like trying to pick fly shit out of pepper.
And my grandmother wears combat boots, Carmen.
I picked through Allallt’s comment (which I found cogent and respectful–thank you, Allallt!)
And I found this statement to be a good foundation for agreement: “my reason for [calling the author’s position “religious nihilism”] is that the religious person assumes nothing possible can have value, except when enforced by a God.”
I would change one thing just slightly: nothing can have value unless CREATED by God (not enforced). I believe in a God that created EVERYTHING: time, space, and the laws of how this creation operate, including the laws of physics and nature. He created the whole package.
So, yes, if God did not also create the idea of “purpose” and build it into nature–then value would not actually exist. Value would be another imaginary concept that is the by-product of chemicals/electricity in our brain (as JZ has already explained, thoughts and the meanings of words themselves also fall into that category.)
Yes–my position is that taking God out of the equation leads to Nihilism. (And I’m not the only member of the Millennial Generation who believes so. Both men and women between 15-44 years old are 60% more likely to take their own lives than their grandparents were…and that number is rising.)
It should be easy enough to combat their conclusion: can you name something that has value and explain where that value comes from?
Yeah! Nihilism isn’t something the theists invented to make atheists look bad. It’s the logical conclusion to the belief that God doesn’t exist.
Have you noticed a pattern in the dialogue? Insistence that atheism is ‘a void’ but it’s an intelligent void that believes things.
Also, I’ve got another profile picture suggestion for Carmen:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/aa/fa/4baafa9e04c5e648657e0760dc2c1c95.jpg
You know a sense of humor is necessary to appreciate your little pictures, right?
Apparently they’re not familiar with A Christmas Story??? So I’ll try another reference.
Unlike our non-believing friends, I think laughter was created (and made “good”) So, happiness is more than just a by-product of my brain.
I believe the Programmer wants me to run this Laughter Script as much as possible.
So, if it’s all the same to them, I’ll keep cracking myself up… 😀 😀 😀
Psycho.
I hope JZ appreciates your trying to explain that what he said isn’t what he meant.
Why are you not comfortable with the logical results of believing there is no God?
First off, I never said I believe “there is no God”. I believe the concept of a God is too poorly defined and too flexible to presented evidence and arguments to be a meaningful concept.
Secondly, I’m not sure I am explaining JZ’s position more than he has done himself. I have added some stuff about my own position and what I think a rational discussion on this topic should consider.
Thirdly, where have I said or suggested that I am uncomfortable with anything?
“God” is indeed poorly defined and infinitely flexible. He’s not like ‘star’ or ‘atom’ or ‘cheese’. That doesn’t, in my opinion, mean God isn’t a meaningful concept. That’s sort of the point of this post.
It’s just interesting to me how quickly atheists distance themselves from the nihilism that logically results from their worldview (or whatever you call it). It’s cool to throw God out of your life. People have been doing it since day one. But without God, the universe has no purpose. You need to own that.
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate and accept that without God the universe has no meaning. Now what? I’m not uncomfortable with that.
The universe doesn’t owe you meaning.
I don’t know why the universe has to have meaning for other things to have meaning. I believe in morality and justice and value. I believe morality is objective and discoverable. I don’t need to embrace nihilism just because you don’t understand how I’m not there. That’s the charge of “religious nihilism” I accuse you of.
Belief in God isn’t rational just because you think it would be more “just” that way. And things aren’t devoid of value because you can only see value arising by dictates and authority.
And, yes, being so flexible an idea as to account for literally anything that can be levelled at it does make it a meaningless concept. That applies to any concept.
Thank you for your contributions!
I’d sincerely like to hear how morality can be objective in your worldview. Honestly.
I’ve got a busy speaking schedule for the next few days so I may not get immediately back with replies. I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring you.
Before I make those efforts, I need a small contribution from you: what do you understand “objective” to mean? What do you understand “morality” to mean?
However you meant those words when you used them in your statement is fine. I promise not to get fussy over semantics.
Okay then, this will come in sections. Hopefully that will make it easier to read and not appear obnoxious:
(1) Glossary
Backwards, I know. But it’s useful to start with a glossary if the words are controversial/a frequent sticking points in such conversations:
(a) Morality – relating to understanding of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ pertaining to actions and intentions.
(b) Objective – to be able to be said, as a matter of fact, to be accurate or not.
(2) Objective morality as a consequentialist framework relating to wellbeing.
(a) morality only concerns itself with entities that are capable of experiencing wellbeing (here on “persons”, regardless of species).
(b) Wellbeing is a phenomenon that occurs in the mind and ultimately relates back to the physical nature of the brain (relating to neurons, synapses and chemicals).
(c) As such, the physical state of the brain is an objective state of the universe (following B)
(d) As such, wellbeing is an objective knowable phenomenon (following C)
(e) Morality relates to wellbeing in such that ‘morally good’ means that which promotes or safeguards wellbeing.
(f) Morality, in this case, addresses concerns of physical and psychological harm.
(3) Contractarian morality
(a) Morality concerns itself with the ways in which perfectly rational beings would agree to behave in a society if they did not know what part in society they would occupy (a “veil of ignorance”)
(b) This agreement can be said to be a hypothetical contract existing in abstract space.
(c) There actually is an agreement such beings would make, under such circumstances, and thus is a fact and thus objective.
(d) The discovery of what such a contract would say is achievable by a continuing open discussion among rational beings, taking into the account the interests of all persons.
(4) Why present two definitions?
(a) The two definitions relate to different magisteria of morality
(b) ‘wellbeing’ relates to ontology (does it exist and what is it?) and contractarian morality relates to epistemology (how can we know what it is?).
(c) I believe it is our best understanding, at present, that discovering morality by open conversation has presented us with wellbeing-based morality.
(5) Why value it?
(a) This is not a necessary section to have in addressing the question of how one can have a secular objective morality.
(b) Rebutting this section does not address secular objective morality (follows A)
(c) Because it is in our interest (follows from Contractarian Morality)
(d) Because wellbeing and empathy, which are present in persons from many species, clearly has an advantage (tautology).
I don’t want to speak for Allallt. But, I’ve heard his complaint before, that religious concepts are too poorly defined.
Many Atheists are frustrated there isn’t a testable scientific model for creation and the God of the Bible.
That’s the topic of this short discussion between Ken Ham (the Answers in Genesis guy, who’s wearing glasses)–and an astrophysicist who is suggesting a model for the Big Bang that is TESTABLE… I’d suspect Allallt sides with the astrophysicist?
Umm. . .this would be the same Ken Ham who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old and that people walked with dinosaurs. . ? I take it he’s one of your mentors, mrsmcmommy?
If he is, it would explain a few things.
And Kenn Ham wears combat boots too, Carmen.
The more I hear from Ken Ham, the more I think he’s an idiot, Carmen.
🙂
I say it with love–like a brother and a sister bickering. My biological brothers have said idiotic things before, and I think my Christian brother Ken Ham also says idiotic things.
I think the astrophysicist absolutely is right in the video.
These debates would be so much more interesting if the atheists would actually dare to make a simple, solid statement so we can go off actual facts.
Oh wait…
Silly, JB. Atheists CAN’T be silent.
Their mission is too important!
Someone has to play semantics games and mock religious people!
How else would they distract themselves from the hopelessness of their worldview?
I know. There’s so much despair and so little time.
John, (and others) –
Mrsmcmommy is John’s daughter. The mocking tone is obviously hereditary. I’ll leave it at that. 🙂
Yeah, I figured the cheer-squad out on some earlier threads.
If only Carmen didn’t keep “outing” our familial relationship!
How can we complete our dastardly internet deeds if she keeps telling folks you’re my dad???
😂
Someone has to play semantics games and mock religious people!
Seems there’s only one person “mocking” others here, and he claims to be a Christian.
But lets be clear about one thing:
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Well_zpsfxobnetn.jpg
The atheist is making a claim, ladies and gentlemen! That qualifies as a belief!
I have many beliefs. I believe gravity, for example, will keep me fixed to this chair. I believe that at one earth atmosphere, water will freeze at 0°C, and boil at 100°C.. I believe sulphur will boil at 444.6°C, iron at 1,538 °C, copper at 1,085 °C, and mercury at -38.83 °C, every time. I believe light will travel at 299,792,458 meters per second, and without any resistance, an object on earth will fall at 9.81 meters per second.
I also believe you’re confusing justified belief with unjustified belief.
“as long as it doesn’t harm people or animals or the planet” sounds like doctrine to me, JZ.
But, of course, you know that. We’ve already concluded that you believe you’ve evolved better than others–and you have no problem calling people crazy or tossing them in jail if they start evolving AWAY from your precious beliefs.
Could you perhaps show me where I’ve said that…
It was our last conversation, JZ. (Which also devolved into semantics.)
If people start questioning the rules society has imposed on them (like not being able to harm animals or the planet, for example), then you advise throwing them in jail.
And, if they start theorizing that they are actually MORE evolved than you–and that human kind is actually HINDERED by empathy and emotion, then they are “sociopaths” or “psychopaths” (depending on the specifics of their conclusions), and they should likewise be restrained.
I advise they be thrown in gaol, do I? I’ve used the words “sociopaths” and “psychopaths” have I?
Interesting.
Please show me where I have said anything even remotely close to these supposed things.
Date, comment, and link, please.
No, I won’t show you, actually.
Because, pardon my abruptness, but I don’t have time for another stupid rabbit trail today.
You said–essentially–what your meme above already suggests. Which is that you “don’t care” what people believe….SO LONG AS [insert a couple of no-nos] which you won’t allow.
So, if you DON’T believe that people who go against society’s rules for “harm of others and animals” should be thrown in “gaol,” this is where you should state so.
“I don’t believe people should be thrown in jail for any reason.”
But if you DO believe that certain people should go to jail, then I’ve said nothing wrong.
And, if you DO believe that people without a natural, evolved sense of empathy are “sociopaths” and that your evolved trait of empathy is BETTER than their lack-of-empathy, then again, I’ve said nothing wrong.
If you keep insisting that I, apparently, believe people should be thrown in gaol then I will keep insisting that you back up this rather unhinged claim and prove it.
Date, comment, and link, please.
April 8th, 2016– 8:21pm
“Listen, do what you like. Run naked through the words [sic] yelling JESUS IS HERE for all I care. I’m just saying, the moment you cross what society calls normal civil behaviour, you will be removed from society.”
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/why-should-i-be-nice-to-you/comment-page-1/#comment-1431
Good lord, I’m tired of having to take six steps back before we can move forward on a topic. (*rolls eyes*)
LOL!
Okay, how about some context here.
Context: You stated, quite clearly, that you are prepared to break society’s laws regardless if that action increased suffering. That was because you believed gays should be murdered and silly old laws forbade that killing.
Further still, you said that slavery was morally fine.
Let’s repeat that: you stated that slavery is morally fine. And I commented:
I thought you were smarter than this, JZ.
But it’s like talking to Club all over again.
I’m trying to take off my “Christian hat.” (You remember telling JB that you just like to wear that hat from time to time, when you need to borrow the idea of good and bad, right? ….No? You probably want me to go dig up that comment, too?)
*I* don’t believe that people should kill gays because I KNOW THERE IS A GOD.
But I know there are people who are taking what they learn from New Atheists about the senselessness of religion–and that science is ALL you can trust–and they are reaching some conclusions with it that are perfectly, horrifically consistent.
They are killing themselves in greater numbers.
They are also killing others.
And–the people in Uganda have concluded that homosexuality doesn’t benefit their local herd.
So THAT is the actual context: me giving a voice to the poor, question-askers who are now being called “removed from society” for taking what they’ve been taught to a perfectly logical conclusion.
They don’t want to be told what to do by religion OR by “Atheist” or “Humanist” or “Whatever You Want To Call” people who are trying to help nature out by getting rid of those who don’t evolve to your liking.
JZ, if you can follow that illogical, inconsistent ramble you have my utmost regard. Holy suffering Jesus. 🙁
The word, unhinged, comes to mind, yes.
Carmen, I have a suggestion for your next profile picture.
http://michaelnorthrop.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Groverdill.jpg
?
Got me stumped, too. Must be an American thing.
AFC, perhaps? (American Fundamentalist Condition). 🙂
Oh, so you’re against killing gays now?
April 7, 2016 at 10:00 pm
Dastardly! How dare the state tell people what to do… mrsmcmommy says:
But if you say you don’t actually want to kill gays (or just let the Ugandans kill the gays) then I’ll take it that your position has “evolved.”
Have you also evolved concerning slavery? Or, is it still the case that you’re upset that society (not me, society) will gaol you for owning and selling human beings?
And tell me, do you actually discuss your “pro-slavery” position with your childrens’ friends parents? Is it something you confidently speak about in public?
JZ, my darling.
How old are you?
Late 40’s?
50’s?
60’s?
It was fashionable to be a Naturalist about 20 years ago–so that’s why I’m asking.
But, I’m also trying to help you understand what the next generation is doing with the philosophy that comes from the building blocks that YOUR generation has handed them.
People who are my age–but who have a very different foundation for beliefs than I do–would argue those questions/positions that I posed to you.
Why should they listen to society?
Why should they obey YOUR evolved instincts when THEIR evolved instinct is to just have as much fun as they can in this ultimately pointless world.
You keep insisting they should care about how many people suffer and how long we can extend the race.
But they don’t.
In fact, they only care about telling you where to shove it because it’s not enough for them to reject my Christian religion. They also want to reject your secular one.
Are you seriously not understanding thing?
”Are you seriously not understanding thing?”
A thousand apologies. Understanding incoherent nonsense has always proved somewhat troublesome.
So, that’s a “Yes, I (mrsmcmommy) still firmly support the trafficking of human beings. I support slavery, and I’m annoyed society has laws that would gaol me for buying and selling human beings”.
Correct?
I can’t believe there was a time I was intimidated by the “intellect” of atheists…
Thank you, John Zande (and Carmen), for proving once again that people who think like you have nothing significant to offer.
And again, I salute your honesty in keeping true to the bible. Not many Christians have the mettle to stand up and say they support slavery. Even fewer are willing to admit that they’re enormously frustrated with having to live in secular societies which won’t permit such moral outrages.
I applaud your candor.
You have no idea the earth you’re leaving behind with your destructive philosophies.
But you keep preaching them.
…ignoring the honest questions of my secular peers because you’d rather keep your “Christian hat” glued to your head.
Suicides are SKYROCKETING. (They’ve gone up 60% worldwide in just 45 years.) And you don’t even seem to care.
How much Hebrew do you speak? What do you know about the type of slavery that God established–and how it compared and contrasted with the system that Americans built up through the raping and beating of their “human property”?
You believe in God. You just don’t approve of the laws YOU THINK he established.
And, I’m sorry, but I’m not going to defend that tiny little fraction of the Bible to you.
Why?
Because, I’m wearing my “Atheist hat,” and I’m tired of watching my friends suffer with questions that are too big for the small-minded Atheist/Humanist/Naturalist world view to tackle.
You may think you’re an intelligent person, JZ. But–in true human fashion–my generation is building on YOUR foundation. They’re taking the things YOUR “non-belief” has provided, and they’re going further with the “what-ifs” than you’ve ever dared to go.
I’ve never owned a slave, JZ.
But those little “free-thinkers” making use of their New Atheist education are finding there are things worse than slavery: the freedom to believe life has no purpose.
Does this incomprehensible, babbling word salad come with a decipher code?
…presents himself as a learned individual and then claims he doesn’t understand when things get uncomfortable.
Convenient.
You mean – “honest”, not “convenient”, mrsmcmommy
And the meaning of the boy with the hat?
JZ came up with the hat analogy…
Ask him whether he’s done wearing his “Christian” one, yet, so that he can take responsibility for HIS worldview’s role in spreading hopelessness to the next generation.
I’ve been on stage. Have the atheists justified their outrage about slavery?
He claims he doesn’t understand what I’m saying…
I’ve been trying to plant the idea in his head that he’s an out-of-touch old man with no ability to understand the things my generation is wrestling with, philosophically. And apparently it’s too much for him.
(That’s to be expected, though, right? After all, I’ve got the benefit of HIS generation’s evolution PLUS my own. So…I’d be that much more capable of deep thought, or something?) 😉
Ah, progress.
It would be sweet–except for the fact that the conclusions my generation is reaching are leading us to want to die.
Hence my call for atheist silence. It isn’t nice to cause hopelessness. Right?
Actually, I agree with the atheists that the truth is the most important thing. It’s even more important than happiness.
So, if the kids committing suicide are hopeless because the TRUTH is that life is ultimately hopeless, then so be it.
At least they’re being consistent.
Thanks, Atheists, for helping us see the truth at ALL COSTS… including the cost of our very souls. 😉
Doesn’t preaching futility give anyone a sense of purpose?
Well, not EVERYONE. But, some people, yes…
Apparently?
…personally, I would take the bullet to the head.
…and I know of a guy who took a ballpeen hammer to ANOTHER person’s head.
But, again, at least he was a free-thinker. Just like the generation before us always encouraged!!! <3
Thanks, New Atheists!
JZ has asserted that I don’t know the difference between justified and unjustified beliefs. And why are all the non-believers now insisting that non-belief isn’t really non-belief?
JZ helpfully provided a few of the things he DOES believe.
I’d love to watch him comfort grieving widows with statements like “iron melts at 1,538 °C”.
Yeah–I was wondering last night what he’d say to a college student standing on the ledge of a bridge…
He could confidently say, “Gravity hold my butt in a chair.”
College student: “Thanks! I’m confident that gravity will pull me to the pavement down there! Why shouldn’t I let it?”
Atheist: “Do what you want. Your protons will continue to fly through empty space for eternity!”
I see John got here first.
I was going to comment that there’s no such thing as evil – that’s a word the religious use. I’m surprised you’d use the word ‘shut up’. That was always a swear word in our house, and one we never used. Imagine that – us heathens!
First up, “Evil” is not found in nature. It is a word (a concept) that is found only in theology.
Second, “Atheism” is content-free. A-theism: without theism. Your positive claims about the existence of the gods are unconvincing and conspicuously flawed. I am, therefore, without that belief and defer to the default position of a human being at rest: a-theist. Theism is new information superimposed over the default.
End of story.
You appear to be confusing atheism with humanism, or even anti-theism. These are very different things… But keep trying, you’ll eventually get there and understand this.
This is tagged with “satire” but I don’t see the satire.
Also, atheism is content-free, but that doesn’t mean the author has no other philosophies. Why did you ask him about what his philosophy is?
Is it sinful to covet talent? I know the answer. I will need a moment to repent.
More please?