Just wanted to say that was beautifully put. Great post, LKL.
Disclaimer: Off-topic post
Zombieneighbours wrote:
I'd have to say that it is possible for a person to be rational and religious, however, such a person is rational only upto the point at which he starts to be religious.One of the central elements of theistic religion is Faith, belief without compelling evidence. It is treated as a virtue. Belief without evidence is not a rational stance, in my opinion.
I imagine you are unaware of the irony your statement provides, Zombieneighbors. I realize your post is a couple of days old, and somewhere in the 6 pages of posts since then, perhaps this has already been addressed. If so, I apologize for rehashing.
You have mentioned Darwin in a few of your posts preceding this one, and I would assume(?) based on your objective statements of "theistic" religion that you view yourself as an outsider to these beliefs probably to the end that you may even concur with said scientist's suggestion for the origin of man.
"Belief without evidence is not a rational stance..." While I both agree and disagree with this statement if no caveat is provided, I feel it necessary to point out that no evidence for the origin of man exists whatsoever, religious or scientific. At no time can one conclusively determine how humans arrived on this planet, nor can one state when. Both topics have undergone extensive review and argument amongst both scientifically inclined and religiously bent scholars, and they have changed their theories as to the specifics for generations. Whether one believes Jesus is the Son of God, Mohammed is Allah's Prophet, or that man squirmed his way out of the ocean, no concrete proof exists for any.
My point being, unless one can claim a complete lack of interest in the subject of man's origins on Earth, everyone is guilty of said rational v. religious belief system. No one group can accuse the other of irrationality due to religion since in a sense no matter what one believes, the belief is irrationally based on no proof at all. And before anyone flames my post, I ask you this: While evolution is a proven fact, what proof exists that it is the actual origin of man? It is the "theory" of evolution as the origin of species after all. There is more documented proof of Buddhism than Darwinism.
They say you should never write a forum post angry, and in replying to this post, as seems to be becoming my habit, breaking that rule.
The reason I am angry is fairly simple. I was able as a 7 year old, capable of understanding what a theory is in scientific parlence. It isn't a complex concept, my dad was able to explain it to me while i was in the bath. If memory serves, 13 year old are ment to grasp the difference between a theory(common) and a theory(scientific) this in england before the stage they can drop science.
And yet, every time, every single time the subject of evolution is raised on this board, we have the immortal and ultimate line of abject ignorance; 'It is the "theory" of evolution as the origin of species after all.'
It is delivered with the dumb pride a tax diver might say the words 'I'm a bit of a psychologist myself...' when giving Stanley Milgram a ride.
Well, in the words of Inigo Montoya 'You keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means.'
In science saying something is a theory, is not to describe it as uncertain. Let me give you an example, quantum theory, is so weird most people can't even begin to understand the simple stuff, yet it makes prediction which are so accurate, that the chances of coming the answer by guess work has been compaired to drawing a line from new york to LA, laying a quarter on that line and then having your friend stab that position on an equivilant line drawn on a map the USA. Yet, despite astronomicial levels of accuracy, quantum mechanics isn't going to stop being a theory, it isn't going to become a 'science fact' or a 'scientific truth'.
Evolution is arguably the most well accepted scientific theory in existance, it is the grand 'theory of everything' for biology. To re-quote Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Your certainly right, evolution has not been proven. But neither has quantum mechanics, and we have already talked a little about how accurate its predicitions are. But that doesn't matter, i didn't say that to 'believe without proof' was irrational, rather i said that to believe without evidence is irrational.
When you start to compare the evidence for a special creation by a god to the evidence for evolution the gulf between the two is very wide. To my knowledge, there is not a single piece of evidence, in the entire world for an event of special creation by a deity, their is so much evidence for the neo mendelian-darwinian synthisis that no single person is aware of all of it.
It gets better, there is specificially evidence against an act of special creation, very very large amounts of such evidence, and non-that i am aware of against evolution. I suspect i could store, all the documentry evidence for the existance of the historical figures Siddhārtha Gautam, in my bedroom. You could fill air craft hangers with the fossil evidence for evolution alone. Their are terrabytes worth of evidence from genetics, libraries worth of evidence from embriology and taxonomy.
In short, bluntly, but not with malice i have only one further thing to say.
You couldn't be more wrong, if you believed L. Ron Hubbard was the rebirth of conan, that he didn't did, but rather flew off in the millenium falcon to fight the borg.
When Zombieneighbours uses the word "evidence" the meaning is "objective evidence". Certainly someone could have "subjective evidence" that something existed and not have "objective evidence". The question then is, if there is no "objective evidence" but there is "subjective evidence" for someone, is it irrational to follow one's own "subjective evidence"?
When Zombieneighbours uses the word "evidence" the meaning is "objective evidence". Certainly someone could have "subjective evidence" that something existed and not have "objective evidence". The question then is, if there is no "objective evidence" but there is "subjective evidence" for someone, is it irrational to follow one's own "subjective evidence"?
The subjective experience an individual experiences that would lead them to believe in god such as 'hearing the voice of god', feeling with utter certainty, esq all. is functionally indistinguisable for the subjective experience of paranoid schizophrenia or psychotic delusions.
If i started to feel like good was watching over me, i would treat it with the same sceptism i would suddenly knowing that i had a electronic bug in my teeth.
We know that out subjective experience can be wildly wrong, about all sorts of things. Based on that, i have trouble accepting that forming your belief systems on Subjective experience alone is irrational.
We know that out subjective experience can be wildly wrong, about all sorts of things. Based on that, i have trouble accepting that forming your belief systems on Subjective experience alone is irrational.
Me too, but people get offended when you point out that they're being irrational. It isn't PC. :/
Eiy yei yei!
I'm out.
Wiser man than me. I think I'll follow his example.
Me too, but people get offended when you point out that they're being irrational. It isn't PC. :/
We know that out subjective experience can be wildly wrong, about all sorts of things. Based on that, i have trouble accepting that forming your belief systems on Subjective experience alone is irrational.
You obvious have a better understanding of Zombieneighbours' statement than me. I think maybe there is a missing "not" that would make it clear to me, but oh well.
Personally I have a hard time believing that most of the best scientific minds of previous centuries were experiencing "paranoid schizophrenia or psychotic delusions." But I guess maybe madness and genius are truly closer than I had believed.
When Zombieneighbours uses the word "evidence" the meaning is "objective evidence". Certainly someone could have "subjective evidence" that something existed and not have "objective evidence". The question then is, if there is no "objective evidence" but there is "subjective evidence" for someone, is it irrational to follow one's own "subjective evidence"?The subjective experience an individual experiences that would lead them to believe in god such as 'hearing the voice of god', feeling with utter certainty, esq all. is functionally indistinguisable for the subjective experience of paranoid schizophrenia or psychotic delusions.
If i started to feel like good was watching over me, i would treat it with the same sceptism i would suddenly knowing that i had a electronic bug in my teeth.
We know that out subjective experience can be wildly wrong, about all sorts of things. Based on that, i have trouble accepting that forming your belief systems on Subjective experience alone is irrational.
<Pops out of a wardrobe, dusting snow off and picking pine-needles out of her hair.>
<Sighs and retroactively removes really amazing thought on the basis that it might have too high an anti-baker count on the standard LC Index...>
<Heads out of the thread, a beatific smile on her face...>
Did someone call for me?
It was never my intention to thread jack, and in fairness, much of the discussion of evolution that came up within this was an organic part of the threads developement. I should not have bitten by responding to pinvendor, for that i am sorry. As such, i am going to duck out, as for the largest part harmony seems to have broken out between my self and those whom i usually enjoy engaging in argument with(something that is happening disturbingly often at the momment <.< >.> <.<)
edit:
Oh, and in an attempt to build bridges a little with anyone my post before this one may have offended. Just because various religious experiances are functionally indistinquisable from they symptoms of such a disease, does not mean that they are symptems of such a disease. Just because i happen to believe basing your world view on such experiences is irrational, it does not mean that i believe it is any less important to you. It doesn't even mean that the experiences could not be true. It is only a statement that i do not agree that such experiences are enough to base your life choices on.
My goodness! Such anger, such passion! One would could attribute it to...the blind faith of a religious zealot!
Zombieneighbors, I do believe you misunderstand. That the theory of evolution as a biological/physiological phenomenon through generations is irrefutable. It is hard for me to be categorically wrong in stating that there is no evidence that evolution is the basis for man's origins just as there is no evidence of theistic creation. Please pardon my mistake of using the word proof when the word evidence was what I was using it interchangeably to mean. I did not expect such an argument of semantics to ensue. Lol!
There are certain items that people claim are evidence of either Darwinism or theistic creation, but only the individuals involved in the citation of these items actually believe them to be evidence. The subjective evidence you discussed before as it were.
I am merely pointing out that your comment about belief not based on evidence applies to any "theory" of man's origin, scientifically or religiously based. There is no pure evidence that man's origins have occurred in one form more than any other. Therefore, they are all based on blind faith that man actually appeared on Earth from whatever the basis for man's synthesis happens to be in that particular wild story.
Anyone know what thread this was being discussed in? I would be happy to move my comments there instead.
Wow. Just... wow.
Saying that "subjective evidence", i.e. a to others unproven and unprovable observation, is worthless in understanding the world and how it works, drawing the parallel that psychotic and delusional observations do a poor job of explaining things too... that gets people to leave a thread?
Seriously, people, get a grip.
Ah, looks like I may have missed my neighbor. I certainly had no desire to end the current topic. I was just throwing out my two cents on a small side conversation that I saw in the thread. To all those who are as startled about the vehemence which I was replied as I am, I apologize for ruining your otherwise interesting discussion of American politics and the Nobel Peace Prize...
Please accept my humblest apologies
Did you hear that the Republicans are going to hire Kenya West to attend the award presentation?
"Yo Obama, I’m real happy for you and Imma let you finish, but ... "
It is hard for me to be categorically wrong in stating that there is no evidence that evolution is the basis for man's origins...
If you said you don't believe or accept the evidence, that would be your opinion, and a possibly a true statement. Certainly no one could contradict you on such a statement without looking like an idiot. To say there is no evidence at all, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge the fossil record or the DNA evidence, so, yeah, I'd say that would be wrong.
|
Are you kidding me? If this were true John Stewart wouldn't have a show. Most of his routine on the Daily Show is just him showing two clips of a politician contradicting his or herself and then giving that blank stare of his at the camera.
Not many people have the guts to lie to a camera when they have been previously recorded saying the exact opposite.
LOL! so true! you need a +30 bluff check to make it to the top of the political game!
Why can't people understand that it is in our DNA to WANT a liar for a leader? If truth was paramount to wellness, then humans would have evolved to have women as leaders and not men... we want men in charge because we want to be lied to!!! (i.e. yes, populace, fear not!! for as long as I will be in charge, no harm will come to you!!) LOL! would you ever catch a woman with such black and white statements? :)
|
|
Are you kidding me? If this were true John Stewart wouldn't have a show. Most of his routine on the Daily Show is just him showing two clips of a politician contradicting his or herself and then giving that blank stare of his at the camera.
Not many people have the guts to lie to a camera when they have been previously recorded saying the exact opposite.LOL! so true! you need a +30 bluff check to make it to the top of the political game!
Why can't people understand that it is in our DNA to WANT a liar for a leader? If truth was paramount to wellness, then humans would have evolved to have women as leaders and not men... we want men in charge because we want to be lied to!!! (i.e. yes, populace, fear not!! for as long as I will be in charge, no harm will come to you!!) LOL! would you ever catch a woman with such black and white statements? :)
Yes, I can think of three off the top of my head that would definitely make blanket statements like that.
lol
|
Disclaimer: I don't like Obama. For that matter, I don't like McCain either. My motto is, "George Washington for president."
Wow .... 1.4 million bucks for being in office for 10 days. He hasn't done anything yet, and he definitely hadn't done anything when they put his name on the list. I'll take $1.4 million for doing nothing any day.
And as for nuclear disarmament? We have something approaching peace over a large amount of the world BECAUSE the nukes make the politicians too scared to take each other on. Get rid of them, and the developed nations will be at each other's throats again before you could say "unjustified arrogance."
The history of humanity proves that the only way to ensure peace is the possibility of mutually assured destruction. Going against nukes should provide the "Nobel War Prize," IMO.
How much do you trust there to not be some sort of mistake with nukes? Just one bomb, and everyone else is flinging them around. Seriously, with nukes in the world I can't envision it holding (human) life much longer.
It is hard for me to be categorically wrong in stating that there is no evidence that evolution is the basis for man's origins...If you said you don't believe or accept the evidence, that would be your opinion, and a possibly a true statement. Certainly no one could contradict you on such a statement without looking like an idiot. To say there is no evidence at all, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge the fossil record or the DNA evidence, so, yeah, I'd say that would be wrong.
Fossil record? DNA evidence? Of what...evolution?
I believe once again, my words have been misinterpreted. I am NOT denying that species evolve within themselves. You are correct DNA and fossil records certainly prove the dynamic and ever changing nature of bio-organisms. But to delude oneself that this is concrete evidence that man came from a single amoeba some bazillion years ago requires as much blind faith as the belief the Hindu pantheon or any other religion is the origin of all creation. Don't you see? The evidence of evolution is just that, evidence of a scientific process like an apple hitting Newton is evidence of gravity. But history doesn't have Newton trying to use the law of gravity to say life was formed because atoms were pulled together by this force called gravity in a convenient and unique pattern which poof! produced life. Just because it's scientific doesn't mean there is evidence to support the idea life started that way.
1. But to delude oneself that this is concrete evidence that man came from a single amoeba some bazillion years ago requires as much blind faith as the belief the Hindu pantheon or any other religion is the origin of all creation. Don't you see? The evidence of evolution is just that, evidence of a scientific process like an apple hitting Newton is evidence of gravity.
2. But history doesn't have Newton trying to use the law of gravity to say life was formed because atoms were pulled together by this force called gravity in a convenient and unique pattern which poof! produced life. Just because it's scientific doesn't mean there is evidence to support the idea life started that way.
1. "Concrete Evidence?" Not yet, but getting more concrete by the year. Certainly, the evidence supports that conclusion FAR better than a conclusion of instantaneous special creation of man (remember, we're talking fossils and DNA, not Biblical evidence). Evolution of man, guided by the hand of God? I have no problem with that. But instantaneous creation of man? Nearly every aspect of the fossil record AND genetic evidence point against that. A third option? I'm all for it; bring it on! But no blind faith is required to say, "of these two options proposed, which does the evidence better fit."
2. Origin of life =/= origin of species. Comparing apples and banana trees there.|
|
It is hard for me to be categorically wrong in stating that there is no evidence that evolution is the basis for man's origins...If you said you don't believe or accept the evidence, that would be your opinion, and a possibly a true statement. Certainly no one could contradict you on such a statement without looking like an idiot. To say there is no evidence at all, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge the fossil record or the DNA evidence, so, yeah, I'd say that would be wrong.Fossil record? DNA evidence? Of what...evolution?
I believe once again, my words have been misinterpreted. I am NOT denying that species evolve within themselves. You are correct DNA and fossil records certainly prove the dynamic and ever changing nature of bio-organisms. But to delude oneself that this is concrete evidence that man came from a single amoeba some bazillion years ago requires as much blind faith as the belief the Hindu pantheon or any other religion is the origin of all creation. Don't you see? The evidence of evolution is just that, evidence of a scientific process like an apple hitting Newton is evidence of gravity. But history doesn't have Newton trying to use the law of gravity to say life was formed because atoms were pulled together by this force called gravity in a convenient and unique pattern which poof! produced life. Just because it's scientific doesn't mean there is evidence to support the idea life started that way.
Oh, so now we're arguing about the origin of life not the origin of mankind. Got it. Could you keep the target still for a moment? It's quite hard to aim, what with you moving it around so much.
I'm afraid there DNA evidence does support a common origin for man and microbe. Not prove it, not even suggest what the hell that origin was or how it happened (which we're still working on), but it does support that all life on Earth has a common origin.
However, as you were asking about the origin of man, that's even better supported as we also have fossil evidence that mankind did not exist until we evolved from the simian ancestor that also evolved into chimpanzees and gorillas.
So, what have we 'misinterpreted' this time?
EDIT: Ninja'ed. What Kirth said.
But history doesn't have Newton trying to use the law of gravity to say life was formed because atoms were pulled together by this force called gravity in a convenient and unique pattern which poof! produced life.
History doesn't have this because this is wrong. Gravity does not produce molecules.
As for the "pulled together in a convenient and unique pattern", this is not what is said or even remotely implied by theories of origin of life. It is a strawman. I would love to discuss the specifics with you. Maybe we should start a new thread because I have no idea what all this fascinating debate has to do with Obama and his Nobel Prize. It is not like he got a Nobel for chemistry or medicine.
I'd recommend the Civil Religious Discussion thread, since that seems to be where the counter-evolution arguments are coming from, and so that we can say "See post #5,742" instead of re-writing replies.
One thing though: everyone should be on equal footing, or the discussion is circular and pointless. Everyone should make sure they read the Book of Genesis, and also check "Answers in Genesis" for anything new. Everyone should also have a solid grasp of modern evolutionary synthesis; I'd recommend Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (avoid Dawkins -- although humorous and well-written, his more recent books tends to rely on bombast more than solid logic).
Regrettably, the evidence of such simian ancestry is the ever vaunted subjective evidence of which has been of such derision in this conversation. A few skeletons in the muck do not a convincing argument make for the evolution of an entire species to have been birthed from another. The one or two fossils which "may" have been the so-called missing link could merely have been quazimodo abnormalities that wouldn't be indicative of an entire species.
I have not proposed that theistic creation is any more viable. I am simply pointing out that all theories of the origin of man or life in general or whatever require the same blind faith. So the irony is whenever anyone derides a religious view for having belief without evidence while claiming to believe in whatever "scientific" idea that this century has produced for those same origins, the act is the same. The so-called evidence is only evidence because one believes in it, just like the belief in God requires only the evidence necessary one needs on a personal level.
Remember science has evolved, too. The science of 100 years ago was just as 99% certain of itself as today's science is 99% of itself. And who knows what we will believe in another 100 years. Of all the religions proposing to know life's genesis, science is the least faithful to its origins.
Is the other thread really all that civil?
I am not sure I want to sling mud with whole-hearted Bible thumpers that just speak hoping it will be their post which converts the world.
But history doesn't have Newton trying to use the law of gravity to say life was formed because atoms were pulled together by this force called gravity in a convenient and unique pattern which poof! produced life.History doesn't have this because this is wrong. Gravity does not produce molecules.
As for the "pulled together in a convenient and unique pattern", this is not what is said or even remotely implied by theories of origin of life. It is a strawman. I would love to discuss the specifics with you. Maybe we should start a new thread because I have no idea what all this fascinating debate has to do with Obama and his Nobel Prize. It is not like he got a Nobel for chemistry or medicine.
I apologize you stepped in to the conversation not realizing this was just an analogy. I assure you, I am well aware this wasn't said until I said it.
|
|
Regrettably, the evidence of such simian ancestry is the ever vaunted subjective evidence of which has been of such derision in this conversation. A few skeletons in the muck do not a convincing argument make for the evolution of an entire species to have been birthed from another. The one or two fossils which "may" have been the so-called missing link could merely have been quazimodo abnormalities that wouldn't be indicative of an entire species.
I have not proposed that theistic creation is any more viable. I am simply pointing out that all theories of the origin of man or life in general or whatever require the same blind faith. So the irony is whenever anyone derides a religious view for having belief without evidence while claiming to believe in whatever "scientific" idea that this century has produced for those same origins, the act is the same. The so-called evidence is only evidence because one believes in it, just like the belief in God requires only the evidence necessary one needs on a personal level.
Remember science has evolved, too. The science of 100 years ago was just as 99% certain of itself as today's science is 99% of itself. And who knows what we will believe in another 100 years. Of all the religions proposing to know life's genesis, science is the least faithful to its origins.
There might be a reason for science not being true to its origins, as you put it. Possibly it's because science is self-correcting and when things don't fit the current model we look at the model rather than just putting our fingers in our ears and saying "there's no evidence", or "It's all obviously a government plot" or "I don't believe it but can provide absolutely no reason why its wrong". Not being a slave to the thinking of the past is why science works so well.
I must reverse my position: I think Obama completely deserved the award. I also think he should send the money to me...
I apologize you stepped in to the conversation not realizing this was just an analogy. I assure you, I am well aware this wasn't said until I said it.
If you'd like to see the answer to your reply, please go to "The Civil Religion Discussion" thread, so that we stop this threadjack once and for all! :)
There might be a reason for science not being true to its origins, as you put it. Possibly it's because science is self-correcting and when things don't fit the current model we look at the model rather than just putting our fingers in our ears and saying "there's no evidence", or "It's all obviously a government plot" or "I don't believe it but can provide absolutely no reason why its wrong". Not being a slave to the thinking of the past is why science works so well.
Ah, we are now to my very point however. Most proponents of amoeba-to-man theories say exactly those things as do creationists. Everyone behaves the same way. What is evidence of God to some is evidence of thetans to another or of giraffes' ancestral link with horses to yet another.
The problem is belief. Most people who believe in God, do so with or without evidence. Those who do not believe in God, do so with or without evidence. Then everyone runs around and does their best to find things in nature that shows that their belief is the true way. Darwinists dig up fossils that may or not be what they think they are. Buddhists allegedly levitate and break solid steel bars over their heads. People experience ghost hauntings and have visions of their past lives prior to reincarnation. Tribal cultures swear by the power of their voodoo.
Their seems to be "evidence" of all of it, but only if one is willing to see it. Mostly though, everyone just runs around trying to fit the phenomena of each other's faiths within the parameters of their own beliefs. But not one can do it conclusively or even enough to dent the faith of the others.
Every origin of life proponent believes without true evidence. There does not seem to be any exceptions.
Buddhists allegedly levitate and break solid steel bars over their heads.
No, we don't. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?
Mystics in India, with the rope tricks and other levitation stuff, maybe, but they aren't Buddhists as far as I've ever heard. The steel bar thing, I've got no idea.Buddhists allegedly levitate and break solid steel bars over their heads.No, we don't. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?
I may have mistaken the levitation from one religion to another.
Actually, I watched a Chinese buddhist break a steel bar by slamming it into his forehead on a martial arts documentary. I was aghast. Boards I had seen. This was something else entirely.