Zombieneighbours wrote:
I can't help but suggest that maybe the problem is with your lab skills. Sounds to me like your not controlling your variables very well. Not an insult, I am terrible at lab work too.
You claim that the problem is with my lab skills. This is where I wish I could take you into a lab with a suitably sensitive scale and ask you to predict precisely with no margin of error what something will weigh after you've weighed it X times. You couldn't do it. You'd insist (assuming you've got any experience in a lab) on adding a margin of error.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
No, it wasn't.
Yes, it was.
BigNorseWolf wrote: I was pointing out that your standards for proof are impossibly high for anything you don't like, ie, heliocentrism or the long and well documented use of religion to justify racism (which you yourself acknowledged happened) being a negative effect of religion You tend to confuse models with reality. Heliocentrism is a -model-. Racism as a consequence of religion is a -model-. They aren't reality. Whether the models are useful (in the case of a rabidly religious atheist, "racism as a consequence of religion" is a useful model) is a separate question.
BigNorseWolf wrote: words are rather vague. Meanwhile you deny objective reality and hide behind epistemic nihilism to avoid ideas that conflict with yours. That doesn't make any sense. How could you talk intelligently about objective reality if words are supposed to be so vague that people can just make them mean whatever they want them to mean (as is the way you've been treating words).
BigNorseWolf wrote: I don't use insults AS the argument. You do. If a kid doing math writes that 2 + 2 = 6, I'm going to correct them. I've tried to direct you to *gasp* -actual- scholars who study this stuff. But, you'd rather remain ignorant. Pointing out that the kid's math is wrong isn't an insult. Pointing out that EVERYTHING you've written on religion has got nothing to do with anything that has been written by people who actually study the subject isn't an insult.
BigNorseWolf wrote: You cannot question a person's religion. It doesn't matter how ludicrous or bad an idea is, when its their religion its by definition beyond requiring proof. So when a bad idea becomes part of the religion it can't be attacked separately: questioning the idea is, in the believers mind, the same as questioning god, and that just makes you silly. You keep pulling these ideas out of your hind quarters, but when I tell you that their sh!t, you act like it's an insult. In my opinion, patting someone on the head and smiling when they say something stupid is an insult. I'll never do that.
But, if words are supposed to be as vague as you act like they are, then maybe when you criticize religion, what you really mean is that Hostess mini chocolate donuts are good gaming snacks.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Zombieneighbours wrote:
I can't help but suggest that maybe the problem is with your lab skills. Sounds to me like your not controlling your variables very well. Not an insult, I am terrible at lab work too.
You claim that the problem is with my lab skills. This is where I wish I could take you into a lab with a suitably sensitive scale and ask you to predict precisely with no margin of error what something will weigh after you've weighed it X times. You couldn't do it. You'd insist (assuming you've got any experience in a lab) on adding a margin of error. Look back at the context of your original reply. If your lab results are making you question empiricism, you should question your lab skills.
Yes, results vary. Which is why the prediction always come with margins of error and those margins are usually explained by imprecision in the experimental set up, since you can't measure the initial conditions with infinite precision either.
How does that argue against empiricism?
At 1 atmosphere, sometimes the water boils at 100C, sometimes at 99.9C, sometimes at 100.2C. It doesn't ever boil at 10C or not boil at 512C.
I can't prove we live in a strictly empirical universe and that water will always behave that way, but I'm damn sure going to continue to expect it to.
So, I'm fairly sure this entire thread comes down to the fact, that everyone would be better off if more folks could follow this simple rule
Darkwing Duck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote: You cannot question a person's religion. It doesn't matter how ludicrous or bad an idea is, when its their religion its by definition beyond requiring proof. So when a bad idea becomes part of the religion it can't be attacked separately: questioning the idea is, in the believers mind, the same as questioning god, and that just makes you silly. You keep pulling these ideas out of your hind quarters, but when I tell you that their sh!t, you act like it's an insult. In my opinion, patting someone on the head and smiling when they say something stupid is an insult. I'll never do that.
But, if words are supposed to be as vague as you act like they are, then maybe when you criticize religion, what you really mean is that Hostess mini chocolate donuts are good gaming snacks.
And this is where I question whether you just straight up have your head up your ass.
Are you even SUGGESTING that people don't respond negatively to having fervently held religious beliefs questioned? Because that suggestion is preposterous.
You can not question a Jehova's Witness's belief that the earth is 6000 years old. They have contrived a scenario in which their god created the earth with age to test our faith. That is impenetrable stupidity.
Darkwing Duck wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote:
No, it wasn't.
Yes, it was. So are you saying is not to R2 ?
Quote: You tend to confuse models with reality. There's a reason for that.
The entire point of science is to get a model so that it accurately describes reality: in other words you want as little difference between the reality and the model as possible. With things that are relatively simple and have been known for hundreds of years like the positions of the planets its been more or less accomplished. You can speak of the model and the reality as if they were the same thing because they are.
You may occasionally need to tweak the model (such as for relativistic effects of the sun on mercury) but really that level of explanation isn't going to make it into someone's concept of reality anyway.
Now, if other subjects haven't quite managed to do that yet then perhaps they need to get their hands off of science's word "model" and play with their own toys.
Quote: Heliocentrism is a -model-. Racism as a consequence of religion is a -model-. They aren't reality. Whether the models are useful (in the case of a rabidly religious atheist, "racism as a consequence of religion" is a useful model) is a separate question. Remind me again why I'm not supposed to conclude that you're a postmodernist?
Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on whom the interested parties are and of what their interests consist. Wiki
In what way to you mean its useful? If its useful because it describes reality then there is no difference between the statement about the model and about reality.
If you mean useful in that it fits a preconceived narrative an atheist would find useful for trashing religion thats not my definition of a useful model.
Quote: That doesn't make any sense. How could you talk intelligently about objective reality if words are supposed to be so vague that people can just make them mean whatever they want them to mean (as is the way you've been treating words). It makes perfect sense. You can talk intelligently about objective reality quite easily if the other person isn't trying to pedantically pick apart your statement for errors.( a vain hope on the internet i know)
A little wriggle room in a word does not mean it has any meaning you want. Atheist has been applied to hard atheists, agnostics, and even deists with varying degrees of accuracy. It has not been used to mean jello pudding. (if someone would like to correct that by having strippers wrestle "Jello" Please write care of...)
Quote: If a kid doing math writes that 2 + 2 = 6, I'm going to correct them. Well there's a few problems.
First off, what you have are two students, not a student and a teacher. We're both in the same forum at the same user level and you really haven't done anything to hint or show at some higher level of knowledge.
Secondly your method of "correction" is to just say "you're an idiot" instead of explaining HOW you add 2 and 2. You show 4 in the back of the book, I look in the back of the book and show 6. We haven't gone anywhere. You need to show your work and explain how addition works to make your point.
Lastly, you're doing math in base 12 or something. NO ONE using the words the "right" way so you can understand them.
Quote: I've tried to direct you to *gasp* -actual- scholars who study this stuff. But, you'd rather remain ignorant. Pointing out that the kid's math is wrong isn't an insult. Pointing out that EVERYTHING you've written on religion has got nothing to do with anything that has been written by people who actually study the subject isn't an insult. Except you don't do any of that. When you're picking apart statements by people that aren't me that I'm arguing with you tend to AGREE with me.
Quote: You keep pulling these ideas out of your hind quarters, but when I tell you that their sh!t, you act like it's an insult. Because you don't even bother to explain what's wrong with them. You're like a broken record playing this , which is absolutely hilarious when you agree with what I'm saying.
meatrace wrote:
Are you even SUGGESTING that people don't respond negatively to having fervently held religious beliefs questioned? Because that suggestion is preposterous.
.
No, I'm not. Look at BNW's response to his fervently held religious belief that religion is crap. It's a pretty good example of the exact thing you're talking about.
BigNorseWolf wrote: The entire point of science is to get a model so that it accurately describes reality: in other words you want as little difference between the reality and the model as possible. There's a big difference between the goal of science being to get a model that accurately describes reality, on the one hand, and confusing reality with models. Science doesn't do the later. You do.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Remind me again why I'm not supposed to conclude that you're a postmodernist?
Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on whom the interested parties are and of what their interests consist. Wiki
And if you had spent any time actually studying cultural theory, then you would have known that the idea that "many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change" and emphasizing "the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs" predates postmodernism by decades (perhaps dating back to Malinowski if not earlier). The only new thing that postmodernism does is, "attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial" and that's something that I don't do.
BigNorseWolf wrote: First off, what you have are two students, not a student and a teacher. We're both in the same forum at the same user level and you really haven't done anything to hint or show at some higher level of knowledge. I think the fact that you are completely illiterate in the area of culture theory shows that we're not at the same level. To claim that we are equal makes just about as much sense as if Gene Ray claimed to be equal to a physicist in a messageboard.
BigNorseWolf wrote: you don't even bother to explain what's wrong with them. If you cared at all about gaining literacy in culture theory, you'd read any of the dozen or so references I've given you. To actually bring you up to speed would require years.
Quote: There's a big difference between the goal of science being to get a model that accurately describes reality, on the one hand, and confusing reality with models. Science doesn't do the later. You do. So if you ask an astronomer where the earth is in relation to the rest of the solar system does he say " Well according to the geocentric model, which is only as valid as you think it is, it looks like this" or do you think he just starts drawing doughnuts with the sun at the center and tries to get the scale and shape of the elipses right?
Do you think that your cultural relativism even enters his head?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Remind me again why I'm not supposed to conclude that you're a postmodernist?
Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on whom the interested parties are and of what their interests consist. Wiki
Quote: And if you had spent any time actually studying cultural theory, then you would have known that the idea that "many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change" and emphasizing "the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs" predates postmodernism by decades (perhaps dating back to Malinowski if not earlier). So you meet 2/3s of the definition (the only parts i was even considering), and don't have a term for what you are. Pre modern post modern? Judian Popular people's front?
Quote: I think the fact that you are completely illiterate in the area of culture theory shows that we're not at the same level. To claim that we are equal makes just about as much sense as if Gene Ray claimed to be equal to a physicist in a messageboard. I don't subscribe to your post modern view of reality. That doesn't make you my superior. There are other worldviews out there that have as many if not more people with PHD after their names and some of them actually contribute to understanding reality in fields as diverse as history, math, and science. All you've demonstrated is that i don't agree with you, not that i'm wrong. The two are not synonymous.
Meatrace, oddly enough, understands my point completely. You completely miss it. You always miss it. With everyone. You have to realize that regardless of what you think of the non post moderns no one but another post modern means what you're reading into peoples statements. You're trying to export your internal frame of reference and its resulting in an epic reading comprehension failure.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Zombieneighbours wrote:
I can't help but suggest that maybe the problem is with your lab skills. Sounds to me like your not controlling your variables very well. Not an insult, I am terrible at lab work too.
You claim that the problem is with my lab skills. This is where I wish I could take you into a lab with a suitably sensitive scale and ask you to predict precisely with no margin of error what something will weigh after you've weighed it X times. You couldn't do it. You'd insist (assuming you've got any experience in a lab) on adding a margin of error. Yes, I have considerable Lab experience. The most important lesson I learned from uni was 'I am not cut out for working in a Lab.'
Yes I would insist on a margin of error, and that margin of error is built into any prediction made.
Moreover, should an error be made in an experiment, it is possible using the theory that governs the process and the results to predict what went wrong with the experiement. And with a small margin of error, when you investigate, that is what you'll find is wrong.
Raising margin of error was entirely pointless. The fact is that good theories do have very strong predictive qualities, and those qualities arn't just used in lab, they are used in 'the real world' from making those new fangled flying machines to running nuclear power plants.
In short, 'science works chump'.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
So if you ask an astronomer where the earth is in relation to the rest of the solar system does he say " Well according to the geocentric model, which is only as valid as you think it is, it looks like this" or do you think he just starts drawing doughnuts with the sun at the center and tries to get the scale and shape of the elipses right?
Because of Western traditions being what they are, he'd draw circles around the sun.
BigNorseWolf wrote: you think that your cultural relativism even enters his head? Its been my experience that most scientists know remarkably little about the philosophy of science. The only place I've ever seen it as a requirement for a degree in science was MIT (and that was years ago, I don't know if the degree requirements have since changed).
BigNorseWolf wrote:
So you meet 2/3s of the definition (the only parts i was even considering), and don't have a term for what you are. Pre modern post modern? Judian Popular people's front?
You meet far more than 2/3rds of the genetic definition for being a baboon. Does that mean that you're a baboon?
BigNorseWolf wrote: you've demonstrated is that i don't agree with you, not that i'm wrong. The two are not synonymous What I've demonstrated is that, while you claim to be all pro-science, you totally reject all social science, even to the point of choosing to remain incredibly ignorant of anything coming from those fields.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
In short, 'science works chump'.
I never claimed that science doesn't work. What I claimed is that science works under the "close enough for horse shoes" model.
In other words, the model should not be confused with the reality.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Zombieneighbours wrote:
In short, 'science works chump'.
I never claimed that science doesn't work. What I claimed is that science works under the "close enough for horse shoes" model.
In other words, the model should not be confused with the reality. And no body is doing that.
Science is a self correcting ways of understanding the world based on the evidence available to us.
I don't see anyone here saying, "thats it, we know it all, games over, this is how everything works, k ,bye."
empiricism is however the only game in town. There isn't another mod of gaining knowledge that provides results on a par with Empiricial thought. Adding in no emperical mods of thought, such as 'there is a god' has never led to a discovery that could not have been achieved without it present, and there is no evidence it has ever sped up the process.
However, such mods of thought have demonstrably slowed progress in the sciences at times, see good old Galileo of former discussions.
So, again, what is your point?
Zombieneighbours wrote:
And no body is doing that.
Actually, BNW has and continues to confuse the model with the reality. His entire criticism regarding the Geocentric MODELS of the Universe does this.
Zombieneighbours wrote: empiricism is however the only game in town. There isn't another mod of gaining knowledge that provides results on a par with Empiricial thought. That's just not true.
Empiricism is a useful tool for understanding the physical universe. But the physical universe is only a small subset of mankind's total needed knowledge. Empiricism isn't particularly useful in morality, law, math, or any of the majority of bodies of knowledge man has to deal with. For one of those areas of knowledge (morality), religion is better suited than empiricism.
Now, by "religion", I don't mean "it was handed down by Gawd 5,000 years ago and that's that". As I've pointed out repeatedly, "religion" involves constant debate and lessons learned.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Zombieneighbours wrote: empiricism is however the only game in town. There isn't another mod of gaining knowledge that provides results on a par with Empiricial thought. That's just not true.
Empiricism is a useful tool for understanding the physical universe. But the physical universe is only a small subset of mankind's total needed knowledge. Empiricism isn't particularly useful in morality, law, math, or any of the majority of bodies of knowledge man has to deal with. For one of those areas of knowledge (morality), religion is better suited than empiricism.
Now, by "religion", I don't mean "it was handed down by Gawd 5,000 years ago and that's that". As I've pointed out repeatedly, "religion" involves constant debate and lessons learned. Of course, in "religion" your definition includes philosophies, political ideologies and damn near anything else people use to debate, including naturalism, so I guess you are correct.
Now, over in the real world, religion often does mean "it was handed down by Gawd 5,000 years ago and that's that". The learned religious debates tend to focus on exactly what was handed down by Gawd and what it means. The ones that come to more useful conclusions include the "lessons learned" to interpret what Gawd must have meant. I'm not at all convinced that this, as it takes place among actual self-defined religions in the modern world is a particularly useful process.
It may be in theory and it may be in traditional societies where there aren't other structure to fill that role.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: For one of those areas of knowledge (morality), religion is better suited than empiricism. Demonstrate that it produces better results than, say, game theory and I'm all ears. Remember, when we look at the people who are most deeply steeped in religious tradition, and who are considered religious (and therefore moral) leaders by the largest religious groups on Earth, we end up with some of the least moral people (Joseph Ratzinger, Ayatollah Khomeni, et al.). Surely, if the claim that "religion -> best at morals" were true, we'd see the opposite?
Of course, that's an empirical observation, and you've already declared that empiricism is no good for morals compared to faith and discussion -- does that cut off any sort of comparison that might demonstrate things, as opposed to simply asserting them?
Two in a row is bad form, I know, but bear with me with a slightly goofy example:
Say I declare that "Kirthism is a much better method for dealing with matters of art and poetry than is traditional aesthetics, philosophy, empiricism, or religion." And then I make declarations as to how awesome certain "art" is, based in my "Kirthist traditions," and baldly reject anyone else's input as being rooted in "inferior methods of understanding" and therefore irrelevant. You can point to blatant contradictions in my "Kirthist findings," and I can point to contradictions in moral views between different religions (and between authoritative members of the same religion), and call it even.
Is that meaningfully different from the declaration that religion is a better means of determining morals than any other? In what ways, other than simple popularity?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
First off, thank you hoards of the science types. I thought I was alone here for a moment :)
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Because of Western traditions being what they are, he'd draw circles around the sun.
And why do "western traditions" do that? Because they're trying, and have succeeded, in accurately modeling reality. They have by and large succeeded. What is the difference between an imperfect description of reality and an imperfect description of a model neigh indistinguishable from reality?
The fact is that the western "model" is closer to an objectively existing reality than any other by far. That makes it better.
Quote: Its been my experience that most scientists know remarkably little about the philosophy of science. And yet oddly enough they can still crank out science. Largely because the philosophy of science is absolute malarky compared to what's actually going on. At some point you DO prove your ideas instead of failing to reject them, and at some point you DO reject bad ideas as not fitting your observations.
*burns popper in effigy*
The philosophy adds nothing to the process. Its about as useful as a restaurant blogger is to a chef.
Quote: You meet far more than 2/3rds of the genetic definition for being a baboon. Does that mean that you're a baboon? It does make me a primate. So what's the term for the Popular Peoples Judean front?
Quote: What I've demonstrated is that, while you claim to be all pro-science, you totally reject all social science It doesn't meet the level of objectivity and testability to be science, sorry. Janitorial engineering doesn't let you design a bridge either.
Quote: even to the point of choosing to remain incredibly ignorant of anything coming from those fields. You confuse ignorant with disagrees with the experts you select because they agree with you.
You only accept the social "scientists" that agree with your position and ignore the ones that don't.
BigNorseWolf wrote: First off, thank you hoards of the science types. I thought I was alone here for a moment Er... I'm not always in agreement with you, either. I see science as a logical outgrowth of philosophy, for example, and I'm not so anxious to dismiss other ideas that I won't give them a day in court.
Quote: Er... I'm not always in agreement with you, either. I see science as a logical outgrowth of philosophy, for example, and I'm not so anxious to dismiss other ideas that I won't give them a day in court. Well, if you always agreed with me you'd probably need to find professional help...
You do seem to think that ideas need to be tried and tested (have their day in court) We might have different conclusions but we'd have more or less the same process from what you've written above. I can respect a difference of opinion based on an interpretation of the facts (which is what you're doing) but not some bizarre metargument about the inability to know reality so we have to dismiss the entire process.
thejeff wrote:
Of course, in "religion" your definition includes philosophies, political ideologies and damn near anything else people use to debate, including naturalism, so I guess you are correct.
Now, over in the real world, religion often does mean "it was handed down by Gawd 5,000 years ago and that's that". The learned religious debates tend to focus on exactly what was handed down by Gawd and what it means. The ones that come to more useful conclusions include the "lessons learned" to interpret what Gawd must have meant. I'm not at all convinced that this, as it takes place among actual self-defined religions in the modern world is a particularly useful process.
It may be in theory and it may be in traditional societies where there aren't other structure to fill that role.
Its really difficult to separate religion from philosophy, political ideologies, etc. Where exactly does Taoism end as a religion and begin as a philosophy? Where exactly does Confucianism end as a religion and begin as a political ideology? Where exactly does Pantheism end as a religion and begin as naturalism? There's no bright line demarcation. That's what makes the criticism of religion all that much more curious. Because if you can't separate religion from philosophy, political ideology, and naturalism and religion is this great evil, then that means that philosophy, political ideology, and naturalism are evil as well.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Its really difficult to separate religion from philosophy, political ideologies, etc. Where exactly does Taoism end as a religion and begin as a philosophy? Where exactly does Confucianism end as a religion and begin as a political ideology? Where exactly does Pantheism end as a religion and begin as naturalism? There's no bright line demarcation. That's what makes the criticism of religion all that much more curious. Because if you can't separate religion from philosophy, political ideology, and naturalism and religion is this great evil, then that means that philosophy, political ideology, and naturalism are evil as well.
First of all-you totally can. Even using the Geertz definition, which is perhaps flawed and incomplete, can easily differentiate religions from philosophies. For one, philosophies don't have emotionally resonant rituals, religions do. Which is, as far as I can tell, the only thing that really differentiates Taoism from philosophy.
You sit here running in pedantic circles, and I'm astounded you don't see it. Here's just about every conversation with you.
US: Science is a fact.
You: Well science is a way to model empirical observations of natural phenomena. A rational mind has to admit that accepting empiricism is non-rational as it can't itself be proven. In fact there is no absolute proof that things are the way they are and that predictions will always work.
US: Well, I guess you got us there. But barring a Matrix scenario...
You: Therefore Black is White!
US: What the s@%~ dude?!
Just because there is SOME measure if imperfection in any model or definition DOESN'T mean it is not helpful to define those things or that it is impossible to define those things to a reasonable extent. Just because there is a fuzzy boundary between two categories DOES NOT mean those categories are functionally the same. Just because there are statistical outliers does not mean the model does not function.
That said, again, I think the rest of the people in this thread who HAVEN'T studied religion with any particular academic rigor are using the common vernacular of religion. In other words an ideological belief structure, varyingly doctrinal and pragmatic in nature, that predicates on the existence of one or more supernatural forces, often through revealed knowledge. It's not an absolutely phenomenal definition, but it is a functioning one for this conversation in that virtually all people who self-identify as religious will belong to such a religion. The big 3 in America. I went out of my way to call out religions predicated on the existence of supernatural phenomena, so let's just assume we're talking about that.
meatrace wrote:
Just because there is SOME measure if imperfection in any model or definition DOESN'T mean it is not helpful to define those things or that it is impossible to define those things to a reasonable extent. Just because there is a fuzzy boundary between two categories DOES NOT mean those categories are functionally the same. Just because there are statistical outliers does not mean the model does not function.
That said, again, I think the rest of the people in...
A useful fiction is not the same thing as objective truth.
That's not a pedantic circle, its about as obvious as the nose on one's face.
meatrace wrote: For one, philosophies don't have emotionally resonant rituals, religions do Do you have a problem with philosophy? Because, if not, it sounds like your problem with religion is that it is emotionally resonant.
Its pretty questionable to take issue with something because it is emotionally resonant.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Remember, when we look at the people who are most deeply steeped in religious tradition, and who are considered religious (and therefore moral) leaders by the largest religious groups on Earth, we end up with some of the least moral people Gandhi, Martin Luthor King, Koffi Annan, Corrie ten Boom, and so on.
You're the first person on these boards to claim that these people (who were/are all deeply steeped in religious tradition) were "some of the least moral people".
Perhaps you meant that we don't agree with the moral codes of some religious people. But that's like saying that because some people have used the legal system to do things we don't like, we should get rid of the legal system.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: crap So it's a "useful fiction" that religion often drives people to violent, tyrannical, and otherwise morally objectionable behavior but an "objective truth" that religion leads to rainbows and puppy dogs or whatever?
Now you're just being disingenuous.
I don't take issue with religion for its emotional resonance, that was merely in response to your insipid suggestion that it's not useful to define things. That's one way we can differentiate religion from philosophy. Also RITUAL. Nice how you skipped over that. As well as, well, my entire definition for religion and what about it I object to.
As it happens, my objection with religion is, as I've stated time and time again, it often requires strong faith belief in utterly ridiculous myths which is antithetical to reason and the way we understand the world empirically. Then, because the ridiculous beliefs in absurd things is artificially tied in with things like emotionally resonant systems of symbols, rituals, ethnicity and culture, people react violently to being told that, no, Jesus didn't rise from the grave because that's impossible. Or that the world was created in 6 days and has only existed for 6000 years.
When you have one group of people saying "the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years" and another group of people with whom you are physically and socially entrenched saying "that's hogwash and you'll go to hell if you listen to reasonable arguments" that type of behavior is fundamentally deleterious to progress as a society.
Darkwing Duck wrote: You're the first person on these boards to claim that these people (who were/are all deeply steeped in religious tradition) were "some of the least moral people". You know he didn't say anything of the sort. Stop that.
meatrace wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: You're the first person on these boards to claim that these people (who were/are all deeply steeped in religious tradition) were "some of the least moral people". You know he didn't say anything of the sort. Stop that. I know what he meant and I addressed that in the latter part of my post.
I also know what he actually said. What he meant isn't the same as what he said.
meatrace wrote:
So it's a "useful fiction" that religion often drives people to violent, tyrannical, and otherwise morally objectionable behavior but an "objective truth" that religion leads to rainbows and puppy dogs or whatever?
I honestly have absolutely NO idea how you got that out of what I said - especially since I said nothing even close to that.
meatrace wrote: I don't take issue with religion for its emotional resonance, that was merely in response to your insipid suggestion that it's not useful to define things. That's one way we can differentiate religion from philosophy. Also RITUAL. Nice how you skipped over that. What rituals are in Pantheism?
meatrace wrote: As it happens, my objection with religion is, as I've stated time and time again, it often requires strong faith belief in utterly ridiculous myths which is antithetical to reason and the way we understand the world empirically. Sounds like quantum physics.
meatrace wrote: Then, because the ridiculous beliefs in absurd things is artificially tied in with things like emotionally resonant systems of symbols, rituals, ethnicity and culture, people react violently to being told that, no, Jesus didn't rise from the grave because that's impossible. Or that the world was created in 6 days and has only existed for 6000 years.
When you have one group of people saying "the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years" and another group of people with whom you are physically and socially entrenched saying "that's hogwash and you'll go to hell if you listen to reasonable arguments" that type of behavior is fundamentally deleterious to progress as a society.
And here is where you go spinning off the rails into cuckoo land. That's because your criticisms have been against -religion- rather than the specific groups who make these ridiculous kinds of statements regarding young earth creationism. (as an aside, the ones who drive me crazy the most are the 'intelligent design' pricks).
meatrace wrote: As it happens, my objection with religion is, as I've stated time and time again, it often requires strong faith belief in utterly ridiculous myths which is antithetical to reason and the way we understand the world empirically. And this is demonstrably untrue, because science—contemporary and historical—is full of people of all faiths. People can hold it in their head that their faith requires belief in the impossible, but science rests on testing the possible. It's not even hard. Science isn't disrupted by stories of one-time miracles because science has never been disrupted by unreproducible phenomena. More importantly, people don't look to religion to understand how things work, they look to it to for a moral and philosophical understanding.
Plus, it's pretty outstandingly insulting to say that belief in religion is antithetical to reason, in any context outside of science. Reason is not wholly owned by science! Many of history's most important philosophers were theologians or religious men, and it would be almost impossible to discuss philosophy without discussing religion.
As for YECers, they are a fundamentally American phenomenon. They exist because American religious education is lacking, not because religion and science are somehow antithetical. You don't have YECers anywhere else because science and religion classes are allowed to reconcile with each other to teach Christian kids "Genesis is a story about the formation of the universe over billions of years" and everyone is happy with that. There are reasons why you can't do that in the US, but don't mistake your own ignorance for some sort of fundamental conflict between science and religion.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
AMiB,
Not quite correct. There are also Islamic YECers and holy bookists. See the nionsesne of Hamza Tzortzis on the Quran and embryology for a quick example.
Paul Watson wrote: Not quite correct. There are also Islamic YECers and holy bookists. See the nionsesne of Hamza Tzortzis on the Quran and embryology for a quick example. And there are non-American YECers. Non-American and non-Christian YECers are about as numerous and influential as Flat Earthers and Reptilian Humanoid conspiracists, so I really don't feel bad about excluding them.
A Man In Black wrote: You don't have YECers anywhere else because science and religion classes are allowed to reconcile with each other to teach Christian kids "Genesis is a story about the formation of the universe over billions of years" and everyone is happy with that. To add a little clarity, "Genesis is a story about the formation of the universe over billions of years" does not necessarily mean "that formation followed the specific day-by-day steps in Genesis". After all, Genesis 1 and 2 don't even agree on what the day-by-day events were. Rather, Genesis (as someone mentioned up-thread) is much more like a song with different verses.
Also, when I referred to "those intelligent design pricks", I didn't mean anyone who believes in intelligent design. I meant those who try to get it taught in public high school science classes.
A Man In Black wrote: And there are non-American YECers. Non-American and non-Christian YECers are about as numerous and influential as Flat Earthers and Reptilian Humanoid conspiracists, so I really don't feel bad about excluding them. You haven't been to Turkey lately, or Lebanon, where Creationism is taught in public school?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: Remember, when we look at the people who are most deeply steeped in religious tradition, and who are considered religious (and therefore moral) leaders by the largest religious groups on Earth, we end up with some of the least moral people Gandhi, Martin Luthor King, Koffi Annan, Corrie ten Boom, and so on.
You're the first person on these boards to claim that these people (who were/are all deeply steeped in religious tradition) were "some of the least moral people".
Perhaps you meant that we don't agree with the moral codes of some religious people. But that's like saying that because some people have used the legal system to do things we don't like, we should get rid of the legal system. Gandhi is considered a religious leader (as opposed to a political leader and humanitarian) by large numbers of people? Kofi Annan -- a diplomat with no religious title whatsoever that I'm aware of -- is considered a religious leader by as many people as consider, say, the Pope a religious leader? Compare our examples, look at what I actually said, and see if your reply was to that, or to something that popped into your head upon skimming what I posted, vs. actually reading it.
Hint: I did not say that religious people were immoral. I never said that some religious people weren't moral. I said that there is no clear pattern of heightened morality in "the people who are considered religious (and therefore moral) leaders by the largest religious groups on Earth." In refutation to the claim that "For morality, religion is better suited than empiricism." (MLK Jr. actually serves as a counterbalance to your claim, as he modeled a lot of his approach to Civil Rights based on what he had seen be successful in the past -- an empirical approach).
Kirth Gersen wrote: I said that there is no clear pattern of heightened morality in "the people who are considered religious (and therefore moral) leaders by the largest religious groups on Earth." There have been more wrong theories in science than right ones. In fact, wait long enough and pretty much everything scientists believe will end up getting proven wrong. That doesn't mean that science is not a useful way to study the physical world, because it is not the individual ideas or beliefs that count, but the debate, contest, and study.
The same thing is true of religion. There will always be religious leaders we don't agree with, those who make our moral spines shiver (like Ratzinger) and religious leader who earn our respect and admiration for their moral views (like the Dalai Lama). And that has got nothing to do with whether religion is doing its job. What is actually relevant is the degree of debate going on in the church/temple/synagogue/etc. When it comes to -religion- (as opposed to -a- religion), what is actually relevant to whether religion is doing its job is the overall degree of debate going on.
If you want to criticize religion, then cherry picking people who've done things we don't like is not the way to do that (anymore than cherry picking the Typhoid Syphilis Experiment is the way to criticize science). If you want to criticize religion, you need to make reasonable arguments regarding the degree of debate going on among the people about morality.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darkwing Duck wrote: There have been more wrong theories in science than right ones. In fact, wait long enough and pretty much everything scientists believe will end up getting proven wrong. That doesn't mean that science is not a useful way to study the physical world, because it is not the individual ideas or beliefs that count, but the debate, contest, and study. The same thing is true of religion. I totally disagree -- because science starts with incorrect/incomplete hypotheses, and proceeds to correct them according to an objective base -- that's empiricism for you, and it works. Religion starts with a "revelation" that may or may not have any validity, writes that down, and proceeds to interpret that in any way it cares to, without any sort of correcting mechanism. So in science, we go from (for example) spontaneous generation to genetics. In religion, we go from (for example) apologizing for the inquisition to covering up child abuse under threat of excommunication.
I'd agree that debate and study are valuable, but I believe that unless there is some external yardstick of comparison, the debate simply leads to the Bull Goose Loony dominating the discourse and converting the others to his way of seeing things, however flawed -- sometimes by bombast, and often by violence.
P.S. Criticizing the syphilis experiments as you've done intentionally conflates the "learning about the physical world" with "learning about morality." I'd argue that the intent of those experiments was obviously not to derive moral values. I'd also argue that the scientific methodology was highly questionable, and has since been corrected.
P.P.S. Regarding the value being in the debate, at last it seems you actually do believe that part of what you're arguing -- constant willful misinterpretation, conflation of ideas, and shifting of goalposts on your part demonstrates that pretty clearly. You don't seem interested in the basis of any point of view, but rather solely in prolonging the discussion by any means, honest or dishonest.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: I said that there is no clear pattern of heightened morality in "the people who are considered religious (and therefore moral) leaders by the largest religious groups on Earth." There have been more wrong theories in science than right ones. In fact, wait long enough and pretty much everything scientists believe will end up getting proven wrong. That doesn't mean that science is not a useful way to study the physical world, because it is not the individual ideas or beliefs that count, but the debate, contest, and study. Theories in science wind up being proven wrong because science has a built in correction method. It is not just "debate, contest, and study", which can be done in any field. That would be closer to an Aristotelian approach than to the scientific method. Prediction, experiment, constantly check your theory against reality.
Nor would I really agree that there have been more wrong theories in science than right ones. That is, if you are using the scientific definition of theory, not the common one. Scientific theories are often modified or expanded as new information is learned. They are rarely disproved entirely.
The same thing is true of religion. There will always be religious leaders we don't agree with, those who make our moral spines shiver (like Ratzinger) and religious leader who earn our respect and admiration for their moral views (like the Dalai Lama). And that has got nothing to do with whether religion is doing its job. What is actually relevant is the degree of debate going on in the church/temple/synagogue/etc. When it comes to -religion- (as opposed to -a- religion), what is actually relevant to whether religion is doing its job is the overall degree of debate going on. The amount of debate going on in the church/temple/etc is not really relevant either, unless the debate is useful. If the debate remains focused on textual interpretation rather than on the actual consequences of the moral issues in question, then the debate is not important. Trying to figure out what people thousands of years ago meant, or often, how to make what they wrote into what you already believe is not productive debate.
Religion may once have had a monopoly on that role, but in the modern world much of that debate is not held in temples but in the public square. In the political arena, in academia, in the media, even in blogs on the net.
Science and religion focus on (or should focus on) different areas of human knowledge.
You both seem to be criticizing religion because it doesn't use the scientific method. Though the scientific method would be totally inappropriate for the area of human knowledge religion focuses on (morality).
It makes your argument specious.
I wish we could all agree that the best tools should be used for whatever area of human knowledge is being studied. Rather than use a hammer for everything, a good carpenter realizes that there are other tools in his toolbox.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
P.P.S. Regarding the value being in the debate, at last it seems you actually do believe that part of what you're arguing -- constant willful misinterpretation, conflation of ideas, and shifting of goalposts on your part demonstrates that pretty clearly. You don't seem interested in the basis of any point of view, but rather solely in prolonging the discussion by any means,...
I have never, throughout this entire discussion, made this sort of ad hominem about you. I expect the same from you.
As for theories proven wrong in science (not just improved, but flat out proven wrong) we've got phrenology, Lamarckian evolution, race, the belief that no bacteria can survive in the stomach, the belief that acupuncture has no medical affects, etc. etc.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Science and religion focus on (or should focus on) different areas of human knowledge.
You both seem to be criticizing religion because it doesn't use the scientific method. Though the scientific method would be totally inappropriate for the area of human knowledge religion focuses on (morality).
It makes your argument specious.
I wish we could all agree that the best tools should be used for whatever area of human knowledge is being studied. Rather than use a hammer for everything, a good carpenter realizes that there are other tools in his toolbox.
To apply the scientific method: If you can't experiment, how do you know which tool is best for any particular area?
More seriously, how do we know that religion is the best method to study morality?
Do you have any response to my claim that, in the modern, western world, much of the debate on morality is no longer in the church?
Darkwing Duck wrote: As for theories proven wrong in science (not just improved, but flat out proven wrong) we've got phrenology, Lamarckian evolution, race, the belief that no bacteria can survive in the stomach, the belief that acupuncture has no medical affects, etc. etc. I never claimed there were none. I could debate some of those or I could list more that have held true, but that would just lead to a side debate about exactly what constitutes a scientific theory (how specific a claim), what it means to be disproven versus improved, etc.
If you want to believe that most of science was or will be proven wrong, go ahead.
It's tangential to my main point:
Quote: Theories in science wind up being proven wrong because science has a built in correction method. It is not just "debate, contest, and study", which can be done in any field. Which I assume you agree with.
thejeff wrote:
To apply the scientific method: If you can't experiment, how do you know which tool is best for any particular area?
More seriously, how do we know that religion is the best method to study morality?
How do we know that science is the best method for studying the physical world? I'm not asking whether science is useful (religion is also useful), but how do we know that science is the best method for studying the physical world?
thejeff wrote: Do you have any response to my claim that, in the modern, western world, much of the debate on morality is no longer in the church?
I don't agree with your claim, but let's explore it. What area of the human experience other than religion is so widely accessible, stores and distributes lessons learned about morality as well, and focuses so heavily on moral questions as religion?
Philosophy doesn't do it. Theater/Cinema/TV comes closest, but is quite isolating and is the communication channel is largely one direction.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote:
P.P.S. Regarding the value being in the debate, at last it seems you actually do believe that part of what you're arguing -- constant willful misinterpretation, conflation of ideas, and shifting of goalposts on your part demonstrates that pretty clearly. You don't seem interested in the basis of any point of view, but rather solely in prolonging the discussion by any means,...
I have never, throughout this entire discussion, made this sort of ad hominem about you. I expect the same from you. You may wish to think about your debate style then. It's very hard to avoid reaching this conclusion from reading your posts.
thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote:
P.P.S. Regarding the value being in the debate, at last it seems you actually do believe that part of what you're arguing -- constant willful misinterpretation, conflation of ideas, and shifting of goalposts on your part demonstrates that pretty clearly. You don't seem interested in the basis of any point of view, but rather solely in prolonging the discussion by any means,...
I have never, throughout this entire discussion, made this sort of ad hominem about you. I expect the same from you. You may wish to think about your debate style then. It's very hard to avoid reaching this conclusion from reading your posts.
The only person I've ever made personal comments about in this thread has been BNW and that's been a response to his constant attempts to make ad hominems about myself.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darkwing,
No one said you made personal comments. They said you misrepresented them, moved the goalposts and conflated ideas. As you've shifted the goalposts from that criticism to claiming 'you never made personal comments', which no one actually accused you of, it looks like at least one of the three is correct.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote:
To apply the scientific method: If you can't experiment, how do you know which tool is best for any particular area?
More seriously, how do we know that religion is the best method to study morality?
How do we know that science is the best method for studying the physical world? I'm not asking whether science is useful (religion is also useful), but how do we know that science is the best method for studying the physical world? It seems pretty obvious to me. Look at the explosion of knowledge the scientific method has led to over the last few centuries.
Do you have another candidate?
Darkwing Duck wrote: The only person I've ever made personal comments about in this thread has been BNW and that's been a response to his constant attempts to make ad hominems about myself. Calling you a post modernist is not an ad hom. Your postmodernist views and its positions on objective reality are very relevant when you're raising the objection of insufficient proof. Its the same as an atheist refusing to believe something until god tells them so.
Calling me an idiot, a moron, and my ideas s$%% in response is completely uncalled for. Its also poor argumentation: you're simply insulting the point rather than refuting it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A Man In Black wrote: Plus, it's pretty outstandingly insulting to say that belief in religion is antithetical to reason, in any context outside of science. That's why I said it's antithetical to reason and the way we understand the world empirically (meaning science).
YEC was an example, not the end of my argument. Talk to Kirth, I'm sure he knows more than I about wrong things being taught as fact than I. I do maintain this is pretty unique to religion, however. What is the point of the education system if it's going to be circumvented to indoctrinate people that the rest of the education they get is wrong or immoral?
I'd like to reiterate that I'm only talking about religion in a post-industrial sense. I'm well aware that the History of the West is replete with examples of good, intelligent, and diligent men who were also religious. I would say that in the last century no such forward thinkers who were religious didn't have some cognitive friction therein.
I have a horrendous amount of anecdotal evidence which unfortunately I can't present because of the nature of my job. But I often listen to people talk about how Pat Robertson is right and Obama is clearly the antichrist, or that "the gays" caused hurricane Katrina and 9/11 or something. You can say that speaks to a lack of religious education, but any thought based on false premises will inexorably lead to false conclusions given time.
|
