Cranius wrote:Hey, fuck you, American Baby! You spoilt little shitbag!
Sorry, Dad.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
242scott wrote:Cranius wrote:
Hey, fuck you, American Baby! You spoilt little shitbag!
BEST... POST... EVER!!!
That's fucking brilliant! But..not entirely surprising. My mum would say some shit like " only in America" but I bet, I just bet you there are some badass neo nazi skin head English bastards who have the St George flag equivalent. I mean, I am scared of neighbourhoods where they have George flags attached to the roofs, cars, clothes. I know the star spangled duvet is hanging all over the States but, a better comparison would be hanging Confederate flags EVERYWHERE. Did that make sense? You know whut I'm sayin'?
PS. I am lousy with technology, if someone can find an example of what I'm on about and post it, I will say a little prayer for you...
Tom wrote: I remember going in the back and seeing him headbanging to Big Black. He looked like he was raping the air- really. He had this look on his face like, "yeah air... you know you want it.".
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
243matthew wrote:M_a_x wrote:What the heck is SUPERRATIONAL?
That which is above the ability of the human intellect to FULLY understand....
That makes zero sense. Rationality, at it's core, is a basic human tool for understanding our sensory perceptions. From these perceptions, there's nothing that indicates things beyond our understanding - in theory (of course there's things about the Universe we don't understand, but reason and science don't demand we know every little thing in existence as a matter of fact, just how we process and build on our initial concrete experiences). To 'understand' something 'beyond reason' is to acquire knowledge through a non-rational means - remember, your context is the supernatural here - which is irrational. You can't say "Well, believing in elves is irrational, believing in the almighty Danzig is irrational, but God? SUPERNATURAL". It's just a word you're throwing out with little regards to what it means. You have to define it, but of course you can't if you're admitting it's beyond your understanding.
No no no........ God has given us an intellect in order for us to know Him......this is quite obvious. You are creating an imaginary boundary between faith and reason. No such dichotomy exists. How could it? If God is Truth and therefore all that is real and true has its source in Him, then how could matters of faith and matters of reason contradict each other?
You're not reading the gospel with the eyes of faith.
This cracked me up, Matthew. "Through the eyes of faith" - so I have all these quotes from scripture which are obvious, vulgar attacks on reason, but if I look at it "through the eyes of faith" that problem will just disappear? It reminds me of the several religious wars based on different readings, from different "eyes of faith". Jesus said blatently don't strike your enemies, yet we have a horde of Christians in this country eager to pull the death penalty switch on people - how do they resolve this dichotomy? "Through the eyes of faith", obviously.
If you're telling me I'm getting things wrong because I'm not looking through the 'eyes of faith', then everytime you say "eyes of faith" I'm going to substitute "irrationally" - since faith is irrational in nature, as I've said. So, my problem was:
"You're not reading the gospel irrationally".
Sorry about that.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
244galanter wrote:I see this discussion has gone to some other places, and I'll just watch that happen because I have to get some work done. But I do want to correct various strawmen and attributions that have been pointed my way by posting this summary of what I've been saying.
As a matter of principle science and religion can inform each other, but they cannot provide a definitive critique of each other. Science confines it's inspections to that which is empirically falsifiable, and religion's realm includes things which are not empirically falsifiable. Trying to use science to disprove religion, or using religion to overturn science, will always lead to frustration because there is no universally accepted higher ground from which to judge between the two.
The practical implication of this is that science and religion should be considered closed systems which can be internally consistent and rational, but which are nevertheless bounded by their differing methodologies.
While it's likely true that for many advocates ID is a religiously motivated political movement, the best response is simply to hold ID to scientific rigor. Until ID has made the case scientifically, by asserting falsifiable hypotheses, by conducting experiments or observations that can be independently verified, by having studies published in peer review journals, and so on...ID is not established science and therefore should not be taught in science class.
In terms of social impact I'm taking the position that nothing much will be accomplished by painting one side as being irrational and stupid, and the other as being evil and unenlightened. My feeling is that if people properly understood and *viscerally felt* the way the two domains are disconnected in principle, that might allow for a more constructive and less hostile mutual coexistence.
No one is painting theism as irrational. It IS irrational, by it's very nature. You can't say "it has it's own rationality" - rationality implies reason, which I've spelled out ad infinitum in regards to how it is used to acquire knowledge. If someone is a theist and believes themselves to have knowledge concerning that which exists outside rational thought, that knowledge has no basis in reality.
To wit: there's no "2 different kinds of toolboxes" in your head to acquire knowledge. There's the toolbox of reason, and when you are acquiring knowledge by faith, you're not whipping out an alternate toolbox. There is no alternate toolbox. You're putting reason away and entering into the sphere of the irrational.
There's no hostility here. It's fairly cut and dry, from an epistemologist view. I have LOTS of friends of varying faiths - Jewish, Christian, some new age-types. They are all fine people, and from my gentle queries (ie, I don't say "You're full of rubbish") I've got the idea that they know they're disconnecting with regards to their faith, and they view that as an integral part of their faith. Which is what I've been saying all along.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
245fantasmatical thorr wrote:I am lousy with technology, if someone can find an example of what I'm on about and post it, I will say a little prayer for you...
Here are a few examples of creative use of the Union Jack, including on a baby product, as part of a woman's clothing line and as part of a successful alpine expedition.
Hope that helps.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
246Thanks! Although the George flag is different, it's the red cross on white background and I couldn't see the baby thing. I'm not authorised apparently...Gracias!
Tom wrote: I remember going in the back and seeing him headbanging to Big Black. He looked like he was raping the air- really. He had this look on his face like, "yeah air... you know you want it.".
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
247
Tom wrote: I remember going in the back and seeing him headbanging to Big Black. He looked like he was raping the air- really. He had this look on his face like, "yeah air... you know you want it.".
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
248fantasmatical thorr wrote:Thanks! Although the George flag is different
Oh, I am quite familiar with this flag. You see, I purposely ignored your specific request.
It has been your pleasure.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
249Well I guess that is that then:
BBC
...the decision by Republican judge John Jones was a landmark ruling and represents quite a blow to religious conservatives.
In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief.
He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.
The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
BBC
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
250M_a_x wrote:
No one is painting theism as irrational. It IS irrational, by it's very nature. You can't say "it has it's own rationality" - rationality implies reason, which I've spelled out ad infinitum in regards to how it is used to acquire knowledge. If someone is a theist and believes themselves to have knowledge concerning that which exists outside rational thought, that knowledge has no basis in reality.
To wit: there's no "2 different kinds of toolboxes" in your head to acquire knowledge. There's the toolbox of reason, and when you are acquiring knowledge by faith, you're not whipping out an alternate toolbox. There is no alternate toolbox. You're putting reason away and entering into the sphere of the irrational.
We part ways here. Rationality, first, has more than one form. Both mathematics and science are species of rationality, but they are clearly different. One uses empiricism the other couldn't care less about the measurable world.
What *would* be irrational, for example, would be to define God as being beyond physical measurement, but then expect science to be able to give a full account and critique of religious truths.
It's also not at all clear that the mind doesn't have "multiple tools boxes" and that our apparently unified view of the world is not nearly as integrated as it seems. There are all manner of examples from psychology, including brain imaging and studies from brain injuries, that point in this direction.
Finally, in the realm of "rational is as rational does" I'll again trot out St. Thomas as one of *many* examples of rational theology.
Saying someone isn't rational shouldn't mean they tried to be rational but made a mistake somewhere along the line, or that they tried to be rational but embrace first principles you disagree with, or that they tried to be rational but you disagree with their conclusions. Saying someone isn't rational shouldn't even mean they aren't empirical, lest you want to cast mathematics into the sea of irrationality.
Saying someone isn't rational should be a critique of methodology, and clearly rationality is an important part of religion and the practice of theology.