galanter wrote:
Yeah, I said all that. But what does that have to do with "detestable "Aw Shucks, Can't We All Just Get Along?" rhetoric"?

You seem to be incapable of getting off the fence here and making a decision one way or another. You say that you accept evolution and that ID is a hoax, yet you can't keep from making apologies left and right to the religious community.

I know that it's "rude" to tell religious people that they're deluded and ignorant. But it's inescapable. We can't be polite all the time.

NerblyBear wrote:

galanter wrote:

Yeah, I said all that. But what does that have to do with "detestable "Aw Shucks, Can't We All Just Get Along?" rhetoric"?

You seem to be incapable of getting off the fence here and making a decision one way or another. You say that you accept evolution and that ID is a hoax, yet you can't keep from making apologies left and right to the religious community.

I know that it's "rude" to tell religious people that they're deluded and ignorant. But it's inescapable. We can't be polite all the time.

And of course they could say you are deluded and ignorant in return. What has been accomplished?

I'm not making apologies to or for "the religious community." I'm questioning the ability of finite little blobs of protoplasm (humans) to have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that something like God doesn't exist. The intellectually honest thing to say is "I don't know."

(And yes, the question of God is different than any other question of the form "does x exist"." God is not a thing among other things. God is, in a sense, being itself not some particular thing that is here today and gone tomorrow. When we ask "does God exist" we are asking a question about the metaphysical nature of reality...that is quite different than asking "does a green dragon exist" or some such.)

(And I didn't say ID is a hoax. I think it's a tactical pretext for some. I think it's a sincere belief for others. But my biggest complaint about it is that it purports to be science, but it hasn't been scientifically established at all.)

I haven't read the last twelvety pages of this thread but i think the problem here Mr G is that the ''no doubt' - aren't you unreasonable' thing you level at science types doesn't feel like it is being levelled at religious types.
What I mean is (I drunk) I agree that many science types don't see the 'there is no truth' end of, what i venture to say is, your stick but christians and other mono theists insist in the absolute truth of their position - but with no verifiable communicable means of demonstrating this to others. Unlike scientists who can say 'well, X seems to have happened cause of Y. Here take a look...' religious (mono theistic) types say X happened because of this - fuck you and your 'evidence'!'

In other words - I agree with you but ask you to add your name to this sentence.
'Science shouldn't claim to have absolute knowledge of anything but neither should religion'

The reason people seem to get their backs up over your position is that you criticise the science types for doing the very thing the religous types do but you allow them the right by virtue of the fact that they are religious. This is hypocritical.

galanter wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:

galanter wrote:

Yeah, I said all that. But what does that have to do with "detestable "Aw Shucks, Can't We All Just Get Along?" rhetoric"?

You seem to be incapable of getting off the fence here and making a decision one way or another. You say that you accept evolution and that ID is a hoax, yet you can't keep from making apologies left and right to the religious community.

I know that it's "rude" to tell religious people that they're deluded and ignorant. But it's inescapable. We can't be polite all the time.

And of course they could say you are deluded and ignorant in return. What has been accomplished?

I'm not making apologies to or for "the religious community." I'm questioning the ability of finite little blobs of protoplasm (humans) to have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that something like God doesn't exist. The intellectually honest thing to say is "I don't know."

(And yes, the question of God is different than any other question of the form "does x exist"." God is not a thing among other things. God is, in a sense, being itself not some particular thing that is here today and gone tomorrow. When we ask "does God exist" we are asking a question about the metaphysical nature of reality...that is quite different than asking "does a green dragon exist" or some such.)

(And I didn't say ID is a hoax. I think it's a tactical pretext for some. I think it's a sincere belief for others. But my biggest complaint about it is that it purports to be science, but it hasn't been scientifically established at all.)

I don't say, "I don't have any doubt whatsoever about God's nonexistence." He may very well exist.

But what's at issue here is the fraud perpetrated by the religious community when they pass off nonsense as science. I have seen this with certain ID'ers that I've talked to. They will say and think absolutely anything one can say and think in order to prove that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. For them, that presupposition is the necessary hook on which everything else depends.

For instance, this one guy I know points to gaps in the geological record as proof that evolution is suspect. Fine, I can accept a suspicion. But he thinks this suspicion is enough to give him "carte blanche" for his Biblical beliefs.This scanty evidence is enough for him to throw out theories of evolution wholesale, without even understanding the science behind it.

And that's what it all boils down to, it seems to me. "Carte blanche" for having faith. Because, without faith, how could we talk to our families? What would all of our friends from church say? They'd probably call us sinners and stop hanging out with us. We would be lost at sea, adrift, without anything to anchor us down, paralyzed by fear. We can't let that happen.

This is a serious conflict, and I can understand why people would never want to open up this can of worms. For a Christian who has been home-schooled by loving parents, has gone to church every Sunday for every week of his life, has formed all of his social ties around the idea of faith, the loss of this faith would represent the loss of an entire way of living. It would be like moving to another country where the people spoke a language you didn't understand.

To really understand why people like me are so horrified and angry at fundamentalist Christians, you have to see certain things. You have to see obviously gay young men doing everything in their power to appear straight to their friends and family. You have to see young men and women forced to go through a process of "courting" for marriage, where the issue of sex is not even raised because it's too dangerous to do so. You have to see how Christianity can blind and silence people to realize why people such as me are not falling all over themselves to be "polite" and "respectful" of religious beliefs.


The guy I mentioned above also claims that Adam and Eve lived with dinosaurs. I mean, that is just crazy. How could fully developed humans live with dinosaurs? We know that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, because we now have technology which can help us prove it.

This is an intelligent, seemingly reasonable guy who gets A's in all of his philosophy classes. He can tell you all about hermeneutics, Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. And he believes that humans lived with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago. One can only imagine the fantasies that less-intelligent people are coming up with.

I'm sorry if I came across as a dick, but it's because I feel strongly that these people should be shocked into a recognition of their own intellectual dishonesty. Too many people are afraid of offending people's religious feelings, and too few are willing to be bluntly honest and tell them how ridiculous their theories are.

I don't think Christians are crazy or stupid. I do realize the value of religion, and the beauty of it. But the truth is the truth. Your evasion of the issue of evolution--basically, claiming that it can have no effect on faith in a Creator--is an easy way of keeping these people in a position to keep from looking at scientific evidence.

For me, the belief in God is impossible precisely because of evolution. I know many people who have come to the same conclusion. I'm not saying that it's not still possible that God exists. What I am saying is that is overwhelmingly likely that at least one version of Him (the Biblical one) is false, based on the fact that this Book claims that He created the world in seven days. That's just not true. Hence, Christianity is impossible for people who accept the evolution hypothesis. Strictly impossible.

NerblyBear,

trust me on this, I've known lots of Christians and I am well aware of the pain certain strains of Christianity can cause. I agree with much of what you say about the ID position. Something more worthwhile than "Evolution...true or false?" when speaking with them might be "Can a Christian believe in evolution?" I think the answer is yes, and nudging ID people in that direction would make the world a better place for all involved IMHO.

Earwicker,

I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately science and religion(s) are epistemologically different, and you can't make one like the other without introducing internal inconsistencies.

Science as a method has established for itself a number of limitations as to the claims it can make. And 20th century science (mostly physics) has discovered even more. Science can only make modest claims, and if it goes beyond those limitations it becomes internally inconsistent.

Religion, on the other hand, can posit things like an infinite all knowing all powerful God. Such a God by definition can choose to reveal (big "T") Truth to humans. To state such revealed truth is impossible is to create an internal inconsistency...God by definition cannot be so limited.

I'm not saying those who claim to have religiously revealed truth actually do have it. I'm just saying there is no obvious contradiction in the claim, and it's reasonable in terms of non-contradiction to expect scientists to be circumspect in ways that the religious are not required to be.

galanter wrote:
Science as a method has established for itself a number of limitations as to the claims it can make. And 20th century science (mostly physics) has discovered even more. Science can only make modest claims, and if it goes beyond those limitations it becomes internally inconsistent.

I always wonder whether people who decide science should be 'limited' and 'modest' would opt to go their life (and their parents' life) without asceptic medicine, penicillin, antibacterials, most painkillers, x-rays, obstetric medicine, and hundreds of other difficult medical inventions and principles based upon a progressive implementation of the scientific method that without which, they probably wouldn't be here.

Why is the scientific method in the last 150 years so welcomed, accepted, lauded, and praised when it extends human life, but found so wanting when it conflicts with centuries old medieval religious doctrines?

johnnyshape wrote:

galanter wrote:
Science as a method has established for itself a number of limitations as to the claims it can make. And 20th century science (mostly physics) has discovered even more. Science can only make modest claims, and if it goes beyond those limitations it becomes internally inconsistent.

I always wonder whether people who decide science should be 'limited' and 'modest' would opt to go their life (and their parents' life) without asceptic medicine, penicillin, antibacterials, most painkillers, x-rays, obstetric medicine, and hundreds of other difficult medical inventions and principles based upon a progressive implementation of the scientific method that without which, they probably wouldn't be here.

Why is the scientific method in the last 150 years so welcomed, accepted, lauded, and praised when it extends human life, but found so wanting when it conflicts with centuries old medieval religious doctrines?

Because it would require intellectual consistency.

What is a modest claim?

"The world was not created in 7 days" certainly doesn't seem to be a modest claim.

"Life evolved over millions of years rather than in one single creation" is not a modest claim.

"Life evolved over millions of years through processes that show no evidence of, and furthermore require no evidence of, any influence other than chance and fitness" is certainly not a modest claim.

But this shit is all entirely within the realm of science and scientifically accurate.

Oh well.

galanter wrote:trust me on this, I've known lots of Christians and I am well aware of the pain certain strains of Christianity can cause. I agree with much of what you say about the ID position. Something more worthwhile than "Evolution...true or false?" when speaking with them might be "Can a Christian believe in evolution?" I think the answer is yes.

I feel I should say something hinging on this.

I personally have no problem with the notion that living things on earth slowly evolved over vast amounts of time in and of itself. However, there is no solid evidence that this in fact has taken place; the theory of biological evolution is riddled with holes and severe problems which I won't mention here.


I do have a problem when it is asserted that all living things originated chaotically, spontaneously and randomly from non-living matter. This is utterly impossible. Intricate, specified order in anything whether it be living or non-living requires an intelligence to order it, and coincidentially to make it intelligible. Spontaneous genesis of organic life has never been demonstrated and has never been proven to occur from observation either. The sheer amount of minute specificity in living things moreover seems to suggest some intelligent hand indeed was and is behind the origin of living things; such a notion is perfectly reasonable.

So,

*If you assume that an intelligence designed living things but there's no possible way that they could have evolved, then I'd have to say "well, not necessarily".

*If you assume that an intelligence designed living things to evolve biologically, ok.

*If you assume all living things have their origin in one primal organism which itself originated happenchance with no intelligence behind it, I cannot agree with you.

That's where I stand. I can accept evolution as a scientific theory. It's just a really poor one, and many of the leading proponents of it have had or have an anti-religious prejudice.

matthew wrote:Intricate, specified order in anything whether it be living or non-living requires an intelligence to order it, and coincidentially to make it intelligible.

Bullshit.

That's where I stand. I can accept evolution as a scientific theory. It's just a really poor one, and many of the leading proponents of it have had or have an anti-religious prejudice.

Your definition of "poor scientific theory" is based entirely in your absolute ignorance of science and your desperate desire to preserve your little myths, and your definition of "anti-religious prejudice" is simply "anyone who doesn't need god to explain things."

galanter wrote:
(And yes, the question of God is different than any other question of the form "does x exist"." God is not a thing among other things. God is, in a sense, being itself not some particular thing that is here today and gone tomorrow. When we ask "does God exist" we are asking a question about the metaphysical nature of reality...that is quite different than asking "does a green dragon exist" or some such.)

you're making suppositions about the nature of god and then you're treating them as a facts to show that question of god existance is from a different class of question that question's of everything else's existance. this is circle reasoning, and i think it's one step away from anselm's proof of god's existance.