Mariner Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 So is it time for my customary caution for everyone about literalism?Before I would even bother with Mariner, I would like to see his refutation of fideismhttp://plato.stanfor...ntries/fideism/From your own reference: Fideism ---- answers that faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason. Why would you think one arguing from a position of science and reason would need to refute such an concept or statement?I would agree with this view and ask you to explain what utility or value fideism (faith-ism: unfounded belief and superstition) has in an age of reason.
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) From your own reference:Why would you think one arguing from a position of science and reason would need to refute such an concept or statement?I would agree with this view and ask you to explain what utility or value fideism (faith-ism: unfounded belief and superstition) has in an age of reason.Unfounded belief and superstition?You are speaking about some of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century- Have you even heard of them?Science does not capture the full range of human experience.Read the article and you will learn something. It is an exploration of the limits of reason- you are just showing your ignorance. Edited February 29, 2012 by mfbukowski
Mariner Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Unfounded belief and superstition?You are speaking about some of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century- Have you even heard of them?Science does not capture the full range of human experience.Read the article and you will learn something. It is an exploration of the limits of reason- you are just showing your ignorance.We are talking about "fideism", a term that you introduced, which literally means faith-ism. Faith is best defined as unfounded belief, which is synonymous with superstition.If you want to talk about philosophy, that would be fine. However, this thread is about the unfounded belief in a particularly offensive variation of creationism known as intelligent design.
cdowis Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) cdowis,One difference between a religionist and a scientist is that unless the latter can see physical evidence (or at least strong mathematical evidence) in support of a claim regarding some natural phenomenon, he or she is unlikely to believe it exists or spend much time worrying about it. Interesting, so you assert it is not possible to be a "religionist" and a scientist at the same time. Your leaps of logic are astonishing and very entertaining.I presume that the scientist has no happiness, no joy in marriage or family, because there is no reality beyond the physical.and mathematical models. Edited February 29, 2012 by cdowis
selek1 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Intelligent design is neither intelligent nor designed. It is a creationist answer to try and get around teaching religion in science classes. It is a fictive response to well defined arguments of separating church from education. Science should be taught as science. Religion should be left to seminary classes.This is, ironically, a statement of faith and dogma rather than coherent argument.Setting aside the dismissive slur which is the first sentence, we can analyze the rest of the statement logically.It is a creationist answer to try and get around teaching religion in science classes. This assigns a purely hypothetical orthodoxy and creedal purity to science which true science does not claim for itself. The statement assumes (against the best scientific practices) that there is only one school of "correct" thought in science- an assumption and declaration which is itself tantamount to a religious catechism. It also both begs the question and engages in circular logic. Finally, it is an enormous leap of unsubstantiated mind-reading. Rather than addressing the merits or flaws of creationism, the author of this statement prefers to assign nefarious motives to those with whom he disagrees.It is a fictive response to well defined arguments of separating church from education. The problem with this sentence is three-fold. First, "well-defined" is a subjective term, at best. What may be "well-defined" to the committed atheist is not necessarily so to anyone else. It must also be considered that "well-defined" is NOT synonymous with "well-reasoned". Adherents to the flat-earth school of thought can offer a well-defined argument, but is does not make their reasoning any more sound nor their conclusions any more factual.Second, the separation of "church and education" is both a false dichotomy and a subjective moral/religious judgement.Who decided that a separation of "church and education" was a wise policy?Upon what grounds did they make this decision?Who exactly appointed these individuals as the ultimate and final arbiter?As with the second sentence, this second statement endorses and advances a dogmatic insistence that "the issue is settled" and that there is only one "right" way to think or believe.Such a stance absolutely reeks of dogmatism- the very sin which the author pretends to condemn.Third- and most damning- the false premise of "separating church from education" is inconsistently and unevenly applied. Ridding education of any and all religious influences is a practical impossibility, and demands that the "correct" thinker expunge the vast majority of art, literature, philosophy, and yes, science developed over the whole of human civilization.Bradbury aptly foretold this tendency in his short story Usher II (which later became part of the Martian Chronicles). "Every man, they said, must face reality. Must face the Here and Now! Everything that was not so must go." "You know the law. Strict to the letter. No books, no houses, nothing to be produced which in any way suggests ghosts, vampires, fairies, or any creature of the imagination." "You've caused us a lot of trouble, Mr. Stendahl. It's in the record. Twenty years ago. On Earth. You and your library." "Yes, me and my library. And a few others like me. Oh, Poe's been forgotten for many years now, and Oz and the other creatures. But I had my little cache. We had our libraries, a few private citizens, until you sent your men around with torches and incinerators and tore my fifty thousand books up and burned them. Just as you put a stake through the heart of Halloween and told your film producers that if they made anything at all they would have to make and remake Earnest Hemingway. My God, how many times have I seen For Whom the Bell Tolls done! Thirty different versions. All realistic. Oh, realism! Oh, here, oh, now, oh hell! The men stepped out in evening clothes and the women stepped out after them, their hair coiffed up in elaborate detail. "So that's Usher!" "But where's the door?" At this moment Stendahl appeared. The women laughed and chattered. Mr. Stendahl raised a hand to quiet them. Turning, he looked up to a high castle window and called: "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair." And from above, a beautiful maiden leaned out upon the night wind and let down her golden hair. And the hair twined and blew and became a ladder upon which the guests might ascend, laughing, into the House. What eminent sociologists! What clever psychologists! What tremendously important politicians, bacteriologists, and neurologists! There they stood, within the dank walls. "Welcome, all of you!" Mr. Tryon, Mr. Owen, Mr. Dunne, Mr. Lang, Mr. Steffens, Mr. Fletcher, and a double-dozen more. "Come in, come in!" Miss Gibbs, Miss Pope, Miss Churchil, Miss Blunt, Miss Drummond, and a score of other women, glittering. Eminent, eminent people, one and all, members of the Society for the Prevention of Fantasy, advocators of the banishment of Halloween and Guy Fawkes, killers of bats, burners of books, bearers of torches; good clean citizens, every one, who had waited until the rough men had come up and buried the Martians and cleansed the cities and built the towns and repaired the highways and made everything safe. And then, with everything well on its way to Safety, the Spoil-Funs, the people with mercurochrome for blood and iodine-colored eyes, came now to set up their Moral Climates and dole out goodness to everyone.This philosophy is advanced, ironically, when science itself is not settled on "what is", and when subjective judgement and qualified assumption ply the halls of academia like the spin-mist from Stendahl's fog-machine!I do have to thank you on one note though: Until now, I had not realized that the title "Investigator of Moral Climates" and the "Moral Climates Committee" were themselves examples of deep irony.Science should be taught as science. Religion should be left to seminary classes. Again, this is a statement of dogmatic absolutism and subjective judgement. Such judgement (in a free society) is subject to vigorous debate and spirited dissent.Ironically, the absolutism on display here is coming solely from the camp that claims to be "open-minded".
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I presume that the scientist has no happiness, no joy in marriage or family, because there is no reality beyond the physical.and mathematical models.That's precisely the issue that he totally misses. He is very confused about this- the most important decisions of his life cannot be based on science- yet he doesn't see it.There are none so blind as those who will not see.
thesometimesaint Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Mariner:http://mormonscholarstestify.org/
thesometimesaint Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Selek1:The reason for keeping the two separate is that it preserves the independence of both to act within their respective spheres.
selek1 Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Selek1:The reason for keeping the two separate is that it preserves the independence of both to act within their respective spheres.The idea that science and religion occupy two separate spheres- and never the twain shall meet- is itself an artifical theological construct and a relatively recent philosophical invention.Despite the comfort and ego boost offered by that sort of presentism, it has been the religionists who pushed the bounds of rationale science for most of recorded human history.Of course, when I was in school- lo these ,many years ago- we were taught that science was the pursuit of Fact, while religion was the search for Truth.If the line between Truth and Fact has been blurred over the years, it is the materialists and rationalists who have done so- in that their latest scientific and pholosophical dogmas are forever being presented as unchallengable and unassailable Truths.I ascribe much of this to the corrosive nature of politics and money- those screaming the most loudly (or with the most powerful lobbies) get the cash.Much was made in the 50's about the "military-industrial complex", and much is made today about the alleged "separation of Church and State".If religion and education must be separate so as to preserve "the independence of both to act within their respective spheres", shouldn't we likewise see a separation between Science and State- if only to guarantee that Science is not corrupted by political ambition?If science must be kept pure from unholy religious contamination, must it not likewise be protected from impure political calculation, as well? Edited March 1, 2012 by selek1
Mariner Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Mariner:http://mormonscholarstestify.org/thesometimesaint,A website wherein academics or others with scientific or technical jobs profess their belief in demonstrably false religious truth claims is not the way to convince one who does not believe this (ID) nonsense that it would be a good idea to do so.Bashing sMormon scholars is not a good way to keep your posting priveldges on a Mormon discussion board. -Ares Edited March 1, 2012 by Ares
mfbukowski Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 A website wherein academics or others with scientific or technical jobs profess their belief in demonstrably false religious truth claims is not the way to convince one who does not believe this (ID) nonsense that it would be a good idea to do so.A post wherein he who does not understand warranted non-objective beliefs, and displays his ignorance of such principles, is not the way to convince one who does understand such things, that your nonsensical fundamentalistic dogmatism is even worth considering.Those who are on Dr Peterson's website, and who are actually educated in such matters, are perfectly justified in their beliefs whereas you appear to have no understanding of the philosophy of science. You have made no attempt to refute for example, the views of Thomas Kuhn, nor have you shown any understanding whatsoever of any of these issues.If you want any credibility whatsoever, I would suggest that you upgrade your sophomoric arguments
bcuzbcuz Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Rather than addressing the merits or flaws of creationism, the author of this statement prefers to assign nefarious motives to those with whom he disagrees.You're right. I did not address the merits or flaws of intelligent design. I do not assign nefarious motives to those I disagree with; I assign nefarious motives to the conspiracy of intelligent design.I don't know your reference points in church history or doctrine but I can say with an absolute certainty that "intelligent design" was not put forth from church publications or the pulpit from the early fifties through the 80's. Look up the groups and names behind the concept. You'll find Ken Ham and and his ilk; Answers in Genesis and Creation Museum and the Noah Project among others."Intelligent design" is a piecework of smoke and mirrors by people pushing for an objective that includes circuit speech fees and book contracts. Wealth is their motivator. Mormons who jump on this bandwagon will soon find themselves rudderless and abandoned.
bcuzbcuz Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) This just in: Man finds image of Christ on his tortilla.http://www.koat.com/...508/detail.htmlthread banned Edited March 1, 2012 by Minos
thesometimesaint Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Mariner:For the record I don't support ID as a scientific statement either. What I have consistantly said is that it is my belief that God used Evolution in the Creation of everything. My arguement is one of why's not how's.
Bikeemikey Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) The truth to Mariner comments is that if many of us were shown direct and irrefutable evidence of the falsity of our belief's we would likely either be incapable of seeing it or continue to believe as we do despite the evidence.As a member of the church I am not sure that I could be persuaded away from the church by evidence unless I first "lost" my "faith".I have thought about this a lot over the last week as I have been reading Mariner's posts. I think this is a valid observation.My faith has an impact on my rational objectivity. I am willing to suspend my awareness of many empirical data sets in order to accomodate my belief. I don't think this is wrong or bad - Mariner obviously does.That said I do wonder about how objective a person professing a principle of faith can really be when it comes to truly objective rational observation - but then, perhaps truly rational observation is either it self a myth, or if it is attainable, perhaps it doesn't actually have any material benefit over a faith/rationality hybrid. Edited March 2, 2012 by Bikeemikey
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Mariner:For the record I don't support ID as a scientific statement either. What I have consistantly said is that it is my belief that God used Evolution in the Creation of everything. My arguement is one of why's not how's.Neither do I.It is clearly not a scientific position.
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 ... but then, perhaps truly rational observation is either it self a myth, or if it is attainable, perhaps it doesn't actually have any material benefit of a faith/rationality hybrid.I think you would do well to pursue that option as a way to see what we call "reality".Science works as a tool- that is indisputable. It enables us to develop technology etc. But it only looks at evidence we all can observe, and then linguistically characterizes it. Everything we say is essentially a metaphor- because when we say "chair" a chair does not come out of our mouth- what comes out is a symbol or representation or sign, in a sense- a metaphor for "what is real". Language is inherently interpretive- we filter out the experience of a room and turn our attention only to the chair when we say the word "chair", so inherently just abstracting the word does not fully capture the full experience of that particular white leather comfortable chair as an old friend- as we experience it. Science ignores subjective experiences and the direct non-linguistic nature of experience, especially religious experience, and cannot account for the truth of moral statements which are also based on subjective judgements.It also does not well explain faith - the "evidence of things unseen" and yet hoped for, both in a religious sense and in a practical sense. Yet in fact, almost everything we do seeks some benefit which is yet "unseen".Even when we go to the cleaners and drop off the laundry we expect an unseen benefit that the laundry will actually be there next Wednesday and that it will be clean and ready to use. We go to school looking for the unseen benefit of obtaining a good job and accept on faith - the evidence of what is unseen- that it will happen.It doesn't always work that way obviously!
rodheadlee Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Just to ask a question here from an uneducated guy. Where does the Cambrian Exlosion fit in all of this? It seems to me sentient life was injected into the galaxy or just Earth in one fell swoop. It doesn't really seem to fit Darwin's model of evolution. Edited March 2, 2012 by rodheadlee
thesometimesaint Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Rodheadlee:Nature(life) abhors a vacuum. It will fill every ecological niche that it can adapt to.
thesometimesaint Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Bikeemikey:You might find this helpful.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
KevinG Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Coming in a bit late but has anyone distinguished the system of belief known as Intelligent Design (as in young earth creationism) and the belief that there is intelligence and a plan behind creation?If its the former most Mormons don't subscribe to it and we don't teach it as doctrine. If it is the latter we're generally pretty cool with the idea.
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Coming in a bit late but has anyone distinguished the system of belief known as Intelligent Design (as in young earth creationism) and the belief that there is intelligence and a plan behind creation?If its the former most Mormons don't subscribe to it and we don't teach it as doctrine. If it is the latter we're generally pretty cool with the idea.I think this is precisely where most Mormons who believe in intelligent design go wrong. By definition of "science" it is not a scientific idea- but that doesn't mean that God does not direct the unfolding of intelligences on earth according to his plan.But as always, I think spiritual ideas like that last one have nothing to do with what can be seen in the evidence.The existence of a plan cannot be proven scientifically- but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.
Recommended Posts