jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I apologize for any offense my comments on the "blather" quote may have created. I was not intending to be offensive. I do stand by the notion that many mainstream Christian religions accept that God is both ineffable and indescribable. This has been true of my learning while studying religion at university as well as while engaging with my many mainstream Christian friends. I would also add that with the exception of the LDS notion of God being embodied the LDS God is really no more describable. I think many LDS consider the Mormon notion of God more describable because of the direct idea of a physically incarnate God. I don't think you were being offensive, and I apologize for misreading your initial comments. Yes, traditional Christianity has described God as ineffable and beyond human understanding. I doubt any mainstream Christian would dispute that or find it offensive. But the notion that deeply held beliefs are nonsensical blather that lead to a dead spirituality--well, yeah, that's pretty damned offensive.
MiserereNobis Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 My point was that even the scientific method cannot be tested by it's own method and neither can ID. Paradigms work for a specific purpose or they don't, but none are "true" independent of their use as a tool to accomplish a pre-defined purpose. I would not be surprised to see ID gain more proponents, oddly enough. Here's an interesting article by prominent philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. It is wonderfully burlesque in tone (which makes it fun to read) andt he does make some great points concerning science, ideology, freedom vs. truth, the scientific method and scientific results. How to Defend Society Against Science (note: it is not fundamental nor religious, so don't make assumptions based on the title). As far as proving the scientific method using the scientific method goes, that reminds me of the problem of induction. Inductive reasoning works because inductive reasoning shows me that it works. And round and round we go. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I will just note that the Dembski article Rob linked to rests in large part on the irreducible complexity argument. Dembski's argument is a God of the Gaps argument. Something everyone should be aware of.
mfbukowski Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Indeed. 3DOP's reasonable request that such things be retracted has gone unanswered, except for Ahab's continued offensiveness. I like how 3DOP asks you ("you" does not mean jk, but those who speak with such condescension of Catholic dogmas) to think of Christian doctrine: as a successful mistake. When Mormons dismiss it as blather, nonsense, absurdity, impossibility, etc, you are basically saying that the greatest religious thinkers in the past were incredibly dumb. That is arrogant and prideful. Can you write a book like Summa Theologica? I seriously doubt it. You may disagree with it, you may disagree with its conclusions, but if you do not respect Catholic Theology as a serious intellectual pursuit with serious intellectual people pursuing it, then it appears to me that you are showing your own ignorance. I disagree with Mormonism yet I do not think it is stupid. Something can be wrong and quite intelligent at the same time (take Newton's physics, for example, or Euclid's geometry). Please don't tell us our doctrines about God are stupid and non-sensical. It is much more respectful (and intellectually honest) to call them successful mistakes. They have, after all, nourished millions and millions of souls for nearly two thousand years. (there's some pragmatism for ya) Thank you. ETA: It occurs to me that the Book of Mormon falls into the same category for me. I don't agree with it, I don't believe it is historical nor inspired (obviously, or I would be a Mormon), but I don't think it is stupid. It is a complex text with many intellectually stimulating ideas. For me it is a successful mistake.I see our lack of clearly defined doctrine and open Canon as pragmatic strengths. Aquinas was one of the greatest minds to ever exist, but like all of us, he was a prisoner of his time. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Here's an interesting article by prominent philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. It is wonderfully burlesque in tone (which makes it fun to read) andt he does make some great points concerning science, ideology, freedom vs. truth, the scientific method and scientific results. How to Defend Society Against Science (note: it is not fundamental nor religious, so don't make assumptions based on the title). As far as proving the scientific method using the scientific method goes, that reminds me of the problem of induction. Inductive reasoning works because inductive reasoning shows me that it works. And round and round we go.Wonderful! One everyone on should read but of course will not. Put it on the list. 1
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I see our lack of clearly defined doctrine and open Canon as pragmatic strengths. Aquinas was one of the greatest minds to ever exist, but like all of us, he was a prisoner of his time. I take it then, that you agree that it's not good form to call someone else's beliefs "blather."
Ahab Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Indeed. 3DOP's reasonable request that such things be retracted has gone unanswered, except for Ahab's continued offensiveness.I like how 3DOP asks you ("you" does not mean jk, but those who speak with such condescension of Catholic dogmas) to think of Christian doctrine: as a successful mistake. When Mormons dismiss it as blather, nonsense, absurdity, impossibility, etc, you are basically saying that the greatest religious thinkers in the past were incredibly dumb. That is arrogant and prideful. Can you write a book like Summa Theologica? I seriously doubt it. You may disagree with it, you may disagree with its conclusions, but if you do not respect Catholic Theology as a serious intellectual pursuit with serious intellectual people pursuing it, then it appears to me that you are showing your own ignorance.I disagree with Mormonism yet I do not think it is stupid. Something can be wrong and quite intelligent at the same time (take Newton's physics, for example, or Euclid's geometry).Please don't tell us our doctrines about God are stupid and non-sensical. It is much more respectful (and intellectually honest) to call them successful mistakes. They have, after all, nourished millions and millions of souls for nearly two thousand years. (there's some pragmatism for ya)Thank you.ETA: It occurs to me that the Book of Mormon falls into the same category for me. I don't agree with it, I don't believe it is historical nor inspired (obviously, or I would be a Mormon), but I don't think it is stupid. It is a complex text with many intellectually stimulating ideas. For me it is a successful mistake.So in your mind blather does not equate to a successful mistake. Okay. I suppose using 2 words is better than using only one word, but I think we can do better than that. Let's get into what you mean by a "successful" mistake. Successful in what sense? We're still talking about a mistake, so what are you suggesting the mistake is good for? I learn what not to do from my mistakes, and it's usually better to avoid mistakes in the first place.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 So in your mind blather does not equate to a successful mistake. Okay. I suppose using 2 words is better than using only one word, but I think we can do better than that. Let's get into what you mean by a "successful" mistake. Successful in what sense? We're still talking about a mistake, so what are you suggesting the mistake is good for? I learn what not to do from my mistakes, and it's usually better to avoid mistakes in the first place. So, no, you don't feel it's wrong to show disrespect for other people's beliefs. Got it.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Again I have no problem with God or with science. Some 40% of all current American scientists have no problem with God or with science. You have created a false dichotomy hoop in your own mind and expected me to jump through it. I won't do it! To me science merely explains how God did/does it IE; I believe God took matter unorganized and fashioned our earth. There is nothing in LDS belief about how God took that matter unorganized and fashioned our earth only that he did. The best evidence so far is that a accretion disks formed from gravity and coalescing dust to form our sun and planets. Whether God was involved is not a subject for science.So, you admit a material physical entity did something scientific to create life but what he did is not a subject of science? Thats like saying Pasteur really did advance germ theory, vaccinations, etc, but that what he did is not the subject of science.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 See Wedge Document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy Other statements of Johnson's acknowledge that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote a theistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy. Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools".Let me put you to task- Go to any of the leading Intelligent Design websites (not creationist) and show me where, anywhere on their sites, that their prime objective is to teach Genesis or any biblical figure and ways of worship? I earnestly await...but I am certainly not going to hold my breath.
Ahab Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 My point was that even the scientific method cannot be tested by it's own method and neither can ID.Paradigms work for a specific purpose or they don't, but none are "true" independent of their use as a tool to accomplish a pre-defined purpose. I would not be surprised to see ID gain more proponents, oddly enough.The scientific method is a method, and I think the best method, for discovering something, and yes it can be used to test whether or not you can discover something. The proof is in what you discover by using that method of discovery, so if you don't think it is useful you can put it to the test to see if you can discover something with it. I even used it to discover God, and I continue to use it to gain more knowledge from and about God. It's awesome. Just put it to a test.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 It's been observed directly, and it is also in keeping with the laws of physics Loose matter in space tends to coalesce into balls due to gravitational attraction. Get enough mass in there and things start to heat up. Pretty soon you've got a solar system. And where is the intelligence? Show me the intelligence, show me the intelligence.
Ahab Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 So, no, you don't feel it's wrong to show disrespect for other people's beliefs. Got it.Respect as in a high regard? For a belief I know is wrong? No, not respect in that sense, but I do try to be nice when telling someone they are wrong about something.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Respect as in a high regard? For a belief I know is wrong? No, not respect in that sense, but I do try to be nice when telling someone they are wrong about something. By calling it "blather." Got it.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 When I look in my telescope and see a planet over in yonder heaving being formed, then go a way for a week and come back and it is still being formed I can confirm that it was not formed in 7 days. When I go away for seven years and observe again and see that it is still not made I can confirm that it is also not made in seven years. I can repeat this for hundreds of different planets in the process of forming through out our universe. So, either God used a totally different mechanism to make our planet than he did all the other planets we can see bing formed in the universe, or all planets are not made by God, or God used the same process to make our planet as we did the ones being formed today and it takes a really long time. When I see a planet being formed I can't see gods hand... likewise then I make a roast chicken you can not see may hand in the oven while it bakes. Even LDS do not believe the eart was created in 6 sequential 24 hour days. LDS believe that there was not yet an appointment of time given to earth when it was created and that when he did appoint man his reckoning he measured it as 1000 years is as one day to him.
Ahab Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 So, you admit a material physical entity did something scientific to create life but what he did is not a subject of science? Thats like saying Pasteur really did advance germ theory, vaccinations, etc, but that what he did is not the subject of science.I think we should stop telling these people what we know is true about reality, Rob. I think they need someone else to tell them the same things. But at least we've helped to plant a few seeds. Apparently they want to believe God and the divine realm is outside of nature instead of just another aspect of it.
Ahab Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 By calling it "blather." Got it.Do you like the word nonsense any better?
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Do you like the word nonsense any better? No, both words adequately describe your contempt for mainstream Christian beliefs.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Yes, that is the point. Rob said it was a scientific theory, and as Mark acknowledges, it's not testable, and thus cannot be considered scientific. Is ID "true" in some sense? I have no idea and don't much care. But I object when people claim it's a scientific theory.http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.phphttp://www.discovery.org/a/584http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.htmlhttps://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=700\ Just a few to get you started.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php http://www.discovery.org/a/584 http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=700\ Just a few to get you started. Still unable to show how ID can be tested scientifically, I see.
Gray Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) And where is the intelligence? Show me the intelligence, show me the intelligence. It takes intelligence to appreciate the majesty of nature, if that's what you mean. Edited February 27, 2014 by Gray
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 It takes intelligence to appreciate the majesty of nature, if that's what you mean. It's entirely possible that the mechanism of evolution was designed and implemented by an intelligent being. What we know as the Intelligent Design theory isn't so much of a theory as an attempt to deny that evolutionary processes are at work and have left to the speciation we see around us.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 I think we should stop telling these people what we know is true about reality, Rob. I think they need someone else to tell them the same things. But at least we've helped to plant a few seeds. Apparently they want to believe God and the divine realm is outside of nature instead of just another aspect of it.It remindes me of the story that goes something like- A man is working on a roof three stories high. He slips and begins to slide down to his sudden death. In his haste he starts pleading for God to help save him. Just as he is about to meet his doom at the edge of the roof a nail snags him and immediately he says "nevermind God I got it". I tend to believe quite honestly that man in his wisdom has supposed that existence is a natural phenomenon and that its impossible or unbelievable to see God's hand in anything that happens. They fail to see and realize that God works through the very means He has created- we literally all are the very works and glorification of his ways.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Still unable to show how ID can be tested scientifically, I see.You didn't even take the time to bother reading it. At least now I know that ignorance is bliss.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 You didn't even take the time to bother reading it. At least now I know that ignorance is bliss. I asked you a specific question, and you responded with links. Answer the question, and then I'll read your links. Sheesh.
Recommended Posts