| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Again, my point, time and time again, is that there is reality. I live in
> > it, with you and everyone else. My point, time and time again, is that our
> > reality is 'bigger' than what science can explain.
>
> Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't
> yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something
> that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be
> explained by (or as Chris rightly clarified: "explored by") science? By
> "verify," I must require you to avoid perceived phenomena such as ESP or
> ghosts or the Loch Ness Monster. And once you have come up with such an
> example, I'd like you to clarify how you verify that it's part of the >universe.
God.
And to explain that, denies Him. That's *my* faith speaking. Does that
make me 'less than' you 'cause I believe and you don't?
> I would further clarify that phenomena such as emotions, memories,
> "inspiration," and music aren't really valid examples, since they can in
> principal be explained as parts of the physical universe accessible to
> scientific explanation.
In principal[sic], God's universe is being explained right now via science.
So again, I have no problem with that--anything in the physical universe is
accessible to scientific explanation.
Yes, how a piano works, and my fingers pressing the keys is all a matter of
physics. But to say the entire musical experience can be explained by
science is, well, "sciencism". What you seem to want to do is upplant my
God with one of your own, by saying, 'Well we don't think that that god over
there rationally explains everything, and since our rationality seems to be
doing a good job of it thus far, we'll just fill in the god position with
this science thing--after all, it explains so much now, why can't it explain
all?' I mean, how can anyone dispute that? Anything that happens in the
physical universe has, wait for it, a physical element to it, and as such,
falls within the purview of science. Valid examples such as music, art,
emotions, memories, have a physical quantitative aspect. These things,
though, are greater than that part, so, no, I cannot *give* you a specific
example, I have given you many ideas and concepts that can be, at least
partly, explained by science, but there's a bigger picture, the wholeness of
the object doesn't deal with quantitative aspects.
>
> > Let's talk about the atrocities done due to the pursuit of knowledge
>
> Let's not, because that's completely irrelevant and is frankly a weak
> appeal to emotionalism.
No, it was a point made to contradict those that are pissed at me and
'today's Christian' because of historical happenings and the radical right.
It was not an appeal to emotionalism, and even if it was, what's wrong with
that? Isn't this the point of this entire conversation? That things exist
*outside* the purview of science?
>
> > Again, who is without sin can go ahead and trash the other side.
>
> By the way--that's about as useful in the real world as the Ten
> Commandments are a comprehensive system of law. You're saying that a person
> who steals a pack of gum has no authority to condemn a genocidal murderer.
> And that's not a slippery slope, either; it's an express restatement of the
> axiom you put forth.
Again, there's a difference between wanting justice done, and 'trashing the
other side'. Nowhere did I say that a person who jaywalks cannot be a
police officer and uphold the law. Are you deliberately being obtuse? It's
nowhere near what I said and it is not an express restatement at all of the
point I put forth--that's a definite twist and I'm calling you on it. I
said specifically, 'he who is without sin can go ahead and trash the other
side.'--it's a little crude I admit, but it's short and to the point and not
even one of my 'weird' allusions. For those with ideas of moral relativism,
they already believe in this concept--*no* one can say their way is *the
best* way and say to everyone else 'We have what it takes--you *must* follow
our ways 'cause your ways are stupid' like talking trash to those that don't
follow your ways--that's exactly what I said.
Yes we can, as a people, no matter which side we're on, stand up and take
action against those that seek to deny our rights and freedoms. Where
haven't I said that?
I feel as if I'm in the Shawshank Redemption--don't be obtuse. You know
it's a valid point--you just don't like to admit it, for fear of shifting
your views. Trashing the 'other side' for the sake of scoring a few points
is something I have not done, nor will I do at all, for in this debate, I'm
pretty much in the other camp anyway--I *love* science.
I feel for the German people of 1939--they were poor, i mean dirt poor-- a
wheelbarrow of money just to buy a loaf of bread. We have the authority,
though, to condemn the actions of the genocidal murderers that ran that
country, even though Canada wasn't the best during the war--I mean, we did
good, but ask the Japanese interns sitting in shacks in Alberta...
What a few did has nothing to do with talking trash against *the Germans*.
It's like I don't remember having to tell the Italian people that our
problem wasn't with them, it was with Mussilini.
>
> > > _I_ have been a problem in this regard, are you? I haven't been tempted to
> > > deride you, I haven't typed Xtian, and I agree that Christmas deserves the
> > > place of proper noun in our language. (But we celibrate Newtonmass :-)
> > I have not been attributing *you* to these phrases, but this is how this
> > thread started--that is the issue. I am sorry if I alluded that you wrote
> > this. The thread is what I am responding to, gathering in ideas from other
> > posts and ideas and replying to them here.
>
> Just so it doesn't seem that Richard or I have been slinging slurs around,
> consider this bit from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html
It's akin to the old adage 'Nobody can beat up my brother but me.' (flurry
of posts). A black man making a joke about the word 'nigger' and nary an
eye batting, a white man making a joke about the word 'nigger', and the
proverbial thing is gonna hit the fan. It's context. It's like when I'm
talking to my slightly feminist girlfriend and I say 'mankind', see--good or
bad, feminism is balking against the patriarchal society, and would it kill
me to say humankind or humanity. This thread started because someone called
Larry on the 'slight' of 'christmas'. And then, once the discussion
progressed, it was the trash talk of Christians nad Christianity which,
well, besides the grammar, got me involved, for who that is without sin can
trash talk the other side. Thanks, K, Bye!
>
> > What does 'xian' mean?
> > "What does the abbreviation 'xian' mean? Is it an insult?"
>
> > When writing the name "Christ", it is quite common to abbreviate it to X or
> > x, representing the first letter (chi) of the Greek XPICTOC khristos. For
> > example, "xmas" is a common abbreviation of "Christmas". "Xian" just
> > means "Christian".
>
> > According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the
> > abbreviation "xian" or "xtian" for "Christian" dates back at least as far as
> > 1634. Before that, it was more usual to take the first two letters of
> > XPICTOC, and write "xpian" for "Christian". Priests would record Christenings
> > using the shorthand "xpen" or "xpn".
>
> > So no, it's not an insult.
You can believe that nigger, or mankind, or squarehead, is an insult--that
don't make it so. Context is everything.
>
> And let's not forget that both you and Chris have used the derisive term
> "gyped" [sic] to describe a condition of being short-changed. No slight
> intended to Chris or you for that, but let's not condemn one perceived slur
> while embracing another.
Hey' people tell me I'm dutch when I try to save my money. But you're
right, that also fits, as above.
> > However, that
> > said, by saing that certain people are less than, well, you and me, is
> > opening the door to atrocities. Yes is a slippery slope idea but the second
> > you think that someone else is beneath you, you have made them less then
> > human. I can't remember the quotation, but Jean Luc mentioned it when he
> > was being tortured by his Cardassian captor in a TNG ep.
>
> Actually, Picard said something like "if a child is taught to devalue a
> person, she can devalue anything, including her parents," and he wasn't
> talking about science. Regardless, it's grieviously disingenuous of you to
> imply that "Science" is the primary tool by which people are dehumanized.
> For a much better example of a dehumanizing mechanism, I point you to that
> institution known as religion.
And I point you right back to the scientific experiments on people that went
on during WW2 and on animals even today. Once again, without sin may trash
the other side. The second *any* institution believes it is superior to
*everything* else, that's when the dehumanizing begins. "Sciencism"
devalues *me* by telling me I'm a 'blind' fool for having faith in God.
Says so right in these posts. Sciencism dehumanizes, just as easily as any
other institution that places itself above the rest. 'I am right, you are
wrong, 'twas always thus.' Whatever.
Instead of trashing the other side, writing an entire belief system off as
'wacko Christians' or 'dehuminizing mechanisms stemming from religion', let
us, each and every one of us, admit that we're not perfect, we don't have
all the answers, and, oh, look at that, we're all human. You believe what
you want to, I believe what I want to, and if my fist never contacts your
nose, who cares?
>
> > You and I hold different opinions on this. I'm not being willfully stubborn
> > in thinking there is a God. To me, it doesn't matter if you don't believe
> > in God, and it shouldn't matter that I do--we can still carry on a
> > conversation and debate about issues.
> >
> > But for some who have to belittle a race, a nation, a belief system, well
> > that's a different kettle of fish then, isn't it?
>
> "Belittle" implies a sort of irrational and baseless "I'm better 'cuz I sez
> so" sort of thought process, when that's simply not the case here.
Have you read any of these posts? "People's 'blind' belief in God" Yeah, I
think it's pretty much the case.
>
> > Your point about purple and red [preferences] is outside the realm of
> > science
>
> Is it? Is it really? How about this as a hypothetical explanation:
>
> Due to a microscopic neurological structure in your brain, certain neurons
> respond to the chemicals released when your visual center process the color
> purple. The response of those neurons leads to a more relaxed (or happy, or
> aroused, or generally pleasant) state of mental activity, even at the deeply
> subconscious level, and that response in turn leads you to favor the color
> purple in preference to red or puce or indigo.
> Granted, that's an off-the-rack and arbitrary summation, but do you see
> how in principal the topic can be addressed by science?
Yeah, or I could just like it--I frefer Occams Razor thanks.
>
> > but why do I like purple? I just do.
>
> By saying "I just do," you are expressly refusing to explore the question,
> and since that is the antithesis of scientific thinking, you can hardly
> condemn science on those terms. Further, you're simply assuming that
> there's something metaphysical about color preference, and you therefore say
> "science can't address it." But that's circular reasoning and deliberately
> ignores the actual issue.
Again, like the busy little beavers who want to go down and chop down all
the trees 'cause they can, scientists want to find answers to
*everything*--as such, the premise exists that *everything* can be found out
with science--now isn't that a nifty little circle, which is circular
reasoning and fails to take in account that *something* may exist outside
the scientific framework, which is the actual issue.
>
> > You answered my very problem by saying 'even a gut isn't going to explain
> > everything about the universe'. Thank you. That's all I wanted.
>
> Why do you accept that answer from Chris but refuse opposing answers from
> anyone else? That is a classic example of what's called "confirmation bias"
> and "selective thinking;" you are inclined to accept Chris' explanation on
> that point because you agreed with it before the debate started. With all
> due respect to Chris, he's not really the Ambassador of the GUT, so there's
> no reason to accept his word on what the GUT can and can't explain (nor
> should you accept mine too easily, other than the fact that I say "let's
> just wait and see what it can explain.")
I can't wait to see what science comes up with next! I'll be reading hte
papers and the journals. Ny goodness I wanna live on Mars. However, one
more time, I'll agree with anybody when they say, 'Well, this over here
cannot explain *everything*.' That's why I agreed with Chris--he said it.
I know I can't explain everytihng and I'm pretty positive you can't either.
My premise is that science cannot explain *all*. I listed my reasons why I
believe that, and to get an agreement from someone, well, there you go. My
other issue is the degradation of Christianity, either by bad examples or
bad history. THere I say, "well, I'm a Christian and I pretty much believe
almost the same thing as everyone else posting here, except I beleive there
*is* a God." Does that make me less deserving of respect and consideration?
> > > > Does schooling make you intelligent.
> > >
> > > Maybe. But it seems off-topic for this thread. Why?
> >
> >
> > 'Cause somewhere in this thread someone asked if I took a science course
> > above junior high. My point to that was 'does schooling give you a free
> > pass for intelligence?'
>
> You're mischaracterizing Richard's question, which may be paraphrased thus:
>
> Richard: "Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a misunderstanding of
> even the most basic and fundamental aspects of science, I am inclined to
> question what has been your level of formal exposure to scientific thinking."
And my repeated answers is I grasp the basic concepts of science just fine
thank you. My grasp of science as it stands is about 2nd year university,
but that was like 10-15 years ago, so specifics I do not remember.
Principles I remember. ANd nowhere in my scientific scholastic endeavours,
nowhere in my reading the science pages of the local paper, nowhere in
National Geographic, nowhere in the journals, does it say that science *can*
know *all*. Now where does that get us? Are my points better or worse?
>
> Richard made no comment about your intelligence, nor has anyone in the
> thread before or since. However, stubbornly clinging to principals shown to
> be false indicates a rigidity of thinking not generally considered a
> hallmark of intelligence, but which is hardly unique to Creationists, alas.
Principles shown to be false? Which principles are those? That I agree to
the theory of the big bang, that I appreciate that light travels at 3.0
m/s^2 (ish) and bends due to gravimetric forces?, that I like how a nuclear
reactor works, in principle, that I embrace the theory of relativity, the
theory of gravity, the theory of, even, dare I say, evolution? I think that
your fallacy was to paint me with the same brush as 'any other Christian'.
Not once do I stubbornly cling to principles that are false. My *belief* is
there's a God. Since you cannot disprove the existence of God, my belief
cannot be false--it doesn't make my belief true, but since it's *my* belief,
I can hold it without having a 'false' principle.
Some logical points for you to try to deal with--
if the universe is infinite, then it cannot be understood by us because we
are finite (ideas I went into greater depth somewhere else)
-the universe cannot be infinite for we already have the theory of the big
bang which started this mess in the forst place, and we're developing
theories as to the end of the universe.
If the universe is finite, then we have no problem grasping all that there
is to know with our finite minds.
If there's an infinite God, well, as above, our own finite limitation cannot
understand the infinite.
> > > Not in the way that you mean. But it is useful to know where a discussant is
> > > coming from.
> >
> > It is useful to a point, but if someone's a ditchdigger his or her opinion
> > is just as valid as the triple PHD.
>
> But in specialized subjects that have right and wrong answers, there's no
> reason to treat every contributor as equally able to give informed opinion.
> Moreover, one wonders why so many pro-Creationists (who are, therefore,
> anti-scientists) are so keen on compiling bogus academic credentials. Ken
> Hovind, for instance, touts his PhD from "Patriot University," which is
> nothing but a diploma mill located in a split-level ranch.
> Of course the answer is that in propagandist discourse (which is, let's be
> honest, the entirety of the Creationist rhetorical strategy) degrees imply
> authority, and non-critical thinkers respect authority even if the
> "authority" is baseless.
And I respect authority, but that doesn't stop me from questioning
*everything*. It also doesn't negate my belief in God.
> > Art, Music, the appreciation for the comfort of candles and hearths, why
> > people find curves attractive as opposed to angles (and for some, vice
> > versa), all the stuff that makes us *human*, our humanity isn't reduced to a
> > column of facts and figures, We ourselves cannot be reduced to a bunch of
> > water and chemicals--we're bigger than that.
>
> That's emotionalizing, for the zillionth time. What if we *can* be
> reduced to chemicals (water is, by the way, a chemical)? Wouldn't it
> actually be more astonishing to you that an ambulatory heap of chemicals
> could compose The Ninth Symphony or write King Lear? To me, the desperate
> need to externalize human accomplishment by subordinating it all to a
> non-verifiable deity is the ultimate dehumanizing act.
Yes, let's get bogged down in semantics--Sorry for not being explicit--yeah,
I know that water is a chemical--I think I demonstrated that many times by
incorporating the chemical eq'n for water in my very postings.
THere is no 'desperate' need to externalize human accomplishment--I have
also said this--body and spirit pretty much intertwined--can't separate
them. My point to you is that reducing human accomplishment to that which
is explained and observable, a la, science is just as ultimate dehumanizing
as, well, as you put it "subordinating it all to a non-verifiable deity"
And again (and again and again) I say, if a god is explainable, he ain't
worth worshipping. In other words, he'd be science.
>
> > Then I remember free will and such, so *we* do this to
> > ourselves and we, like the 5 year old blaming the dog, look to someone else
> > to hold responsible, when we just have to look in a mirror.
>
> Why do you require us to look in the mirror for self-condemnation, but you
> require us to look to some nebulous higher power for validation of our worth?
Do you think you have done nothing wrong in your life? I don't think we
should beat ourselves over the head because we did something wrong, but
again, who are *you* to say to me that your way is the right way, the only
way of doing things? I believe, as probably you do as well, that we should
strive to be better. If you find that within you to do better, good! I
know it's within me to strive to be better, and I do try. None of that has
anything to do with believing in God. I do it for me and the betterment of
humanity in general. I think that being a nice guy helps make the world a
better place. The idea that I think it also pleases my Lord is like icing
on the cake.
But you don't need to believe in my God to be good. I don't need my belief
in my God to be good. So don't believe. Just don't tell me my beliefs are
'false' or 'blind', for you cannot *prove* with your very scientific
institution that they are, or it would have been done by now. QED.
>
> > I think that certain aspects of humanity can be explained by the scientific
> > method, if given enuf time science will hopefully answer a whole bunch more
> > stuff, but science is finite, as is *every* human based institution, and as
> > such, cannot be used to figure out the infinite.
>
> Didn't you spend most of another post explaining that the universe is
> finite? (Or was that one of the other two-dozen Dave's in this thread?!)
> Anyway, many infinite concepts can be handled through logical processes,
> such as the basic mathematical concept of the sum-of-the-infinite-series.
Nope, that was me. The universe is finite. Scientists tell me so. Not
only that, it makes sense, when considering the Big Bang started with
nothing and everything exploded away from that point in all directions,
then, again, the universe is expanding. Therefore, scientific principles
and logic dictate that the universe is finite.
Again I say unto you (Dave the preacher--whatever) that putting an arrowhead
at hte end of the line and saying 'Well, that ray goes off into infinity' is
great, in theory. Mathematical constructs can deal with the mathematical
idea of infinity just fine--the idea that numbers will go from 0 off into
infinity is great, on paper. But let's write them all out now. Oops, we
can't for there is only a finite amount of space in the universe to write
on, and therefore we cannot actually, in the physical world, have concepts
of infinity--it can't happen. In principle I throw a ball at a tree, and I
should be able to divide the distance between the ball and the tree in half
from now to eternity, 'casue there should always be half left over--but
guess what--in the physical world, the ball hits the tree.
>
> In this post in particular you have lapsed from logical reasoning into
> emotion-based witnessing, and that sort of testimonialism simply flees the
> argument, rather than advancing it. You repeatedly assert your fondness for
> science, or at least the ramifications of it, and I accept that to a point.
> But it seems that the moment you approach a topic from which you cannot
> divorce your emotions, you fall back on "science isn't everything," but you
> don't really give a good explanation or a sound alternative.
God.
> I respect your emotional inclination to your belief system, and I
> absolutely uphold your right to maintain it, but you've entered into a
> discussion of the role of science, and you should therefore focus your
> comments on the actual issue of science, rather than the emotional
> implications of anecdotal aspects of it.
>
> Dave!
I respect the rational scientific system which finds out many many things
about the world in which we live. I've entered into this particular
discussion because folks think that their science god is the *only* god in
the playground and it has all the answers, if just given time to find them,
and it seems as if this god is a jealous god that demeans *any* other belief
system, as demonstrated here, not necessarily in this post, but in this thread.
You should focus on the *concept* that science cannot be our universal
saviour for *everything*. That's all I've been trying to say.
Dave K
Oh I just heard this on the radio and I thought it was funny (tue story)--
A couple met at a 7-11 where they both worked at one time.
After dating for a while, they decided to get married at a 7-11
at 7:11 in the a.m.
on July 11 (7/11)
The announcer said he thought it was a marriage of convenience.
Well, I thought it was funny :)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) You're thinking of the late 1920s... by 1939 the German people were pretty well off again with a fairly stable currency. Unfortunately that prosperity was built on theft via a military dictatorship that happily trampled the rights of everyone. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Then take it as established that I imply no insult by my use of the shortened form. (...) Then you're accepting that color preference is NOT outside the realm of scientific inquiry? In addition, you have yet to apply that Razor in any post (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be explained by (or as Chris (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
