| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
<snip>
>
> The book is speaking about what part of your brain you use to execute art,
> not your relative liberal or conservative thinking. Read the book and
> you'll understand.
Love to read it, and I'll get to it.
> > An emotional appeal that cannot be rationally logically, scientifically
> > explained, and yet, omigoodness-there it is--it *does* exist. It exists
> > even though it's *outside* science. Is it real? I think it is. Is it
> > important? Inasmuch as people's feelings, their emotions are important for
> > us being human. Does science *care*? Prob'ly not. But if it dosn't factor
> > into science, then it must exist *outside* of science. So there you are.
>
> What is this "it" are you talking about? An emotional appeal? Yes, it
> exists outside of science, it has nothing to do with science, but you keep
> citing it as if it does. It has no logic, you just seem to hope that no one
> notices the lack of substance.
Thank you for making my point clear--emotions have nothing to do with
science, and I never wanted to infer, allude, or say they ever did--My point
was the exact opposite--aspects of emotions are *outside* scientific
purview, and to further my point--are they less valid? Do they not exist?
Obviously they do, not only because you just said so, but because I know it
to be true. Are they logical? Not a chance, and that, my friend, is the
fundamental base issue--things can exist *outside* science and yet still be
perfectly valid. I'm not the one reducing everything to science, I'm not
the one negating something jsut because it cannot be worked into the
scientific method. I believe that things *may* exist outside science and be
just as important to our very human nature as the stuff that's within the
purview of science.
And saying that emotions lack substance? Try to prove that one.
>
> > No, 'Sciencism' is robbing me of my humanity.
>
> What in the world is "sciencism"? What utter nonsense in any case.
Let me be clear to the those obtuse individuals in the world that have no
concept of allusion or metaphor or similie or other linguisitic ideas--
Sciencism - newly invented word (by Dave) which places science in the
recently dethroned position of God as the Ruler of all that there is. A
concept held by staunch religious fanatics of science that cannot see *any*
possible idea and concept which *may* exist outside of the scientific domain.
Your fanatical belief in a man made institution that supposedly 'knows all'
is utter nonsense.
> > You may say it's all fine and
> > dandy to say that science covers *all* aspects of your life, but just by my
> > God's very nature, it cannot encompass mine.
>
> Stop. Halt. Stop this nonsense once and for all. I did not say science
> covers *all* aspects of life. It is something you keep repeating endlessly
> despite corrections, nothing more.
No, I do not endlessly repeat that assertion. I know it to be true, and now
that you have admitted it to be true, I can stop.
Thank you
> > It also cannot encompass the
> > 'je ne sais quoi' of life, either, so foget about *my* God, and just know
> > that science does not, and cannot, know all.
>
> It doesn't pretend to. The only problem here is that you keep claiming it >does.
K, are we reading the same posting process? I specifically replied to
assertions that science was the *only* valid way of living. If someone
stated back in post 2 of this thread, 'Well science is great 'n all, but we
know that there *may* be things ouside the purview of science, and you *can*
believe in God 'cause science has nothing to say about the existance (or
not) of said infinite being...', this thread would not be where it is now.
What I read is that belief in God is 'blind', that we who believe are less
than those that don't. So two points--I can live with the concepts of God,
as well as the concepts of science, for *I* don't believe they're mutually
exclusive, and I should be able to have my faith and be an equal partner in
the human endeavour and *not* feel like my faith is being degraded or
belittled by those that don't believe.
>
> > > The final argument of the religious is invariably to reduce the opposition
> > > to its own terms. Belief in god is blind. It is a matter of faith.
> > > Science isn't a matter of faith (no, don't start in on you have to have
> > > faith in your senses - science doesn't trust those either). Science isn't a
> > > god because it isn't a matter of faith. Further, science doesn't claim that
> > > it is good for everything - those are words constantly put into its mouth by
> > > the religious so it can knock down a straw man.
>
>
> > Belief in God is *faith*. Your very wording is demeaning.
>
> Oh, puh-leeeeeze. Look at the very next sentence I wrote, "It is a matter
> of faith". What did you just write, for heaven's sake: "Belief in God is
> *faith*". Faith in this instance means you take it as a matter of belief,
> without requiring proof (Blind faith).
Firstly, thanks for clearing that up. Now that you're crystal clear in the
assertion that science isn't good for everything is all I wanted to hear.
>
> > You want me to
> > give you respect (which I give you anyways 'cause that's just who I am) but
> > you demean and put down my ideas and ideals and subscribe them to the realm
> > of some sort of 'mass dellusion'? Yes you are doing that by saying 'belief
> > in God is blind'.
>
> Here's more of the problem: quote me where I said your ideas and ideals are
> mass delusion (please, no half-quotes willfully misconstrued as above)?
> What you just wrote is yet another emotional defense having nothing to do
> with reality. If you wish to continue with this line, I challenge you to
> find anywhere where I said your belief in God is wrong, your belief in
> religion is wrong. Not scientific, yes, but wrong, no.
Not *you*, Bruce, but the previous posts in the thread--I mean, the whole
thing started by a 'slight'. It's amazing how something gets blown up. I
replied to many many posts here and I respond to a bunch of ideas that seem
to get waylaid into another post, and for that, I'm sorry.
I thank you for edifying and supporting my belief system. I, in turn
support your quest for more knowledge and scientific pursuits and if I can
help, let me know.
> >
> > Not once have *I* asserted that science claims that it is good for
> > everything.
>
> You keep asseting that *science* claims that, which it doesn't. You are
> merely splitting hairs about what way you have gotten it wrong.
I assert that it has been said in some posts here that science is the only
way to understand everything. I asserted that, no it can't. I further
assert that folks wanted examples. I tried with music, art, concepts of
Justice and righteousness, and just human emotion, there's, well, God. I
had no issue with the idea that science can understand alotta principles of
these things ('xept God) but the entirety of these things cannot be fully
understood by science. Examples were called for--Well, I have none ('xcept
God) 'cause to do so means they're verifiable--and therefore under the
scientific domain.
I further stated that they *could* exist, even tho they're outside the
purview of science. You, Bruce, as well as many many folks, have also
supported the premise that things *could* be outside the domain of science,
perhaps forever.
That's what I was working towards, and I'm sorry the path I took was not as
clear and concise as it could have been.
> > All my posts have stated time and time agian that science can
> > not, by its very nature, explain everything. That's what some other
> > proponents of scientific godhood claim.
>
> You are again attempting to reduce science to a religious level so that you
> can attack it better. It's the crux of my argument against you from the
> word go.
I'm attempting to reduce science to a religious level? If my Christianity
is supposedly, as *most* Christians assert, the end all/be all of existance,
how can I reduce science to a level higher than itself?
Further, didn't I make it obviously clear that my argument is not about the
validity of science? I know science to be a perfectly valid way to come to
understand the physical universe. But you asked earlier where you have put
down Christianity--how bout 'reducing science to a religious level'? As in
religion is beneath science--that somehow science is above religion. That's
how I take that line. That's how I *feel* when I read that, that somehow
you think your worldview is 'above' mine. Well, point again, I don't
believe it is. I don't tink mine is above yours, as that would be equally
demeaning from me to you.
Isn't the idea of 'reducing science to a religious level' a value judgement?
Aren't value judgements inherently not part of hte scientific method, and
are regulated to the same area as emotions?
I dunno--I just take ownership for how *I* feel and how *I* think, and try
to point out that, mayhaps our worldviews are not as cozy (candles
flickering or no) as we would like them to be.
And another point, where did *I* attack science? You know how I feel about
it. I think may have stated it before so no need to reiterate.
> > I have mentioned that I don't have
> > a problem with science. Science is wonderful. Science is great.
> > "Sciencism" reduces the scope of everything into itself--there's your straw
> > man, my friend. Sciencism claims that which cannot be observed or studied
> > via the scientific method cannot be shown, therefore cannot be believed
> > therfore cannot exist.
>
> I have absolutely no doubt (no evidence, but a matter of faith that I'll bet
> money on) that "sciencism" is a term used by religious groups in an attempt
> to reduce the one to the other's level ("Dang, we can't foist off
> Creationism as scientific, so we have to define science as a religion, then
> they are the same thing and we can attack on religious grounds instead of
> scientific). "Sciencism" is a convenient straw man argument (knocking down
> a pre-arranged target that does not, in fact, represent the other side).
No, sciencism was a Dave made construct for this thread and this thread
alone. I do that sometimes. It makes the point with one word rather than a
whole sentence--'you (generic) may have problems with my God, but you just
supplanted him with Sciencism'
Did I mention that I was an English major (never know it from the atrocious
spelling and grammar, but I'm not throwing this thru a spell checker and I
type 60+ words a minute if I don't stop for corrections...)
If the 'other side' is science with its theories and constructs, then my
friend, I'm in the trenches with you and be damned who attack us head on.
But know where I stand also, from one friend to another, I believe science
can never encompass all of what it is to be human (and I believe in God).
>
> >
> > Show me *any* evidence that God exists - those are words constantly put into
> > my face by the close minded people who believe in the god of science so they
> > can knock down my *belief*.
>
> I'm not asking you to show any evidence that God exists. Just don't advance
> your beliefs as scientific theory if you don't want to be challenged to ante
> up some evidence.
>
> Bruce
Never did, never will--God is basically *outside* all that we can know due
to that small thing called 'infinity'.
/rant on
For the record, I am *not* a Creationist, Scientific Creationist or
whatever. I do appreciate the big bang theory and I think, as it stands, it
pretty much fits what is known. Also understand that Creationists should go
back to the bible and read Genesis 1 and 2 again, in context, and know it
isn't a *historical* document--it's God's word to us to help us understand
Him--getting bogged down in Creationism does *not* help our God out at
all--but I'm just speaking for me. I quote my girlfriend--'The last time I
cared about Creationism and Evolution was about grade 10 (and she went to a
Christian high school).' Your fellow Christians (The ones I talk to anyway)
think it's a bad thing, not exactly the same as bombing abortion clinics,
but, either way, you're pretty much pissing people off from even
*considering* the concept of God--just read this thread and the other one to
see that.
/end of rant
Put that in your good book.
dave K.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) See? This is why I only skim your replies... Bruce is talking about a debate technique called an "emotional appeal" -- usually this takes the form of something that stirs the emotions of a reader or listener but that also tends to lack a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) I said "an emotional appeal", not emotions. I've clipped the rest of your paragraph because it was preceeding on a false premise. An emotional appeal is one that does not rely on fact, but instead tries to invoke an emotional response to gain (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) The book is speaking about what part of your brain you use to execute art, not your relative liberal or conservative thinking. Read the book and you'll understand. (...) What is this "it" are you talking about? An emotional appeal? Yes, it (...) (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
|
|
|
|
