| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > 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?
>
> 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 acceptance.
Show me. Just don't say it's a false premise and clip it. It's like, 'I
don't agree with that--it doesn't make scientific sense, therefore its false
or invalid' which *is* the very nature of this discussion. I never wanted
to invoke an emotional, 'ahh all touchy feely, misty eyed, ain't-that-sweet
so he must be right' response in anybody.
What *I* want is for *you* (Bruce) to acknowledge that science *may* not
know *everything*--that the potential exists that it may *never* know
everything for there are aspects *outside* the scope of science. Even
science itself tells us this by theorizing about what is observable.
That's it. Then I can go believe *my* God, and likewise, you don't have to
believe in *my* God, and that our beliefs, ore lack thereof, has *no*
bearing on science, or our ability to pursue scientific endeavours, and
somehow I'm not less than you and you're not less than me.
>
> > 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.
>
> This illustrates my previously made point: you constantly try to redefine
> science as religion. You do this to bring things in alignment to your world
> view, not science's.
I don't refine science into a religion, people who believe that science
*can* encompass everything do.
>
> >
> > Your fanatical belief in a man made institution that supposedly 'knows all'
> > is utter nonsense.
>
> You (Dave) are going to have to start making clear when you (Dave) say "You"
> that you (Dave) mean me (Bruce) when you (dave) say "you" or whether you
> (dave) mean "generic everyone" when you (dave) say "You".
K, I'm pretty bad that way. I'll try to contain myself to answering things
as presented to me.
>
> So lets get something clear, if you are refering to me personally, I have
> indicated no such thing.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes you do. You did it again just above.
Now I'll bring in things from outside this particular post--people have
stated that they finally 'get' what I'm driving at. They probably would
have gotten it alot earlier if I wasn't as, shall we say, flamboyant with my
writings.
Anyway, when someone says, 'there's no end to what we can learn thru
science', that very statement a) I think contradicts the theory of limits,
and b) more importantly for this discussion, says science can teach us
*all*. If it teaches *all* then it *is* all. Tell me that's *not* a god
and *prove* it using the scientific method.
That is my assertion. That is what I'm rallying against. Heck, for the
sake of the rest of the arguement, I deny God exists--I'm an athiest. That
does *not* negate the idea above. Whether God exists or not is *irrelevant*
to this conversation.
The only thing that is perfectly relevant is the base premise, *can* things
exist outside the scientific domain?, outside the scope of scientific
enquiry, no matter how much scientific knowledge we gain?
If we agree on that premise, then we are on the same page.
>
> > I know it to be true, and now
> > that you have admitted it to be true, I can stop.
> >
> > Thank you
>
> You misconstrue, and I think willfully. No, science does not cover all
> aspects of life, but that statement does not validate the conclusions that
> you have tried to attach to that statement (see way down near the end).
If science does not cover all aspects of life, then, for me, the
conversation is ended--we're on the same page--science *is not* a god, and
you and I can go on with out pursuits.
>
> > What I read is that belief in God is 'blind', that we who believe are less
> > than those that don't.
>
> If you chose to misconstrue the truth of faith being blind somehow makes you
> lesser, that is a problem on your end, not mine.
And if I walk up to a black person and said, "Hey black person, how goes?"
and he took it the wrong way, well, that's his problem, not mine now isn't it.
If the very wording is derogatory, as in "Hey, you're blind" (unless you
really are blind, then it's just descriptive) then I have an issue.
Elsewhere we talked about 'gyped' being derogatory. It's like, "Well I'm
sorry you believe in what you do," is equal to "You're just to dumb to get
what I'm saying." "Blind Faith" infers we do it, well, blindly--without
purpose or guidance. It's demeaning. It raises one side above the other.
> > 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.
>
> You have attempted to define your faith as scientific, and science as yet
> another religion. Once you enter the realm of science, expect to be
> questioned and offer some proof. You having chosen the battleground, and it
> is hardly fair for you to cry about your beliefs being questioned when you
> offered them up as scientific.
I have no problem entering the realm of science--I live in it, as do you. I
think I'm actually using scientifically based constructs and ideas to get
*my* point across. And I will *never* bring my *beliefs*, my *faith* in God
and offer them up as scientific, or even bring into the realm of science. I
have said it, they *exist* outside the domain of science. Not once did I
say my belief is scientific. Not once do I say that God can be proven
scientifically. As a matter of fact, I have said just the opposite. Faith
cannot exist inside the domain of science for 'proof denies faith'.
>
> > 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.
>
> Again, I do not support your belief system. I simply do not admit to the
> validity of your straw man argument.
And I do not admit that my arguements are necessarily straw man--just
because you say the sun is pink with purple polka dots, don't make it so.
On one hand you say, 'Science does not encompass all of life' and on the
other yous say, 'someone over there cannot believe in God for God cannot be
shown scientifically.' Those two concepts are mutually exclusive, logically
wrong, and not even close to a straw man arguement.
>
>
> > > > 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 do not recall this. It was more like, science provides the best and most
> consistent answers for explaining the physical world around us (physical in
> this instance would include energy states). You are very consistent at
> misconstruing things, so you'll have to be very specific on who said what
> for me to let this claim pass unchallenged (it becomes a straw man argument
> - knock down science for something it never said).
Again I say that science is great for understanding the physical properties
(energy states inc, for even I, the lowly english major, have a concept of
E=MC^2), but again, *I* assert, that it is not *I* who is misconstruing
anything (well, sometimes I am wrong, and I usually admit when I am) in this
debate, but it is apparent that you are not picking up on what I am
saying--not once, ever ever ever, did I say that 'science said it was the
way of knowing everything'.
I assert, plainly that it is the folks that say 'science affords us
limitless exploration and limitless understanding' are the ones who elevate
science into godhood. Science neve said it, but someone did. Both you and
I should, and are, rallying against that point--to the betterment of all of us.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, they might. Then again, they might not. You only wish to acknowledge
> the former.
I don't mind acknowledging them both. I prefer the one that lets me have
*my* God, tho. And, since it's outside the scientific domain, what does it
matter to science?
>
> > > 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?
>
> You have not been able to successfully attack science in its own arena
> (creationism is not scientific and evolution is). So, you attempt to move
> the debate to an arena that is less demanding of proof (i.e. to a lower
> level of proof). That is what I mean by reduce science to a religious level.
K, now you are definitly confusing me with someone else. I have stated
emphatically that I *am not* a creationist, either new earth or old earth.
I do not read Genesis even *close* to a historically accurate document. The
concepts I presented about micro and macro evolution are just things I think
about and want to discuss--I don't *believe* in them, and 'evolutionists'
swayed me to their side long before I even heard about LUGNET, but that is a
topic outside this discussion.
And once again, you're basic premise shows through crystal clear--science is
'above' religion, if someone is trying to reduce it to a religious level.
Your very wording is arrogantly presumptuous. If I say science tries to
reduce *everything* to itself, I'm jsut stating my idea that things *may*
exist outside of science, and therefore saying everything fits into science
is reductionistic. However, saying that science is 'above' religion and
'those holy rollers' are trying to reduce it to their level *infers* you're
superior.
And that just ain't so.
>
> >
> > 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?
>
> No. See above.
No, see above.
> >
> > 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.
>
> "Evolution is not science." "Evolution denies the existence of God."
> "Science is the new God that has the answer for everything". And on and on.
When di *I* say that evolution is not a science? When did I say evolution
denies the existence of God? If I said that, I have *no* problem retracting
that statement. And, for the record, I'll throw myself on the sword when I
have to, but it wasn't *me* who said that "science is the new gos that has
the answer for everything"--that's the very point I'm trying to refute! I
may paraphrase a concept laid out by someone else, and therefore hoppefully
show that, by the very wording, that *they* elevate science to godhood, but
I have a firm grasp as to where science fits in to the grande scheme of things.
>
> > 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'
>
> A specious theory, so drawing conclusions from it is useless (and yet
> another attempt to redefine science as a religion).
Stop stop stop! I don't attempt to redefine science as a religion. I
haven't yet and will not ever do so. What I attempt to define as a religion
is a belief that Science has the capability to know *everything*.
Science is not a religion. I never said so--ever! Read above--I paraphrase
other folks assertions to show that the constructs of their arguements, i.e.
'we have limitless possibilities for learning' is just as 'false' as
believing in Creationism.
And it's not a specious theory, it's what some people do. We can point to
the religious zealot who flies a plane into a building and say, 'well, he
obviously was a little fanatical in his beliefs, wasn't he.' and yet, to
step back and say, 'we can know *all* thru science' is *not* fanatical? You
know you call 'those pesky Christians fanatical because they say their god
is *all*' What did you just do with science?
>
> > 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).
>
> See, you try and slip God in there so that if I agree that science does not
> encompass everything, you take that as a validation of God. This is what I
> mean by I don't support your theories (see way above).
I don't need *your* or a scientific validation that there *is* a god. That
is not the intent and if that's what you understood from what I have been
saying, I apologize.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is at odds with what you said earlier in the debate.
>
> Bruce
Where? I (dave) think you (bruce) are confusing me (dave) with someone else
in this debate. The tangent above was just stating where I stand on
Christian integrity and morals--and bombing abortion clinics and pissing
people off does not fit into *my* conception of Christian ethics. This has
nothing to do with the debate at hand and I said as such--I was outlining
for those that care where *my* ideas of Chrisianity fit into the grande
scope of things.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Go back and look since you clearly didn't bother to read it in the first place. (...) Another attempt at an emotional response: imply that emotional responses must be "touchy-feely" and therefore something of derision that you wouldn't use. (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
