| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Show me.
Go back and look since you clearly didn't bother to read it in the first place.
> 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.
Another attempt at an emotional response: imply that emotional responses
must be "touchy-feely" and therefore something of derision that you wouldn't
use.
>
> 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.
I've already said that many times. I just deny the conclusions you attempt
to draw from that (which is why you keep pretending like I didn't say it,
since you want to worm in that one validates the other).
>
> 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.
Who says I don't believe in your God?
> I don't refine science into a religion, people who believe that science
> *can* encompass everything do.
I have already covered your splitting of hairs on this very point.
> 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.
Who says there is a limit? And how do you derive the acknowledgment that we
are finite beings as a claim that science can teach us all? I won't address
what is another straw man argument (which I suppose, if the proof you ask for).
>
> 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.
But you just said science is god, so I don't see how you can make claims of
irrelevancy. Make up your mind.
>
> 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?
Maybe. Maybe not. And whether they do or don't does not make it automatic
that any particular thing therefore does exist.
>
> If we agree on that premise, then we are on the same page.
No. Even if we we agree, we are still not on the same page as to what you
can conclude from that. I keep pointing this out, and all you do is try to
rephrase the question so that I won't keep pointing out the same thing.
> 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.
Ah, see what I mean? Here, I'll say this: science does not cover all
aspects of life. Perhaps it can, though. I doubt it, but I don't preclude
it. Science is not a god. It doesn't pretend to be, and makes no attempt
to be religious (that doesn't stop people of either side of the debate from
treating anything they want to as religious). But I suspect that though I
just agreed with you, my qualifications will have you not going about your
pursuits again.
> >
> > > 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.
No, because that is a matter of social etiquette. I am not talking about a
person, but a definition of faith, a definition you agreed with (faith by
definition having no proof). You just don't like the ramifications of that
which you agreed with.
>
> 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(o) 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.
No, blindly in this instance means without proof. If you wish to insist
that you are going to take it as something else even when it has been
explained otherwise, the problem is, as I said, at your end.
> 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'.
You offered up creationism as science, so this is at odds with what you said
earlier.
> 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.
My point exactly: you keep trying to say the sun is pink with purple polka
dots (well, i suppose it is under the right filter, but we are talking about
a rhetorical device, so it doesn't apply).
>
> 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.
No, I didn't say that at all. Stop lying. You can believe in God all they
want, just don't advance God or religious dogma as a scientific theory and
then complain that your belief system is being attacked.
> > 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'.
"You'll have to be very specific on who said what." A long paragraph that
never answers that.
And yes, I am picking up on what you are saying, I'm just calling that out
as a repeatedly inaccurate statement.
>
> 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.
You just keep reiterating the same point. And I keep pointing out that it
simply *your claim*. You keep defining science as god, not the others. You
just did it yet again immediately above (YOU project the belief you want to
pidgeon-hole them under onto them, not that they believe it).
> 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 can have your beliefs regardless. I certainly have mine, I'm just not
upset by the process, whereas you are.
> > 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.
No, I'm not confusing you - I remeber the micro-macro discussion and that is
what I'm refering to. If you wish to claim that you were merely playing
devil's advocate, then that is another matter, but I don't really think you
were playing devil's advocate. You were very vehement until someone pointed
out that evolution does not address God and religion and then you dropped
the argument. You misconstrued the theory of evolution.
>
> 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.
I said no such thing. I even pointed out the usage and how it applied.
>
> Your very wording is arrogantly presumptuous.
There we go again with the emotional appeal. Don't deal with my
clarification, just sling accusations.
> 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.
What part of: religion doesn't require the level of proof that science does,
and in that sense it is at a lower level (of proof) didn't you understand?
Since you clipped it out entirely, I suspect you did understand, but it was
inconvenient to your emotional appeal.
>
> 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.
No, see above. And try addressing it rather than dodging it because I'll
just keep pointing it out.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
Ahhh, backpedaling. Look, if you are going to change your story every other
message, this is futile.
> > 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*.
You just did it again. The problem is that you don't realize what you are
doing.
>
> 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.
I have addressed the splitting of hairs by you on this topic before. That
statement still stands unchallenged and I don't feel like repeating it
endlessly.
>
> 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?
I did not do anything. I did not say that.
> I don't need *your* or a scientific validation that there *is* a god.
Then, quite honestly, what are you running on about?
And yes, you don't need those. But note how you make an absolute claim:
there is a god. Not, I think there is a god, or that I believe there is a
god. There is the core of your problem.
> > 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.
$50 for each instance I can find? Or you can go back and look for yourself
for free?
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) K, we're just not reading one another here. At all. And I don't know if both of us are just being obtuse, but here's my premise: Science is a good way for us to come to understand the physical universe. Things may exist outside the scope of (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
