| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
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 science.
And since we both agree on this,
Credits.
>
> >
> > 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 said you don't have to believe in *my* God. I stated that belief in God
has nothing to do with scientific pursuits. Read it. Understand you,
Bruce, can believe whatever you want. Nobody said you couldn't
>
> > 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.
I apologize for my apparent misinterpreting to this point, and we can move on.
>
> > 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).
Can science know all? If so, limitless and there can be no God. If not,
then there's a limit to what we can understand.
Qouteth Bruce
(in response that there may be things outside the scientific purview)
> I've already said that many times
And on this, we concur.
But then you go on
Quoteth Bruce
> Who says there is a limit?
Well, science, for one--the theory of limits.
> >
> > 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.
Again, let's dispense with this. I know I never said that science was god.
I know I said that because I never did. If you think I *ever* said that,
well, then, I again, apologize for not being clear.
What I did say is that there are those who think that science can solve
*everything*, that science can *know* everything. That's the concept I'm
saying is a god.
If you want to argue that point, go ahead.
>
> >
> > 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.
I concur.
>
> >
> > 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.
Point out what? 'Pointing this out...keep pointing out the same thing'--to
what do you refer? I'm not trying to be difficult--you're not being clear.
If I go on to say that *if* science may not encompass *everything*,
therefore there could be a God, that's a different topic, and further,
that's *my* personal view. You can hold whatever personal view you want, as
long as we *both* agree on the premise, "science *may* not encompass everything"
> > 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.
No, if you agreed with the premise, then we're done here. We can go off and
talk about something else.
>
>
> > >
> > > > 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.
I am perfectly willing to accept that others don't believe what I believe --
it's *my* belief. What I balk against is the inherent derogatory nature of
what was said--"blind faith", "reducing science to the level of religion".
Those concepts are inherently degrading, whether you meant them to be or not.
Social ettiquette, as you pointed out, would also demonstrate that this is
so. Walk up to someone and say, 'Hey blind person', or 'Hey don't reduce me
to your level'. Words, whether we want them to or not, have significance,
and therefore power--but all this is a topic for another thread.
> >
> > 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 don't think my faith is blind. And I wish you would stop saying it is.
Now the problem is at your end, as it was the second you added the word
'blind' to faith. Faith is faith.
If you want a more moderate position, just considering this idea now in my
head--I would almost agree with the concept of 'blind faith' in relation to
Creationists, for they do not wish to see the overwhelming evidence that the
theory of evolution supports, which can contradict the creationist theory.
Therefore, the belief in something when it clearly isn't true can be
considered 'blind faith'. However, for me, it's not really faith at all, in
*my* opinion, and I would conclude that it''s more based on religious dogma.
>
> > 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.
Where? Cites please! Don't attribute what was said by the Creationists in
another thread as *my* opinion, just because we all say we believe in God.
As I stated before, I once dabbled into micro and macro evolutionary
theories (pop culture scientist you're dealing with here), but not once have
I ever *ever* in my life, said that Creationism is how we all got here. I
have talked with professed Christians my entire life, and the ones who are
my friends and associates also accept the theory of evolution as the better
way of comprehending this universe and how we got here.
Again I say my God is not the 'god of the gap' My God did not give me a
literal textbook for running my life when He gave me the bible. Again, I
point to Gen 1 and Gen 2 and say, if literal, the bible was written by an
insane person 'cause they flat out literally contradict one another.
(this 'insane author' of the bible concept may cause a flurry of posts, but
I said it anyway--go ahead, have your fun--I think I can back what I said
up, just with 2 proverbs even)
>
> > 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).
The exact quote (which was a literary device in the first place) was 'just
because You (Bruce) say the sun is pink with purple polka dots, don't make
it so'. The literary device was suppose to allude, 'just because you
(Bruce) say that my arguement is a straw man arguement, doesn't
*automatically* make my arguement a straw man arguement. I didn't literally
mean that you said 'the sun is pink with purple polka dots'.
So, while I used the concept of the sun being pink with purple polka dots as
a way of negating your (bruce) way of just saying 'straw man arguement' with
nothing to back it up, I did not intend, nor did I really say that i 'keep
trying to say the sun is pink with purple polka dots'. Again, either you're
missing the point, or your trying to twist. That's a fine example of
twisting, btw, for now you expressly said:
Quoteth Bruce.
> you [dave] keep trying to say the sun is pink with purple polka
> dots
When I did nothing of the sort.
K, let me be crystal clear, without allusions or metaphors, or rhetorical
devices--calling an arguement a straw man arguement does *not* make it a
straw man arguement. I thought I quite succinctly summed up what I thought
was said, not reducing it in significance, just paraphrasing. If I reduced,
omitted, and otherwise failed to get the point that you (bruce, or anyone
else that I paraphrase) intended to make, then call it a straw man, and
*then* point out where I did so.
Say, 'See, right here when you interpreted that, and *reduced* it to this,
you lost the significant meaning of that first thing. Therefore you reduced
my concept to a straw man.' And I would then say 'oh, I see now.'
What did I get? <snip> straw man arguement. That's almost as bad as 'Just
because'.
> >
> > 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 never want to advance religious dogma on anybody else. Haven't I made
that clear yet? And the only time my belief system is being attacked is
when other people think they're 'above' me, for *any* reason. This thread
it happened to tackle scientific dogma. And again, I apologize for going
into the generic 'you' (I really have to stop doing that).
>
> > > 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.
Misconstrue this:
Science may not have the capability to know everything.
That's it.
Who said what and getting bogged down--k--all the rest is irrelevant and if
you want me to say I misconstrued stuff so we can get on, k, I misconstrued.
It's irrelevant to the discussion.
> >
> > 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).
Yeah, and you said that it is me who thinks that the sun is pink with purple
polka dots when I clearly used it as a literary device, and it either went
over your head, you're just being difficult, or I wasn't being clear enough.
What's it going to be?
I never claimed it. If you think I did, sorry 'bout that. I refute any
prior claims I may have made that says science is god. Irrelevant to the
conversation. Move on.
>
> > 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.
Any process which demeans and puts down something else--I'm going to stand
up and take notice. Just because you don't get upset doesn't invalidate the
issue, or make it less 'right'.
>
> > > 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.
No, I talked to my girlfriend and we both had the same thought--the last
time we *cared* about the micro/macro evolution was around grade 10--it has
no bearing on my current state of affairs, as well as I really do appreciate
the theory of evolution more, as I stated even in that thread by talking
about the big bang, and all those gases and eddies and floatsms coming
together making suns, planets 'n such--so don't attribute to *me* what
someone else said.
I have a basic grasp of all these points--I don't need a doctorate to hold
an opinion, or even, for me, a 'right' opinion.
The base concept (in this thread):
Science may never be able to know everything.
Done.
> >
> > 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.
"reducing science to religion" "blind faith"
But I'll let that bone go. I mean, non allusionary, that point is
irrelevant to the base issue (though not of a concept that one worldview
thinking it's above other worldviews as demonstrated by the very inherent
'superior' language it uses)
>
> >
> > Your very wording is arrogantly presumptuous.
>
> There we go again with the emotional appeal. Don't deal with my
> clarification, just sling accusations.
No. As pointed out in, I think, clarity, but again, moving on.
>
> > 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.
First, I never clip anything (and I'ver receive lotsa e-mails from people
repeatedly reminding me that it would be perhaps more polite to snip) unless
you see a <snip> inserted attributed to me. Since there isn't one, I
snipped *nothing*. If someone in this particular posting thread is doing
some annoying snipping, I would politely point out to you, Bruce, that I
have to continously go back in previous posts to see what was said when and
to whom by your snipping.
I don't like to 'hide' from issues, emotional or otherwise. I don't think I
have yet. Let's see what else you can mistakenly attribute to me. But
wait, that's slinging accusations (truthful tho they may be) and bogging
down into mud slinging and has nothing to do with the basic premise.
> >
> > 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.
Point what out? That the very wording you have used in your posts are *not*
'value judgements'?
'Lowering science to the level of religion' is a value judgement. Science
is better than religion, therefore it has to be lowered to the level of
religion.
Nothing there is an emotional appeal.
Nothing there is a straw man arguement.
What it is is a value judgement--Science > Religion.
Did I dodge anything?
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
Once more mistaken, this time in the 'I change my story', and also with no
proof of the supposed crime of backpedalling. Again, as with the straw man
arguement, saying that I'm backpedalling does not mean that I, indeed,
backpedalled (ohhh, no allusionary devices to be found! Eep!).
I will reiterate--*if* *I* ever said that evolution wsn't a science and *if*
*I* said that evolution denies God, *then* I retract and have since that
very statement updated my theories as to what makes the world work.
Since *I* know that *I* have appreciated the theory of evolution since well
before the internet existed, no such statement should be *anywhere* on the
internet. (if there is any such statement, I reserve the right to read it
and then take myself out back and slap me around a bit... ;) )
>
>
> > > 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.
Can science know *everything*?
If yes = religion
If no = not religion.
What's your opinion, Bruce? If you don't like my construct, then give me yours.
> >
> > 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.
Take it as said that *if* I said science *was* a god then I was wrong in
doing so. K, I let it go, we can move on now.
> >
> > 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.
Oops, my bad, the generic 'you' again. I thought I made that clear when I
started the paragraph with 'its what some people do', but my bad--I will try
to stop doing that.
>
> > I don't need *your* or a scientific validation that there *is* a god.
>
> Then, quite honestly, what are you running on about?
Quite honestly it is about saying *my* God can't possibly exist.
>
> 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.
Finally a real slip by yours truly. I did not wish to say that there *is* a
God, as in He *does* exist. *My* faith says He exists--you don't have to
have that faith--is your choice.
So yeah, caught me on that one. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to
clarify 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.
>
> $50 for each instance I can find? Or you can go back and look for yourself
> for free?
>
> Bruce
Or we can use the burden of proof, as in 'innocent until proven guilty'
concept--I think I'm innocent of the charges you made against me--as a
matter of fact, I know it.
If I was vague, or you didn't grasp my literary devices, or you misconstrued
my meaning, show me where and I'll clear them up for you--is not up to me to
go prove my innocence, is up to you to go prove my guilt.
And if I was wrong? Well, as someone else said, 'scientists love to find
out they were wrong--it makes them work out a better theory.'
I do think that I have been consistant and sound in my arguements, I think
that I have demonstrated that I grasp what we are, indeed, talking about,
and I think I have even shown a willingness to re-evaluate my stance on this
particular subject, a la 'Science *is not* able to encompass everything, to
Science *may not* be able to encompass everything.'
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
