Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 7 of 139 (535429)
11-15-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
11-15-2009 6:23 PM


Blzebub writes:
Most academic historians refuse on principle to "debate" the Holocaust with Holocaust-deniers, and most scientists similarly refuse to debate evolution with evolution-deniers. So what is achieved here? ...
This implies that you haven't been noticing the quantity of posts here that involve agnostics arguing with atheists, or (in "Social and Religious Issues") the faithful arguing among themselves about their various interpretations of scripture.
Have you really not been seeing that? (Seems kind of hard to miss.) Granted, some of these "intramural contests" tend to show the same level of intransigence that you attribute to the typical "evo-vs-creo" bouts. But, as others have pointed out above, there is ample value for spectators -- lots of posters provide links to really good stuff covering a wide range of interest, along with cogent summaries of points that would otherwise be inaccessible for non-specialists who try to read primary sources.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 11-15-2009 6:23 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 119 of 139 (536152)
11-20-2009 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Arphy
11-18-2009 11:19 PM


Hi Arphy -- welcome back. Things here had become rather too tame in your absence, IMHO.
Thanks for the link to the printed debate. I think it's an ample demonstration of everything that dwise1 laid out in such painstaking detail: we see the YEC propensity to
  • misrepresent the assertions of theory, the facts of evidence, and the very nature of scientific inquiry;
  • repeat tiresome arguments against an old earth and an older universe, in spite of repeated and detailed refutations that have gone unanswered; and
  • most remarkably, declare both a willingness to "adjust their models ... to accommodate new data" and a stubborn insistence that their singular interpretation of scripture must be TRUE (i.e. cannot be false, is unfalsifiable by mandate) while failing to acknowledge (or comprehend) this obvious self-contradiction.
Arphy writes:
As for christians who have lied. Yes, it most certainly happens, but doing so is in conflict with their belief (while it isn't a conflict of beliefs for an atheist, as far as i know, feel free to convince me otherwise)
The Christian notion of belief plays no role in an atheist's decisions for day-to-day behavior. There is a very different notion of "belief" used by atheists, which is really more of a "working hypothesis" based on incomplete information: previous experience, common sense, and a set of reasonable assumptions about how other people behave, will lead a person to choose whether or not to be honest in a given interaction -- "based on what I know/expect/can figure out, it'll be better to (not) lie right now." Actually, I'm inclined to think that this pretty well describes what everybody does, regardless of the theist/atheist divide, and regardless of the particular religion held by a theist.
But there is an important difference, which has to do with personal intention and motivation.
For a scientist (whether theistic or atheistic), the primary intent is "I want to understand how this works / how it came about / how it will be in the future." Some part of the endeavor will always depend on the "atheist notion of belief" -- the working hypothesis -- which will sometimes be wrong but will always be amended when mistakes are noted. In this case there's no incentive for dishonesty. When it's a matter of understanding disease, earthquakes, dangerous weather systems, etc, the consequences make dishonesty entirely self-defeating and pathetically stupid.
For a YEC, the intent is "I want to get other people to have the same faith I have, believe what I believe, and accept my Bible as the ultimate authority or sole basis for establishing truth in all matters." This is a requisite property of the YEC's "Christian notion of belief" -- the dogma -- which can only be wrong in the eyes of an unbeliever. Well, the inescapable result in this case is that all views contradicting this one must be denied, even when that denial is dishonest. The victims of such dishonesty will, in the worst case, opt for a religious schism; the only positive result, in my view, is when they opt for agnosticism.
It is a curious paradox that the YEC advocate, professing to be a Christian who believes that lying is a sin against God, must nonetheless lie in order to profess the YEC belief.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 11:19 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 139 of 139 (536302)
11-21-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Arphy
11-21-2009 3:56 AM


Arphy writes:
The bible is not exhaustive knowledge i.e. It doesn't say everything about everything e.g. how to build a car. However it does contain sufficient knowledge which is true. So many models have a biblical conerstone which remains unchanged while the rest of the model may adapt according to the latest evidence.
... except that, in the case of the YEC religious/world view, when the latest evidence clearly indicates that the earth is a few billion years old and the universe is a few times older, their "model" cannot adapt to that, and the evidence must be denied, regardless of its merit.
BTW, your handling of this multi-directional discussion, holding forth against so many debaters at once while remaining calm and concise, is really impressive and admirable. My sincere and highest compliments! (Even though I think you are still not quite understanding a number of important points.)
I look forward to your participation in the Great Debate with Ned and the others.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : changed where I put the "scare-quotes"

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Arphy, posted 11-21-2009 3:56 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024