Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 188 (375278)
01-08-2007 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 8:17 AM


Scientific method is not sacred
I don't buy this urban legend about some sacred 'scientific method'.
As well you shouldn't. The scientific method is not sacred, it has changed through time, and may well change going forward into the future. It is more of a de facto standard methodology for reaching reliable conclusions about the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 8:17 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:11 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 26 of 188 (375311)
01-08-2007 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 9:11 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
Would you like to take a shot at telling us what this standard methodology is and how you know it's reliable?
I'm not entirely convinced that this avenue is entirely on topic. Regardless it can be quickly and easily answered. The method is well documented in books as well as the internet. How do I know it is reliable? Because it produces real results like the computer I'm sat at. From what you have said since, and from general experience I have a feeling you're going to try and equivocate between reliable and perfect (or 'reliable results' equivocating to 'true results'). Let me cut you off before you even go there, I do not consider the words synonymous.
And why does it change?
Many different reasons. A new way of doing things is seen to be more effective or efficient would generally cover most of those reasons I imagine.
Is there something more reliable than the scientific method that tells us when it needs to be modified?
Reality, and the lessons we learn from our experiences with trying to understand it.

Since you made no attempt to rebut what I said in my post, just ask questions about it, I assume you concede that the scientific method is not sacred.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:11 AM TheMystic has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 179 of 188 (376243)
01-11-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
01-11-2007 1:29 PM


religious dogma vs religion in totality.
But it isn't just Christian belief that it his target - it is all religious belief. He is as opposed to the evangelical efforts to move religion into schools as he is to religions that cause educated men to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. When it comes to opposing religion, he's equal opportunity.
To narrow things down, later in Beyond Belief Sam clarifies his position as being anti-dogma not anti-religion. It's just that he concentrates on the dangers of dogmatic religion. If religion makes an empirical claim then it should be met with the same criticisms that any other dogma that makes claims. He points out that the empirical claims of nazism (or other dogmas) are handled differently than the empirical claims of religion.
Given the right culture, given the right authorities and the right time, the dogmatic claims of nazism becomes dangerous. Likewise, Harris says, with religious claims. At the moment the biggest threat says Harris is the empirical claims of Islam.
I'm fairly sure I've put Sam Harris' position correctly forward here. There was a long debate in one of the videos that Richard Dawkins gets involved in about dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 1:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by duf31, posted 01-11-2007 3:34 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 3:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 183 of 188 (376274)
01-11-2007 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Percy
01-11-2007 3:49 PM


Re: religious dogma vs religion in totality.
How does he distinguish between good dogma (the Golden Rule) and bad dogma (Genesis is a literal account of creation)?
During the debate he seems sympathetic to Buddhism, and that shows a weakness in his position. He stresses that even dogmatic ideas which seem to be fine can have negative consequences (actually I may be overlapping with Dawkins' points) for example the idea that souls join embryos at conception can seem perfectly neutral to someone unexposed to the debates that follow from it.
The problem he has is that dogma is too rigid by definition. Even the golden rule can be applied dogmatically to be a complete asshole.
You have a long way to go though - I think its all the way down in session 9. To be honest, its a solid debate and both sides have their weaknesses exposed, but in all the anti-dogmatists (in my opinion) present the more cogent defense. I was probably a Neville Chamberlain before I watched it all, but by the end I was more of a Moranist or Dawkinite now
Tyson is right when he rebukes Dawkins, but Dawkins is right that one has to be brash to raise consciousness - burning bras wasn't the way towards rational dialogue, but it raised awareness of the issues anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 3:49 PM Percy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 185 of 188 (376487)
01-12-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by duf31
01-11-2007 3:34 PM


Re: religious dogma vs religion in totality.
Interesting that he felt the need to "clarify his position" though.
He came under some attack from some other talkers and was given the opportunity to rebut as it were. He did so by explaining that his critics were pursuing a strawman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by duf31, posted 01-11-2007 3:34 PM duf31 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 186 of 188 (376507)
01-12-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by TheMystic
01-09-2007 12:32 PM


conservatives vs liberal. more education vs less
Conservative Christians believe the Bible is scientifically accurate when it is not
You're just not going to give up these wild generalizations, are you?
Recently reported in Science magazine, some 'hard'* statistics:
Commentary by PZ Myers can be found on his blog
*irony, gotta love it
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by TheMystic, posted 01-09-2007 12:32 PM TheMystic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 01-12-2007 1:20 PM Modulous 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