God & the Fairy Tree

This is just a single sentence, a statement, and is neither logical nor illogical. Logic can only be used to evaluate arguments, that is, they can only determine whether a conclusion does necessarily follow from the premises, or it doesn't necessarily follow from the premises."My coffee cup is blue" is neither logical nor illogical -- it is a statement that may either be true or false."The intelligent species, Homo sapiens, evolved from earlier species by natural selection acting on naturally occurring variations, and life originally arose through the impersonal forces of chemistry on the primordial earth, all without any intervention at any time by an outside intelligent agency" is a statement that may be true or false, but it is not itself illogical.Where logic is used in science is to test theories. A prediction of a theory is basically a conclusion suported by a logical argument where the theory under question (as well as other facts and theories known or assumed to be true) is used as premises. If logic is properly applied so that the argument is valid, then the prediction is an unescapable consequence of the theory; then, if observation shows that the phenomenon is not observed then there is a problem with the premises; either there is a factor that is not being taken into account (a source of error in the experiment, for example), or the theory must be modified a bit to form a new set of premises, or the theory must by scrapped altogether and a new theory developed."Intelligence evolved without the intervention of an outside intelligent agency" is not itself illogical. Now, it may be that the premises accepted by a person necessarily lead to the impossibility of intelligence without an outside intelligent agency, and so in that case it is true that accepting both the premises and the conclusion would be illogical. However, it is not simply the conclusion which may be flawed; it may be the conclusion is true after all, and so the problem may lie in the premises.It may be that our naturalistic theories, taken all together, are inconsistent in that it may be possible to derive contradictory conclusions from different theories. In fact, we already know that our naturalistic theories are not complete. But it does not necessarily follow that naturalism is false; it may very well be that we just have not yet developed the "correct" theories.This is getting off the topic of the OP, and I apologize for that. I do think it needs to be pointed out that although logic does have a place in science, logic itself cannot either prove or disprove facts that are empirically observed, nor can it prove or disprove conclusions that are themselves logically derived from observable facts and accepted theories. At most, it can only show that a theory or collection of theories is not yet complete and that more research is needed to resolve the discrepancies.-By the way, speaking of the topic, good post Parasomnium. I think you make a good point.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Yes, this is similar to the idea that atheists really secretly do believe in god but must actively deny this -- because the thought of eternal bliss is supposed to be such a burden or something.To make their theology consistent, evangelicals have to make a lot of assumptions about how people behave or how people think -- assumptions that could be dispelled if they would just ask the atheist about this and actually listen to the answers.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I like the use of the word "rationalize". It puts belief in God on the same level as stealing office supplies from work.Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I'm not sure what you mean by this. On the face of it, it's not true. If life originated on earth without the intervention of living or intelligent beings, then, as a precursor, complex organic molecules must be able to be formed from inorganic materials that would have been found on the primeval earth through processes that would have occurred at that time.The Miller/Urey experiment verified that complex organic molecules can form from inorganic precursors. These results have been repeated and verified and therefore constitute objective evidence. In fact, all of abiogenesis research being done involves laboratory experiments (and perhaps computer simulations) that can be repeated and observed by different people.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Huh? But you're the one you brought up the example of abiogenesis. Are you now admitting that your comment wasn't really relevant to the preceding discussion about the comparison between god-belief and fairy-belief?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Huh? Did you really hope for this? Why on earth would you hope for this?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Because the people who put up that sign were joking, and they'll tell you that if you ask them. God-believers, though, aren't joking.Why fairy-belief and god-belief are supposed to be intellectually different, I dunno. I think of god-believers pretty much the same as fairy-believers -- pretty much harmless cranks who are mostly able to lead independent lives without too much outside intervention.What would make me nervous, though, is if a fairy-believer insists that the fairies tell her that fetuses are human beings and that we should teach Tolkien in our public schools as literal history. Then I think it is entirely appropriate to tell her that she's freaking nuts.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Wow. Does this sentence have any meaning?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Oh, yeah, that reminds me: you offered to demonstrate how the Miller/Urey experiment is a farce. Well, we've bumped an appropriate thread for you.By the way, do you know Rob?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I think we have a troll on our hands. It seems to me that pbee is less interested in discussing the matter than in posting nonsense and seeing the responses.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

What a coincidence! I was just browsing around on jhuger's site (of Kiss Hank's Ass fame), and I found a page that seems directly relevant to the OP.Cheers.Added by edit: And another one! Ha ha ha! I'm really not looking for these!Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

And I think the answer is: no, science is not more interested in defending orthodoxy. Science is interested in protecting a proven, effective means of acquiring knowledge about the physical world against charlatans and quacks.- I don't think so. Scientists are continuing to brainstorm new ideas. Some don't live up to their promise as they are contradicted by observations; others extend our knowledge of the real world.- I do as well, from the religious quacks who advocate a literal reading of their millenia old sacred scriptures.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

The problem with this view is that there isn't just one university that hires all the scientists, nor is there only one organization that funds research, nor is there only one journal that publishes research, nor is there only one conference that has ever invited people to speak.Science today is really a pretty close model of anarchism in action. Scientists come from all walks of life, from many different cultures, and possess very different beliefs. There are thousands of universities and research institutions all over the world, each one determining their own hiring and promotion policies. There are hundreds of different organizations that give money to researchers, each one independently setting its own criterion of worthiness. There are hundreds of different journals, each with its own editorial board and setting its own policies for acceptance of research.Anyone who thinks that some sort of orthodoxy can be long maintained among such a great number of people with such a wide variety of backgrounds, without some sort of central commissariat to enforce that orthodoxy really doesn't understand human psychology very well.There have been some organizations that have been able to maintain a stable rigid orthodoxy, but these organizations have usually been relatively small in membership, uniform in membership, controlled by a central organization that determines by fiat what the orthodoxy is, and/or couldn't maintain the orthodoxy for a very long time.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

I'm saying that without a centralized organization to enforce the same orthodox positions among all the different scientists all over the world, then there is no reason to believe that the current scientific theories are simply a rigid orthodoxy being maintained by squashing innovative ideas.Your problem is two-fold:First, neither you nor the creationists/IDists have ever demonstrated that there is a rigid orthodoxy being maintained by suppressing legitimate alternatives.Second, neither you nor the creationists have ever really proposed a mechanism that would be effective in maintaining a rigid orthodoxy among the myriad of independent centers of research that exist worldwide, certainly not for very long.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

I agree with bluegenes that this is off-topic here.But if you have any ideas how the thousands of different, independent committees all over the world just happen to be enforcing the exact same orthodoxy among all the scientists, I would be interested in seeing you start a new thread.Edited by Chiroptera, : changed hundreds to thousands

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger