Hi, Straggler.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't want to talk about evidence on a thread where both you and RAZD are participating.
Straggler writes:
Discomfort is good for you. But I am not sure that most actively crave it as such.
Okay, well, I don't really
crave it... it's just the nature of the beast. I'm always skeptical of things that "feel good," because of events in my personal life. The primary means of discerning truth for Mormons is opening one's heart to feelings and promptings from the spirit. Therefore, truth
always feels right to a sincere searcher.
However, with a diagnosed psychological disorder, and growing evidence that, if I went to a psychiatrist today, I might very well be diagnosed with something even more severe... it becomes rather clear that "feeling good" is probably not a methodology I should trust.
So, I don't actively seek out a "good feeling" about things anymore, and am very reluctant to trust it even when I do "feel good" about something.
-----
Straggler writes:
But isn't this about more than just the direct argument at hand?
Well, maybe it is. But, approaching debates that way generally leads to fixation on perceived ulterior motives, and evidence and logic are given a back seat, regardless of whether you're an evolutionist or creationist.
-----
Straggler writes:
Yeah in a debate you get slack and assume that the evo answer is superior and that the mad creationists are just obviously wrong - But isn't that because fundamentally you know that the two methodologies and epystomologies being used are so massively unequal in terms of reliability and practical result?
I'm actually going to disagree on this.
If I'm arguing for evolution because I "know," fundamentally, that evolution is based on a better methodology, then I'm not really using the methodology that I deem superior, am I?
The only way to show its superiority is to use it. And, that means addressing each argument methodologically, rather than lumping it all into a bundle of ulterior motives based on association.
-----
Straggler writes:
Do not all the theistic arguments here ultimately boil down to the empirical methods of science Vs whatever is being proposed by the particular "evidence" based believer in question?
Well, maybe so. But, I wasn't restricting myself to
theistic arguments. You don't have to accept the entire worldview to acknowledge that there are some good points being made by creationists.
For example,
here is the beginning of an argument about a bacteria antibody-immunity experiment. Peg correctly points out that we cannot ascertain whether the emergence of immunity is due to a new mutation or to changing allele frequency, because we simply cannot know for certain which bacterial genotypes went into founding the colony.
This does not require me to accept that God created the earth and several to many distinct "kinds" of animals in just six days 6000 years ago, but that doesn't mean we were justified in continuing to beat on Peg and insist that her argument was wrong.
Unwillingness to give an inch, to accept that a creationist might have actually been right about even a minor, insignificant point such as that, turned us from logical, science-minded individuals into anti-creationist zealots with an axe to grind.
I daresay that we are not as pure in our methodology and epistemology as we describe ourselves to creationists. And, "knowing" that, deep down, our side of the debate is based on something superior is frankly a moot point if we're not constantly applying that superior methodology in everything we argue.
Remember, that's what we accuse the creationists of doing! They "know" that, deep down, their side of the debate is based on something superior, even if they can't make the connections on their own, so they doggedly push on, refusing to give an inch.
My assessment is that most evolutionists are essentially the same way. I think
I'm that way, and nothing upsets me more than that.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
