|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined:
|
Bluejay: I have learned a great deal about atheists from this website. Atheists only rarely think of the world as meaningless: they often perceive a meaning for the world and for their lives that is as profound and as deep as any meaning that you and I, as religious folks, perceive. marc9000:You maybe, but not myself. An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism. I always think it's important in these discussions to remember that most atheists, at least in my part of the world, don't even think of themselves as atheists, and, although they will be vaguely aware of it, they have no in-depth knowledge of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or the concept of Darwinism. It's also the case that they would have no idea what you were talking about if you mentioned Creationism, or the New Atheist Movement. Society is not so cleanly divided between Atheists and the Religious, or Evolutionists and Creationists, as these discussions often imply. Most people just want to follow the basic human instincts to grow up, have a family and a home, and just make their way through life while socialising with friends and family, and generally conforming to local customs. I think that applies to most people whether or not they harbour a belief in the supernatural. In my experience, if you attempt to raise any kind of ontological discussion in most social situations the barriers come down very quickly. I think most people are actually frightened of considering these things and just prefer to live in the bubble they construct around them, which is all that is generally necessary to get them through the day. That's as far as they look for any meaning in life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
quote: Well, one way would be manifestation. I've often brought this up as an example in another context ("Is there anything that happens on its own?"), but it seems to fit here: Suppose you had a handful of coins and you tossed them on the ground. You then take an identical set of coins and deliberately, consciously, and personally set them down in an identical pattern to the one you just tossed on the ground. How could you tell the difference between the coins that got that way on their own ("Is there anything that happens on its own?") and the ones that were put there deliberately? Well, one way would be for me to come forward and say, "I did this. Here, watch me do it again." This is connected to general skeptical inquiry: How do you tell the difference between a charlatan and the real thing? Well, you have to put in controls and get someone who understands how someone fakes such things keeping an eye out for just such fakery. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3127 days) Posts: 1548 Joined:
|
We can't say we know for certain that something is the result of a non-materialistic That is because you can't define what a non-materalistic cause is. Please give us an example of a proven non-materialistic cause.
Just like we can't say for certain whether or not any phenomenon is the result of a naturalistic cause We do not need to prove what is already known to exist. There is a tree in my back yard. It grew from an acorn or such. I can plant an acorn and watch it grow into a tree over time. That is a naturalistic cause. Please give me an example of a non-naturalistic cause for which we have evidence.
We could just be being fooled, because something looks natural You cannot back up this assertation until you can define and provide evidence for what something non-natural or supernatural is. And no, like I said in another thread, you cannot use personal experience as a credible source, otherwise you would have to accept every other pseudoscientific phenomena for which people claim to be true i.e. astrology, divination, esp, spoon bending, big foot, ufo's, fairies, the lochness monster, etc.
But when you take the stance, that many here are doing, that we are only willing to look in one direction, even if that direction is wrong, I strongly disagree that that is science. Just because you think it is wrong-headed, doesn't make it so. What direction do you want to take this? Is there something better than the scientific method we can use to determine the reality in which we exist? Are you saying we should just take everything at face value without emperical evidence to back up claims? If so than why not accept all pseudoscientific phenomena. Why not believe in astrology etc.
Science has for centuries been intertwined with a metaphysical world. Now you are just throwing out terms you do not even understand. What the heck is a metaphysical world. And what is the evidence this exists.
It hasn't stopped science from progressing. Indeed, religious fundamentalism often (though not always) puts a dampner on scientific progress. Cases in point: 1. Pope Benedict XVI's 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive. The World Health Organisation responded at the time by saying that "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million." 2. Roman Catholic Church's opposition to Heliocentrism and other scientific advances and discoveries by condemning via inquisition, ostricizing imprisoning or even executing those who advocated such views i.e. Galileo Galilie in the 17th century. 3. Christian fundamentalism has opposed significant scientific discoverers such as Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Darwin. Christian fundamentalism has also often opposed the following fields of science throughout history: cosmology, biological evolution, geography, astronomy, geology, anthropology, meteorology, chemistry, physics, medicine, hygiene (germ theory of illness) and psychology. Though I am not as simplistic to say that all religion is opposed to science. I do not believe that to be true at all. It is in fact religious fundamentalism and bigotry that has significantly opposed scientific progress at one time or another throughout history. For example church father John Chrysostom instructed people to "empty your minds of secular knowledge," and in 448 the Christian emperor of the East Roman Empire, Theodosius II, ordered all non-Christian books to be burned. It is not the religious belief itself that stifles science, it is those who take these beliefs to the extreme and let non-rational worldviews impede their ability to rationally observe and investigate the world they live in and then impede the progress of those who are conducting scientific investigation. I am not going to say that you cannot believe in God or anyother supernatural being. However if you want anyone else to understand why you believe what you believe you must bring credible emperical evidence to the table why you think that a supernatural cause/origin exists. Everything we see, touch, feel, detect, experience is what we consider the 'natural' world around us. The burden of proof lies with those who claim that the supernatural world exists not the other way around. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, one way would be manifestation. I get you. But it seems to me that there's little reason to suspect that even if someone could do psychic surgery, or remote viewing, or mental telepathy or whatever, they're able to do so by fundamentally metaphysical or supernatural means. I mean, just about every sci-fi setting where "paranormal powers" exist has some material explanation for them; X-Men have the x-gene. Why couldn't telepaths have an extra organ that can perform biologically-based functional NMR? Why couldn't remote viewers have an extra organ that interprets Wi-Fi signals? Clarke famously said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Isn't the reverse true, as well? Couldn't advanced technology or biology give legitimately "paranormal" results? I'm not saying they do because clearly paranormal feats are hoaxes. But even if a genuine manifestation was presented, and we could know it was genuine, why would that mean it was supernatural? Isn't this conversation we're having, at a far remove of geography, something that would be considered supernatural wizardy a few centuries ago?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Why? Is the results of any particular study the issue here, or is the issue whether or not a non-material explanation is acceptable? Both. I'm not going to take a position on the adequacy of evidence until I see the evidence. That's the way science works. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Prayer, of course, fails every rigorous study, every time. In many studies you're even worse off in terms of recovery times if you are informed that people are praying for your recovery. And in no study, of course, has the power of prayer regenerated limbs, teeth, or corrected serious deformities as described in the Bible (and as God must surely be capable of, if he exists.) Mythbusters proved prayer does't work! Ok, so it's not the real Mythbusters, but it is funny!
MythBusters: Does God exist? Edited by Admin, : Fix URL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
But it is not a question of whether the evidence is satisfactory or not. I can claim any evidence in any field of science is unsatisfactory. If you think this is a debate about the validity of the evidence, you are not understanding.
The question is whether or not ANY evidence is satisfactory to someone who has already decided that all explanations must be materialistic. If that is the mindset before an experiment even begins, how can you draw the proper conclusion. Scientists don't make conclusions before the experiment even begins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
You know there is a school of thought that says that the testing of any supernatural phenomenon can only work if the participants believe it can work (and there are even studies to prove the results are different depending on the believe of the participants or even what you tell them beforehand). The very notion of disbelieve destroys the sensitivity necessary to achieve the result.
Who are we to say that's wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Oh please, not this old canard! Religion has been blaming the non-believer for centuries, claiming that if we only truely believed then we'd experience god's presence. You're just blaming the participants, claiming tests don't work if they don't believe they will work. James Randi ran into this all the time when he tried to test peoples claims of psychic ability. They would blame him for giving off a bad aura or the recording equipment was interferring with the spirits or some such malarky. Sorry, I'm not buying this crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
But your "buying it" is irrelevant, because you haven't read the data.
There are studies that show that if you tell the participants that it works, before you do the study, the results will be more positive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6410 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Bolder-dash writes:
This is known as the placebo effect, and has been much studied.
You know there is a school of thought that says that the testing of any supernatural phenomenon can only work if the participants believe it can work
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is nothing super-natural about that, just human fallibility and gullibility.
Edited by jar, : add gullibility Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
No, its not the placebo effect. We are talking about the volunteers administering the tests, like the one's turning over cards, or sending out the mental image.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
We can't read anything if you don't provide it.
But your "buying it" is irrelevant, because you haven't read the data. There are studies that show that if you tell the participants that it works, before you do the study, the results will be more positive.
Ok. Please produce them then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The question is whether or not ANY evidence is satisfactory to someone who has already decided that all explanations must be materialistic. If that is the mindset before an experiment even begins, how can you draw the proper conclusion. Scientists don't make conclusions before the experiment even begins.
It is not a conclusion, it is a working assumption. But if you don't like the way science does things, do the experiments yourself. Nothing preventing that, is there? The problem you find, though, is that you are dealing with metaphysics and philosophy, and you have no way to reach any conclusions. Philosophers have been naval-gazing and arguing for 2,500 or more years without reaching any meaningful conclusions, nor do they show any likelihood of ever doing so. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024