The problem with EVC

do you know what satire even does?
it shows the stupidities of ideas, ID just happens to be what its about
if you are claiming i never gave serious thought about god, then you have no clue what you are talking aboutthis just shows that ID isn't science at all, its religion and should never be taught in school, and this is bloody off OT for the FSM, since it was a satire of ID as a valid scientific theory
go read why the guy bloody did it

then he is not understanding the point of FSM, its a satire of wedging things into places where they don't belong

All this one does is show the foolishness of the satirists.

wow nice non-answer there faith this means what?
can i get something other than a non sequitur
all i see is you just don't get the jokeEdited by ReverendDG, : typos

You're missing the point, rr. And all those people who are trying to explain how the FSM is equivalent to God are missing the point too.The FSM is a satire on ID, not on God or religion. ID, in order to maintain its status as 'science', has to remain neutral about who the designer is. So, theoretically a proponent of ID has to accept that any intelligent being could be the designer, including a Flying Spaghetti Monster. If they don't accept that and instead insist that the intelligent designer can only be something with the attributes of a creator God then they're doing religion instead of science and they've lost their special status.If the FSM were equivalent to God the satire would lose its point rather, don't you think?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Yes, I think bringing up CP Snow was a bit of an own goal there, Faith. His main targets were the cultural snobs in England who knew lots about Anglo-Saxon poetry and ancient Greek history, but nothing at all about modern science.But he wasn't arguing that one culture was right and the other wrong, as you seem to be. His point was that a fully-rounded person must have a foot in both cultures, must be as comfortable with the laws of thermodynamics as with the works of Shakespeare.Personally, I feel happy in both camps. I don't see any conflict between my artistic world view and my scientific world view. Knowing about the neuroscience of vision doesn't undermine my enjoyment of Picasso, any more than knowing about the rules of grammar undermines my enjoyment of Shakespeare.I suspect that your problem is not a conflict between art and science, but between religion and science, for they really are conflicting systems with competing interpretations of the nature of the universe. Just a pedantic point, Faith. You don't want people to mistake you for a humanist. That term is generally used to mean someone who rejects a religious interpretion of the universe, i.e. a materialistic atheist like me .

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I decided intentionally to risk "humanist" because it contrasts with the science mentality I was trying to get across. Before I was a Christian I identified with the humanist psychologists against the behaviorists. It has some precedent.No, the conflict is broader than between religion and science, and that conflict has peculiarities I'm not talking about here. I really am after something in this arena even if I haven't yet found the right terms for it. But I'll read Snow and see what he has to say. There are definitely two cultures, two mentalities, at odds with each other in such a way that communication is nearly impossible.It's a way of thinking about the world, it's a worldview, it's not about being able to be a scientist and appreciate Picasso at the same time. And since it is a worldview I'm talking about, it's not science as such I'm talking about.Edited by Faith, : added last sentence and corrected a typo

Strange as it may seem, I agree with you - at least the way you've framed it here. Some of your other statements much less so. The question that arises in my mind is: how do we overcome the communications gap at least long enough to find a modus vivendi that will enable us to solve common problems? Problems, btw, that I am convinced have the potential to cause an extinction vortex for the species as a whole. Or, do we just let things ride as they are, fight each other as each perceives the need, and let humanity slide into an abyss of its own making?

Yes, I remember those battles. Behaviourist psychology, especially the extreme forms, always seemed like simplistic nonsense to me. I don't know how much you've been following the latest neuroscience research, but, amusingly, all the real, hard science that neuroscience has been doing has forced behaviourists to shut up about their supposedly scientific world view. Behaviourism now has to follow around as an afterthought in terms like cognitive-behavioural therapy.
(End of my rant ) I think I understand what you mean. There's an English scientist, Simon Baron-Cohen, who has some theories about this. Here's an extract from his Wikipedia entry (I'm in a rush, otherwise I'd explore this a bit more): Edited by JavaMan, : Edited typoEdited by JavaMan, : Edited typo

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Got to define the problem first. When it is defined, I suspect that the science side is going to have to eat some crow and get down off their high horse if a solution is to be possible.Edited by Faith, : Grammar

Thank you, that was a lucid answer and should clear up quite a few misconceptions. I'm glad to think it's not a satire of God or of religious belief, but of a nonspecific idea that ID tries to hold onto for the sake of its argument. I'm not sure the idea in itself is completely wrong, but at least I get the point of the satire now and I didn't before.

The question is whether the two can be distinguished. If they can't, it's a mere trival name change. If they can be distinguuished in the sense that FSM is not the creator, then FSM is an extraneous entity.

Here is what I see as the more significant problems with EvC Forum:

• Insufficient creationist participation as both regular members and as moderators.
  ​
• Too many members who don't believe ignorance should be an obstacle to participation.
  ​
• Too many members who don't know when they don't know.
  ​
• Too many members who confuse casual dismissal of addlepated comments with ill treatment at the hands of snobs.

For those who recognize themselves in the above comments, or who at least have a strong feeling that it's them I'm talking about, let me assure you that we've all experienced having the best we can do be criticized and casually dismissed. If your gut reaction to this is always, "Well, they're jerks," instead of, "Let me examine whether I was truly being stupid, despite my best intentions," then you're not getting all you can out of the EvC experience. It isn't necessary to agree with science to understand it. But if you don't understand it then it is mere tilting at windmills to criticize it.--Percy

I know you're busy with a lot of other threads, but I think this topic deserves one. I am willing to open a new thread to explore possible problem definitions, and possible solutions where the two "sides" can see if they can come to a common understanding. Since I am literally diametrically opposite your viewpoint, if the two of us can reach an understanding at some level, then maybe there is a chance that others may be able to as well. I'm suggesting an open thread, rather than a debate. If you're too tied up, that's understandable. On the other hand, this is probably a bad start to the process...

Figured I had to make my position clear up front. I suspect it parallels yours anyway. Since you've thought about the subject, yes, open a thread, I'd like to see what you have to say. I was thinking of opening a thread on the subject myself, but I wanted to read Snow first. I'll probably get to it tomorrow. Edited by Faith, : added last sentence.