Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 5:22 AM
146 online now:
(146 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 181 of 210 (361115)
11-03-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by nator
11-02-2006 9:57 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Ok Shraf... you and the others have convinced me I must open up. Thought you might connect the dots yourself.

You asked:

So, is it your contention that scientists, as a specific part of mankind, are either liars, knowingly perpetuating a falsehood, or utterly incompetent at doing science?

Yes! By taking a single line in the fabric of the whole (in this case empericism), they have failed to give balance to the entire equation. This may or may not be intentional on an individual basis. It would be rather foolish of me to suggest that every scientist is knowingly perpetuating a falsehood. Especially since each of us is guilty of doing just that from time to time. We correct ourselves in proportion to our commitment to the truth. So it is not something limited to science. It is a human condition.

It should not suprise us that an entire institution can be thoroughly deluded. We have our history books. It is not only possible... but is the consistent pattern of human institutions and civilizations. It is really what we should expect! I cannot help but wonder why you and others would be motivated to place such enormous faith in science. I dare not say what I think that motivation is, in defference to respect for you as an independant thinker. It is much better for you to realize it yourself. I have had my own 'look in the mirror' moments, so I really wish not to cast stones.

What is even more interesting, is that if you take a man like Richard Dawkins, you see the epitome of my point. He believes with passion in the 'truth' of naturalism and as such, must logically conclude that morality is an illusion. I applaud him for his clear headedness irrespective of the fact that I disagree with his conclusion. If naturalism is true, then he is right!

What stikes me even more, is that he recognizes that objective reality is 'sinless'. It cannot be otherwise. Therefore, anything that threatens 'reality' is bad. Hence his hatred of Theists like myself. However, he seems completely oblivious to the fact that by his own admission, morality is an illusion, yet he moralizes with vigor.

It is contradictions like these that make plain, the disconnect between disciplinces. One cannot have an empirical (science) stance that denies the existence of morality, and also an existential (moral)stance that anything is wrong. To do so would violate the third primary discipline of logic. Evidence matters, Logic matters, and experience matters. Where do they all converge? They are all part of reality, so they must cohere (logically mix).

When your emperical(science) position matches your existential (moral) position, and is furthermore in harmony with the logical coherence of the two, we then have a triune position that reflects all of objective reality in harmony.

That's what we're all looking for. And we may not like it at first, but reality always points to the one place that it is, because it is the one thing we have absolutely no control over. Our only option is to seek it, or utterly reject it, whatever it turns out to be.


"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons." (C.S. Lewis)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nator, posted 11-02-2006 9:57 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 11-03-2006 1:02 PM Rob has responded
 Message 189 by nator, posted 11-03-2006 5:25 PM Rob has responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 182 of 210 (361128)
11-03-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rob
11-03-2006 12:26 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
What is even more interesting, is that if you take a man like Richard Dawkins, you see the epitome of my point. He believes with passion in the 'truth' of naturalism and as such, must logically conclude that morality is an illusion. I applaud him for his clear headedness irrespective of the fact that I disagree with his conclusion. If naturalism is true, then he is right!

You ignore the possibility that morality is a human concept. That's where bible thumpers make their mistake. So many of them are apparently inacapable of doing their own moral reasoning so they simply follow what their fairy tale construct tells them, or, more accurately, what others who believe in their fairy tale construct say the construct said.

If it's a human concept, it's no more an illusion than freedom, democracy or any other abstract concept that we have created.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 12:26 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 1:21 PM subbie has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 183 of 210 (361134)
11-03-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by subbie
11-03-2006 1:02 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
You ignore the possibility that morality is a human concept. That's where bible thumpers make their mistake.

I can understand why you think that, but I have not always been a Bible Thumper In fact, I used to thump the same perception of reality (or it's potential) that you are thumping now. As you are now, so once was I. Don't forget that every affirmation is by default, a thumping. We cannot suggest that what we believe is right, without by implication sugesting that it's competing worldviews are wrong. That is why relativism is not relativism at all. There is no such thing as relativism. it is just another claim to truth.

What I found at some point in my own thinking, is that if morality is a human concept, then my human concept is different than yours because we are unique creatures with different DNA and environmental programming. So then the question becomes,

"How can I, impose my morality on you"?
Which begs a further question...
"Would it be wrong for me to do so?"

As I saw after some serious thinking, the idea that morality is a human conception becomes non-sensicle. It is either a reality that somehow logically coheres with the rest of the universe, or it does not exist at all.

Speaking for myself, I cannot live with the latter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 11-03-2006 1:02 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 11-03-2006 1:36 PM Rob has responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 184 of 210 (361137)
11-03-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Rob
11-03-2006 1:21 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Ah, I see. You used to be like me, but after serious thought, you came to "the right" conclusion. The implication of that little speech is that I just haven't thought enough about it. There's the arrogance I've come to know and love from thumpers.

As I saw after some serious thinking, the idea that morality is a human conception becomes non-sensicle.

Obviously I haven't thought about it nearly as much as you have, since I see nothing "non-sensicle" about it. Could you explain your reasoning to me?


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 1:21 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 3:03 PM subbie has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 3:07 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 185 of 210 (361145)
11-03-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by subbie
11-03-2006 1:36 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Ah, I see. You used to be like me, but after serious thought, you came to "the right" conclusion. The implication of that little speech is that I just haven't thought enough about it. There's the arrogance I've come to know and love from thumpers.

Well either I haven't thought about it enough, or you haven't thought about it enough if that makes you feel better. Reason herself is the master. It matters little where in that stream we are. There is always more to learn. We either accept that, or we refuse to learn from anyone.

As for the reasoning, what did I not explain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 11-03-2006 1:36 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 186 of 210 (361146)
11-03-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by subbie
11-03-2006 1:36 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
You used to be like me, but after serious thought, you came to "the right" conclusion.

No... The right conclusion was always right. After I asked it (Him) to help me, I could then see it. So, I found it not because I am superior, but quite the other way around. I found it because I admitted I was inferior.

I once was lost, but now I'm found, was blind but now I see.

I gave in, and admitted that God was God.
C. S. Lewis

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons." (C.S. Lewis)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 11-03-2006 1:36 PM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by AdminJar, posted 11-03-2006 3:12 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 210 (361147)
11-03-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Rob
11-03-2006 3:07 PM


Last warning Rob
Rob, you can not even get close to an on topic post. This is a science thread. Please stop posting unrelated nonsense.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 186 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 3:07 PM Rob has not yet responded

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 244 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 188 of 210 (361197)
    11-03-2006 5:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 178 by Rob
    11-03-2006 2:02 AM


    Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
    quote:
    To answer your question... Not necessarily.

    My point is that they are not exempt from such sins.


    No, they aren't.

    But is it your opinion that they are generally, in fact, guilty, of being liars who are perpetuating a massive falsehood, or utterly incompetent at doing science?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 178 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 2:02 AM Rob has not yet responded

        
    nator
    Member (Idle past 244 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 189 of 210 (361198)
    11-03-2006 5:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 181 by Rob
    11-03-2006 12:26 PM


    Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
    quote:
    It should not suprise us that an entire institution can be thoroughly deluded.

    So, is it your position that all scientists who accept the ToE are incompetent at doing science, since possibly they have been lied to by a few other scientists who wish to fool them and they are too knuckleheaded to figure out that the data they've been using doesn't actually work?

    Just so I am sure we are on the same page, Rob, could you please briefly give a run down of what is involved in submitting a paper for peer review, and the general process of getting a paper published in a professional scientific journal.

    I want to know how well you understand the way the peer-review process works.

    Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 181 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 12:26 PM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 190 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 5:38 PM nator has responded
     Message 192 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 5:54 PM nator has not yet responded

        
    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3923 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 190 of 210 (361201)
    11-03-2006 5:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 189 by nator
    11-03-2006 5:25 PM


    Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
    I want to know how well you understand the way the peer-review process works.

    More or less as well as any other human attempt to control themselves. The fact that such measures are needed is not very condusive to the portrait of scientists you have purchased.

    Peer review may not be the worst of all human attempts at honesty and integrity, but that is not the point. The point is that the better our attempts succeed, the more difficulty we would have in uncovering the sohistication of the new lie.

    It still boils down to the inmates running the assylum.

    "Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."
    (C. S. Lewis)


    "Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."
    (C. S. Lewis)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by nator, posted 11-03-2006 5:25 PM nator has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 191 by AdminJar, posted 11-03-2006 5:42 PM Rob has not yet responded
     Message 204 by nator, posted 11-03-2006 7:59 PM Rob has not yet responded

        
    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 191 of 210 (361202)
    11-03-2006 5:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 190 by Rob
    11-03-2006 5:38 PM


    Again Rob, your reply has nothing to do with the topic
    and does not even respond to the question you were asked.

    You have got to do better.

    You were asked:

    Just so I am sure we are on the same page, Rob, could you please briefly give a run down of what is involved in submitting a paper for peer review, and the general process of getting a paper published in a professional scientific journal.

    I want to know how well you understand the way the peer-review process works

    Nothing in your message was related to the question included above.

    Edited by AdminJar, : add specific quote


    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 190 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 5:38 PM Rob has not yet responded

      
    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3923 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 192 of 210 (361203)
    11-03-2006 5:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 189 by nator
    11-03-2006 5:25 PM


    Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
    So, is it your position that all scientists who accept the ToE are incompetent at doing science, since possibly they have been lied to by a few other scientists who wish to fool them and they are too knuckleheaded to figure out that the data they've been using doesn't actually work?

    It's not a matter of incompetance really. It's a matter of having the courage to question such a massive institution at the expense of immediate reward. I mean... could that many people really be wrong?

    And they data may very well work in the confines of science and logic, but what happens when you bring in the moral side of the equation. There are many scientists as well as non-scientists, that consciously put aside the moral questions for obvious reasons (which are necessarily a conflict of interest).

    We must all be self-aware of bias. Being a scientist does not make one immune from bias, rather, in its extreme (in the name of science) we can become even more prone to bias. The reason I say this is, by -excluding- the moral equation (being biased against it (which is rare in its entirety. Nazi Germany is the quitessential example), we actually become monsters who put no limitation on anything. All in the name of science.

    There are simply some things we must be biased and prejudice about.

    "All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt."
    (C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain)

    As an aside... in your opinion Shraf, are we on topic?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by nator, posted 11-03-2006 5:25 PM nator has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 193 by DrJones*, posted 11-03-2006 6:01 PM Rob has responded
     Message 195 by ringo, posted 11-03-2006 6:10 PM Rob has responded

        
    DrJones*
    Member
    Posts: 1805
    From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Joined: 08-19-2004
    Member Rating: 4.3


    Message 193 of 210 (361205)
    11-03-2006 6:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 192 by Rob
    11-03-2006 5:54 PM


    Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
    It's a matter of having the courage to question such a massive institution at the expense of immediate reward

    Bullshit. Any scientist who overturned evolution would be immediatly become the biggest name in science.


    Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
    If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
    *not an actual doctor
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 192 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 5:54 PM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 194 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 6:09 PM DrJones* has responded

      
    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3923 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 194 of 210 (361208)
    11-03-2006 6:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 193 by DrJones*
    11-03-2006 6:01 PM


    Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
    Any scientist who overturned evolution would be immediatly become the biggest name in science.

    That is why the biggest name of all is JESUS!

    "Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
    (C. S. Lewis)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 193 by DrJones*, posted 11-03-2006 6:01 PM DrJones* has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 197 by DrJones*, posted 11-03-2006 6:15 PM Rob has responded

        
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 16223
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 195 of 210 (361209)
    11-03-2006 6:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 192 by Rob
    11-03-2006 5:54 PM


    Rob writes:

    Being a scientist does not make one immune from bias....

    You've missed the fundamental point: the peer-review process involves scientists with different biases.

    A Muslim-biased scientist can't cite experimental results unless an atheist-biased scientist can repeat them. A Christian-biased scientist can't produce a theory that a Hindu-biased scientist won't accept. No one scientist's Republican bias or homosexual bias or vanilla-ice-cream bias determines the results that science produces.

    It's rather like democracy - it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we humans can manage.


    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 192 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 5:54 PM Rob has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 196 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 6:13 PM ringo has responded

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    9101112
    13
    14Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019