Saying that there is never any conclusive proof of anything can be a sign of either intellectual rigor, or a complete dismissal of reason, It’s a not-so-clever way of subverting scientific methodology. Sure, nobody ever proves anything scientifically, because they always evaluate the available evidence. The boneheaded version of this assumes that proof is desirable, but since we never reach it, we should instead ignore the evidence - meaning, of course, to ignore that evidence which might appear convenient.
3 Likes
You’re correct, of course, & my failure to recall that episode completely scotched my opening comment. Not only that, I really should know better since one ignores Herod at ones own peril.
IMO, the fact that there are so many points of narrative conflict within the Christian biblical cannon should give pause to any pastor or seeker, & should also probably motivate revisions to existing interpretation in pursuit of broader scriptural understanding.
Academic theologians acknowledge & embrace narratives which span multiple faith traditions while still sharing pronounced thematic elements. Despite these fundamental similarities, however, such faith stories are none-the-less woven with imagery that is appropriate for a given culture or even locale.
While any given scriptural story may possess some factual element or be based on an historic event, nearly all narratives incorporate significant elements of myth, which serve to more fully convey an intended meaning or lesson. It’s likely that no scriptural text was ever intended by it’s author to be taken as literal & factual, with the notable exception, perhaps, of L. Ron Hubbard. But scientology of course occupies it’s own unique space in the world of artifice.
You seem to take it as a given that evolution by natural selection is (1) a cruel and amoral process with (2) a possible alternative. Christians who embrace evolution would challenge those points by saying that (1) the purpose of evolution is to create a creature capable of morality, making it a process of creating morality in the first place, and (2) if there was a viable alternative, it would have been done that way instead, but the alternatives we can imagine are not actually viable in practice for one reason or another.
It’s pointless to argue with any adherent to a strict dogmatic school of thought, whether it be creationism, atheism or market capitalism. Anyone willing to unquestioningly accept ideology while simultaneously dismissing any possibility of human fallibility wrt perfect knowledge, is a guaranteed 1st degree bummer to encounter at a party.
If the topic is restricted to religion, the bummer thing goes for Dawkins as well. Dawkins is brilliant in the fields of biology & life sciences, & a generally engaging, erudite fella overall, I’m sure. When it comes to matters of theology, he’s trying to trade punches well above his weight class.
WRT to the assertion that transcendence is just an illusion; Eh, I think maybe you’re just imagining that! 
(But hey, if it’s you, if it’s me, whatever; it’s okay!)
I have also heard from another sort of fundamentalist that the likeness should not be taken to be physical but mental. It’s not that God is somehow humanoid-shaped, but that we can think, feel, and have an urge to create after the fashion of our creator. Not sure what they thought about aliens, though.
It’s very unfair of you to put these all together though. Atheism can be held dogmatically, but much more often it’s actually considered the most likely interpretation of the evidence. Some people may have put more consideration into that than others, but certainly if there are any actual contradictions with the world around us, they are ones so subtle that very brilliant philosophers routinely doubt them.
To say the same for free market capitalism means you’ve taken it in a relatively broad sense, or haven’t considered much of how it’s actually worked in practice. And we’ve reached the point where you can’t say even that much about young earth creationism, which requires actively rejecting one series of facts after another.
There’s a lot of figurative language in them, to be sure, but it’s hard to say they were never meant to be taken factually. There are centuries of religious people and even historians and theologians who’ve said otherwise, and I’m doubtful you or I are that much more perceptive that it’s reasonable for us to declare one interpretation of authorial intent as better than theirs with much certainty.
1 Like
Sorry. I didn’t have enough coffee yet, or I am gonna blame that anyway.
1 Like
This screeching nincompoop made me so angry! She reads from a museum display then immediately responds to it as if it said something completely different. She LOVES to criticize many things, but suppresses comments on her own Youtube and Facebook. Hypocrite !!!
Ben Stein’s “Expelled”, at least, shows why one should expect Intelligence behind the order in creation. Ms. Fox is an emotional, sensationalist, politicizing quick-draw train wreck. She should shut up until she knows how to represent intelligent Bible believers properly. That should take about thirty years. Until then she makes all Christians look like dopes.
1 Like
I see that it comes more from a basic human need to get a black and white vision about our place in the universe. Truth is a polarised position that feels good. If you have faith you believe something regardless of evidence that only might suggest otherwise. Both sides think they believe the truth.
Science is only a methodology for examining things and at best a model of nature . Science is not the answer , (or “fossils” for that matter).
The thing that non believers don’t understand is that we have faith in science regardless of whether we understand the facts. Which is no different from believing in God.
Have you tested to see that the Earth goes around the Sun or do you just have faith that its true. There’s no difference between that kind of faith and God faith.
The difference only arises when you are open to being proved wrong and that faith is not absolute and for that we must trust the scientific method.
So believers need to feel that what they think is absolute but non believers are fine to be proved wrong. This must be a primordial human psychological condition as in this day and age why else would so many people struggle with science versus stone age fairy tales.
I hope my dyslectic babble made some sense. lol
I’m always terrified by the creationists choice to use reason to disprove science.
1 Like
That seems like an ironically liberal use of the term reason.
2 Likes
In Summary
“Well, let me explain to you why you are wrong.”
“WHY!? Your entire point is “Faith!” Why would you be pissed off there wasn’t any evidence that satisfies you? Why are you even looking for evidence?”
The introduction of conclusions drawn from the act of looking at the situation and then thinking about it is so alien and outside their paradigm of thought that the use of that kind of language in support of their beliefs is… exclamatory to me.
Yeah. It’s not really reason to draw a conclusion, then work backwards from that. That’s rationalization. Reason looks for a conclusion using logic and facts.
So what, perhaps cultural attractor, is it, I wonder, that drives a person whos world-view is derived from some untouchable, a priori assumptions, in an attempt to rationalise their beliefs; feel the need to resort to the use of the language of reason, attempting a (pantomime of a scientific) investigation, searching for and not finding ‘evidence’ etc?
Edited to be less of a douche, apologies.
The desire not to be called a babbling lunatic? Therefore they attempt to thinly guise their unfounded rhetoric in the cultural attractor they perceive as the “temple of science”. It seems practically like cargo-cult rhetoric in my opinion.
1 Like
Then on some conscious level, they are aware they are spouting nonsense but the… compartmentalisation, is so powerful, the performance so strongly reinforced that even using knowledge of how wrong you are to attempt to strengthen your argument, does not disprove your argument.
It’s breathtaking.
Students at every school level do those sorts of experiments all the time. Or are you saying that every single person must do every single experiment that has thus far taught us something about the universe we live in? I barely have time to keep the dog fed! Are we not allowed to accept that the theory of gravity exists without dropping a bowling ball and feather in a vacuum ourselves?
3 Likes
I think it’s proof of cracks in the wall. People like this are starting to realize that they can’t just make ignorant claims and expect their children to believe them. The outside world will have some effect, no matter how diligently they try to keep it out. They have to at least sound like they’re educated, and that’s what they think “educated” sounds like.
4 Likes
Unfair; well, possibly, but if anything it’s probably closer to a poor construction & expression of the point I’d intended.
My intention was that the focus be on the nature of an unthinking & unyielding embrace of dogma (any dogma), & on how an uncritical acceptance of dogma precludes any possibility of future enlightening discussion or debate. Discussion or debate is simply impossible once there is an insistence that dogmatic precepts be regarded as inerrant & infallible.
The juxtaposition of “theist/atheist” presented a convenient context within which to frame (sloppily) the idea of irredeemably conflicted dogma.
And I don’t know what the hell Market Capitalism is in there for, since it has no bearing at all on the topic at hand & I shouldn’t have tossed it into the mix. I was probably incensed at the time over some new example of capitalist sociopathy launching a fresh assault against civilization. (And while allegories can be drawn to a “Religion of Capitalism”, complete with it’s own well funded terrorist networks, it’s still a different article altogether.)
There has been quite a lot of work & debate focused on this matter & indeed (as with most matters) sweeping generalizations & broad claims cannot be afforded much credibility. It is clear though, that some scriptural authors wished to be regarded as the authoritative alpha & omega & intended for a literal reading of scriptures.
But given the sheer volume of alterations to scriptural cannon over the ages (consequential additions to & deletions from narratives, changes to the wording or context of passages, etc.) I don’t consider it unreasonable to suggest that a great many primary or original authors (& probably a majority of editorial authors) did not think in terms of timeless, purely literal interpretation of their works, if they even considered such possibilities at all.
1 Like
Speaking of bowling ball and feather vs. vacuum: http://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs . Best 4:41 anyone could ask for.
4 Likes
I knew before clicking that it had to be the Brian Cox video!
He is so infectious. Definitely on the list for Dream Dinner Party With Living People.
