Do you think the self-imagined Republican “base” would mobilize against a candidate who talked that way? (via Althouse). (And, yes, I wish the reporter had pinned him down with “inerrantly” rather than “literally”. But still.)
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
“No, it isn’t. Take String Theory. There is a whole spectrum from ‘It predicts gravity’ to ‘It’s not even wrong’ and everything in between.”
Point taken. My statement was made in the context of the specific question asked about evolution to these politicians, and wasn’t meant to be as broad as I wrote it.
The point I was trying to making (and doing a rather poor job of it, apparently) was simply that people either accept evolution or they do not. Some may put religious spin on it, in terms of believing that a god was involved, YEC v. OEC, or somesuch, but, at heart, the question asked of these men was merely whether they accepted evolution. Because they were not asked to explain more details than that, the question was not a “bad faith” one.
If anything, by not being too specific, it went to the benefit of the politicians. It permitted someone like McCain to do what he did, admit that he accepted evolution (so as not to look like, well, a boob), and then later, in the newspaper, attach all kinds of religious nonsense to his answer in an attempt to attract the votes of the people who did not like the fact that he accepted evolution.
I do hope you are being tongue-in-cheek here. If you are, in fact, asserting that atheists are tools of the devil, then there really isn’t any point in trying to have a discussion with you.
I would personally not prefer that Panopaea’s comments be removed, although I recognize that is entirely up to Our Hosts, but there’s really no excuse for the people responding to him/her as though he/she were a rational being.
If you see that a particular poster routinely says stupid things, engaging them in discussion and providing cues to post even more stupid things is probably not the best way to deal with it. That’s how you treat an honest, intelligent person, not people who refuse to learn. Ignoring Panopaea’s religious nonsense seems the best strategy.
“You might be interested to know that I’ve simply deleted dozens of Creationist comments since this website started.”
Thank you, Hume. Seriously. (We can’t have the Uruk-hai storming the Keep, now can we?)
“I’ll join mrsdutoit and leave you to design this compound to your liking. An intelligent circle jerk is still a circle jerk.”
JM Hanes: Check out the *Comments Policy* tab. If you don’t like what’s going on, start your own weblog. This site isn’t a democracy, and it’s run by specific individuals as they see fit. If Hume, Heather, Walter, Bradlaugh, etc.(Nietzsche?), couldn’t delete as they saw fit, I’m guessing we would indeed be swamped by those who would seek to convert us. (Half the point of this blog is the “Secular” part. Period, full stop. They’ve been fairly lenient already, as Panopaea can attest.)
Also, while I don’t want to get into sexual metaphors here, keeping the focus away from holy-rollerism and its various incarnations (Creationism/ID nonsense) is hardly a “circle jerk”: It’s not this site is a hotbed of agreement, even with the Jesusry taken out of the picture.
You should stick around, but realize that we will not be proselytized to.
Best,
Gentlemen:
You can take Panopaea to task for her arguments, but it is hardly bad faith on her part to question why evolution is true. The problem starts with what is meant by the term “evolution”. There is certainly a valid distinction to be made between the fact of evolution and the mechanism for it.
Evolution, in the sense of modification through descent, is a fact hard to doubt. The paleontological record contains more than sufficient evidence of this. This is not true of the mechanism for evolution.
We really do not know that natural selection is that mechanism. The arguments offered by Darwin and his successors for natural selection are truly hypotheses and not scientific theories. We have little evidence of that mechanism. Maybe none at all, if that evidence relies upon small scale changes in a population of organisms which usually snaps back to the norm once the enviromental pressure prompting the changes is released.
So while questioning the fact of evolution puts someone nearly into the category of a flat-earther (because of the strong evidence for it), a rational person can certainly question whether natural selection is the mechanism of evolution (because of the lack of evidence for it). So in all fairness, if you use the term “evolution” to carry more weight than it should bear — e.g., packing Darwinian natural selection into the term — you should say so.
The same problem occurs with the term “creationist”. Every orthodox Christian is a creationist in that he believes God created the universe. However that belief is hardly in contradiction with the facts we know from science. As for those Christians who make the mistake of reading the Bible literally and so try to make a scientific text out of Genesis, instead of the allegory its author intended it to be, why argue with them? Most Christians don’t bother, so why should secularists bother? You wouldn’t spend much time arguing with a flat-earther when the facts are completely contrary to his belief.
Finally, as for those of you who have arrogantly labeled as irrational anyone who doesn’t buy into what you have deemed as scientific theory — i.e., Darwinian natural selection — you are hypocrites. I have read nothing on this website that shows any substantial knowledge of Christianity, let alone a genuine understanding of it. Yet, mired in this ignorance, you have no humility to restrain yourselves from making the most threadbare, cobwebbed, and foolish claims against Christianity and its adherents. At best you are pots calling the kettle black.
You wouldn’t spend much time arguing with a flat-earther when the facts are completely contrary to his belief.
Leaving aside the absurd special pleading of your last paragraph, the fact remains that the creationist movement is expending vast amounts of money in trying to insert their beliefs into schools and into the minds of our children not as beliefs but fact.
And that is why creationism is so dangerous. It is, as Bradlaugh once said, a blood libel on our civilisation.
We have little evidence of that mechanism.
The nature of natural selection and its efficacy have been the subject of scientific inquiry for decades.
There are many forums where the unexamined shibboleths of the Right (e.g., Creatonism) and Left (e.g., “Diversity is Strength!”) are taken at
face value. I’m not interested in SR becoming another such forum.
As for those Christians who make the mistake of reading the Bible literally and so try to make a scientific text out of Genesis, instead of the allegory its author intended it to be, why argue with them?
Which is why I delete the comments of Creationists. No interest in talking to such creatures. Your whole long rant seems presupposed on a fallacious assumption that I have interest in talking to them, and a cursory reading of this thread would suggest that I’m not interested.
Ridiculous.
Panopaea: You keep going on and on about “Christians did this” and “Christians contributed to that”, as if the worldly work of Christians has any bearing of the truth-claims of your metaphysics and supernatural commitments. They do not.
The argument you want to have between “the fruits of believing in Christianity” and “the fruits of atheism” is not an argument about the *matters of fact* in question; the *empirical*, or even *metaphysical* truth between the two world-views. It simply is not. Those concerns might have bearing on questions about morality (and I’d resist your conclusions here, but at least the arc of your reasoning wouldn’t be so off), but not on the truth content of your virgin-birth, blood-sacrifice, body-resurrection, angel/demon-existing, hell/heaven-rewarding, all-events-are-preordained-and-known-in-advance mythology. That you evidently cannot, or refuse to see this point is what I, and I suspect many others, find frustrating about your comments.
Also, as I’ve said before, Christianity isn’t the only big-time, successful, “viable” religion out there. You act as if, in the debate you’d like us to be having, it’s a zero-sum game between irreligion and Christianity. This is not the case. The are dozens and dozens of religion out there, and any “points” you think you’re scoring against “godless Darwinism” are points that could just as easily be counted for Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc., etc., etc.
In the comments section of another post, you said something along the lines of “Well, let them chant! There’s a reason there are so few of” (atheists). You DO know that, in terms of raw numbers, there are more non-Christians in the world than Christians, right? And if we take the long view of human life (or even to 6,500 years, or whatever time-frame your supernatural commitments sanction), the numbers get even worse for you? So, where does that leave your numbers-argument against atheism?
My last point here is not to suggest that the “truth” of the matter is a numbers-game in terms of how many adherents some belief-set has. It is most definitely NOT. My point is simply that even if you DO want to play the game that way, your belief system (a very specific belief set within an already fairly specific religious story-line) comes up far short.
And if you want to then switch to evidentiary standard and internal coherence….well,…good luck to you, cause you’ll need it. 😉
Jon Rowe, it is no secret Christians fight a battle against the easy currents of the world and against the Adamic nature in fallen man.
Let’s speak as conservatives (you all are conservatives here, aren’t you?)… We all know as conservatives that the gravitational pull on all institutions is towards becoming more left-wing and towards defining standards ever downward. You don’t, for instance, need an education to be a left-wing liberal you just need to be born; you do, though, need an education – or at least a library card – to be a conservative.
Conservatives and Christians face the same challenges in this world. The other side grows by birth, we only grow by diligent effort to educate and instill valuation for light, life, and liberty. The forces of darkness, death, and tyranny just need to throw their raft on the river of the world and kick back.
Bill Tingely: “I have read nothing on this website that shows any substantial knowledge of Christianity, let alone a genuine understanding of it. Yet, mired in this ignorance, you have no humility to restrain yourselves from making the most threadbare, cobwebbed, and foolish claims against Christianity and its adherents.”
I await your detailed comments evidencing your substantial knowledge of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, and Scientology (for starters), which I’m assuming would convey a genuine understanding of those religions.
Until then you are mired in ignorance, showing no humility to restrain yourself from making the most threadbare, cobwebbed, and foolish claims against Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Scientology and their many, many adherent.
At best you are a pot calling the kettle, coffee-maker, mixing-bowl, cookie-sheet, blender, toaster, George-Foreman-Grill, fondue-set, and wok black.
Have some respect! How dare you disrespect so many adherents-of-religions-other-than-your own!! (Or maybe, just maybe, you entitled to dismiss their claims, because their claims are clearly ludicrous. As are the claims of Christianity.)
I guess I’m not interested in games of “My God is bigger than your God”.
If it’s not based on naturalism, it just enters scroll-by territory for me.
For myself, I’ve never been able to rid myself of the suspicion that Faith = Lies. Faking it. Pretending you know something when you don’t.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they really do have “magical experiences”. Since I don’t and it is not accessible to me, I just ignore it as “nothing to do with me”.
Dave M says: “Leaving aside the absurd special pleading of your last paragraph, the fact remains that the creationist movement is expending vast amounts of money in trying to insert their beliefs into schools and into the minds of our children not as beliefs but fact.”
Dave, I don’t think you understand what special pleading is. I’m also surprised, if you claim to be a conservative, that you believe that the First Amendment should yield to a government program — e.g., public schools — in the event of a conflict. If it is truly the case that public schools cannot accommodate the free exercise clause, then the public school system should be dismantled, not the First Amendment.
David Hume says: “There are many forums where the unexamined shibboleths of the Right (e.g., Creatonism) and Left (e.g., “Diversity is Strength!”) are taken at face value. I’m not interested in SR becoming another such forum.”
Nor should you, David Hume, if you want this to be an intellectually robust site. Of course, that means not making shibboleths out of the non-theist beliefs by a refusal to examine them.
“Which is why I delete the comments of Creationists. No interest in talking to such creatures. Your whole long rant seems presupposed on a fallacious assumption that I have interest in talking to them, and a cursory reading of this thread would suggest that I’m not interested.”
That’s certainly your prerogative, David Hume, as the rest of us are your invitees and should understand that there are house rules. But let me give my two cents on this rule of yours. It’s not a very good one.
First, you don’t explain what you mean by “Creationists”. All orthodox Christians are creationists because they believe that God created the universe. Now if you chuck them out of your forum, I don’t understand how that develops a dialog with the very people you are petitioning to change their rhetoric for the sake of conservativism’s political success.
Next, it also doesn’t help to dehumanize Christians as “creatures”, even the ones who twist creationism into rationalism so that every inconvenient fact must be made to fit into their one Big Idea. As a conservative you know how totalitarians dehumanized others to justify torturing and killing them. I don’t think that was your intention. Even so, it doesn’t smack of the tolerance you want Christians in the conservative movement to extend to right-wing secularists.
Finally, if by your lights what I wrote is a “long rant”, I see plenty of emotion in that statement but little reason.
“Ridiculous.”
Well, yes, of course. I made statements you disgree with. 😉
A-Bax says: “I await your detailed comments evidencing your substantial knowledge of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, and Scientology (for starters), which I’m assuming would convey a genuine understanding of those religions.”
What does that have to do with anything? While I have an adequate understanding of most of those religions, I have the sense to make only statements about them that are founded upon the knowledge I do have of them.
“Until then you are mired in ignorance, showing no humility to restrain yourself from making the most threadbare, cobwebbed, and foolish claims against Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Scientology and their many, many adherent.”
Now, A-Bax, show us the claims I have made against any of these religions, let alone their adherents. Of course I haven’t, and so your statement is nonsense lacking even the dignity of logic.
“Have some respect! How dare you disrespect so many adherents-of-religions-other-than-your own!! (Or maybe, just maybe, you entitled to dismiss their claims, because their claims are clearly ludicrous. As are the claims of Christianity.)”
Again, what claims have I made against these other religions?
Daniel Dare says: “If it’s not based on naturalism, it just enters scroll-by territory for me.”
That’s fine Daniel so long as you realize that you are doing the same thing as Christians and other believers do to frame their understanding of the world and the human condition. Namely you committed yourself to metaphysical proposition prior to any epistemological one — i.e., the scientic method is the only way to gain true knowledge of anything.
I was in that same camp until I realized there are phenomena that are definitely true — e.g., consciousness — but cannot be reduced to measurement, enumeration, delineation, or any other manner of quantification, which is critical to science. So, even as a non-believer I came to understand that my metaphysical foundation which constrained me to only the knowledge that science could deliver was inadequate.
Dave M says: “Leaving aside the absurd special pleading of your last paragraph, the fact remains that the creationist movement is expending vast amounts of money in trying to insert their beliefs into schools and into the minds of our children not as beliefs but fact.”
Dave, I don’t think you understand what special pleading is. I’m also surprised, if you claim to be a conservative, that you believe that the First Amendment should yield to a government program — e.g., public schools — in the event of a conflict. If it is truly the case that public schools cannot accommodate the free exercise clause, then the public school system should be dismantled, not the First Amendment.
David Hume says: “There are many forums where the unexamined shibboleths of the Right (e.g., Creatonism) and Left (e.g., “Diversity is Strength!”) are taken at face value. I’m not interested in SR becoming another such forum.”
Nor should you, David Hume, if you want this to be an intellectually robust site. Of course, that means not making shibboleths out of the non-theist beliefs by a refusal to examine them.
“Which is why I delete the comments of Creationists. No interest in talking to such creatures. Your whole long rant seems presupposed on a fallacious assumption that I have interest in talking to them, and a cursory reading of this thread would suggest that I’m not interested.”
That’s certainly your prerogative, David Hume, as the rest of us are your invitees and should understand that there are house rules. But let me give my two cents on this rule of yours. It’s not a very good one.
First, you don’t explain what you mean by “Creationists”. All orthodox Christians are creationists because they believe that God created the universe. Now if you chuck them out of your forum, I don’t understand how that develops a dialog with the very people you are petitioning to change their rhetoric for the sake of conservativism’s political success.
Next, it also doesn’t help to dehumanize Christians as “creatures”, even the ones who twist creationism into rationalism so that every inconvenient fact must be made to fit into their one Big Idea. As a conservative you know how totalitarians dehumanized others to justify torturing and killing them. I don’t think that was your intention. Even so, it doesn’t smack of the tolerance you want Christians in the conservative movement to extend to right-wing secularists.
Finally, if by your lights what I wrote is a “long rant”, I see plenty of emotion in that statement but little reason.
“Ridiculous.”
Well, yes, of course. I made statements you disgree with.
A-Bax says: “I await your detailed comments evidencing your substantial knowledge of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, and Scientology (for starters), which I’m assuming would convey a genuine understanding of those religions.”
What does that have to do with anything? While I have an adequate understanding of most of those religions, I have the sense to make only statements about them that are founded upon the knowledge I do have of them.
“Until then you are mired in ignorance, showing no humility to restrain yourself from making the most threadbare, cobwebbed, and foolish claims against Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Scientology and their many, many adherent.”
Now, A-Bax, show us the claims I have made against any of these religions, let alone their adherents. Of course I haven’t, and so your statement is nonsense lacking even the dignity of logic.
“Have some respect! How dare you disrespect so many adherents-of-religions-other-than-your own!! (Or maybe, just maybe, you entitled to dismiss their claims, because their claims are clearly ludicrous. As are the claims of Christianity.)”
Again, what claims have I made against these other religions?
Daniel Dare says: “If it’s not based on naturalism, it just enters scroll-by territory for me.”
That’s fine Daniel so long as you realize that you are doing the same thing as Christians and other believers do to frame their understanding of the world and the human condition. Namely you committed yourself to metaphysical proposition prior to any epistemological one — i.e., the scientic method is the only way to gain true knowledge of anything.
I was in that same camp until I realized there are phenomena that are definitely true — e.g., consciousness — but cannot be reduced to measurement, enumeration, delineation, or any other manner of quantification, which is critical to science. So, even as a non-believer I came to understand that my metaphysical foundation which constrained me to only the knowledge that science could deliver was inadequate.
Let’s speak as conservatives (you all are conservatives here, aren’t you?)…
Well when I debate lefty liberals they term me a conservative who makes arguments out of “right field.” I might be content with the label “libertarian-conservative.” However, given the state of “conservatism” I’ll do most self defined conservatives a favor and not embrace that label, rather just call myself a “libertarian.”
I’ve long studied how pluralism and heterodoxy/freethinking (and “dissidence” and consequently “Protestantism” as a political-dissident force) has played important roles in establishing political liberty; so I tend to play up those dynamics.
I was in that same camp until I realized there are phenomena that are definitely true — e.g., consciousness — but cannot be reduced to measurement, enumeration, delineation, or any other manner of quantification, which is critical to science. So, even as a non-believer I came to understand that my metaphysical foundation which constrained me to only the knowledge that science could deliver was inadequate.
No Bill I don’t agree with that. It is definitely possible to do experiments on consciousness. As long as you can probe wires into someone’s brain, or scan, and get them to report back what they experience.
the problem is not metaphysics, the problem is your dualistic model of nature. As a monist I have no such issues.
I suspect Caledonian might be the more qualified than me to deal with this matter.
Dave, I don’t think you understand what special pleading is.
I do. There are many posts here written by Christians who somehow think that claiming that “my religion is SPECIAL! And my religion says SO!” is an automatic ace in an argument. Its not. Its simply a variation of the old “Goddidit!” argument.
I’m also surprised, if you claim to be a conservative, that you believe that the First Amendment should yield to a government program — e.g., public schools — in the event of a conflict.
That is a strawman. The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to promulgate lies (for that is what creationism is) in the Science classroom. And I suspect that’s where we differ – for you, the need to propagate your beliefs is something elevated above the US Constitution. There’s a term for that – Theocracy.
If it is truly the case that public schools cannot accommodate the free exercise clause, then the public school system should be dismantled, not the First Amendment.
Again, this is an example of the bad faith inherent in many Christian arguments posted here. Would you claim that that the First Amendment is unfairly suppressing the spread of Satanism in schools? Or Islam? Or Hinduism? Almost certainly not, we’re back to the special pleading again on behalf of your particular religion.
It is somewhat depressing that time and time again, I and others have to make the same point (and kudos to the moderators for their tolerance on this) – but I suspect this needs to be thrashed out to point understood by ALL – on a place like Secular Right, Arguments From Christianity aren’t tolerated.
“Dave, I don’t think you understand what special pleading is. I’m also surprised, if you claim to be a conservative, that you believe that the First Amendment should yield to a government program — e.g., public schools — in the event of a conflict. If it is truly the case that public schools cannot accommodate the free exercise clause, then the public school system should be dismantled, not the First Amendment.”
If one chooses, based on religion, to base his worldview and ideas about the past in a way that is contrary to the best model of reality that humanity has developed, it is not a violation of the First Amendment to teach that best model, even if it conflicts with someone’s religious views. The free exercise clause permits you to base your thinking on a delusion at odds with reality; it does not require the goverment to share that delusion.
The bottom line is, many christians do not want equal treatment under the law; they demand privileged treatment. A refusal to accede to this demand it deemed “persecution”.
“The bottom line is, many christians do not want equal treatment under the law; they demand privileged treatment. A refusal to accede to this demand it deemed ‘persecution’.”
Of course. What good is being the overwhelming majority if you can’t be persecuted martyrs, too??
Bill Tingley: Your belief in the divinity of Jesus is in-and-of itself and insult to Islam.
Your belief that your religion is true necessarily implies that you believe others are false. This is the “insult” I was referring to (tongue-in-cheek, though perhaps that was not clear.)
If the overall tone of my comment wasn’t clear, let me spell it out for you: You essentially took critics of Christianity to task for their lack of familiarity with that religion, implying that criticism against Christianity was tantamount to insulting it (without this “deeper” understanding being evident.)
I was mirroring the language used in your (textbook) Courtier’s reply. Your steadfast belief in your own religion amounts to a denial of others’ religion, and I was using the Courtier’s Reply (from about 9 different religion) against your implicit rejection of X, Y, Z, and so on.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. If you’d like to engage in the substance of a criticism of your religion, let’s roll up our sleeves and do it. But don’t bring that noise of “you don’t know enough about my precious beliefs”, or else you’re required to prove that you know “enough” about OTHER beliefs systems (and they are out there….the world is majority non-Christian, believe it or not), to sustain your implicit rejection of them.
Fair enough?
Daniel Dare:
No Bill I don’t agree with that. It is definitely possible to do experiments on consciousness. As long as you can probe wires into someone’s brain, or scan, and get them to report back what they experience.
I agree we can do experiments to learn things that are likely to be true about consciousness. However, when the experiment relies upon subjective data, as you concede about the need for the test subject to report what has occurred to him, then we are going beyond the bounds of science to place any confidence in the results. I’m not saying that confidence is necessarily unreasonable, but it requires putting trust in beliefs that are not scientific truths, which are founded upon objective data only.
the problem is not metaphysics, the problem is your dualistic model of nature. As a monist I have no such issues.
Well, the divide between us is metaphysical, and you have correctly identified the metaphysics of that divide. I am a dualist, more specifically an Aristotelian hylomorphist. As a monist I assume that you are a physicalist as opposed to an idealist.
The problem with physicalism is that it explains so little. If the universe is nothing but matter in motion, how does that explain how matter and motion are so orderly? How does that explain the constancy of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology? How does it explain our ability to acquire knowledge, our consciousness, and our free will (which if truly free cannot be constrained to the horizontal causation of matter in motion)? How does it explain an objective ethics — e.g., do not kill, do not steal — other than in terms of mere prudence which grounds virtues and vices in nothing more than generally accepted social conventions?
What does spiritualism explain? Explain, that is, beyond a sweeping “goddidit” assertion that explains everything, and thus nothing? Explain in a way that allows for testability, reproducibility, falsifiability and predictability?
What evidence can you provide that ethics are objective? The assertion that an objective morality is derived from the commandments of a supreme being only pushes the problem back a level. In which case you need to provide evidence that A) a supreme being exists, and B) it did, in fact, promulgate these objective moral rules.
Without this evidence, your “objective ethics” remain bare assertions with no more tangible basis than that offered by biology and evolutionary psychology.
I am flattered, but there are some things for which no qualifications are possible, some situations in which all you can do is defer to greater powers than oneself.
I recommend a flamethrower. Or nuking the previous commenter from orbit. Only way to be sure.
Bill, that’s nonsense. If I do controlled studies of people’s responses to stimuli applied to their brains then their responses and their brain scans are objective data.
It’s almost certainly going to be enough for us to identify the specific brain circuits and structures associated with consciousness, and we’ll see where that leads us.
Dualism is a form of occult belief totally unfounded in objective knowledge. Your problem is your very sterile and limited notion of what matter is capable of. If you don’t mind I will wait for the data.
You are welcome to waste your time on speculative metaphysics. To me it’s a totally useless activity. Metaphysics is a branch of the occult.
Dualism is a religious belief.
Dave M:
You claim to understand special pleading:
I do. There are many posts here written by Christians who somehow think that claiming that “my religion is SPECIAL! And my religion says SO!” is an automatic ace in an argument. Its not. Its simply a variation of the old “Goddidit!” argument.
You need to get together with A-Bax and learn how to read what is actually written, not what you wanted to be written. However, I will grant that failing to take a writer’s words at their plain meaning is useful in weaving strawmen.
Ah, speak of the devil …
That is a strawman. The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to promulgate lies (for that is what creationism is) in the Science classroom.
Define what you mean by “creationism”. It covers a whole lot of territory from the perfectly rational to the goofiness of the Young Earthers.
And I suspect that’s where we differ – for you, the need to propagate your beliefs is something elevated above the US Constitution. There’s a term for that – Theocracy.
I am amazed that anyone claiming to be conservative or a libertarian could write a sentence like this. Do you even understand the First Amendment? Where in it does it suppress the individual’s right to preach? How does the protection of that right by the Constitution translate into trumping the Constitution by exercising that right? And it is just plain nutty to call the exercise of that right “theocracy”.
Again, this is an example of the bad faith inherent in many Christian arguments posted here. Would you claim that that the First Amendment is unfairly suppressing the spread of Satanism in schools? Or Islam? Or Hinduism? Almost certainly not, we’re back to the special pleading again on behalf of your particular religion.
Where is this special pleading in what I wrote? I certainly do make those claims, even though I believe Roman Catholicism is the one true faith. The First Amendment does not privilege Christianity over other religions. It protects the free exercise of all religions (except the practice of objectively evil acts like human sacrifice), and the establishment clause further bolsters that protection by forbidding the government from establishing a state church.
What you don’t get is that the public schools have to go if it means significantly curtailing any individual’s free exercise of his religion. And should the public schools ever accommodate everyone’s free exercise then they are unworkable because of the chaos that ensues.
The plain fact is that there is no constitutional right to an education. As a practical matter we have been ill-served by the dollar-lust of the public schools as the insiders put their needs ahead of their students. So what exactly are you defending, Dave? Ensuring that public schools teach only your secular view of the world on the taxpayer’s dime?
Doesn’t it bother you in the least that the government, in this case through public schools, continues to intrude ever deeper into the privacy of families, to indoctrinate their children in secularist beliefs (usually liberal ones) antithetical to their own beliefs — and then the goverment has chutzpah charge them for this “service”?
The best solution is to get rid of the public schools instead of the First Amendment. Parents, not the taxpayers, are responsible for the education of their children. And with the elimination of the tax bite of the public schools, parents can afford private schools in harmony with their belief.
Liberty! What a concept.
It is somewhat depressing that time and time again, I and others have to make the same point (and kudos to the moderators for their tolerance on this) – but I suspect this needs to be thrashed out to point understood by ALL – on a place like Secular Right, Arguments From Christianity aren’t tolerated.
Well, I certainly didn’t make any “Argument from Christianity”, which is clear to any reasonable person. But are you really so delicate, Dave, that you need to be sheltered from such arguments? Besides that would hardly suit this forum’s agenda which is to put all conservatives on common ground to achieve political success.
Grant Canyon:
Regarding whether we should let the public schools trump the First Amendment or we dump the public schools because they cannot operate without interfering with our First Amendment rights:
If one chooses, based on religion, to base his worldview and ideas about the past in a way that is contrary to the best model of reality that humanity has developed, it is not a violation of the First Amendment to teach that best model, even if it conflicts with someone’s religious views.
Really? Even given your contemptuous view of believers and their religions, where does the Constitution lay down this principle that the individual’s fundamental right to the free exercise of his religion must be subordinated to another’s authority to declare what is the “best model” of our world?
What a lot of you are not getting is that Bill of Rights limits the power of government. If the government involves itself in activity that restricts an individual’s right in the Bill of Rights, then it is the government that must yield, not the individual. So if public schools cannot perform without interfering with the First Amendment, then the public schools have to go. Why is this so difficult for the so-called conservatives and libertarians here to understand?
The free exercise clause permits you to base your thinking on a delusion at odds with reality; it does not require the goverment to share that delusion.
Your trust in the government over your religious compatriots is touching, Grant Canyon. However, I think the case is readily made that the government is quite capable of the grandest delusions and flights from reason. Consider that as you think about which public authority you will trust to determine what the “best model” for reality is.
Bill Tingley: You wrote “Do you even understand the First Amendment? Where in it does it suppress the individual’s right to preach? How does the protection of that right by the Constitution translate into trumping the Constitution by exercising that right? And it is just plain nutty to call the exercise of that right “theocracy”.”
…in response to David M’s “The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to promulgate lies (for that is what creationism is) in the Science classroom. And I suspect that’s where we differ – for you, the need to propagate your beliefs is something elevated above the US Constitution. There’s a term for that – Theocracy.”
I’ll keep my rejoinder to you very, very simple and clear: Theists are not allowed to dress up their supernatural commitments as science and “preach” them in the public classroom. Doing so violates the First Amendment that you (sloppily) accuse David M of misunderstanding. Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Bottom line – keep your preaching out of the public classroom, thank you. If you think that arrangements should be otherwise, then you are indeed on your way to supporting a theocracy, as David M suggested.
Best,
A-Bax:
Your belief that your religion is true necessarily implies that you believe others are false. This is the “insult” I was referring to (tongue-in-cheek, though perhaps that was not clear.)
Actually I wrote nothing about my religion originally. I’m not even sure that I said I was religious. So again you are making things up. Nevertheless, I am a Roman Catholic because I do believe Catholicsm is the one true faith. That does not imply that I think all other religions are false. Most contain some element of the truth, many have repugnant doctrines that overwhelm the truth in them, and some are primarily incomplete in the truth — e.g., Judaism and Protestantism.
As for the idea that I my belief that Catholicism is the one truth faith insults non-Catholics is nonsense. While there will always be those who are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them (like many of secularist here who are insulted by believers), most non-Catholics respect my conviction because they have some conviction about their religions. That is why Catholics, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Orthodox Jews, and even Muslims on occasion can form polticial coalitions in pursuit of specific goals, like pro-life legislation.
If the overall tone of my comment wasn’t clear, let me spell it out for you: You essentially took critics of Christianity to task for their lack of familiarity with that religion, implying that criticism against Christianity was tantamount to insulting it (without this “deeper” understanding being evident.)
You and your implications again, A-Bax. Of course I wrote nothing of sort. I called you and your cohorts unjust for ganging up on a believer who may not have had the best command of the holes in Darwinian evolution without recognizing your own ignorance about religion, Christianity in particular, while feeling free to pontificate upon the subject.
Bill Tingley: “Finally, as for those of you who have arrogantly labeled as irrational anyone who doesn’t buy into what you have deemed as scientific theory — i.e., Darwinian natural selection — you are hypocrites. I have read nothing on this website that shows any substantial knowledge of Christianity, let alone a genuine understanding of it. Yet, mired in this ignorance, you have no humility to restrain yourselves from making the most threadbare, cobwebbed, and foolish claims against Christianity and its adherents. At best you are pots calling the kettle black.”
Your words here, buddy. (Last paragraph of the end of comment #55). And no, it wasn’t tough to guess that you were a Christian theist.
My initial point to you could be summed up as: Why should we (the irreligious) care about your precious supernatural commitments over anyone else’s precious supernatural commitments?
I thought (and still think) your penultimate sentence in the quoted paragraph was heavy-handed and arrogant, and your final sentence comical in its lack of self-awareness. Hence my attempt to get you to see that your Byzantine, labyrinthine supernatural belief-set is just one of many possible counter-factual system of claims that attracts many believers round the world.
PS – Catholicism considers all other religions to be “in error” and basically false. (This cuteness about Judaism and Protestantism having incomplete truth notwithstanding.) Calling yours the “one true faith” is pretty sweeping.
You believe your priests have magical metaphysical powers. You believe spells can be cast such that substances change is essence, but not to the senses (in the here and now, in real time). There is a whole raft of unsubstantiated, implausible things which you believe (e.g. infallibility of “ex cathedra” statements). And you believe all of these things without any evidence of their truth (proudly, in fact, of the lack of evidence). You consider your ability to believe these things without evidence, faith, as a “gift”.
And….this is the real point I’m trying to make here…..you consider anyone else who believes something equally ridiculous and unsupported to be dead-wrong. While seeming to scoff at hard-won scientific truths.
Ugh…
Richard Saunders:
What does spiritualism explain? Explain, that is, beyond a sweeping “goddidit” assertion that explains everything, and thus nothing?
I’m not an idealist, so like physicalism, it explains little by restricting reality to one mode. Only dualism, and I believe hylomorphic dualism in particular, escapes this problem by recognizing both modes of reality, form and matter.
Explain in a way that allows for testability, reproducibility, falsifiability and predictability?
You miss the point, Richard. You are trying to attribute to non-physical entities properties that belong only to physical entities. But non-physical phenomena like knowledge, consciousness, and free will do exist without being testable, etc. If want to reduce them to mere physical phenomena, you either have to explain how they operate in horizontal chain of physical causation while appearing in every way to be free of that chain or otherwise deny their existence.
What evidence can you provide that ethics are objective? The assertion that an objective morality is derived from the commandments of a supreme being only pushes the problem back a level. In which case you need to provide evidence that A) a supreme being exists, and B) it did, in fact, promulgate these objective moral rules.
We can start with natural law, which by reason alone a person can recognize what is objectively good and evil. But I readily admit that the source of natural law must be supernatural. That does not necessarily entail a supreme being, but it does require the source to be a non-physical entity superior to nature, just as free will etc. are.
Without this evidence, your “objective ethics” remain bare assertions with no more tangible basis than that offered by biology and evolutionary psychology.
Well, it doesn’t, Richard. Your physicalism drives you to dismiss out of hand the existence of anything that is non-physical. So you don’t consider the truth of anything beyond the domain of matter. So you label what I say as “bare assertions” although they are well-grounded in well-known rational principles you simply ignore.
Daniel Dare:
Bill, that’s nonsense. If I do controlled studies of people’s responses to stimuli applied to their brains then their responses and their brain scans are objective data.
Daniel, you spoke of tests that required a report from the test subject about his experience. That is clearly the collection of subjective data. I was responding to that and not brain scans you brought up just now.
As for brain scans, I agree that they collect objective data. But the data is about brain activity and not consciousness. And I do believe there are some correlations between between brain activity and consciousness, but not always. The brain is the organ that translates the vertical causations of consciousness into the horizontal causations of physical activity and vice versa.
It’s almost certainly going to be enough for us to identify the specific brain circuits and structures associated with consciousness, and we’ll see where that leads us.
I doubt it. The objective data of brain scans will not establish any link between the brain and consciousness, because scans can only detect physical activity. Because consciousness is non-physical, there is nothing that can detect its activity. Indeed, a person can only be aware of his own consciousness because there is nothing about it that another person can observe or take measure of. We can observe behavior that is consistent with consciousness and make an empirical judgment that human beings are by their nature conscious. But what is empirical is not necessarily scientific.
Dualism is a form of occult belief totally unfounded in objective knowledge. Your problem is your very sterile and limited notion of what matter is capable of. If you don’t mind I will wait for the data.
No, Daniel. I probably find matter more amazing than you do. However, I do not attribute to it magical properties like being able to create life, consciousness, and free will which must confound the laws of physics to operate freely from horizontal chain of causation that matter is restricted to.
You are welcome to waste your time on speculative metaphysics. To me it’s a totally useless activity. Metaphysics is a branch of the occult.
Dualism is a religious belief.
You can say that only out of a profound ignorance of philosophy. You don’t even understand that your physicalism is grounded in a metalphysical commitment to naturalism.
I think A-Bax and Richard have covered most of my points, Bill, but as for this:
“But I readily admit that the source of natural law must be supernatural”. The obvious questions are “Why?”, “What evidence do you have?” and “How can we test this assertion?”
A-Bax:
I’ll keep my rejoinder to you very, very simple and clear: Theists are not allowed to dress up their supernatural commitments as science and “preach” them in the public classroom.
Sez who? The liberals of course. But when did conservatives abandon the principle that the Bill of Rights limits what government is permitted to do? You have a perverse understanding of the Bill of Rights if you believe that the government’s usurpation of an area of private life (and education is properly a private and not a public matter) means that we have to surrender our rights.
You are no conservative, A-Bax, let alone a libertarian.
Doing so violates the First Amendment that you (sloppily) accuse David M of misunderstanding. Link: [to the Kitzmiller decision].
I doubt you know more about the Kitzmiller decision than I do. What should disturb conservatives and liberals is that Kitzmiller vested the government (in particular, the judiciary) with the power to determine what is and is not science. How is that intrusion of the state a healthy thing for the republic?
Bottom line – keep your preaching out of the public classroom, thank you. If you think that arrangements should be otherwise, then you are indeed on your way to supporting a theocracy, as David M suggested.
Yes, of course, I am a theocrat because I believe a society thrives best with ordered liberty the law of the land. Therefore I also believe that the best way to preserve that ordered liberty is vigilance in containing the power of Leviathan to its constitutional limits. Indeed, because I am a faithful Roman Catholic I am likely more radical than you in keeping Leviathan out of our lives as much as possible.
However, you and some of your cohorts are enamored with the state’s extension of its authority (e.g., public schools, the Kitzmiller decision) so long as it is accord with your secular agenda. That’s certainly not conservative or libertarian, but it does smack of liberalism and secularism.
OK, A-Bax, enough. It is clear that you cannot cowboy-up and handle serious arguments that challenge you like a rational adult.
Symptoms of your juvenility include this statement: This cuteness about Judaism and Protestantism having incomplete truth notwithstanding. You cannot tolerate that I have a reasonable take on other religions, because that doesn’t conform to your stereotype of what a Christian just has to be. So instead of acting like an adult and accepting that I honestly believe this, you need to trivialize it because it monkeywrenches your belief system.
That’s fine. No skin off my nose. But I don’t have any interest in conversing with someone who thinks I write in bad faith for no better reason than I am Christian. But all is not lost, A-Bax. I got many good belly laughs out of your ignorance of your ignorance about Catholicism. That was worthwhile.
Dave M:
I think A-Bax and Richard have covered most of my points, Bill, but as for this:
“But I readily admit that the source of natural law must be supernatural”. The obvious questions are “Why?”, “What evidence do you have?” and “How can we test this assertion?”
Let’s start at the end. Because you have a scientistic (as opposed to a scientific) cast of mind, you do not believe that there is any true knowledge except that which science can determine, at least in principle. Non-physical entities and phenomena can never be completely understood by science because they lack the quantifiable properties that science requires for analysis. That doesn’t mean that everything is up grabs when it comes the non-physical. To be true, a non-physical item must at the very least not contradict establish scientific fact.
But that alone is not sufficient evidence of a non-physical item. Sometimes commonsense is sufficient, such as the observation of the well-established behavior of human beings that would make a denial of their consciousness an absurdity. It’s not scientific, but it is rational. Beyond that we need some philosophy to understand what is true that exceeds the ken of science. For example, the many philosophical arguments for the existence of God, starting with what we know to be true of our world through observation, that is it rational to believe God’s exists. Of course, one who subscribes to scientism will not by definition admit to the truth of any philosophical argument.
Now onto natural law. I said the source of it must be supernatural — i.e., superior to nature — because for natural law to be effective it must be permanent. For a human being to know natural law by reason, he too must have a nature that is in the most part permanent. This means that a humn being must have a form (in the hylomorphist sense) that cannot be changed by physical forces such as evolution. Only the supernatural can intercede through vertical causation to alter the horizonal chain of physical causation.
So that is why I said that the source of natural law must be supernatural. My evidence for that is as I explained above. And I can rationally consider other sources of the truth besides science because I have not constrained myself to scientism.
However, you and some of your cohorts are enamored with the state’s extension of its authority (e.g., public schools, the Kitzmiller decision) so long as it is accord with your secular agenda. That’s certainly not conservative or libertarian, but it does smack of liberalism and secularism.
So you consider teaching scientific fact in schools smacks of “liberalism and secularism”?
Bill, this is what I don’t understand about believers. A recent poll revealed that Christians would overwhelming support a Muslim over an atheist for elective office. Western Civilization is engaged in an existential war with Islam, which they have openly declared on us, that we are losing hands down (and they are destined to win in the end). There are literally millions of Muslims who would just as soon decapitate an infidel as look at one. Yet, these barbarians are accorded more respect in our society than harmless non-believers; apparently solely based on their shared belief in the supernatural. This strikes me as irrational. Can you explain it? ◄Dave►
Caledonian,
Ah, now I see why you said that.
Bill Tingley: “I’ll keep my rejoinder to you very, very simple and clear: Theists are not allowed to dress up their supernatural commitments as science and “preach” them in the public classroom.
Sez who? The liberals of course. But when did conservatives abandon the principle that the Bill of Rights limits what government is permitted to do? You have a perverse understanding of the Bill of Rights if you believe that the government’s usurpation of an area of private life (and education is properly a private and not a public matter) means that we have to surrender our rights.
You are no conservative, A-Bax, let alone a libertarian.”
It’s things like this that prompted Parker’s oodgedy-boogedy column, and things like this that (rightly) scare off moderates. Once again we’re seeing the conflation of religiosity with conservatism. I hate to use a term Sullivan has promoted, but you sir, are a “Christianist”, unfortunately.
Per your: “Indeed, because I am a faithful Roman Catholic I am likely more radical than you in keeping Leviathan out of our lives as much as possible.”
-I get these sense you want the Leviathan out of our lives so as to create space for your totalitarian religion, not actual liberty.
Finally: “But I don’t have any interest in conversing with someone who thinks I write in bad faith for no better reason than I am Christian.”
-Your Christianity is only tangentially related to why I think you write in bad-faith. If you grew up in Riyadh, I’m sure you’d be writing in bad-faith as a Muslim. You have blinders on as to your sense of superiority, and your philosophical debates with Dave M and are almost endearing in their innocence and sophomorism (“horizontal causation” v. “vertical causation”, really? And to think I took your ideas seriously? 🙂 )
Good luck with drumming secular moderates out of your Christianist world-view. Maybe if I could score some Fra Galvao pills I’d get the religio-conservatism of which you speak. I mean, the office of your head-shaman recommended them for their magic powers, so…..who knows what their limits are!!
Don’t worry, you won’t be hearing from me again. I’m weary of your noise and haughtiness.
Bill,
“Of course, one who subscribes to scientism will not by definition admit to the truth of any philosophical argument.”
I do subscribe to scientism, and you are almost right. My faith in a hypothesis is dependent on the strength of the empirical evidence that supports it. No more, no less. This is actually a corollary of Bayes theorem, if you start from an unbiased prior.
@Bill Tingley
“Really?”
Yes.
“Even given your contemptuous view of believers and their religions…”
I’m also contemptuous in people who believe in leprechauns, fairies living at the bottom of gardens and in people who believe in “the healing properties of crystals,” if that makes you feel better.
“… where does the Constitution lay down this principle that the individual’s fundamental right to the free exercise of his religion must be subordinated to another’s authority to declare what is the ‘best model’ of our world?”
You really do need to learn what, exactly, the free exercise clause protects. Teaching the near-universally accepted scientific model for the diversity of life has a clear, valid, secular purpose. If you choose not to believe that, because your irrationality is based on religious belief, that is your business. But, the free exercise clause isn’t a religious veto on the actions of the government.
Teaching science in public schools doesn’t stop you from freely exercising your belief in your Nazarene voodoo man or giving your money to Big Joey Ratzinger. The society even lets you abuse your children by taking them out of school it you want in order to fill their heads with mush like creationism instead of real science. You are permitted to do that because of the free exercise clause. The free exercise clause doesn’t permit you to stop government action that fulfils a valid secular purpose, simply because you choose to believe religious nonsense that conflicts with reality.
“What a lot of you are not getting is that Bill of Rights limits the power of government. If the government involves itself in activity that restricts an individual’s right in the Bill of Rights, then it is the government that must yield, not the individual.”
But what you do not understand is the fact that teaching secular science does not restrict an individual’s rights to the free exercise of religion under the Bill of Rights. You may think so under your unique “Bill Tingley School of Constitutional Interpretation,” but you would be wrong.
“So if public schools cannot perform without interfering with the First Amendment, then the public schools have to go.”
Again, you really need to educate yourself on what the First Amendment actually protects. Once you do, the silliness of this statement will be apparent.
“Why is this so difficult for the so-called conservatives and libertarians here to understand?”
Oh, we understand your arguments, but we also understand that they have no legal basis.
“Your trust in the government over your religious compatriots is touching, Grant Canyon.”
Whether I “trust” the government is irrelevant. Even if “my religious compatriots” weren’t mostly scam artists or people looking to poke their noses into my life and my wallet, that wouldn’t change one bit, what the free exercise clause protects and what it does not protect. And, frankly, I’d sooner trust the government to educate the young than I would people who believe in talking snakes, magic fruit, a world-wide flood or that a god controls evolution.
“However, I think the case is readily made that the government is quite capable of the grandest delusions and flights from reason.”
Sure. That is why you keep an eye on the people in government, to make sure that they don’t believe and try to implement such nonsense.
“Consider that as you think about which public authority you will trust to determine what the ‘best model’ for reality is.”
I don’t trust public authority to make that determination. I trust what the objective evidence establishes. And that clearly and overwhelming establishes the facts about the history of the evolution of life on this planet, which is what neeeds to be taught in the schools.
Gentlemen:
There is nothing to be gained from further discussion. You have made your contempt, even hatred, of believers clear. None of you appear capable of comprehending any concept (even to knowledgeably disagree with it) beyond your grubby little corner of scientism. You’ll trust the government to take care of us (like education) than you’ll trust individual liberty to do so.
Your secularism bears no conservative fruit.