fm-
Good morning.
First-SD or SDer refers obviously to "Scientific Design" and "Some one who supports the Scientific Design side of the argument.Like 49er is short for someone who prospected for gold in that area you took off the Mexicans by force in 1849.Or a 69er,which is a bit different but not entirely.If British newspapers and satirical magazines eschewed 69er it would take up a few column inches to no purpose and cause reader's brains to crash.
Also, I am not the only one to use the terms you are objecting to as you will see if you read the thread with more attention.
Also,the idea that my use of such neologisms is a "cry for help" is one of those cliched ideas that nannying Agony Aunts use to explain male behaviour to ladies who can't be given the true explanation."Some places" might call that a problem but "some places" go in for carnal relations with close relatives, as you recently pointed out,and with animals.
I'm afraid I'm a little busy so I'll leave off there and come back later.
Until then TTFN and SWALK.
rosborne979 wrote:blatham wrote:If science and faith stand inevitably in opposition (I don't think that is so, except as regards certain understandings of what 'faith' is or means) then they do. Tough luck for perfect equanimity. Just one more conflict in the matters of human existence.
Why would science stand in opposition to faith any more than mathematics would stand in opposition to faith?
Science is just a methodology which leads to certain conclusions. So is math.
If someone has a moral objection to the fact that five plus three equals eight, we wouldn't say that math stood in opposition to faith would we? But if someone draws an unconfortable moral conclusion from the fact that the Earth is billions of years old instead of thousands of years, then we start hearing that science stands in opposition to faith. Why is that?
The problem is epistemological...how do we achieve or arrive at "knowledge"? If one holds as a matter of his faith that the "truth" is pre-established and found within a sacred text or sacred account, or that it is only (or particularly) available via the authority of some special representative (shaman, pope) with unique access, then any other process for discovering knowledge or truth will certainly collide with the faith stance.
rosborne979 wrote:blatham wrote:If science and faith stand inevitably in opposition (I don't think that is so, except as regards certain understandings of what 'faith' is or means) then they do. Tough luck for perfect equanimity. Just one more conflict in the matters of human existence.
Why would science stand in opposition to faith any more than mathematics would stand in opposition to faith?
Science is just a methodology which leads to certain conclusions. So is math.
If someone has a moral objection to the fact that five plus three equals eight, we wouldn't say that math stood in opposition to faith would we? But if someone draws an unconfortable moral conclusion from the fact that the Earth is billions of years old instead of thousands of years, then we start hearing that science stands in opposition to faith. Why is that?
The problem is epistemological...how do we achieve or arrive at "knowledge"? If one holds as a matter of his faith that the "truth" is pre-established and found within a sacred text or sacred account, or that it is only (or particularly) available via the authority of some special representative (shaman, pope) with unique access, then any other process for discovering knowledge or truth will certainly collide with the faith stance.
rosborne979 wrote:blatham wrote:If science and faith stand inevitably in opposition (I don't think that is so, except as regards certain understandings of what 'faith' is or means) then they do. Tough luck for perfect equanimity. Just one more conflict in the matters of human existence.
Why would science stand in opposition to faith any more than mathematics would stand in opposition to faith?
Science is just a methodology which leads to certain conclusions. So is math.
If someone has a moral objection to the fact that five plus three equals eight, we wouldn't say that math stood in opposition to faith would we? But if someone draws an unconfortable moral conclusion from the fact that the Earth is billions of years old instead of thousands of years, then we start hearing that science stands in opposition to faith. Why is that?
The problem is epistemological...how do we achieve or arrive at "knowledge"? If one holds as a matter of his faith that the "truth" is pre-established and found within a sacred text or sacred account, or that it is only (or particularly) available via the authority of some special representative (shaman, pope) with unique access, then any other process for discovering knowledge or truth will certainly collide with the faith stance.
fm wrote-
Quote:They, having given their input at facuty workshops< for the most part, refused to teach the silly concept
Why do you persist with words like "silly"?Can you not see that they weaken your own case.Can you not see that they don't mean anything.Anyone can say anything is "silly" and they often do but it is tantamount to not being part of any serious debate.
Millions of Americans believe there is "something".This "something" is called ID in this case.Are millions of Americans,a large majority as I understand it,"silly".Such things anger them and make them more determined.Some people think out of control oil consumption is "silly" and they often have "science" to back their position.
Why do you continually misrepresent my position.It is NOT the faith I defend it is the effect of the faith.
It's usefulness.You can't run an SD argument only up to a certain point.It is a full throttle position.In it everything is meaningless.Are you up for that which,incidentally,I am.
I played at rugby once.Once.Somebody tackled me ferociously.I walked away saying "if he wants the ball that bad he can have it."Where would a scientific mind get the idea that he is macho by risking injury to himself and to a school fellow to get hold of a meaningless ball in a meaningless game with no money at stake.Such a mind could run around having a bit of fun and getting fit but not having his teeth knocked out or getting his brains puddled or having retinal damage.What's sexy about that?
Give us the scientific explanation of "sexy".I can provide it but I will refrain out of politeness and because it is of considerable length and subtlety.
Suppose I argued that the case costs nothing.That it is all the government's money anyway.That it is a case of lubrication designed to keep people occupied and thus out of trouble.That it's just a game with no end and the millions go into ladies fashions,soft furnishings,DIY,trips etc etc and all that keeps people occupied as well.
spendiQuote:Are millions of Americans,a large majority as I understand it,"silly".Such things anger them and make them more determined.Some people think out of control oil consumption is "silly" and they often have "science" to back their position.
I cant control what millions believe. Millions of Americans cannot tune up a diesel truck either, so if a garage technician who works on diesels for a living tells me that my belief in a magic force that runs the truck is "silly" I suppose Id be po'd but Id still be silly. Your example of the use of oil doesnt resonate because youre not making sense with it.
Quote:Why do you persist with words like "silly"?Can you not see that they weaken your own case.
It extracted a response from you, and helped me understand more clearly freom what position you come..You seem to infer some validity by statistics. ie "The more people that believe in ID means the more valid is their position" To that all I can say is duuhhh.
Remember the old SNL skit when Steve Martin staed that, "50 years ago we would have believed that your disease was caused by evil spirits. Today we know better. We now know that your sickness is caused by imbalance in the bodily humours that is caused by a small dwarf or a vafrous toad in yur bowels"
Science has always been in the minority and fortunately, most scientists ignore the heat.
Besides, and I admonish you that youve been selectively reading these threads because specific posters have been the ones to start in with almost ad hominem statements about how we, as scientists have "no clue" about the way the world is concocted.
SO my use of "silly" is deliberate, if you feel it lowers my crdibility, my arguments have stood on their own because Ive usually left enough reference material for anyone to check. (And I dont ever use the "pre spun sites like Answers in Genesis or even Talk Origins)
Bernie wrote-
Quote: Moral notions are an absolutely unavoidable part of human social existence.
That concedes the ID case.What possible moral notions can exist in a meaningless universe.Only power can exist in such a universe.If the power is disguised as morals so be it.In an ideal SD world even unselfishness and love could only result from selfish strategy.I think you have become so familiar and so complacent with taking advantage of attitudes ingrained by Christian beliefs that you have forgotten where they derive from.Evolution is a war of all against all in a red in tooth and claw struggle for existence which would terrify most people if it was applied to human societies in general.We bend over backwards most of the time to mitigate its exigencies in war.From where do we derive our obsession with saving lives.As Rider Haggard put into his own son's mouth when he was risking danger-"there's plenty more where I came from."
Quote:I see no possibility of a "pure scientific system" and cannot even imagine such a thing.
Yes-because other ideas exist alongside science and you have taken them for granted to such an extent that you now believe they are worthless.
You have a few qualifiers in there Bernie.Are you shifting a mite.
I'm getting a General Error/Debug Mode notice when I submit a post.The post is going OK but this sort of thing comes up.Is anybody else getting this or does anybody know how to eradicate it.
This is the result of my last post.
Could not insert new word matches
DEBUG MODE
SQL Error : 1016 Can't open file: 'phpbb_search_wordmatch.MYI'. (errno: 145)
INSERT INTO phpbb_search_wordmatch (post_id, word_id, title_match) SELECT 1663910, word_id, 0 FROM phpbb_search_wordlist WHERE word_text IN ('given', 'input', 'facuty', 'workshops', 'part', 'refused', 'teach', 'silly', 'concept', 'persist', 'words', 'weaken', 'own', 'case', 'mean', 'anything', 'anyone', 'tantamount', 'serious', 'debate', 'millions', 'americans', 'believe', 'called', 'majority', 'i', 'understand', 'such', 'things', 'anger', 'make', 'determined', 'people', 'think', 'control', 'oil', 'consumption', 'science', 'back', 'position', 'continually', 'misrepresent', 'faith', 'defend', 'effect', 'usefulness', 'run', 'sd', 'argument', 'certain', 'point', 'full', 'throttle', 'everything', 'meaningless', 'incidentally', 'played', 'rugby', 'once', 'somebody', 'tackled', 'ferociously', 'walked', 'away', 'saying', 'he', 'wants', 'ball', 'scientific', 'mind', 'idea', 'macho', 'risking', 'injury', 'himself', 'school', 'fellow', 'hold', 'game', 'money', 'stake', 'bit', 'fun', 'getting', 'fit', 'teeth', 'knocked', 'brains', 'puddled', 'retinal', 'damage', 'whats', 'sexy', 'give', 'explanation', 'provide', 'refrain', 'politeness', 'considerable', 'length', 'subtlety', 'suppose', 'argued', 'costs', 'governments', 'anyway', 'lubrication', 'designed', 'keep', 'occupied', 'trouble', 'end', 'ladies', 'fashions', 'soft', 'furnishings', 'diy', 'trips', 'etc', 'keeps')
Line : 251
File : functions_search.php
fm said-
Quote:"The more people that believe in ID means the more valid is their position" To that all I can say is duuhhh.
I didn't say that at all.The more people who believe in ID the more socially powerful the belief's effects are.Internally and externally and for benefit or not.
Quote:so if a garage technician who works on diesels for a living tells me that my belief in a magic force that runs the truck is "silly"
Don't you think there's something a bit magical about all you daily doings being conditioned and controlled by energy from the sun which came to earth hundreds of millions of years ago.Don't you think there's something magical about a woman turning crisps,jelly babies,pot noodles,larger,mash potatoes,cornflakes,chocolate and hamburgers into a beautiful bouncing baby.
Quote:Science has always been in the minority and fortunately, most scientists ignore the heat.
Right.Getting closer.Elitism.The knowedge gap.The ones who do and the ones to whom it is done.The latter need beliefs to have it done to them.That has been my main point from the beginning.Why deny them their comforts.If they are "mush",as you said,even grade one mush is still mush and mush ain't up for science except the sort of stuff they put on the Discovery Channel in sound and vision bites and which sends them to the pub gobsmacked and expecting me to explain it to them in short words.It amuses me no end.They actually think they have a handle on 200 million light years.
said-
Quote:"The more people that believe in ID means the more valid is their position" To that all I can say is duuhhh.
I didn't say that at all.The more people who believe in ID the more socially powerful the belief's effects are.Internally and externally and for benefit or not.
Quote:so if a garage technician who works on diesels for a living tells me that my belief in a magic force that runs the truck is "silly"
Don't you think there's something a bit magical about all you daily doings being conditioned and controlled by energy from the sun which came to earth hundreds of millions of years ago.Don't you think there's something magical about a woman turning crisps,jelly babies,pot noodles,larger,mash potatoes,cornflakes,chocolate and hamburgers into a beautiful bouncing baby.
Quote:Science has always been in the minority and fortunately, most scientists ignore the heat.
Right.Getting closer.Elitism.The knowedge gap.The ones who do and the ones to whom it is done.The latter need beliefs to have it done to them.That has been my main point from the beginning.Why deny them their comforts.If they are "mush",as you said,even grade one mush is still mush and mush ain't up for science except the sort of stuff they put on the Discovery Channel in sound and vision bites and which sends them to the pub gobsmacked and expecting me to explain it to them in short words.It amuses me no end.They actually think they have a handle on 200 million light years.
said-
Quote:"The more people that believe in ID means the more valid is their position" To that all I can say is duuhhh.
I didn't say that at all.The more people who believe in ID the more socially powerful the belief's effects are.Internally and externally and for benefit or not.
Quote:so if a garage technician who works on diesels for a living tells me that my belief in a magic force that runs the truck is "silly"
Don't you think there's something a bit magical about all you daily doings being conditioned and controlled by energy from the sun which came to earth hundreds of millions of years ago.Don't you think there's something magical about a woman turning crisps,jelly babies,pot noodles,larger,mash potatoes,cornflakes,chocolate and hamburgers into a beautiful bouncing baby.
Quote:Science has always been in the minority and fortunately, most scientists ignore the heat.
Right.Getting closer.Elitism.The knowedge gap.The ones who do and the ones to whom it is done.The latter need beliefs to have it done to them.That has been my main point from the beginning.Why deny them their comforts.If they are "mush",as you said,even grade one mush is still mush and mush ain't up for science except the sort of stuff they put on the Discovery Channel in sound and vision bites and which sends them to the pub gobsmacked and expecting me to explain it to them in short words.It amuses me no end.They actually think they have a handle on 200 million light years.
said-
Quote:"The more people that believe in ID means the more valid is their position" To that all I can say is duuhhh.
I didn't say that at all.The more people who believe in ID the more socially powerful the belief's effects are.Internally and externally and for benefit or not.
Quote:so if a garage technician who works on diesels for a living tells me that my belief in a magic force that runs the truck is "silly"
Don't you think there's something a bit magical about all you daily doings being conditioned and controlled by energy from the sun which came to earth hundreds of millions of years ago.Don't you think there's something magical about a woman turning crisps,jelly babies,pot noodles,larger,mash potatoes,cornflakes,chocolate and hamburgers into a beautiful bouncing baby.
Quote:Science has always been in the minority and fortunately, most scientists ignore the heat.
Right.Getting closer.Elitism.The knowedge gap.The ones who do and the ones to whom it is done.The latter need beliefs to have it done to them.That has been my main point from the beginning.Why deny them their comforts.If they are "mush",as you said,even grade one mush is still mush and mush ain't up for science except the sort of stuff they put on the Discovery Channel in sound and vision bites and which sends them to the pub gobsmacked and expecting me to explain it to them in short words.It amuses me no end.They actually think they have a handle on 200 million light years.
I can't apologise for that because it wasn't my fault.
spendius wrote:I think it can.I think it does in fact.But it must be an uneasy alliance.That is shown by restrictions on certain types of research.But absolute positions can't co-exist.That is what voters settle in the end.
No imperative can be derived from science, and ethical constructs do not predict the consequenses of events, I honestly do not see how the two would interact. Science and ethics seem no more related to me than poetry and mathemathics. A poem could never refute a theorem, and a theorem could never reduce the appeal of a poem.
spendius wrote:This subject never rises above the parapet here but I would say that aetheists probably contain a religious cultural baggage.Which is to suggest they are confused about the logic of aetheism.You might be confusing a posture of aetheism with aetheism itself as Hofstadter suggests a confusion with a posture of intellectualism with actual intellectualism.
spendius wrote:I'm sorry.I'm not sure what this means.
You seem to refer to evolution using the misnomer "SD", an abbreviation of "Stupid design". I just wondered why you would do that if you recognize it as being a misnomer, not descriptive of evolution as understood by its proponents.
spendius wrote:In science love is a mere chemical response without any possible meaning.One would love a woman as one would love a steak or a warm fire.
Actually that's not accurate, the pattern of chemical responses is different.
Anyways, science only posits how stuff works, it makes no statements about how we ought to feel about it, or what we ought to set out trying to accomplish. Science can never arrive at an "ought".
Our notions of reality exists separately from how we relate to them, science only deals with the former.
spendius wrote:Quote:I see what you are saying, but I'm not sure that I agree. I don't really think that the lack of a religious infestation makes society less resilient to systems of idiotic memes, rather I think that applied reason would make for a better deterrent.
Yes,possibly,but using only fear of punishment and in the end mass terror induced discipline until such time,maybe,that chemical or surgical control becomes more efficient.And who's applied reason would you apply?
How about relying largely on the chemical behavioural controls the vast amount of people are born with? You know, the ones that allow us to function at present?
I'd apply the reason of people prepared to apply their own. If I were to guess, I'd guess that snopes has killed more nonsense memes in the past decade than Christianity.
Einherjar-
SD is an abbreviation for Scientific Design.Its use is a bad habit I've got on the thread concerning the battle in a Dover Pa court over Intelligent Design.
It is a popular thread on the Science and Mathematics forum.You might be interested in it.
Quote:spendius wrote:
In science love is a mere chemical response without any possible meaning.One would love a woman as one would love a steak or a warm fire.
Actually that's not accurate, the pattern of chemical responses is different.
I'm not sure the materialist theory of mind people would agree with you on that.
Quote:
Anyways, science only posits how stuff works, it makes no statements about how we ought to feel about it, or what we ought to set out trying to accomplish. Science can never arrive at an "ought".
So what fills in the "ought"?
Quote:How about relying largely on the chemical behavioural controls the vast amount of people are born with? You know, the ones that allow us to function at present?
Are not those somewhat animalistic and amoral.
Nice post Einie.
spendius wrote:I'm getting a General Error/Debug Mode notice when I submit a post.The post is going OK but this sort of thing comes up.Is anybody else getting this
Lots of people are getting it me included. There is a five page thread on it in the help forum or some such forum, but the last time I checked there weren't any solutions. Might have been an explanation though.
I just lost a response to it, but that doesn't matter. It was redundant anyway in light of your latest response.
spendius wrote:Quote:Actually that's not accurate, the pattern of chemical responses is different.
I'm not sure the materialist theory of mind people would agree with you on that.
Well, I'd be one materialist theory of mind person who would, based on the simple argument that if it is a different sensation, there must be a different brain response inducing it. I am assuming though that it is a different sensation, that you were referring to gastronomes and not steakophiles. If not your point is still moot.
spendius wrote:Quote:Anyways, science only posits how stuff works, it makes no statements about how we ought to feel about it, or what we ought to set out trying to accomplish. Science can never arrive at an "ought".
So what fills in the "ought"?
People do, by setting up one or more ethical imperatives as axioms, and deducing other ethical imperatives from them, forming an axiomatic system of ethics.
Some people make maximising collective enjoyment their axiom. This axiom, along with postulates concerning what constitutes the maximum collective enjoyment, and evaluations of how to attain it, form a utilitarian axiomatic system. Such people are called utilitarians.
Others go for a rights based approach, a hedonist approach, or a variety of others.
Most people are not consciously aware of the axiomatic structure of their ethical system, but they still wield such a structure when making ethical decisions.
Anyways, if you dig for deeply enough into a persons justification for finding some action more ethical than some other, you are bound to end up at some axiom which that person has either just posited, or simply accepted, without justification. An axiom, like all axioms, considered true by definition.
The gist of your argument seem to rest on a fallacy where you, unconsciously, retain the theists ethical imperative to function as intended when switching to an evolutionist outlook on the world, and then infer intent, or something similar, from the process of evolution. You conclude that since evolution tends to produce, over generations, whichever behavioural biases are most conductive to spread the genetic material of the individual exhibiting them trough the population, it follows from the theory of evolution that one should do anything in ones power to spread ones genetic material, irrespective of other considerations.
That only follows from the theory of evolution in conjunction with the inference of intent and the imperative to function as intended, both of which I and most other atheists would reject.
spendius wrote:Quote:How about relying largely on the chemical behavioural controls the vast amount of people are born with? You know, the ones that allow us to function at present?
Are not those somewhat animalistic and amoral.
Those are the functions resonsible for the behaviour we all observe every day. They are the functions which cause us to make ethical considerations in the first place.
spendius wrote:Nice post Einie.
Thanks.
Einherjar tickled the keys with this little gem-
Quote:Most people are not consciously aware of the axiomatic structure of their ethical system, but they still wield such a structure when making ethical decisions.
I figured that out when,despite the fact that I knew I responded positively to large white breasts,I couldn't work out why I responded as positively as I did.I must have developed an axiomatic structure of ethics based on an early experience which I was not consciously aware of.Probably a much repeated experience.It certainly got me thinking.
I'm aware now of the foundation of my axiomatic structure of ethics.
Quote:The gist of your argument seem to rest on a fallacy where you, unconsciously, retain the theists ethical imperative to function as intended when switching to an evolutionist outlook on the world, and then infer intent, or something similar, from the process of evolution.
If I do I am up for having it out.Isn't that the trick Freud used.Trying to frighten the well brought up young ladies by telling them that they unconsciously wished to have......fill in as required.
Thanks for the "seem" though.
Quote:You conclude that since evolution tends to produce, over generations, whichever behavioural biases are most conductive to spread the genetic material of the individual exhibiting them trough the population, it follows from the theory of evolution that one should do anything in ones power to spread ones genetic material, irrespective of other considerations.
It seems reasonable in some ways.That is quite a complex question.Many a man has wrestled with that in moments of high excitement.
Quote:That only follows from the theory of evolution in conjunction with the inference of intent and the imperative to function as intended, both of which I and most other atheists would reject.
I'm not sure what you mean.There is a natural urge to spread one's genetic material,as you call it,far and wide.There is also a natural urge to lead a peaceful existence.Are these "intents".(Answer-they can be but you have to stay on the move in comfort.)
Quote:Those are the functions resonsible for the behaviour we all observe every day. They are the functions which cause us to make ethical considerations in the first place.
No missing link you mean.Where is the transition from animal to man.When is "that" an animal and when is "that" a man.I'd look pretty stupid calling IDers loonies and barmpots unless I could answer that under serious scrutiny.
blatham
Quote:Moral notions are an absolutely unavoidable part of human social existence.
spendius
Quote:That concedes the ID case.What possible moral notions can exist in a meaningless universe. Only power can exist in such a universe.If the power is disguised as morals so be it.
To be orderly and clear...the "ID case" is not what you make it to be here. It is an epistemological argument, not an argument for the social utility of happy mythologies - the factual or logical basis for them be damned. Few, if any, proponents of ID in the American dialogue on the matter define ID as you do or support it for the reasons you claim to favor. You don't believe (you insist) but the advocates of ID very definitely do believe. As Farmerman (particularly) has detailed and documented, their strategies constitute a stalking-horse for advancing a singular and exclusive christian theist dogma...at the expense of objective and empirical means of arriving at observations and tentative 'truths' about the world.
Aside from that, your arguments that social utility is best served through furtherance of this old set of judeo-christian mythologies (with the attendent derogation of scientific process) is not compelling. Your fears or certainties or intuitions on the matter don't really do the trick, and that's all I can see you bringiing to the table. If communities of scientists or atheists were observably moral black holes, or if pre-christian societies were cess-pools of Hobbesian throat-slitting chaos, then I might tilt in your direction. But for productive social organization, I'll take 5th century BC Athens over the thousand years of barren European history that was soon to follow. I'll take the world after Hume to the one before.
You claim that "moral notions can't exist in a meaningless universe". Well, it seems quite possible that that is precisely the state of affairs - it is and they do. But being human, we will bring "meaning" to existence just as we will bring love or language or art or cruelty. If you wish to see this as merely a fight for 'power', I don't know what I might say to you.
Quote: Evolution is a war of all against all in a red in tooth and claw struggle for existence which would terrify most people if it was applied to human societies in general. We bend over backwards most of the time to mitigate its exigencies in war. From where do we derive our obsession with saving lives.
Evolution is also co-operation. It is also affinity and satisfaction and awe and apprehensions of beauty. It is also our propensity to find the young of even dangerous predatory species to be cute little beggars. It's also our propensity to keep our environment peaceful as well as to eat Uncle Frank when we get really hungry.
I don't much like the idea of dying either, spendie. Zero at the bone is chilly. On the plus side though, consciousness is all that truly exists.
The one thing you said earlier with which I most acutely disagree is your preference for a singular belief system in operation in a group. That's going to come about only via oppression and it is not freedom. I'll fight you on that one.
And I think I'll leave this topic right here. You are well met, spendie.
