Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
Quote:
His arguments had to be framed in accordance with Biblical scriptures that were held as absolute truth.
That is a facile understanding of the complexity of the Galileo saga and the internal and external climate that existed.
It was Realism (copernicus, Kepler, Galileo) vs Intrumentalists (Bellarmino, Urban VIII, the Collegio Romano, and most astronomers of the time). (Intrumentalism defined as scientific theories acting simply as tools for providing plausible explanations.)
The Church wanted Galileo to provide evidence for his claims. Galileo could not, thererfore the church requested that he officialize his claims as being plausible explanations.There were clergy, theologians, and officials on both sides of the issue.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3710 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 345 Thanked: 746 times in 561 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
Quote:
As much as I'd like to take your comment seriously, I can't. You are committing a logical fallacy:
Point it out.
_________________ “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1871 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 409 Thanked: 466 times in 347 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
ant wrote:
Quote:
His arguments had to be framed in accordance with Biblical scriptures that were held as absolute truth.
That is a facile understanding of the complexity of the Galileo saga and the internal and external climate that existed.
It was Realism (copernicus, Kepler, Galileo) vs Intrumentalists (Bellarmino, Urban VIII, the Collegio Romano, and most astronomers of the time). (Intrumentalism defined as scientific theories acting simply as tools for providing plausible explanations.)
The Church wanted Galileo to provide evidence for his claims. Galileo could not, thererfore the church requested that he officialize his claims as being plausible explanations.There were clergy, theologians, and officials on both sides of the issue.
I don't doubt that these were complicated issues and that we tend to see things through a modern-day lens. It has occurred to me that the division between science and religion was much less demarcated during Galileo's time. As science has illuminated many things that were previously unknown, that line has become much sharper and today we can more easily identify what is based on empirical evidence and what is not. It's also difficult to fathom how much has changed since Darwin. Evolution was a real game changer.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Those who claim to be scientists and not atheists are liars, idiots, cowards and/or hypocrites. Science is atheist. Supernaturalism is obsolete.
I totally don't agree with this. People see the world in different ways. There are many people, scientists included, who believe in God and have the intellectual honesty to know that their belief is based on faith, not evidence. Humans also have an incredible ability to compartmentalize and hold conflicting positions, and I don't think that makes them liars, idiots, cowards or hypocrites. Many people simply haven't thought their positions through as I believe you have, but I have to say this is a surprisingly hard-line position for someone who seems to cherish the Bible as you seem to.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
As much as I'd like to take your comment seriously, I can't. You are committing a logical fallacy:
Point it out.
Dicto simplicter
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3710 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 345 Thanked: 746 times in 561 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
Quote:
The Church wanted Galileo to provide evidence for his claims. Galileo could not, thererfore the church requested that he officialize his claims as being plausible explanations.
As if the church had no motive to be contrary towards Galileo's views! It can be seen in the actions of some of the involved characters, such as Professor Giulo Libri. He refused to look through a telescope to verify Galileo's claims. Others made the observations, but remained silent or refused to support Galileo for fear of Church retribution. It's not as though Galileo could take a picture and force the church to look at them. Observation in that time period was limited mostly to eyeballs. To authenticate most of Galileo's evidence, you'd have to look through a telescope. How hard would it have been to follow Galileo's instructions and look through a telescope to see a rough moon, Jupiter's moons, and a spotty sun, all evidence that he was correct and the church was wrong?
It wasn't the lack of evidence that caused Galileo issues, it was the Church's adamant adherence to scripture, which did not mesh with Galileo's views. Cardinal Bellarmine actually saw the things Galileo claimed, and was said to have a sort of cognitive dissonance over the issue. In light of writings that Galileo said scripture may not need to be taken literally, Bellarmine took sides and condemned Galileo's message. Faith in this case was stronger than evidence, and Galileo was sentenced to recant his views and remain in house arrest.
The initial friendly relations were due to Galileo's attempts to massage his observations to make them more digestible to the church. But due to scripture, there could be no reconciliation, no matter what methods Galileo used. From the mouth of the Pope: ""Your Galileo has ventured to meddle in things he ought not and with the most grave and dangerous subject that can be stirred up in these days."
Quote:
Dicto simplicter
Thanks. I wonder if Robert could explain his definition of a natural scientist. I'd think some natural scientists could be theistic, meaning Robert's sentence was fallacious.
_________________ “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3211 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 815 Thanked: 812 times in 610 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
ant wrote:
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
As much as I'd like to take your comment seriously, I can't. You are committing a logical fallacy:
Point it out.
Dicto simplicter
For those wondering what ant is talking about here, he is saying that my assertion is fallacious that all real scientists are atheist, in so far as they are scientific.
He says the existence of religious scientists disproves my assertion. Latin pedants will note that ant has two typos in his citation of the fallacy 'a dicto simpliciter', which means the fallacy of ignoring exceptions. I say there is no fallacy here, and ant is just being pompous.
The fact is there is no evidence for anything supernatural. Science is limited by evidence. So to the extent that individual scientists believe in the supernatural, they are unscientific. As I said, the exceptions are justified by lies, cowardice, stupidity and hypocrisy, none of which are accepted scientific methods.
The definition of science as evidence-based fully justifies my assertion that any assent to propositions that lack evidence is unscientific. Ant is being fairly subtle in his apology for Christian rubbish, but his implication here that there may be scientific evidence for God gives his game away.
My comment relies on the definition of science as evidence-based. It is unlike the 'true scotsman' fallacy because reliance on evidence is intrinsic to science.
Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 3891 Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 689 Thanked: 561 times in 453 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
I hadn't so much as clicked a single time on this thread until now, but I was curious about how closely the current discussion would relate to the thread name. This could be a booktalk party game--"what will they be talking about 7 pages in?" I think it's pretty cool, really (although it drives Chris nuts, I think).
No contribution from me. Well, maybe only as far as saying that the correlation of personality, experience, and cognitive "style" with whatever anyone thinks about this matter of accepting God-think--is the most interesting aspect for me. I'm an accommodationist for reasons, I'm sure, that have a lot to do with where I've been and my innate or shaped personality.
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
Robert,
You've read none of my posts on this matter apparently and are creeping into ad hominem territory. I agree that intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis. Saying God put a rainbow in the sky is not an explanation for what a rainbow is.
You appear to be in the camp that believes science to be the only source of absolute truth regarding the complexity of creation. I DO NOT. Nor am I trying to be an apologist for any camp that feels differently.
You are ignoring what history has taught us up to the present.
Science is constantly in a state of flux. What then has science proven to be "true" to date?
Theology and Science have NOT been at odds with one another in the same watered down, superficial manner that current fundamentalists from both camps are
There have been and are, to date, scientists that understand science is capable only of explaining secondary causation. It is beyond what science can demonstrate to deduce that random meaninglessness in the natural world is evidence of the non existence of a divine intelligence (sorry if that may bother the hell out of you). The absence of evidence is not that same as evidence of absence.
What angers people like you is when someone wants to play on your scientific chessboard and not abide by the rules set in place. What's ridiculous about that is that you feel the rules on your chessboard are the ONLY rules that govern existence. That is a lack of humility for the complexity of nature.
Science itself is aware of an inherent flaw within it that is difficult, if not impossible to reconcile - the fallacy of affirming the consequent. How true then is scientific knowledge?
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Last edited by ant on Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Joined: Oct 2010 Posts: 690
Thanks: 99 Thanked: 237 times in 175 posts
Gender:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
ant wrote:
Science is constantly in a state of flux. What then has science proven to be "true" to date?
Theology and Science have NOT been at odds with one another in the same watered down, superficial manner that current fundamentalists from both camps are
Scientific discoveries have led to all of the technology that we see around us. What has theology done other than read some old books?
Because "truth" is elusive doesn't mean you can put all forms on inquiry on an equal footing. Most religious claims are contradictory, which means at least most of them are wrong. Are you going to defend all religious claims?
You can't disprove that I just jumped off my balcony, flew around and then came back. But you would require extraordinary evidence, wouldn't you? You wouldn't say that questioning it is a lack of humility for the complexities of nature. Well, what about the stories of the Bible?
Most theists are not just claiming, "well something must have created the universe," they are trying to defend a very specific version of events. Because they are doing it without evidence, they can be dismissed without evidence.
The following user would like to thank Dexter for this post: Interbane
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3710 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 345 Thanked: 746 times in 561 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
Roberts response makes sense, but I'm not sure if I agree with him. Ant, I have to disagree about theology and science being at odds. When the findings of science result in a theory that goes against the teachings of religion, I'd say they are at odds.
Quote:
What then has science proven to be "true" to date?
Proven? Nothing, at the same time that evidence of it's verisimillitude is in every nook and cranny of American life. The distinction is that science is humble, and absolutes are left for the arrogance of religion. This is true to the philosophy of science, at the same time we can acknowledge the exceptions, but that applies to both sides.
Quote:
There have been and are, to date, scientists that understand science is capable only of explaining secondary causation.
You are assuming there is any such distinction within causation.
Quote:
The absence of evidence is not that same as evidence of absence.
This is only true up to the point where we should reasonably expect to find evidence for something. In that case, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Quantifying that threshold may be impossible, but it seems we're far past it.
The problem is that we aren't limited to vision, or to hearing, or to any one sense, as we were hundreds of years ago. If it is detectable, we can detect it. If the god of the bible were real, some of his influence on the universe would by definition be detectable, as we humans are supposedly influenced(by more than the motive of belief). But what we see is an absence of evidence where we should reasonably expect at least a small amount. I would consider that evidence of absence.
_________________ “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1871 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 409 Thanked: 466 times in 347 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
ant wrote:
Science is constantly in a state of flux. What then has science proven to be "true" to date?
Every time you eat a hamburger or travel in a car or jet or watch TV or make a telephone call, you are demonstrating the truth of science. Those who don't see that are being disingenuous. There's a very relevant distinction here between objective and subjective truth.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Jun 2011 Posts: 437
Thanks: 59 Thanked: 30 times in 28 posts
Gender:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
geo wrote:
ant wrote:
Science is constantly in a state of flux. What then has science proven to be "true" to date?
Every time you eat a hamburger or travel in a car or jet or watch TV or make a telephone call, you are demonstrating the truth of science. Those who don't see that are being disingenuous. There's a very relevant distinction here between objective and subjective truth.
Oh puhlease
I am not denying or refuting rudimentary examples of science in action. No cretin in their right mind would. I'm talking about much deeper truths that science is in search of. Emmanuel Kant gave consideration to the existence of a divine, primary causation (yes, GOD). To claim correct infallible reasoning is a guaranteed product of scientific hypothesis is to say all our methods at arriving at universal truths are in themselves infallible. Claims of the non existence of intelligence behind the seemingly randomness of nature (as we currently perceive nature to be) is a leap of faith by those that do.
There's that word "faith" - written on both sides of the coin, apparently.
_________________ "Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.
The philosopher Richard Paul has described three kinds of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and platitudes to bully those holding different points of view into agreeing with them; sophisticated believers, who are skilled at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend what they already believe; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions and are ready to listen to others."
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3211 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 815 Thanked: 812 times in 610 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
ant wrote:
Robert, You've read none of my posts on this matter apparently and are creeping into ad hominem territory.
Hi Ant, no, I have not made ad hominem comments about you. That would be to disparage one of your comments because of something else you said that was not related. I have actually read your posts here, and what I objected to at heart was your apparent assertion that we should respect the philosophy of conventional religion and specifically of the Roman Catholic Church because of its good works. I do not respect the philosophy of the Roman Church because I see it as corrupt and evil. So I will argue against views that justify Christian doctrine because the institution is supposedly so wonderful.
By the way, I am far from opposed to religion, I just think that religion needs a reformation to make it atheist. Atheism is the humble faith, accepting reality as it is rather than imposing some imaginary supernatural fantasy.
Quote:
You appear to be in the camp that believes science to be the only source of absolute truth regarding the complexity of creation. I DO NOT. Nor am I trying to be an apologist for any camp that feels differently. .. Science is constantly in a state of flux. What then has science proven to be "true" to date?
I have differed with Interbane and others here on this question of absolute truth. It is absolutely true that molecules are made of atoms, that Mercury is closer to the Sun than Saturn, and that life on our planet has evolved for about four billion years. Anyone who disagrees with such absolute scientific knowledge is stupid, arrogant and ignorant.
Religion has no absolutes that have anything like the reliability of science. Instead, we routinely find that claims of absolute truth from religion are wrong, and serve a political agenda such as the power of the priesthood or the emotional comfort of a community.
So yes, I do think science is the only source of absolute truth. Without evidence, we cannot know if any claim is true.
Quote:
Theology and Science have NOT been at odds with one another in the same watered down, superficial manner that current fundamentalists from both camps are. There have been and are, to date, scientists that understand science is capable only of explaining secondary causation. It is beyond what science can demonstrate to deduce that random meaninglessness in the natural world is evidence of the non existence of a divine intelligence (sorry if that may bother the hell out of you).
Christianity has been at odds with science in its insistence on conformity to orthodoxy. This attitude of orthodox faith has poisoned western civilization. Most orthodox claims are not literally true, even though they may contain allegorical meaning. Yes there are scientists such as Einstein who have a deep spirituality that can see an identification between god and nature. But at heart Einstein was an atheist. Scientists who argue against atheism are charlatans.
Your distinction between primary and secondary causation is meaningless.
Nature has deep patterns such as the seasons which give the impression of revealing a divine intelligence. And indeed such patterns do provide a framework of purpose and meaning for human advancement. But it is fallacious to postulate entities that embody this natural cosmic intelligence, which is inherent in the patterns formed by matter itself.
Quote:
What angers people like you is when someone wants to play on your scientific chessboard and not abide by the rules set in place. What's ridiculous about that is that you feel the rules on your chessboard are the ONLY rules that govern existence. That is a lack of humility for the complexity of nature.
I don't think you understand well where I am coming from Ant. Yes, when people claim there is evidence for things that lack evidence, it makes me angry because they are deluded or lying. But I don't really bother about anger as it is not a very constructive emotion. It is better to treat unscientific people with pity and forgiveness. They need help to see the light.
You seem to think that humility means we should believe the universe might be quite different from our observation of it. I would rather say that humility means to accept that scientific method is the most accurate and powerful tool we have for the discovery of truth, providing the foundation upon which any speculation about the nature of human spirituality should rest.
Supernaturalists are the arrogant ones, asserting special access to truth for which we have no evidence, and for claims which the actual evidence shows are mere imaginary psychological projection on their part.
Joined: Oct 2010 Posts: 690
Thanks: 99 Thanked: 237 times in 175 posts
Gender:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
ant wrote:
To claim correct infallible reasoning is a guaranteed product of scientific hypothesis is to say all our methods at arriving at universal truths are in themselves infallible. Claims of the non existence of intelligence behind the seemingly randomness of nature (as we currently perceive nature to be) is a leap of faith by those that do.
There's that word "faith" - written on both sides of the coin, apparently.
You're attacking a strawman. Has anyone in history ever held the position that scientific reasoning is infallible?
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1871 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 409 Thanked: 466 times in 347 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy
ant wrote:
I'm talking about much deeper truths that science is in search of.
Is science searching for deeper truths? That's an odd statement. Science is a rational process by which we attempt to better understand the world. Deeper truths are sometimes a byproduct, but not the goal of science.
ant wrote:
Emmanuel Kant gave consideration to the existence of a divine, primary causation (yes, GOD).
Non sequitur. What is your point? The question of a primary causation is not the ultimate goal of science and no one has stated that it is.
ant wrote:
To claim correct infallible reasoning is a guaranteed product of scientific hypothesis is to say all our methods at arriving at universal truths are in themselves infallible. Claims of the non existence of intelligence behind the seemingly randomness of nature (as we currently perceive nature to be) is a leap of faith by those that do.
There's that word "faith" - written on both sides of the coin, apparently.
As Dexter pointed out, you are creating a strawman. No one is making such claims. I wonder why you feel so threatened by science that you feel a need to attack it.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnt
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
Ebrimas house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnt
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
Sacred Are the Brave a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend Trippers is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on Teds diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
