Help me get this straight

[Zzyzx]

.
Correct me if any of the following are wrong in your case or in the case of Christianity in general

1. You (generic term) deny that a series of small changes can produce big changes over time (evolution and speciation) but accept that an invisible, undetectable "god" poofed the universe into existence.

2. You doubt the honesty and accuracy of scientists worldwide studying anthropology concerning the origin and development of humans but trust the word of unidentified religion promoters who wrote thousands of years ago claiming to know that humans were "created" in present form

3. You dismiss the conclusions of astronomers and astrophysicists who study the universe but accept the claims of preachers who do not study such things and accept the conclusions of ancients who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe

4. You trust the word of ancient writers who claim that dead bodies came back to life but doubt the word of forensic biologists who say that death is irreversible

5. You propose that scientists and Atheists conspire against religion but do not acknowledge the possibility that religion fanatics conspire to promote your favorite religion

6. You declare that thousands of proposed gods are false but claim to have chosen a favorite that you know is real (with odds of 0.0005 of being correct)

7. You claim that your God is infinitely intelligent but also claim to know about its desires and requirements or its thinking and emotions

8. You critique and criticize the work of scientists who spend decades in advanced study without having studied the subject yourself beyond high school or television level

9. You claim that Christians follow a superior moral code even though statistics on rates of incarceration, divorce and abortion by Christians demonstrate otherwise

10. You accept the benefits provided by science (including modern medicine) but reject any findings that conflict with your chosen religious beliefs

11. You reject tales of competing gods performing superhuman feats but accept tales of your favorite God doing the same things (performing "miracles")

12. You declare that competing religions are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that your chosen religion is real and provides "the one true path to salvation"

13. You realize that humans are imperfect / flawed / "evil" but claim they were created by an omniscient, omnipotent God who could do no wrong and make no mistakes

14. You reject information from geologists that indicates that the Earth is billions of years old but accept opinions of preachers and ancient religion promoters who claim it is thousands of years old

15. You claim that "science does not have all the answers" so religion must be true (God of the Gaps)

16. You demand evidence for anything that conflicts with chosen religious beliefs but furnish no evidence (beyond testimonials and opinions) that support those beliefs

Questions for debate:

A) Do any of the above make sense?

B) Do any of the above NOT apply to your religious beliefs / theological position?

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]

Why are you dodging? Please supply the evidence to support your wild claims. Please supply info on this scientific discovery of subjective morality.

I'm not saying I believe in objective morality, I'm just calling you out on making a claim you cannot support. You overreached what science alone can do and now your arguments have degenerated. Whether they are objective or subjective is not a scientific claim, nor are there scientific tests that you can supply to support this.

Do you know what the scientific method is? You seem to think its a synonym for observation and conclusion. This is so wrong. You use it so loosely and seemingly incorrectly. What you seem to be referring to is just called "deducing" or "critical thinking." It is NOT the scientific method.

Scientific method: a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

Where are your measurements? Where are your controlled experiments? You can't just say observing something and then making a decision is using the scientific method. Just wrong.

You throw out every:

Revolution
Civil rights movement
Social justice movement
National creed
Ethical decision

You've not supplied data that things like ethical decisions are deduced by the scientific method because they aren't. Dodge.

You cannot support your claims

You caricaturize my claims. I never said pure philosophy is how I get my truth. I said philosophy is an example of a useful tool outside the scientific method, and certain questions that cannot be answered by the scientific method can be addressed by philosophy. Stop claiming I said things that I did not.

You use wishy washy definitions and confused semantics of science.

You generalize other views as clear nonsense & claim yours is common sense when it is hardly something universally (or even widely) accepted even among academia.

Harris and Dawkins are not the authority, Russell and Dennet would be ashamed . Russell is taken much more seriously than Dawkins by the way. If you'd like to solve this by name dropping I've got plenty, but find it rather useless.

You need to read my responses closer. When did I say anything about philosophy being the driving force for the evolution of language? I said philosophy helps us in large scale civilization. Without good philosophy, whether it is objective or not, we would still be living in small tribes. I didn't say homo erectus tribes, just tribes. Philosophy is a valuable tool in progressing knowledge, one of these things being knowledge of proper government. Do we have it perfect? No, but like science, over time philosophy can narrow it down. To put these things in the category of science is simply a mistake. I'm not saying science has no part in these things either, but what science can supply in these kinds of things is limited, at which point we must use other tools. This is not a radical viewpoint, it is standard.

You're only "clearly ahead of me" to you and other people who support scientism. You can pat yourself on the back because you're convinced by your arguments, but I for one find them painfully weak and factually incorrect.

It's painful to watch you use philosophy to support your own arguments and then claim it is in fact science you are using. No serious thinker would agree with your definitions.

Done mud slinging. If you provide the scientific data to support your clearly false claim I shall continue this absurd conversation. Otherwise this nonsense isn't worth the time I'm spending here.

[Danmark]

Do you know what the scientific method is? You seem to think its a synonym for observation and conclusion. This is so wrong. You use it so loosely and seemingly incorrectly. What you seem to be referring to is just called "deducing" or "critical thinking." It is NOT the scientific method.

Scientific method: a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

You lifted the portion to which I applied emphasis directly from Wikipedia, without placing it in quotes and without attribution.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

And you've managed to misinterpret it by looking too narrowly. Here are the two entries given prior to the OED quote:

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
[From Goldhaber & Nieto 2010, p. 940 and Rules for the study of natural philosophy, Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3, The System of the World, respectively]
What you've failed to consider is that the since the scientific method includes the integration of new knowledge with old, forming hypotheses and modifying them, it requires observation, conclusions, deduction, critical thinking and other powers of reason to try to make sense of observations and to formulate new hypotheses.

[Zzyzx]

.

Done mud slinging.

Otherwise this nonsense isn't worth the time I'm spending here.

Moderator Warning


Mud slinging is not permitted in this Forum. Your post is nothing other than mud and personal attack. Debate issues not personalities.

If you dislike someone's posts there is no obligation to respond

If you feel as though a thread is wasting your time stop wasting. Grandiose announcement is not required or appropriate.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 42 by Zzyzx]

Excuse me... I'm trying to end mud slinging. Please review Divine Insights posts too if you think I made personal attacks, because he's making the same kinds.

I don't think he or I made personal attacks, but the conversation was simply getting heated. This is what I meant by mud slinging. Are passionate conversations banned in the rules?

Also, I think I'm free to announce I am not going to post on a thread anymore so that people don't have the expectation that I'm going to infinitely respond. Can I not state something that I don't think is worth my time?

Seems strange, and also seems like I didn't break any of the rules.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 42 by Zzyzx]

Excuse me... I'm trying to end mud slinging. Please review Divine Insights posts too if you think I made personal attacks, because he's making the same kinds.

I don't think he or I made personal attacks,....
Seems strange, and also seems like I didn't break any of the rules.

Moderator Warning

Among other rules you've violated is the one about not responding to moderator postings, except by private email. You were reminded of this in the warning you just received.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[instantc]

Philosophy also keeps an innumerable amount of people from performing terrible acts, because it teaches them ethics. Even defining "terrible" is a question of philosophy. Using the vast minority of humans (the criminals) living within an educated civilization does not work. For the vast majority, philosophy seems to be working amazing for the average citizen.

Nonsense! Philosophy can produce monsters as well as kindness and cooperation. I think the problem you're presenting comes from your use of the word "philosophy." Philosophy represents an extremely broad category and does not exclude the scientific method and the knowledge we gain from careful observation. The facts we gain may influence us in the personal philosophy we develop, and the values we accept or reject. There is no sharp, artificial division between the knowledge we acquire and our thoughts about it, and the values we have.
Humans and other mammals have learned [and it is likely even in our genetic code] that we benefit and even survive because of a social contract. The contract has terms that need to be followed if we wish to remain comfortably in our groups.

You call his comment nonsense, but which part exactly are you disagreeing with and why so? Studies show that those of us who give some thought to ethics and morality are more likely to follow a moral code of some kind than those who don't. It seems reasonable to say that philosophy as a discipline, broad as it is, works wonders for the majority, does it not?

[Danmark]

Philosophy also keeps an innumerable amount of people from performing terrible acts, because it teaches them ethics. Even defining "terrible" is a question of philosophy. Using the vast minority of humans (the criminals) living within an educated civilization does not work. For the vast majority, philosophy seems to be working amazing for the average citizen.

Nonsense! Philosophy can produce monsters as well as kindness and cooperation. I think the problem you're presenting comes from your use of the word "philosophy." Philosophy represents an extremely broad category and does not exclude the scientific method and the knowledge we gain from careful observation. The facts we gain may influence us in the personal philosophy we develop, and the values we accept or reject. There is no sharp, artificial division between the knowledge we acquire and our thoughts about it, and the values we have.
Humans and other mammals have learned [and it is likely even in our genetic code] that we benefit and even survive because of a social contract. The contract has terms that need to be followed if we wish to remain comfortably in our groups.

You call his comment nonsense, but which part exactly are you disagreeing with and why so? Studies show that those of us who give some thought to ethics and morality are more likely to follow a moral code of some kind than those who don't. It seems reasonable to say that philosophy as a discipline, broad as it is, works wonders for the majority, does it not?

One of the reasons I call it "nonsense" to claim "Philosophy also keeps an innumerable amount of people from performing terrible acts," is because one's philosophy or system of ethics may have the opposite effect. For example, the idea of "might makes right," has no effect on stopping people from committing atrocities, and may even foment such acts.

[instantc]

Philosophy also keeps an innumerable amount of people from performing terrible acts, because it teaches them ethics. Even defining "terrible" is a question of philosophy. Using the vast minority of humans (the criminals) living within an educated civilization does not work. For the vast majority, philosophy seems to be working amazing for the average citizen.

Nonsense! Philosophy can produce monsters as well as kindness and cooperation. I think the problem you're presenting comes from your use of the word "philosophy." Philosophy represents an extremely broad category and does not exclude the scientific method and the knowledge we gain from careful observation. The facts we gain may influence us in the personal philosophy we develop, and the values we accept or reject. There is no sharp, artificial division between the knowledge we acquire and our thoughts about it, and the values we have.
Humans and other mammals have learned [and it is likely even in our genetic code] that we benefit and even survive because of a social contract. The contract has terms that need to be followed if we wish to remain comfortably in our groups.

You call his comment nonsense, but which part exactly are you disagreeing with and why so? Studies show that those of us who give some thought to ethics and morality are more likely to follow a moral code of some kind than those who don't. It seems reasonable to say that philosophy as a discipline, broad as it is, works wonders for the majority, does it not?

One of the reasons I call it "nonsense" to claim "Philosophy also keeps an innumerable amount of people from performing terrible acts," is because one's philosophy or system of ethics may have the opposite effect. For example, the idea of "might makes right," has no effect on stopping people from committing atrocities, and may even foment such acts.

But he didn't say it keeps everyone from doing bad things or that every philosophy is good. Do you not think that ethics and morality are disciplines that generally improve human behavior?

If I had to choose, one of the top changes that I would like to see in the world would be that everyone picked up a book like Michael Sandel's Justice, for example, and gave some serious thought to how the most prominent philosophers in history have interpreted morality and justice.

[Elijah John]

12. You declare that competing religions are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that your chosen religion is real and provides "the one true path to salvation"

I think you realize this is just the Fundamentalist pov. Many other Christian denominations see other religions as having elements of truth, and as viable paths to God.

And (again) the RCC believes they have the fullness of truth, but they believe that Jesus saves everyone who seeks God, even if they don't realize it's Jesus doin' the saving. What they call the "Baptism of desire".

This goes along with "Baptism of blood" which is martyrdom, and of course "regular" sacramental baptism.

Fun fact, did you realize that Catholics and many other Christian denominations recoginize ANY Trinitarian baptism as valid? And any baptized Christian has the authority to baptize anyone, according to RCC teaching.

[Zzyzx]

.

12. You declare that competing religions are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that your chosen religion is real and provides "the one true path to salvation"

I think you realize this is just the Fundamentalist pov. Many other Christian denominations see other religions as having elements of truth, and as viable paths to God.

Unfortunately, EJ, the Fundamentalist POV is the most vocal and usually the most attention-getting – in real life (particularly here in the bible belt) as well as in our threads. Moderate and Liberal Christians seem less inclined toward "in your face with my beliefs" and less inclined to "slay the heathens" in debate or in everyday life.

Moderate / Liberal / Rational Christians may be the majority but they are under-represented. Fanatics are the stand-outs – the billboards for Christianity. Perhaps that will change as Pat Robertson and such die out?