"This is a really stellar paper, neatly balanced. "
A stellar paper, perhaps, from the perspective of a theist who would rather use the public schools to instill religious belief than to teach science. One thing this "neatly balanced" paper does not address is the question of what constitutes real science, or whether this fraudulent ID meets any such criteria. I have said this before, and it bears repeating: it's not a question of what they believe or what they hypothesize. It's a question of whether they approach it in a scientific manner. If these people want to be seen as real scientists, they need to follow scientific method. Instead, they are pursuing a goal of injecting religion into public schools in the guise of science (and this is their stated policy).
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” Thomas Nagel
Oh, toddes, you really stepped (or should I say "skepped"?) into it. You're under the impression that Skep is interested in evidence. Please disabuse yourself of that illusion. If he truly was, he would have provided some of that evidence right here on this website for his slanderous accusations against the Church, for which he keeps saying "the evidence is out there", but somehow can't ever show us what it is.
Nagel's an atheist, to be sure. But he's a heretical atheists. The Atheist Inquisition wants to burn him at the stake, or at least excommunicate him. (Nobody expects.....)
No, but Victor is, and this is just the kind of stuff he gobbles up. I have been familiar with Nagel for a long time. He is the one theists always love to trot out as the good atheist because he is sympathetic to their beliefs.
I'm not sure what possible context could possibly negate what was very clearly and explicitly said in that quote. And I'm not sure that I believe you've even read the book anyway. Please provide the context that undermines the validity of that quote, or most of us will gladly dismiss your claim as baseless.
He touches on something I've thought for a long time, namely that the opponent to ID is stuck in a dilemma. Either ID/anti-evolution view is a scientific one and therefore legally and philosophically acceptable in a scientific classroom or they are not and thus cannot be refuted through any scientific evidence for evolution. Sure, ID may turn out to be empirically false. But since when is it against the Establishment Clause to teach empirically false sciences in public school classrooms?
Do you see any context for the quote? I sure don't. Do you want to claim that what I said isn't true, or is in doubt? Can you even tell us what Nagel was discussing when he made that statement? (Hint: it wasn't what Victor wanted us to believe when he cited it.)
"By the way, Toddes, your famous quotation from Nagel (which I have seen 1000 times, including when Victor posted it) is severely out of context."
Then provide the context. If it helps the quote is from page 130 of The Last Word.
And Nagel is hardly sympathetic to religion, theism or Christianity. What he appears to be, as Victor noted about the original paper, is balanced. From what I have read, he has no problem critically examining the sacred cows of the atheism as well as those of religion.
"And Nagel is hardly sympathetic to religion, theism or Christianity."
His sympathy for and embrace of non-materialist views is precisely why theists are so in love with him. He was arguing in favor of non-materialist views in that quote. But don't believe me. Read it for yourself.
1. So being a non-materialist is equivalent to being sympathetic to religion even if the person in question has directly rejected religion?
2. I don't believe you. Given your history (and especially your handle, when your position is anything but skeptical), my first impulse is to treat everything you say as untruthful until verified.
3. On what basis do you make the assumption that I have not read it? As usual, you make a claim based on Boghossian faith™, i.e. pretending to know what you cannot know.
1. Those are your words, not mine. Please allow me to speak for myself. Too many people here are unwilling to do that.
2. You have every right to verify what I say. Please do. And while you're at it, you should take a look at your own beliefs.
3. On what basis do you make the claim that I have assumed you haven't read Nagel's book? I didn't say that. On the other hand, if you don't know or understand what Nagel is saying, it might be worthwhile to read it, or read it again.
Wow, I am genuinely impressed. I predicted that there were only three possible ways for Skep to respond to amorbis. What I never expected was for him to do all three at once!!!
I used to have respect for you. Since I spoke out about your beloved Church, you've become a total jackass, no longer worth responding to. And no, I will not play your stupid dance monkey game. Go to hell.
22 comments:
"This is a really stellar paper, neatly balanced. "
A stellar paper, perhaps, from the perspective of a theist who would rather use the public schools to instill religious belief than to teach science. One thing this "neatly balanced" paper does not address is the question of what constitutes real science, or whether this fraudulent ID meets any such criteria. I have said this before, and it bears repeating: it's not a question of what they believe or what they hypothesize. It's a question of whether they approach it in a scientific manner. If these people want to be seen as real scientists, they need to follow scientific method. Instead, they are pursuing a goal of injecting religion into public schools in the guise of science (and this is their stated policy).
Really, Skep, Nagel is a theist?
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” Thomas Nagel
Oh, toddes, you really stepped (or should I say "skepped"?) into it. You're under the impression that Skep is interested in evidence. Please disabuse yourself of that illusion. If he truly was, he would have provided some of that evidence right here on this website for his slanderous accusations against the Church, for which he keeps saying "the evidence is out there", but somehow can't ever show us what it is.
Nagel's an atheist, to be sure. But he's a heretical atheists. The Atheist Inquisition wants to burn him at the stake, or at least excommunicate him. (Nobody expects.....)
"Really, Skep, Nagel is a theist?"
No, but Victor is, and this is just the kind of stuff he gobbles up. I have been familiar with Nagel for a long time. He is the one theists always love to trot out as the good atheist because he is sympathetic to their beliefs.
By the way, Toddes, your famous quotation from Nagel (which I have seen 1000 times, including when Victor posted it) is severely out of context.
Skep,
I'm not sure what possible context could possibly negate what was very clearly and explicitly said in that quote. And I'm not sure that I believe you've even read the book anyway. Please provide the context that undermines the validity of that quote, or most of us will gladly dismiss your claim as baseless.
He touches on something I've thought for a long time, namely that the opponent to ID is stuck in a dilemma. Either ID/anti-evolution view is a scientific one and therefore legally and philosophically acceptable in a scientific classroom or they are not and thus cannot be refuted through any scientific evidence for evolution. Sure, ID may turn out to be empirically false. But since when is it against the Establishment Clause to teach empirically false sciences in public school classrooms?
"or most of us will gladly dismiss your claim as baseless."
And what claim is that?
The claim that the Nagel quote was taken severely out of context.
Footnote (1) to the Nagel's paper confuses me. Didn't Darwin offer a theory of speciation? He was silent about the Origins of Life.
So what;s the meaning of saying that "ID is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view"?
And does ID even offer an explanation of Origin of Life?
Oh, amorbis. Don't you realize how this will all turn out? There are only three possibilities:
a) You'll never see anything from Skep to back up his statement - never. Or,
b} He'll deny he ever said any such thing, despite the fact we can all scroll up and read his comment.
c) He'll accuse you of not understanding what he said.
Which will it be? Which will it be?...
Bob,
Do you see any context for the quote? I sure don't. Do you want to claim that what I said isn't true, or is in doubt? Can you even tell us what Nagel was discussing when he made that statement? (Hint: it wasn't what Victor wanted us to believe when he cited it.)
"By the way, Toddes, your famous quotation from Nagel (which I have seen 1000 times, including when Victor posted it) is severely out of context."
Then provide the context. If it helps the quote is from page 130 of The Last Word.
And Nagel is hardly sympathetic to religion, theism or Christianity. What he appears to be, as Victor noted about the original paper, is balanced. From what I have read, he has no problem critically examining the sacred cows of the atheism as well as those of religion.
"And Nagel is hardly sympathetic to religion, theism or Christianity."
His sympathy for and embrace of non-materialist views is precisely why theists are so in love with him. He was arguing in favor of non-materialist views in that quote. But don't believe me. Read it for yourself.
skep,
1. So being a non-materialist is equivalent to being sympathetic to religion even if the person in question has directly rejected religion?
2. I don't believe you. Given your history (and especially your handle, when your position is anything but skeptical), my first impulse is to treat everything you say as untruthful until verified.
3. On what basis do you make the assumption that I have not read it? As usual, you make a claim based on Boghossian faith™, i.e. pretending to know what you cannot know.
toddes,
1. Those are your words, not mine. Please allow me to speak for myself. Too many people here are unwilling to do that.
2. You have every right to verify what I say. Please do. And while you're at it, you should take a look at your own beliefs.
3. On what basis do you make the claim that I have assumed you haven't read Nagel's book? I didn't say that. On the other hand, if you don't know or understand what Nagel is saying, it might be worthwhile to read it, or read it again.
Wow, I am genuinely impressed. I predicted that there were only three possible ways for Skep to respond to amorbis. What I never expected was for him to do all three at once!!!
Skep, way to exceed expectations!
Bob,
I used to have respect for you. Since I spoke out about your beloved Church, you've become a total jackass, no longer worth responding to. And no, I will not play your stupid dance monkey game. Go to hell.
Well, Skep. There are two ways you can get back in my Good Graces:
1) Produce the evidence you claim is "out there", or
2) Retract your accusation.
Take your pick. It's that simple.
That assumes I would want to get back in your "Good Graces". I provided evidence. You brushed it off. Now go to hell.
"I provided evidence."
Liar.
Post a Comment