tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4619563849678978422..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Bob Prokop on Science and ObjectivityVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23491219297007816342011-06-27T09:17:05.116-07:002011-06-27T09:17:05.116-07:00Funny that Papa Linton should post a link to somet...Funny that Papa Linton should post a link to something by Gregory Paul... I would have thought that he wouldn't have found his voice since the <a href="http://magicstatistics.com/category/worldview-issues/religion-society/gregory-s-paul/" rel="nofollow">smackdown</a> he received for his previous "paper"...<br /><br />In brief, his method was cherry-picking, question-begging, and avoiding useful things like statistical analysis. <br /><br />Rather than improve his credibility, edge.org's just plummeted by "publishing" him.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16197663817396506388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13755942416990187952011-03-04T05:35:42.224-07:002011-03-04T05:35:42.224-07:00So... you're going to fall back on the Argumen...So... you're going to fall back on the Argumentum ad Populum? You do realize that's on the list of logical fallacies, right?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83553150616785607042011-03-03T20:42:41.810-07:002011-03-03T20:42:41.810-07:00Bob Prokop
"Thank you, thank you, thank you! ...Bob Prokop<br />"Thank you, thank you, thank you! You just provided the smoking gun evidence, validating the last paragraph of my original post. (You should read it again before responding.)"<br /><br />The next ARIS survey should determine who's perspective is being reflected, Bob.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78330416145992222772011-03-03T20:40:27.138-07:002011-03-03T20:40:27.138-07:00Alex
Copy and paste the web site into your 'ex...Alex<br />Copy and paste the web site into your 'explorer' window.<br /><br />It workd fine.. I just tried it.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81979688054813983252011-03-03T17:42:16.988-07:002011-03-03T17:42:16.988-07:00Papa - link doesn't work for me...I looked aro...Papa - link doesn't work for me...I looked around the general website though - saw alot of bragging about how "we are a group of intellectuals" and other such nonsense. I saw Dawkins name on an article or two. If any publication allows Richard Dawkins to write outside his field of biology, it is probably not going to be something I'm impressed with.<br /><br />Anyway, still waiting for the data.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75840352778194527962011-03-03T06:09:26.946-07:002011-03-03T06:09:26.946-07:00Papalinton,
You wrote: "The world is slowly ...Papalinton,<br /><br />You wrote: "The world is slowly awakening from its slumber about the extra-natural or supernatural. People are growing up."<br /><br />Thank you, thank you, thank you! You just provided the smoking gun evidence, validating the last paragraph of my original post. (You should read it again before responding.)<br /><br />We make a great team!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74862655420683595532011-03-03T05:14:22.346-07:002011-03-03T05:14:22.346-07:00Hi Alex
You may want to read this:
http://www.ed...Hi Alex<br />You may want to read this:<br /><br /><br />http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70230674803141420352011-03-03T00:35:22.294-07:002011-03-03T00:35:22.294-07:00@ Alex
"Alex: Have any sociological data to b...@ Alex<br />"Alex: Have any sociological data to back that up?"<br /><br />Yep, increasingly. The next ARIS due shortly should continue to underpin the trends.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32467089022056422392011-03-02T21:53:27.236-07:002011-03-02T21:53:27.236-07:00Papa writes:
I wish sometimes I could feel hate. ...Papa writes:<br /><br />I wish sometimes I could feel hate. But it is not in my nature. <br />The christian worldview is simply wrong. It is tribal, gang-like in its structure, each social enclave with its communitarian club-house in which club meetings are held every weekend. <br /><br />Alex: Right, Christianity is false because it has a certain social structure. Sad thing for Papa's notions here is that skepticism/atheism is very obviously taking on a social structure and function increasingly similar to that of religion. <br /><br />Papa: The world is slowly awakening from its slumber about the extra-natural or supernatural. People are growing up.<br /><br />Alex: Have any sociological data to back that up?Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54153458231781388872011-03-02T19:28:20.438-07:002011-03-02T19:28:20.438-07:00GREV
I wish sometimes I could feel hate. But it i...GREV<br />I wish sometimes I could feel hate. But it is not in my nature. <br />The christian worldview is simply wrong. It is tribal, gang-like in its structure, each social enclave with its communitarian club-house in which club meetings are held every weekend. <br /><br />Christians simply refuse to take responsibility for its own history. Stark is one such apologist. Someone like a Phil Zuckerman provides a much more nuanced state of the nonsense that is religion. His research into the Scandinavian countries are a clear testament that all that makes for improved living conditions for communities have no need for a god to be a component of the social structure except at the very margins in maintaining the national estate in the great buildings and monuments built centuries ago when human acquiescence to supernatural superstition and spirit worship was a central element in everyday existence. The world is slowly awakening from its slumber about the extra-natural or supernatural. People are growing up.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24137500938238274422011-03-02T05:59:28.574-07:002011-03-02T05:59:28.574-07:00Papalinton -- saying the murders are abhorent -- i...Papalinton -- saying the murders are abhorent -- is not mitigating them. Not only do you ramble but your accusations grow increasingly strange. Do you hate the Christian viewpoint that much?<br /><br />Stark's research and the others who have worked on this was done to show the reality of the picture which I am interested in.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64723826943292765452011-03-02T05:54:51.491-07:002011-03-02T05:54:51.491-07:00Papalinton -- not only do you ramble but you twist...Papalinton -- not only do you ramble but you twist. Since you seem either unwilling or incapapble of making logical extentsions to points because it does not serve your purposes then further conversation seems pointless.<br /><br />I said I do not deny history which means to a person who is supposedly a logical thinker that I grovel to no one's point of view.<br /><br />Then maybe I have answered the above point. That you have no interest in logical thinking and reasonable responses when it does not serve your point of view.<br /><br />Which further myths do you buy into? The standard myth regarding Galileo and the standard myth regarding the Huxley - Wilberforce Debate?<br /><br />Are you that into the religion - science conflict myth that you buy into those also? Note, but this seems to be pointless, that I deny the standard myth and not the fact of conflict.<br /><br />I know -- unrelated -- but given your twisting of the other stuff it seems plausible you buy into those also.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17329383081492674072011-03-01T20:07:24.565-07:002011-03-01T20:07:24.565-07:00Hey Duke...been a bit busy lately. Will drop in wh...Hey Duke...been a bit busy lately. Will drop in when I can...<br /><br />Duke: In my thesis, which I like but which I'm willing to discard if proven wrong, scientific advancement is unique in human endeavors because it is inherently about challenging accepted ideas.<br /><br />Alex: I think this needs to be alot more nuanced. Firstly, this is more of a philosophical (Popperian) view of how science ought to ideally proceed. And its not that I disagree with it, the history of scientific acheivement has not always proceeded in this manner though. Ultimately it is up to individual scientists to adopt this spirit, but often scientists or groups of scientists see value in continuing to articulate a particular paradigm despite a contrary consensus. Further, after a certain theory has proven itself enough through multiple independent tests and is widely accepted, you'll be hard-pressed to find the consensus continually spending their time questioning it, unless something truly anomalous surfaces. If science was only inherently about challenging accepted ideas, you'd never have a firm knowledge base to build on top of and there would be no progress. Its important not to confuse science with philosophical skepticism, which truly questions everything. <br /><br />Duke:<br />This is why technology and science advanced quickly in Northern Europe and Great Britain -- they were quicker to discard the shackles of the church, since their own Protestant denominations were weaker than the Roman Catholic that dominated the religious life of Southern Europe.<br /><br />Alex: Protestants doing science doesn't aid your argument though. All that would show is that certain types of religion are better at fostering the advance of science, which I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with. <br /><br />Duke: This is also why there appears to be a correlation between the rise of science and the rise of atheism. It's not that atheism causes science (or even that science causes atheism, although there appears to be some causation in that direction). It's that the same people that will threaten you with agonizing torture for saying you don't believe in their god will also threaten you with torture for saying the earth goes around the sun. <br /><br />Alex: If you're referencing the Galileo afair, IMO, it is a better example of a) another conflict among the explicitly religious, not between men of faith and a scientific atheism and b) conflict with the reigning *philosophical* paradigm, and its Aristotelian notion of the fixity of the heavens - the initial controversy sparking up with Cesare Cremonini, professor of philosophy at Pudaa. <br /><br />All that I can contribute for now...Off to bed. Good chatting with you again.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60709378648330376282011-03-01T18:54:07.584-07:002011-03-01T18:54:07.584-07:00GREV
"Rodney Stark and others have done the h...GREV<br />"Rodney Stark and others have done the historical research."<br /><br />Stark is a world renowned apologist, militant, others would say; an activist that has pushing the syncretic perspective of the christianities for a long time. All that he writes is 'unapologetically' [pardon the pun] prescribed by the boundaries of christian theism. Even his Baylor Religious Survey is little other than placing spin on the trends of religious belief in the US.<br /><br />Stark conveniently ignores the following point: <br /><br />"Why did the medieval Church suppress freethinkers who dared to challenge orthodoxy? Because, as a leading historic example of undiluted religion, it was necessarily an institution of undiluted authoritarianism. It saw itself as the intermediary between God and hopelessly fallen man, who could not aspire to rise without its intercession. Its orthodoxy was literally the word of God; any deviation spurned God’s earthly agency, thereby the divinity itself—and was, consequently, profoundly intolerable. Where men possess no capacity to ameliorate their earthly lot—much less save themselves—and are utterly dependent on God’s Church, any criticism of it is an assault on the deity and undermines the sole institution capable of bringing men redemption. To tolerate independence of thought, given men’s loathsome essence, is to tolerate inevitable spiritual sedition. For man to be saved from his ineradicably sinful nature, his mind must be shackled."<br />Andrew Bernstein<br />http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp<br /><br /><br />This was the underlying catholic philosophy that sought to justify 'pious' murder.<br /><br />You say, "it was not as prevalent as you and others seem to want it to be."<br />GREV, what is the magic number to distinguish the 'not as prevalent'? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? Remember total global population was less than 20% of today's population. Your groveling to Stark to mitigate the horrors of 'pious' murder is simply .... unchristian. And it is ugly.<br /><br />Talk about hands over ears, close eyes and shout La-la-la-la.<br /><br />SheeshPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67048437799139215272011-03-01T17:19:14.502-07:002011-03-01T17:19:14.502-07:00So I don't deny history I just take issue with...So I don't deny history I just take issue with the careless use of facts by people who want only to further whatever ends are achieved by being careless with the facts.<br /><br />Want to be careful? Then a more charitable discussion can always be had.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85402568594314750392011-03-01T17:10:43.113-07:002011-03-01T17:10:43.113-07:00Papalinton -- newsflash -- for you and others -- a...Papalinton -- newsflash -- for you and others -- as evil and abhorent that burning at the stake was it was not as prevalent as you and others seem to want it to be.<br /><br />Rodney Stark and others have done the historical research. Try getting the whole picture.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41445874196222552192011-03-01T16:33:15.764-07:002011-03-01T16:33:15.764-07:00GREV
" ... so your remarks about how I might ...GREV<br />" ... so your remarks about how I might participate in a Middle Ages BBQ are odious but seem to fit the style of contempt that you have for theists. Note I said the word might but even bringing such an idea in is repugnant."<br /><br />I was simply stating the facts as history shows us. Steak-burning [sorry for the pun, should be 'stake'] was de rigeur for the religious for many centuries. It might be abhorrent to you, GREV, but 'divine' murder was casually practiced by the faith you profess. You cannot deny history, just as christian Germany, the founding home of the Protestant Reformation, cannot deny the holocaust.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78721271888015651242011-03-01T05:37:44.806-07:002011-03-01T05:37:44.806-07:00for the sake of clarity -- Willoiams should be Wil...for the sake of clarity -- Willoiams should be Williams. Roger Williams was a leading dissenter in the early years of the American colonies.<br /><br />Reference -- March 01, 2011 5:00 AM<br />PostGREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6169060200521680152011-03-01T05:08:37.425-07:002011-03-01T05:08:37.425-07:00Papalinton -- high ranking theologian, with a stro...Papalinton -- high ranking theologian, with a strong grip on all that goes for christian theology and Apologetics."<br />February 28, 2011 5:51 PM<br /><br />Sounds like making a claim for Spong being an EXPERT to me.<br /><br />But what do I know,according to another one who posts -- us Christians are just cognitive cripples ...crippled by our biases.<br /><br />What biases cripple you?GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47496648411064286492011-03-01T05:06:00.912-07:002011-03-01T05:06:00.912-07:00Tony -- if I believe there remains a standard of O...Tony -- if I believe there remains a standard of Objective Truth that someone like Spong willingly violates and still seeks to be considered Christian -- his claim I am assessing not mine -- then no I don't believe I committed that Fallacy.<br /><br />My assertion revolves around a claim there is a knowable truth and Spong has willingly departed from it.<br /><br />A claim that Truth is Knowable in Christ and God will judge those who violaate that Truth is a Logical one that revolves around certain standards laid forth in Scripture.<br /><br />Whether anyone wants to accept these claims is another story.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2748976896918360052011-03-01T05:00:19.845-07:002011-03-01T05:00:19.845-07:00Papalinton -- said I loved the word verification -...Papalinton -- said I loved the word verification -- expert -- not that anyone was calling him an expert.<br /><br />Now do I consider him an expert -- No I consider him an apostate. <br /><br />There is a big difference between heretic and aspostate and anyone with the slighest interest in wanting to know the difference should know that.<br /><br />And you have No idea of the differences I am willing to allow. So you need to watch your ill-considered opinions.<br /><br />Spong is free to Believe what he wants -- reference Voltaire and Roger Willoiams -- so your remarks about how I might participate in a Middle Ages BBQ are odious but seem to fit the style of contempt that you have for theists. Note I said the word might but even bringing such an idea in is repugnant.<br /><br />But I expect nothing less.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76441306261430043742011-03-01T04:51:03.225-07:002011-03-01T04:51:03.225-07:00Tony -- thanks for the point will reference and co...Tony -- thanks for the point will reference and consider.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71632151970505774972011-02-28T20:12:08.470-07:002011-02-28T20:12:08.470-07:00Hi Tony
"GREV, up there, what you did with Sp...Hi Tony<br />"GREV, up there, what you did with Spong, now that's a no True Scottsman."<br /><br />Yes, it is always incredulous what theists do, and also what they do to each other. Everyone a heretic to each other, the moment there is even the slightest of difference. GREV even casts doubt on Spong being a theologian. Who needs enemies when you have christian friends. They turn on each other like a pack of rats the moment one thinks they smell a conspiracy. But then church history is filled with a litany of once respected theologians suddenly branded a heretic. Such behaviour is characteristic of an enclosed viewpoint of the contrived world they live in, not unlike the internecine squabbles we know about the mafia and their 'family'. If Spong lived a few centuries ago, I have almost a 100% notion of which barbeque setting he would have been the main crowd-drawing attraction.<br /><br />You will also note how GREV is at ease in putting words into my mouth. I did not call Spong an expert, but apparently GREV says I did.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74947481307949726592011-02-28T19:00:22.626-07:002011-02-28T19:00:22.626-07:00GREV: "Papalinton -- now that is amusing. Tha...GREV: "Papalinton -- now that is amusing. Thanks for the laugh. Made my night. Calling Spong a theologian."<br /><br />Sorry, can't resist.<br /><br />GREV, up there, what you did with Spong, now that's a no True Scottsman.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44646725972760592562011-02-28T18:56:39.778-07:002011-02-28T18:56:39.778-07:00CL: "No, Duke York's claim is fatuous. I ...CL: "No, Duke York's claim is fatuous. I merely brought to our attention the fact that makes this so. You've spun this whole thing into the context of "the argument from Christian morality" when that was never even the issue. IOW, you're way out in left field. Think about it."<br /><br />I believe Duke York's claim was that religious believers are often on the side of an entrenched interest. This is true of slavery, as it is many other issues that undergo social change. But if your point is that religious believers are usually on both sides of the argument, then I think that you, and I, and Duke York all agree.<br /><br />I don't know why it was brought up in the first place, and I don't have the energy to go and follow the thread that began the conversation. I think that this thread is running it's course, however, and unless anybody wants to say something that I can't resist responding to I'm going to sign off. I believe there a number of unanswered questions I was waiting for, but I'm starting to lose track of what even those were.<br /><br />Cheers.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.com