tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7474400392088699229..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: God, Authority, and ElectronsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4629817123576526092014-10-12T14:17:35.402-07:002014-10-12T14:17:35.402-07:00THE BATTLE OF THE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS BY STEVE FI...THE BATTLE OF THE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS BY STEVE FINNELL<br /><br />Are there translations of the Bible that are not trustworthy? I know of one or two translations out of sixty-plus English translations that are not trustworthy. Many take the position that the King James Bible is the only dependable translation of God's word.<br /><br />A TRANSLATION COMPARISON.<br /><br />KING JAMES BIBLE (KJV)<br />THE LIVING BIBLE-Paraphrased (TLB)<br />NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (NASB)<br /><br />John 3:16 For God so loved world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(KJV)<br /><br />John 3:16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (TLB-P)<br /><br />John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, the He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB)<br /><br />You will notice in the KJV and the TLB-P use lower case when translating, he and him. The NASB uses He and Him when talking about God and Jesus. Should God and Jesus be capitalized? Of course. Does that mean that the KJV and TLB-P are not trustworthy translations? NO IT DOES NOT. All three translations say the same thing.<br /><br />Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)<br /><br />Acts 2:38 And Peter replied, "Each one of you must turn from sin, return to God, and be baptized in the name Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; then you also shall receive this gift, the Holy Spirit. (TLB-P)<br /><br />Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NASB)<br /><br />Notice all three translation say that in order to have your sins forgiven you must repent and be baptized. Some deny that repentance and baptism are essential for sins to be forgiven. MEN DENY THIS, NOT BECAUSE OF INACCURATE TRANSLATIONS. THEY SIMPLY CHOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IT.<br /><br />Men are not going to be lost because of faulty translations. Men are lost because they refuse to believe in the translations they trust.<br /><br />99% of all translation are trustworthy. My translation, of choice, is the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE. You can get to heaven by reading the KJV, TLB-P, the NIV and many other translations.<br /><br /><br />JUST PICK A TRANSLATION AND BELIEVE WHAT GOD SAYS. <br /> <br /><br /> <br />you are invited to follow my blog. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com<br />Steve Finnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12863026367048527526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44116335421260707622014-06-28T05:42:52.777-07:002014-06-28T05:42:52.777-07:00THE AUTHORITY OF GOD? BY STEVE FINNELL
Where is ...THE AUTHORITY OF GOD? BY STEVE FINNELL<br /><br />Where is God's authority recorded? Most denominations who use creed books AKA denominational church catechisms, use those creed books as the final authority for faith and practice.<br /><br />The question is, if church creed books are used as the authoritative book, why read the Bible? The ironic thing about churches who use creed books is, they try to use the Bible to support their denominational creeds.<br /><br />If creed books are used as the rules for faith and practice, then referencing the Bible rings hollow.<br /><br />There is not one denomination that has written one verse of the Bible. Denominations write creed books. God does not write creed books.<br /><br />John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word: and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.<br /><br />Jesus did not say if anyone loves Me, he will keep the words of the church catechism.<br /><br />1 John 1:4-6 .....as we received command from the Father......6 This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment , that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.<br /><br />We are told to walk according to the commandments of God. There is no commandment that says to walk according to church creed books nor new books of revelation written by men.<br /><br />If your church catechism AKA creed book, or your so-call book of new revelation contradicts doctrine that is found in the Bible, then one of two things is true. 1. The Bible is in error and therefore cannot be trusted for faith and practice. 2. Your creed book or book of new revelation is in error and cannot be trusted as God's message to mankind.<br /><br />YOU CAN USE THE BIBLE AS GOD'S AUTHORITY OR YOU CAN USE MAN-MADE EXTRA-BIBLICAL SOURCES.<br />YOU CANNOT USE BOTH!<br /><br />(Scripture from; NKJV)<br /><br />YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http//:steve-finnell.blogspot.com <br /><br /><br />YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http//:steve-finnell.blogspot.com<br />Steve Finnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12863026367048527526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77468879397265334572014-02-14T11:12:46.500-07:002014-02-14T11:12:46.500-07:00RD,
> "If science is philosophy, then phi...RD,<br /><br />> "If science is philosophy, then philosophy is science."<br /><br />No. That's like saying "If all Fords are cars, then all cars are Fords."<br /><br />> "there is an established method for arriving at answers: namely, the rules of logic, logical inference, deductive reasoning, etc."<br /><br />No, philosophy has no way like science of arriving at well-established answers. If it did, we would agree on those answers, but we don't.<br /><br />> "do you then believe that these theistic arguments are "scientific" arguments"?<br /><br />No the arguments are not scientific, because they are not based on scientific methods. However the questions they attempt to answer may be subject to scientific inquiry.<br /><br />> "What does this even mean? Works how? For what? Why should I care that it works if what I am interested in is truth, whether or not that truth "works" or not? "<br /><br />Science gives us answers to a wide variety of questions. Philosophers give us opinions and arguments, but not answers.<br /><br />> "theism has been held by the greatest philosophical minds in history, and many of them came to theistic beliefs via reason alone"<br /><br />How do you know that? It seems to me that every theistic argument ever produced by a theistic philosopher is nothing more than a way to justify what that philosopher already believes.<br /><br />> "the potential soundness of the ontological argument, may be one of the few (or only) positions that does not rely on any unproven assertions"<br /><br />Really? Anslem's Ontological argument says this: "A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind." How has this been proven? How can he even say that something exists both in mind and in reality? This is nothing but muddled logic.<br /><br />> "Furthermore, science itself is infused with multiple unproven assertions."<br /><br />Science doesn't claim absolute truth like religion does. Everything is tentative, and may be disproved.<br /><br />> "Yes, because, for example, the Kalam Argument, which uses the empirical evidence from the Big Bang, and the Fine-Tuning Argument, which uses the empirical evidence from the fine-tuning of the universe, these really are out of touch with empirical reality (whatever that even means)."<br /><br />The Thomistic concepts of act and potency, final causation, etc. are severely out of touch with empirical reality.<br /><br />> "there is an expert consensus in the relevant field--namely, philosophy of religion"<br /><br />What consensus? Which religion is the 'correct' one? Whose concept of God is the the agreed one? What are the 'objective' facts of morality? Consensus, my ass.<br /><br />> "Well-established track record of what? Positing theories that are eventually shown to be horribly incorrect?"<br /><br />Of explaining how things work, which is reflected in our technology.<br /><br />> "My point: Science--or, more accurately, scientists--are not as impressive as you believe."<br /><br />And I'm saying that theistic philosophy is much less impressive than you seem to believe.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36939353058542070292014-02-12T15:32:30.015-07:002014-02-12T15:32:30.015-07:00RD
A philosopher of law (or any other non-related...<br />RD<br /><br /><i>A philosopher of law (or any other non-related field) is no expert in the field of philosophy of religion. Or do you think that William Lane Craig’s opinion on the philosophy of law is as expertly valuable as a philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of law?</i><br /><br />Personally I think that WLC's opinion on the philosophy of law is exactly as expertly valuable as his opinion on the philosophy of religion - i.e. not valuable at all.<br /><br />Philosophy requires certain skills and they are the essentially same skills whether you are dealing with questions of law or religion. Someone whose particular field is the philosophy of religion (or science, or law or whatever) is just applying their philosophical skills to that area. But as philosophy, their arguments will stand or fall by their philosophical abilities, not their scientific or legal or religious ones (whatever "religious" might mean in that context). <br /><br />it is not comparable with expertise in different branches of the law/medicine etc because maritime law is quite different from criminal law, cardiology is quite different from opthalmology etc. <br /><br />With philosophy the question is not so much "what do you know" what valid arguments can you make? 82franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86527060552132662572014-02-12T07:19:35.952-07:002014-02-12T07:19:35.952-07:00Con't...
It might be more fair to say that th...Con't...<br /><br /><i>It might be more fair to say that theism is a bastardized step-child of philosophy</i><br /><br />Skep, theism has been held by the greatest philosophical minds in history, and many of them came to theistic beliefs via reason alone, so please don't try to make it seem like theism is the odd position here. That's just historically incoherent.<br /><br /><br /><i>...since it relies on unproven assertions</i><br /><br />Actually, theism, given the potential soundness of the ontological argument, may be one of the few (or only) positions that does not rely on any unproven assertions (except for maybe the laws of logic).<br /><br />Furthermore, science itself is infused with multiple unproven assertions. Just one example: science simply asserts that the speed of light is the same here as it is everywhere else in the universe, and that the speed of light is the same now as it was ten million years ago. Is there any way to prove this? None whatsoever. And science is littered with many more such unprovable assertions. So don't think for a second that scientific disciplines are immune for making such assertions. If anything, science holds to many more unproven assertions than other disciplines do.<br /><br /><br /><i>...is often out of touch with empirical reality</i><br /><br />Yes, because, for example, the Kalam Argument, which uses the empirical evidence from the Big Bang, and the Fine-Tuning Argument, which uses the empirical evidence from the fine-tuning of the universe, these really are out of touch with empirical reality (whatever that even means).<br /><br /><br /><i>and is the subject of immense disagreement.</i><br /><br />Except its not, given that there is an expert consensus in the relevant field--namely, philosophy of religion--that theism is true, or at least rational to believe. <br /><br /><br /><i>Contrast that with philosophical questions such as whether God exists. Will there ever be consensus in the philosophical community on that? Is there a method to arrive at the answer? I don't think so.</i><br /><br />What you personally think is irrelevant, especially since the best evidence currently shows that an expert consensus does exist, and that expert consensus maintains that belief in God is rational.<br /><br /><br /><i>Science has a well-established track record the the rest of philosophy can't touch.</i><br /><br />Well-established track record of what? Positing theories that are eventually shown to be horribly incorrect? A well-established track record of scientific fraud? A well-established track record of having studies that show contradictory results? A well-established track record of provisionally positing theories that can never be considered true and at best might be falsified?<br /><br />My point: Science--or, more accurately, scientists--are not as impressive as you believe.<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21719055840151773852014-02-12T07:19:07.826-07:002014-02-12T07:19:07.826-07:00Skep:
From your comments, it's difficult to t...Skep:<br /><br /><i>From your comments, it's difficult to tell whether you think that science is philosohhy or not, or whether science is aligned with philosophy.</i><br /><br />Science is not philosophy--after all, we do not call philosophers scientists, nor do scientific departments fall under the purview of Philosophy Departments--but science necessarily rests on a philosophical foundation.<br /><br /><br /><i>Not at all. Science is philosophy. Always has been. But science differs from other branches of philosophy in some very important ways.</i><br /><br />If science is philosophy, then philosophy is science. So are you saying that the philosophy of religion is, potentially, a scientific discipline? Really?<br /><br /><br /><i>First, it depends on empirical evidence to support its assertions. Second, it has an established method for arriving at answers to the questions it poses. Third, achieves consensus.</i><br /><br />Sure, but note that philosophical arguments can do this just as well. For example, the two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument have empirical evidence to support their claims. In addition, there is an established method for arriving at answers: namely, the rules of logic, logical inference, deductive reasoning, etc. And there is a consensus in the relevant field of experts that theism is true, or at least rational to believe (although the consensus concerning the Kalam argument specifically is unknown). Furthermore, other arguments, such as the Contigency Argument or the Fine-Tuning Argument, all meet your criteria as well.<br /><br />So this raises a very peculiar question: Given what you have said above concerning science being a type of philosophy with three unique features, and given that I have shown that at least some theistic arguments meet those criteria, do you then believe that these theistic arguments are "scientific" arguments (and they may be so even if you think that they are, ultimately, wrong)? <br /><br /><br /><i>Science works.</i><br /><br />What does this even mean? Works how? For what? Why should I care that it works if what I am interested in is truth, whether or not that truth "works" or not? <br /><br />After all, religious theism "works" too. Numerous studies have shown the benefits of religious belief; it makes many people happier, healthier, etc. So do you thus endorse theistic religious belief because it "works" in some respect or other?<br /><br />Con't...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35374458051246444372014-02-11T19:03:55.073-07:002014-02-11T19:03:55.073-07:00Skep,
Will address your new comment when off work...Skep,<br /><br />Will address your new comment when off work. But I would love to hear your answers to the other questions that I posed.<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9070762079676588952014-02-11T18:55:40.247-07:002014-02-11T18:55:40.247-07:00im-skeptical,
Are you aware that the word "s...im-skeptical,<br /><br />Are you aware that the word "scientist" was coined by Anglican priest and noted theologian William Whewell?<br /><br />It's interesting that when you explore its history, one finds that science is a wholly-owned subsidiary of religion in general and of Christianity specifically. There is no need whatsoever for you to regard them as being somehow at odds with each other.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39752033796067061462014-02-11T18:47:38.300-07:002014-02-11T18:47:38.300-07:00RD,
From your comments, it's difficult to tel...RD,<br /><br />From your comments, it's difficult to tell whether you think that science is philosohhy or not, or whether science is aligned with philosophy.<br /><br /><br />"your claim that the “best you can do is turn to science” is a philosophical position, so your claim is self-refuting"<br /><br />Not at all. Science is philosophy. Always has been. But science differs from other branches of philosophy in some very important ways. First, it depends on empirical evidence to support its assertions. Second, it has an established method for arriving at answers to the questions it poses. Third, achieves consensus.<br /><br /><br />"science is permeated with philosophical assumptions. At best, science is the bastardized step-child of philosophy."<br /><br />Science works. It might be more fair to say that theism is a bastardized step-child of philosophy, since it relies on unproven assertions, is often out of touch with empirical reality, and is the subject of immense disagreement.<br /><br /><br />"we cannot even know what science is without philosophy"<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br /><br />"there are scientific positions on every side of every question as well"<br /><br />There is disagreement in many areas of science, but they settle on a consensus eventually. Nobody disagrees about what makes stars burn, or how chemical compounds are formed. Contrast that with philosophical questions such as whether God exists. Will there ever be consensus in the philosophical community on that? Is there a method to arrive at the answer? I don't think so.<br /><br /><br />"philosophy provides plenty of answers that are established on just as much of a consensus basis as the answers in science are"<br /><br />I don't think so.<br /><br /><br />"science, by definition, cannot even provide us with truth. Only philosophy can do that."<br /><br />Science has a well-established track record the the rest of philosophy can't touch.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86731885377418849682014-02-11T10:01:12.316-07:002014-02-11T10:01:12.316-07:00Skep:
Here are a couple of follow-up questions:
...Skep:<br /><br />Here are a couple of follow-up questions:<br /><br />1) Would it be rational for an average person—untrained in law—to accept the supermajority consensus of expert lawyers concerning the interpretation of some piece of law?<br /><br />2) Would it be rational for an average person—untrained in psychology/psychiatry—to accept the supermajority consensus of expert psychologists/psychiatrists concerning the existence of some new mental illness?<br /><br />3) Would it be rational for an average person—untrained in mathematics—to accept the supermajority consensus of expert mathematicians concerning the validity of some complex mathematical calculation?<br /><br />4) Would you agree that if the legal matter under consideration concerned criminal law, then specialists in criminal law would be the experts in such a case, but specialists in corporate law or family law would not be considered experts in such a case?<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46320638483770856572014-02-11T09:57:22.000-07:002014-02-11T09:57:22.000-07:00Skep:
Let me put it this way: If the 'average...Skep:<br /><br /><i>Let me put it this way: If the 'average person' is untrained in science, he could believe just about anything.</i><br /><br />What?! If I am untrained in science, could I believe that pigs can fly, that woman can give birth to cows, that water is poison, etc., etc., etc.. Your statement is so ridiculous as to be laughable.<br /><br /><br /><i>Philosophy does not provide the answers. … There are philosophical positions on every side of every question. How can anyone decide which is the correct position? The best you can do is to turn to science.</i><br /><br />Absurd.<br /><br />First, you have just avoided the question I asked. So directly answer the question.<br /><br />Second, your claim that the “best you can do is turn to science” is a philosophical position, so your claim is self-refuting, for we cannot turn to science to show us that science is indeed the best thing we can turn to.<br /><br />Third, science is permeated with philosophical assumptions. At best, science is the bastardized step-child of philosophy.<br /><br />Fourth, we cannot even know what science is without philosophy. After all, it is philosophers of science who provide the demarcation as to what is science and what is not science. And the arguments for the demarcation of science are philosophical arguments, not scientific ones.<br /><br />Fifth, there are scientific positions on every side of every question as well. The best you have in science is a strong consensus. <br /><br />Sixth, philosophy provides plenty of answers that are established on just as much of a consensus basis as the answers in science are. Why is the scientific consensus any better than a philosophical one?<br /><br />Seventh, science is not the best that we can turn to. In fact, science, by definition, cannot even provide us with truth. Only philosophy can do that.<br /><br /><br /><i> Most philosophers are atheists, as I understand it.</i><br /><br />And? A philosopher of law (or any other non-related field) is no expert in the field of philosophy of religion. Or do you think that William Lane Craig’s opinion on the philosophy of law is as expertly valuable as a philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of law?<br /><br /><br /><br />So again, answer the question: <b>Given your opinions above, is the average person—untrained in philosophy, etc.—rational for accepting the expert consensus from the relevant field (philosophy of religion) that theism is true?</b><br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18640228069109155272014-02-11T09:38:26.046-07:002014-02-11T09:38:26.046-07:00Skep,
scenario 1 - I would not accept the change....Skep,<br /><br /><i>scenario 1 - I would not accept the change. The fact that the evidence is unknown and unavailable to me goes against the grain of scientific thinking, and points to some kind of cabal.</i><br /><br />Interesting, so you admit that the overwhelming scientific consensus could be the result of “some kind of cabal.” This sounds strangely similar to the IDers complaint that the current scientific consensus concerning evolutionary biology is a cabal in favor of an atheistic-naturalistic interpretation to the exclusion of all others, and this is why ID is ignored. So, given what you said above, do you admit that the IDers <b>could be</b> correct?<br /><br /><br /><i>scenario 2 - If I saw the evidence and it is not consistent with my own scientific training and understanding, I would probably be suspicious that either I don't understand it (in which case I would need to seek further understanding), or there's still some hidden agenda at work (in which case I would want to investigate what that agenda might be).</i><br /><br />Excellent. So IDers and Creationists could use the exact same reasoning to deny the strength of the scientific consensus concerning evolutionary biology (and please note, I am not—repeat NOT—trying to make this specifically an ID versus Neo-Darwinism debate, but because the ID example is so clear, it makes for a good example).<br /><br /><br /><i>scenario 3 - This is similar to the second scenario. The explanation offered is still inconsistent with my own scientific understanding. I would certainly have to push for more answers, and If I couldn't get them, my suspicions would be raised.</i><br /><br />Again, excellent. IDers and Creationists could use the exact same reasoning to deny the relevancy of the scientific consensus to their understanding of the evidence.<br /><br /><br /><i>I should point out here, that there's a difference between an explanation that is beyond my understanding and one that is inconsistent with what I know. In the case of ID or creationism, I already have a fair understanding of the claims they make and the inconsistencies with real scientific methods. So the evidence offered would have to bring the whole field into alignment with real science. That's a tall order.</i><br /><br />Yes, but the point is that if an overwhelming consensus of scientific <i>experts</i> in the relevant field were telling you that the new evidence did show that ID was the best scientific explanation of the origin and development of biological life, then you still admit that you would not accept it. Which just shows, again, that the scientific consensus has little evidentiary weight for you. Why, therefore, should it have any evidentiary weight for any one else?<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28629914706942089402014-02-11T08:14:34.118-07:002014-02-11T08:14:34.118-07:00RD,
"OK, let me ask you this: Given your opi...RD,<br /><br />"OK, let me ask you this: Given your opinion above, is the average person—untrained in philosophy, etc.—rational for accepting the expert consensus that theism is true?"<br /><br />Let me put it this way: If the 'average person' is untrained in science, he could believe just about anything. Philosophy does not provide the answers. Most philosophers are atheists, as I understand it. There are philosophical positions on every side of every question. How can anyone decide which is the correct position? The best you can do is to turn to science.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45329633857254839042014-02-11T08:09:01.538-07:002014-02-11T08:09:01.538-07:00RD,
scenario 1 - I would not accept the change. ...RD,<br /><br />scenario 1 - I would not accept the change. The fact that the evidence is unknown and unavailable to me goes against the grain of scientific thinking, and points to some kind of cabal.<br /><br />scenario 2 - If I saw the evidence and it is not consistent with my own scientific training and understanding, I would probably be suspicious that either I don't understand it (in which case I would need to seek further understanding), or there's still some hidden agenda at work (in which case I would want to investigate what that agenda might be).<br /><br />scenario 3 - This is similar to the second scenario. The explanation offered is still inconsistent with my own scientific understanding. I would certainly have to push for more answers, and If I couldn't get them, my suspicions would be raised.<br /><br />I should point out here, that there's a difference between an explanation that is beyond my understanding and one that is inconsistent with what I know. In the case of ID or creationism, I already have a fair understanding of the claims they make and the inconsistencies with real scientific methods. So the evidence offered would have to bring the whole field into alignment with real science. That's a tall order.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15587306339735465182014-02-11T08:01:53.465-07:002014-02-11T08:01:53.465-07:00Skep,
"Do you ever claim to trust the consen...Skep,<br /><br /><i>"Do you ever claim to trust the consensus of experts in certain matters." Of course, I have to rely on the accumulated knowledge of others in matters that I don't know enough about myself.</i><br /><br />OK, let me ask you this: Given your opinion above, is the average person—untrained in philosophy, etc.—rational for accepting the expert consensus that theism is true?<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85442273219862775612014-02-11T07:58:30.377-07:002014-02-11T07:58:30.377-07:00Skep,
The ID crowd, on the other hand doesn't...Skep,<br /><br /><i>The ID crowd, on the other hand doesn't simply have an alternate interpretation of the evidence - they ignore the evidence. They have a religious agenda shrouded in a mantle of scientific terminology. They Don't do science.</i><br /><br />So, given the above, let me ask you this: If a group of people hold a position that is in opposition to the expert consensus, then do you believe that that gives you the grounds to suspect that that group of people have an ulterior, non-rational reason for being in opposition to that expert consensus?<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19532015098509107592014-02-11T07:50:05.083-07:002014-02-11T07:50:05.083-07:00Skep,
No, I haven't. I am aligned with the sc...Skep,<br /><br /><i>No, I haven't. I am aligned with the scientific consensus. The IDists aren't. You misunderstand what I said. First, I know that such a sudden change of mind would never happen without extraordinary justification. There would have to be some really good evidence to convince the majority of the scientific community, and I'm pretty sure it would be convincing to me as well.</i><br /><br />The problem is, based on what you said above, it is clear that it would be the evidence itself that would convince you, not the weight of the scientific consensus concerning that evidence. At best—given your words—the change in scientific consensus would alert you to seriously consider the evidence, but it would not convince you in and of itself.<br /><br />Given all this, let me rephrase the issue this way:<br /><br />Imagine that tomorrow, the overwhelming scientific expert consensus, based on some new evidence, freely changed to the Intelligent Design camp and now accepted ID Theory as the best explanation for the origin and development of biological life.<br /><br />Now, given this situation, let me ask you these questions:<br /><br />1) If, for whatever reason, you had no access to the new evidence (and never could have access to it), would you accept the change in scientific expert consensus and come to believe in ID Theory, or would you reject the scientific consensus until and unless you were able to evaluate the evidence for yourself?<br /><br />2) If, this time, you actually are evaluating this new evidence for yourself, and you find it unconvincing, would you be rational in rejecting the overwhelming scientific expert consensus in such a case?<br /><br />3) If, this time, you are actually sat down by a panel of the head experts in evolutionary biology and they fully explain why the new evidence leads to ID being the best explanation for the origin and development of biological life, and yet you still reject this new evidence even though the expert panel is explaining to you that you actually don’t understand the new evidence properly, would you still be rational in rejecting the overwhelming scientific expert consensus in such a case?<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45967242730959585262014-02-09T11:17:08.428-07:002014-02-09T11:17:08.428-07:00RD,
"Excellent, so you have just provided th...RD,<br /><br />"Excellent, so you have just provided the very justification that every Creationist, IDer, Evolution-Skeptic, Evolution-Agnostic, and so on could use to deny the importance of the scientific consensus when it concerns evolution"<br /><br />No, I haven't. I am aligned with the scientific consensus. The IDists aren't. You misunderstand what I said. First, I know that such a sudden change of mind would never happen without extraordinary justification. There would have to be some really good evidence to convince the majority of the scientific community, and I'm pretty sure it would be convincing to me as well. <br /><br />The ID crowd, on the other hand doesn't simply have an alternate interpretation of the evidence - they ignore the evidence. They have a religious agenda shrouded in a mantle of scientific terminology. They Don't do science.<br /><br /><br />"Do you ever claim to trust the consensus of experts in certain matters"<br /><br />Of course, I have to rely on the accumulated knowledge of others in matters that I don't know enough about myself. But I would add that this is by no means a blind trust, and my own educational background is broad enough in the scientific arena that I can often smell the bullshit. Take medicine, for example. I don't know what the best medication for a certain condition might be, given the particular circumstances of the patient, so I would certainly rely on the expertise of the doctors (perhaps with a second opinion). But my scientific background tells me that some kinds of treatments, like homeopathic medicines, are sheer quackery.<br /><br />And that background gives me at least some level of knowledge in quite a few areas (most of the knowledge areas that you mentioned). Furthermore, in an area where I don't know enough to decide the truth of a question, I am not afraid to look for information, if the question is important to me. I came here hoping to get a better understanding of religious philosophy from the perspective of the believers. <br />And by the way, when it comes to questions of God's existence, there are different camps, with the consensus being still in the religious camp. That's one consensus I reject. My reasons are based on all the rest of the knowledge I have, and the realization that it wouldn't make sense any more.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21007792315329003902014-02-09T08:59:24.226-07:002014-02-09T08:59:24.226-07:00Yesterday morning Planks said that he didn't g...Yesterday morning Planks said that he didn't get the point of this conversation. I have to agree with him. More so after subsequent exchanges.<br /><br />Victor says that the point is that he 'has to take somebody's word for it'. But that's just not right, in my view. Nobody has to take anybody's word for it. We can always stand back and say A friend told me something, or The textbooks say something, or The papers are saying that scientists are saying something. Some of it we tentatively accept; some of it we are indifferent to and we forget, some of it we may reject while noting that its source may be unreliable; some of it remains around us as so much wallpaper. Much of it is quite irrelevant to the core beliefs and understandings that guide our daily lives. Some of it percolates inwards and becomes part of us, only later, perhaps, to leak away. Yes, we can subject some of it to critical analysis, but that just forms a further part of the percolation process. There is no rock-bottom in propositional form.<br /><br />Clearly the phenomenon we call 'trust' comes into this. We are more accepting of statements from those we trust. RD is now asking for a rational analysis of trust. Will this take us much further than platitudes such as I trust X because I've known him for a long time and he's always played straight with me? Or I trust Science because it's crowd-sourced? Just as one can't say what to believe in a few rules one can't say whom to trust in a few rules. And the reason is the same: we aren't language all the way down.<br /><br />The interesting question isn't Who is right? or Who is more rational? It's How come we arrive at such distant destinations? David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2850232592367809812014-02-09T02:13:41.296-07:002014-02-09T02:13:41.296-07:00RD Miksa (trying to reason with Bullshittery_Itsel...<b>RD Miksa (trying to reason with Bullshittery_Itself … whom we all totally believe would become an IDist tomorrow if all the ‘modern evolutionary theorists’ were to admit, “Oops!”):</b> “<i>OK, here are a couple of follow-up questions: …</i>”<br /><br />My questions:<br /><br />1) Are you a recognized ‘expert’ in the field of ‘X’? Say, ‘modern evolutionary theory’, or ‘climate change’.<br /><br />No?<br /><br />2) So, by your own admission, your opinion concerning ‘X’ is, at best, non-expert?<br /><br />Ah, I thought so.<br /><br />3) As I understand your position, non-experts don’t have standing to dispute the experts. For example, some ignorant creationist, such as Ken Ham, doesn’t have standing to challenge/dispute an educated evolutionist, such as Bill Nye, and certainly not Richard Dawkins. Does this accurately summarize your position?<br /><br />Ah, I thought so.<br /><br />4) Hmmm. <br /><br />Doesn’t this position also logically entail the claim that non-experts *also* don’t have standing to <i>agree</i> with the experts? <br /><br />So, if you did want to be logically consistent (a stretch, I know), you must take the position that *you* have no standing to have any opinion at all about any matter of which you are not an expert … including that you have no standing to criticize/condemn those who do dispute the so-called experts.<br /><br />5) Oh? You didn’t see that coming? I know … you people just don’t *think-through* to foolish assertions you make. For, after all, all you (plural) care about is that it sounds good, right now.<br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52527797355749086932014-02-08T23:34:20.241-07:002014-02-08T23:34:20.241-07:00Crude, the issue regarding universal acceptance of...Crude, the issue regarding universal acceptance of the existence of electrons has been acknowledged and bedded down for quite some time now. If you and Dr Reppert for whatever arcane reason elect to ignore this little matter of epistemic surety, knock yourselves out. Who am I to disabuse you of your insanely idiosyncratic belief in the immaterial which you clearly are rusted on to despite being contradicted at so many levels by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument?<br /><br />The singular unrivaled and unmatched power of the authority of science as an explanatory tool in contrast to say, religio-philosophy, is that it is fundamentally embedded with a corrective mechanism, a built-in self-regulating system through which any and all claims made must be verified and must by default be unconditionally responsive to being corrected, altered, revised or modified, in the light of new evidence. A scientific claim is only as good as it is internally or intrinsically able to withstand scrutiny and the test of falsifiability. Religious or theo-philosophical claims, as championed by Classical [Thomistic] Scholasticism has no such built-in regulator. Indeed, <i>"Thomistic scholasticism in the English speaking world went into decline in the 1970s when the Thomistic revival that had been spearheaded by Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson, and others, diminished in influence. Partly, this was because this branch of Thomism had become a quest to understand the historical Aquinas after the Second Vatican Council. Still, those who had learned Scholastic philosophy continued to have unresolved questions about how the insights of the medieval synthesis could be applied to contemporary problems. This conversation departed from the academic environment and entered internet discussion groups such as Aquinas,[24] Christian Philosophy,[25] and Thomism,[26] and websites such as Open Philosophy,[27] where it continues today."</i> Wiki<br /><br />Dr Reppert and you, Crude, would do well to revise your reliance on old-form old-style philosophy if you wish to remain relevant in today's conversation. Adherence to traditional, scientifically uninformed philosophy cannot be utilized as the bulwark it formally once was, attempting to legitimate your crusade in defending superstitious supernaturalism, as the drift of this OP is disposed toward, in today's modern world. To obdurately persist in this line of 'reasoning'[?] is a disservice you can well do without. <br /><br />Robert Graves, renowned novelist, poet and classical scholar, best reflects the dissimilarity of theism [the driver behind supernaturalist philosophy] with that of science [the driver behind methodological naturalism]:<br /><br /><i>"What the scientist thinks today, everyone else will be thinking on the day after tomorrow."</i><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32165703200981843532014-02-08T21:57:12.124-07:002014-02-08T21:57:12.124-07:00Dear Skep:
NO. Absolutely not. Why? Because my be...Dear Skep:<br /><br /><i>NO. Absolutely not. Why? Because my beliefs are based on what I know, not what somebody thinks. I have enough education in science to understand what evolutionary theory is and how it works. And I understand that the evidence is so plentiful as to be overpowering. … If I heard about this scenario that you proffer, The first thing I would ask is: This is contrary to what I know and what I understand. Why have they made this decision? Do they have evidence? Has the existing evidence been refuted? If I come to the realization that their change of mind was for good, legitimate reasons, then and only then would I accept it. But notice again, that my decision would be based on a rational justification, not just because others changed their mind.</i><br /><br />Excellent, so you have just provided the very justification that every Creationist, IDer, Evolution-Skeptic, Evolution-Agnostic, and so on could use to deny the importance of the scientific consensus when it concerns evolution (or any other scientific issue for that matter). After all, every one of them could offer the exact same reasoning as you did. You might disagree with their evaluation of the evidence, but, given what you said, you could not disagree with their reasoning process, given that it is exactly the same as yours.<br /><br />In essence, you have just negated the evidentiary value of any scientific consensus.<br /><br /><br /><i>Why? Because my beliefs are based on what I know, not what somebody thinks.</i><br /><br />Really? Do you only mean this concerning evolutionary theory, or all your beliefs? For example, do you use the same reasoning concerning legal matters? Plumbing & Construction? Medical issues? Complex mathematics? Engineering and architectural matters? <br /> <br />So, I guess the question is: Do you ever claim to trust the consensus of experts in certain matters (and this is, of course, a trick question, given that we <b>all</b> trust the opinion of experts in most of our matters in life)? And if yes—and it must be yes—then what are the criteria that you use to determine when you trust the experts and when not?<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71485923060200147962014-02-08T21:36:41.127-07:002014-02-08T21:36:41.127-07:00Dear Dr. V. Reppert:
In the case of much in scien...Dear Dr. V. Reppert:<br /><br /><i>In the case of much in science, it may very well be supported by evidence, but much of the evidence isn't directly accessible to me, and that is the relevant point. I have to take someone's word for it. MY access to the evidence is indirect, not direct.</i><br /><br />It's even worse than just taking some scientist's word concerning the evidence. It is literally, in the case of many sciences, trusting the scientist's own interpretation of the evidence and the inference that he makes from it. <br /><br />And this is precisely why, to me, there is little difference in trusting a scientist who makes an inference from the evidence and trusting a philosopher who makes an inference from the evidence.<br /><br />Take care,<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-527653731992315982014-02-08T21:31:11.289-07:002014-02-08T21:31:11.289-07:00Dear Beingitself,
OK, here are a couple of follow...Dear Beingitself,<br /><br />OK, here are a couple of follow-up questions:<br /><br />1) Would you accept the supermajority consensus of expert lawyers concerning the interpretation of some piece of law?<br /><br />2) Would you accept the supermajority consensus of expert psychologists/psychiatrists concerning the existence of some new mental illness?<br /><br />3) Would you accept the supermajority consensus of expert mathematicians concerning the validity of some complex mathematical calculation?<br /><br />4) Would you agree that if the legal matter under consideration concerned criminal law, then specialists in criminal law would be the experts in such a case, but specialists in corporate law or family law would not be considered experts in such a case?<br /><br />RD MiksaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24100064954015808112014-02-08T21:01:04.425-07:002014-02-08T21:01:04.425-07:00Once again, Linton will not fulfill my requests - ...Once again, Linton will not fulfill my requests - simple, straightforward ones. He loves to talk about what is and isn't true about electrons, but damn, he can't explain the logic, the theories, or the experiments for the life of him.<br /><br />He talks about 'having it on good authority', but ask him to explain how he tells what is a good authority, how he knows what authority he has, and he runs.<br /><br />Because, and this goes right back to his plagiarism - he is an atheist as a shortcut. It's not about his believing God doesn't exist. It's about being seen as intelligent <i>without doing any work</i>. He thought he could become, magically, informed and knowledgeable and smart - or at least though of as such - just by becoming an atheist.<br /><br />But oops, no. He's as ignorant as he ever was. And he knows nothing about science. He just hopes that if he parrots 'Me Like-um Science!' enough that that counts as being scientifically informed, or intelligent.<br /><br />Alas, for him - that's not the case. Not for him or any Gnu.<br /><br />Which is why we have a couple of Gnus in here who keep crowing about the authority of science, about what is and isn't the case about electrons, but goddamn, ask them to explain their reasoning in their own words and they want to talk about absolutely anything else. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com