Darwin's doubt.
Nashton
always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
of Charles Darwin
Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
Murray, Albermarle
Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
-----------------------------
Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
RAM
To answer your question implies it is meaningful. It is not. So, I'm
changing the focus to be relevant.
We are in the 21st century and we know (at least) some of us that the
history of bias originates from emotionally held beliefs like
religion, anti-science ideologies like creationism, etc. Science in
part because of its diversity and in part due to the fact its
theoretical underpinnings are problematic renders it less subject to
ideological, cliche ridden beliefs like creationism and your silly
trope about the ToE.
This ape kind finds much religious dogma and hate in ancient and
modern history but no wars between or among scientists ever recorded
or even discussed. So if you want to trust those who hate vs those
who search; do so with an open mind to the type of negative emotional
strings religions can and do have on their adherents. In contrast the
emotional commitments of scientists are to provide insight into
nature, including religious commitment. The mad scientists are few
and far between and they are powerless compared to say the Bush
regime. In sum, trusting science oriented apes leads to a better
society and understanding of the role of religions than trusting
religions to be honest about science and kind to all peoples.
TomS
<hgvrpl$l8h$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Nashton stated..."
Can an individual's ability to describe nature be trusted if he or
she is the product of reproduction and development?
Are you arguing for Scientific Storkism?
Can thoughts be trusted if they rely, if only in part, on the
proper functioning of the brain, or on information obtained from
the material world by physical senses?
Is there something unreliable about the natural world?
Can we trust a God who designs a world so unreliable?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
All-Seeing-I
> On Dec 24, 7:53嚙窮m, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > of Charles Darwin
> > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > Murray, Albermarle
> > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > -----------------------------
>
> > Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
> > sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
> > the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
> > ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
> > product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>
> > Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
>
> changing the focus to be relevant.
>
> We are in the 21st century and we know (at least) some of us that the
> history of bias originates from emotionally held beliefs like
> part because of its diversity and in part due to the fact its
> theoretical underpinnings are problematic renders it less subject to
> ideological, cliche ridden beliefs like creationism and your silly
> trope about the ToE.
>
> This ape kind finds much religious dogma and hate in ancient and
> modern history but no wars between or among scientists ever recorded
> who search; do so with an open mind to the type of negative emotional
> emotional commitments of scientists are to provide insight into
> and far between and they are powerless compared to say the Bush
> society and understanding of the role of religions than trusting
>
> - Show quoted text -
heh.. science sat on the side lines building the bombs, and other
weapons of war for a buck.
Yeah. Science is SOOO innocent.
RAM
> On Dec 24, 8:22�am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 7:53�am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> > > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > > of Charles Darwin
> > > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > > Murray, Albermarle
> > > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > > -----------------------------
>
> > > Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
> > > sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
> > > the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
> > > ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
> > > product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>
> > > Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
>
> > changing the focus to be relevant.
>
> > We are in the 21st century and we know (at least) some of us that the
> > history of bias originates from emotionally held beliefs like
> > part because of its diversity and in part due to the fact its
> > theoretical underpinnings are problematic renders it less subject to
> > ideological, cliche ridden beliefs like creationism and your silly
> > trope about the ToE.
>
> > This ape kind finds much religious dogma and hate in ancient and
> > modern history but no wars between or among scientists ever recorded
> > who search; do so with an open mind to the type of negative emotional
> > emotional commitments of scientists are to provide insight into
> > and far between and they are powerless compared to say the Bush
> > society and understanding of the role of religions than trusting
> > religions to be honest about science and kind to all peoples.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> heh.. science sat on the side lines building the bombs, and other
> weapons of war for a buck.
>
> Yeah. Science is SOOO innocent.
No science is not to blame. It is certain scientists who can be
blamed but religions actively support wars.
This is what you are not mentioning. Why?
John Harshman
own ability to reason from the data.
But this is another variation on solipsism. How do we know our reasoning
isn't faulty? How do we know the world is real? How do we know the past
is real? Answer: we don't, but we have to make certain assumptions in
order to do science, or in fact to live.
And there's an exactly parallel question: Can Man's ability in
describing nature be trusted, if he's simply a product of God? How do we
know that God made our brains in such a way that they properly interpret
reality? And even if he did, how do you know that the proper
interpretation is yours rather than mine?
Baron Bodissey
> On Dec 24, 8:22�am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 7:53�am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> > > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > > of Charles Darwin
> > > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > > Murray, Albermarle
> > > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > > -----------------------------
>
> > > Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
> > > sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
> > > the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
> > > ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
> > > product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>
> > > Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
>
> > changing the focus to be relevant.
>
> > We are in the 21st century and we know (at least) some of us that the
> > history of bias originates from emotionally held beliefs like
> > part because of its diversity and in part due to the fact its
> > theoretical underpinnings are problematic renders it less subject to
> > ideological, cliche ridden beliefs like creationism and your silly
> > trope about the ToE.
>
> > This ape kind finds much religious dogma and hate in ancient and
> > modern history but no wars between or among scientists ever recorded
> > who search; do so with an open mind to the type of negative emotional
> > emotional commitments of scientists are to provide insight into
> > and far between and they are powerless compared to say the Bush
> > society and understanding of the role of religions than trusting
> > religions to be honest about science and kind to all peoples.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> heh.. science sat on the side lines building the bombs, and other
> weapons of war for a buck.
>
> Yeah. Science is SOOO innocent.
While religion caused the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the
Thirty Years' War, the persecution and genocide of native peoples, the
Holocaust, etc., etc. And those are just the horrors of Christianity.
Religion has been the curse of mankind.
Baron Bodissey
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
� H. L. Mencken
Eric Root
> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> of Charles Darwin
> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> Murray, Albermarle
> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
> sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run,
This would be you and ASS-1, George, and others.
> this is in relation to
> the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
> ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
> product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>
> Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
What if man is a product of evolution _and_ made in the image of God?
And scientists don't dictate where you originated, they _find out_
where you originated.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Dec 24, 8:22�am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 7:53�am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> > > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > > of Charles Darwin
> > > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > > Murray, Albermarle
> > > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > > -----------------------------
>
> > > Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
> > > sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
> > > the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
> > > ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
> > > product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>
> > > Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
>
> > changing the focus to be relevant.
>
> > We are in the 21st century and we know (at least) some of us that the
> > history of bias originates from emotionally held beliefs like
> > part because of its diversity and in part due to the fact its
> > theoretical underpinnings are problematic renders it less subject to
> > ideological, cliche ridden beliefs like creationism and your silly
> > trope about the ToE.
>
> > This ape kind finds much religious dogma and hate in ancient and
> > modern history but no wars between or among scientists ever recorded
> > who search; do so with an open mind to the type of negative emotional
> > emotional commitments of scientists are to provide insight into
> > and far between and they are powerless compared to say the Bush
> > society and understanding of the role of religions than trusting
> > religions to be honest about science and kind to all peoples.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> heh.. science sat on the side lines building the bombs, and other
> weapons of war for a buck.
Not for a buck. For the joy of doing science.
>
> Yeah. Science is SOOO innocent.
You hate science, so your opinion is slanted.
Eric Root
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
I guess you cannot tell science from technology.
That is no surprise to me at all.
Will in New Haven
Killing people does not require high technology. The Bronze Age brutes
whose scribblings you worship carried out the "kill them all" commands
of the god you worship with spears and swords (not particularly _good_
swords) and sling stones. The Iriquois and the Shawnee exterminated
the Erie with mostly stone weapons and a few muskets. Killing people
is easy.
And god said, in one of those ancient texts you worship (The Baghavad
Gita) that it's ok. So what's the problem?
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
For balance, I always mention the First Jihad when someone mentions
the Crusades.
The Crusades, awful as they were, were an attempt to take _back_ a
Middle East that had been largely Christian not _that_ long before.
--
Will in New Haven
the Inquisition, the pogroms, the
> Thirty Years' War, the persecution and genocide of native peoples, the
> Holocaust, etc., etc. And those are just the horrors of Christianity.
> Religion has been the curse of mankind.
>
> Baron Bodissey
> The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
> palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
> � � � � � H. L. Mencken
Nashton
> Nashton wrote:
>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at
>> all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's
>> mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and
>> Letters of Charles Darwin
>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London:
>> John Murray, Albermarle
>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>>
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
>> sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
>> the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
>> ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
>> product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>>
>> Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
>>
> Depends on the monkey.
No, it doesn't. Depends on what a bunch of monkeys have decided is
acceptable.
I wouldn't trust you, but I would indeed trust my
> own ability to reason from the data.
Which brings us back to the question: Would you trust a monkey?
>
> But this is another variation on solipsism.
Nope. Not unless you've been stranded in space for 10 years.
How do we know our reasoning
> isn't faulty?
Which is not an answer to the dilemma, but serves to underscore it.
How do we know the world is real? How do we know the past
> is real? Answer: we don't, but we have to make certain assumptions in
> order to do science, or in fact to live.
Agreed, but you're going off on a tangent(s). The question about the
dilemma faced by the evolutionist who is faced with the notion that we
are essentially apes or chooses to think that we are a product of God in
his image. This is naturalism obliterating itself, philosophically.
>
> And there's an exactly parallel question: Can Man's ability in
> describing nature be trusted, if he's simply a product of God?
Theologically, you bet. God created nature ex nihilo and is separate
from his creation. But he *did* create it and Man in his own image. In
fact, it is the only option we have to trust our reasoning and our
conclusions.
How do we
> know that God made our brains in such a way that they properly interpret
> reality? And even if he did, how do you know that the proper
> interpretation is yours rather than mine?
He did, but partially. Man cannot conceive of the complexity and purpose
of the Universe, hence he has to leave it up to God.
It's all in the Bible;)
>
Baron Bodissey
Absolutely right. However, I did point out that I was listing the
Christian horrors.
Baron Bodissey
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
� H. L. Mencken
Dan Listermann
"Nashton" <n...@nana.ca> wrote in message
news:hh05h9$859$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
>>> sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
>>> the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
>>> ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
>>> product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>>>
So you agree that you believe your deity(ies) look like great apes?
.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>> Nashton wrote:
>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at
>>> all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's
>>> mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and
>>> Letters of Charles Darwin
>>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London:
>>> John Murray, Albermarle
>>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>>
>>> Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
>>> sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
>>> the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
>>> ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
>>> product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>>>
>>> Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
>>>
>> Depends on the monkey.
>
> No, it doesn't. Depends on what a bunch of monkeys have decided is
> acceptable.
Ah, so you agree that we are monkeys.
>> I wouldn't trust you, but I would indeed trust my
>> own ability to reason from the data.
>
> Which brings us back to the question: Would you trust a monkey?
Which brings us back to my original answer. Depends on the monkey. I
trust some monkeys, but not others. I don't trust you. I trust my own
judgment. And we're both monkeys.
>> But this is another variation on solipsism.
>
> Nope. Not unless you've been stranded in space for 10 years.
I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.
>> How do we know our reasoning
>> isn't faulty?
>
> Which is not an answer to the dilemma, but serves to underscore it.
Indeed. You clever dog, you figured out that wasn't an answer. Was it
the question mark at the end that clued you?
>> How do we know the world is real? How do we know the past
>> is real? Answer: we don't, but we have to make certain assumptions in
>> order to do science, or in fact to live.
>
> Agreed, but you're going off on a tangent(s). The question about the
> dilemma faced by the evolutionist who is faced with the notion that we
> are essentially apes or chooses to think that we are a product of God in
> his image. This is naturalism obliterating itself, philosophically.
My point is that it isn't. Whether we're monkeys or God's creation (or,
I might add, both), the dilemma is the same, and the solution is the same.
>> And there's an exactly parallel question: Can Man's ability in
>> describing nature be trusted, if he's simply a product of God?
>
> Theologically, you bet. God created nature ex nihilo and is separate
> from his creation. But he *did* create it and Man in his own image. In
> fact, it is the only option we have to trust our reasoning and our
> conclusions.
That isn't reasoning. It's a conclusion, but one based on what you want
to be true. Can you provide any actual reasoning to support your claim
that we can trust our reasoning?
>> How do we
>> know that God made our brains in such a way that they properly
>> interpret reality? And even if he did, how do you know that the proper
>> interpretation is yours rather than mine?
>
> He did, but partially. Man cannot conceive of the complexity and purpose
> of the Universe, hence he has to leave it up to God.
How do you know that's true?
> It's all in the Bible;)
I don't actually think it's in the bible. But if it were, how would you
know it was true?
Dan Listermann
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:KoydnTh5F8x...@giganews.com...
> How do you know that's true?
>
>> It's all in the Bible;)
>
> I don't actually think it's in the bible. But if it were, how would you
> know it was true?
>
If you can't trust the campfire babblings of bronze age goat herders, who
can you trust, huh?
.
Robert Camp
Of course I would, if I had good reason to believe it was in his
interest to give me accurate information.
There is no paradox. You may see one, but that's likely because you're
not capable of thinking beyond that which you wish to believe is true
(or course I can't say for sure).
What I can say is that your paradox is imaginary. Darwin was a human
being, and as such struggled with ideas for which there were no obvious
answers. Darwin was also a scientist, and as such considered ideas that
contradicted his own and wondered about their resolution.
But the notion that there is no reason we should be able to trust our
own thoughts and observations simply because they occur in an evolved
brain (Does it really matter if it's a monkey brain or a bird brain?)
is nonsense. And you're not the first to offer it up. Creationists as
prominent as Alvin Plantinga have thought this line of argument a blow
to evolutionary reasoning,
"Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings:
human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or
souls or substances joined to a body, and they don't contain any
immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs
would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would
just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the
neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive;
but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by
that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive
faculties are reliable?"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/marapr/1.21.html
Many theists appear to be unable to conceive of *truth* as separate
from *Truth.* I don't know if that is what Plantinga has done above, or
if that is what leads you (Nashton) to believe that there is a paradox,
but if one is able (if only for the purposes of discussion) to frame
his arguments from the point of view of a universe without God one can
see that neurophysiological truth need not involve metaphysical
absolutes - simple, adaptive strategies can be sufficient. In that
context "truth" can mean the results of cognitive processes that help
us to survive and flourish. This can be as humble as: "eating this
object allays my hunger."
If you were able to divorce yourself from the need for overarching,
soul-comforting, law-giving absolutes you might see that most empirical
truth is merely an epistemological extension of observations like the
above. It is not necessary to believe that our neurophysiology delivers
anything more than succesful adaptive "truths" in order to believe that
we can actually know something about ourselves and our world. Consider
also our social nature and one can easily see that through external
confirmation or negation individual observations can reach the level of
reliable truth. What's more, it's no real stretch to understand how
this same cognitive apparatus can lead us to socially adaptive, i.e.,
moral, strategies.
In other words, as long as you don't force one in there by involving
metaphysical assumptions, there is no paradox. There is no reason the
observations that come from an evolved mind should not lead to
trustworthy convictions. In fact that is exactly what we should expect
if evolution is true.
RLC
chris thompson
Actually, I don't think that's correct.
If we accept the evolutionary paradigm, we see a dramatic increase in
reasoning ability as we ascend what was once thought to be that
phylogenetic ladder. We see that nematodes reason better than Nashton,
salamanders reason better than nematodes, dogs reason better than
salamanders, chimps reason better than dogs, and humans reason better
than chimps (I have left out a lot, obviously, mainly in the category
of "reasons better than Nashton").
However, if we accept the biblical paradigm, we have gone downhill
since the Fall. We are, in sense, deliberately flawed constructs.
There's no reason to think (and I think Nashton probably accepts this)
that we can think.
Granted, under either model we cannot be absolutely certain of
anything, but as you rightly say, down that path leads solipsism and,
eventually, nihilism. But the evolutionary paradigm seems to match the
real world.
Chris
Nashton
You mention goat herders quite a bit. Have you ever been "wronged" by one?
RAM
You are a silly schmuck. All this post was about was to allow you to
testify. You offer nothing of substance and refuse to deal with
others sensible answers.
You are the paragon of the pseudoscience of "assertions are real."
Therefore God is real. Damn you are dumb.
Boikat
Men built the bomb to win a war, asshole. No war, no bomb, get it?
BTW, did you know that war in the Pacific was a religious war?
>
> Yeah. Science is SOOO innocent
You again blame science for mans "misuse" of science (justifiable or
not) yet do not blame religion, specifically, christianity, for
missusing gods word in the slaughter of millions throughout history.
Boikat
Bob T.
> John Harshman wrote:
<snip>
>
> Agreed, but you're going off on a tangent(s). The question about the
> dilemma faced by the evolutionist who is faced with the notion that we
> are essentially apes or chooses to think that we are a product of God in
> his image. This is naturalism obliterating itself, philosophically.
Nonsense. We are apes who have evolved to become intelligent enough to
reason rationally. Well, most of us. We test and share our reasoning
and knowledge with our fellow humans. We develop methods for testing
knowledge that are not vulnerable to human fallibility.
>
> > And there's an exactly parallel question: Can Man's ability in
> > describing nature be trusted, if he's simply a product of God?
>
> Theologically, you bet. God created nature ex nihilo and is separate
> from his creation. But he *did* create it and Man in his own image. In
> fact, it is the only option we have to trust our reasoning and our
> conclusions.
Nonsense. The scientific method was specifically developed to
overcome the problem of human fallibility. If different humans perform
the same actions and acheive the same results, reliably and
repeatedly, then we humans as a group have learned something real
despite our individual fallibility. When you drop something it falls
at a measurable and predictable rate, every time. The Bible did not
teach us that - science did.
- Bob T
>
> � How do we
>
> > know that God made our brains in such a way that they properly interpret
> > reality? And even if he did, how do you know that the proper
> > interpretation is yours rather than mine?
>
> He did, but partially. Man cannot conceive of the complexity and purpose
> of the Universe, hence he has to leave it up to God.
>
> It's all in the Bible;)
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dan Listermann
"Nashton" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message news:hh0cnd$ike$1...@aioe.org...
herder, but I can't say that I put much stock into the mumblings of bronze
age ones beyond the husbandry of goats. You seem to think much more of
their capabilities.
.
Iain
> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
It's all becoming clear now. You think evolutionary theory is still
contingent on Darwin's life and work, as if it were your opponent's
Messiah, and that it should somehow bother anybody what Darwin thought
about anything. In other words, assuming other people view science the
same way you view your own religion.
You could burn all of Darwin's work tomorrow and forget he was ever
born, and it wouldn't make a dent in established theory. Darwin is a
discoverer, not a Messiah. He is of initial causal significance, not
continued theoretical significance.
This is why you're outlook is impenetrable. You think you're a
completely different battle than the one your in, puzzling to your
opponent, and completely out of your depth.
--Iain
Nashton
> On Dec 24, 1:53 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>
> It's all becoming clear now. You think evolutionary theory is still
> contingent on Darwin's life and work, as if it were your opponent's
> Messiah, and that it should somehow bother anybody what Darwin thought
> about anything. In other words, assuming other people view science the
> same way you view your own religion.
Not at all. This is a fundamental philosophical question revolving
around well established notions of naturalism/physicalism, inherent to
our human condition and understanding of nature and natural phenomena
and how we relate to the physical world.
This is a classic logical paradox and I could care less if it were
Dawkins, Darwin or the guy next door that brought it up. The ToE
actually kills the notion of physicalism. And the ToE is based on the
world view of physicalism.
>
> You could burn all of Darwin's work tomorrow and forget he was ever
> born, and it wouldn't make a dent in established theory. Darwin is a
> discoverer, not a Messiah. He is of initial causal significance, not
> continued theoretical significance.
See above, Darwin was a brilliant man and an astute observer. he
happened to be a very good philosopher and thinker also.
>
> This is why you're outlook is impenetrable.
It's not that my outlook is impenetrable, it's that existence itself is
impenetrable and it won't matter if we ca predict a butterfly's fart
with the help of science, the fundamental question of who we are will
always remain and will always be fulfilled by God. Not by how matter,
living or not, behaves. The various fools in here that attempt to find
God in matter and its laws are dumber than dumb.
You think you're a
> completely different battle than the one your in, puzzling to your
> opponent, and completely out of your depth.
Actually, philosophically speaking, it seems most of the people that
have attempted to tackle this seem to be out of their depth, including
yourself.
>
> --Iain
>
Mark Isaak
> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt ..."
Doubt leads to trustworthyness, because it leads to checking and
revising. Both certainty and disbelief almost always end in error,
because that's where they start, and they never move.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
RAM
Big Snip
> The ToE
> actually kills the notion of physicalism.
A little rational explanation is need at this point of the above
assertion.
I sure you are wrong but I will be surprised if you even try to
provide one.
> And the ToE is based on the
> world view of physicalism.
>
Only in part but I'm sure you will correct me.
>
> It's not that my outlook is impenetrable, it's that existence itself is
> impenetrable and it won't matter if we ca predict a butterfly's fart
> with the help of science, the fundamental question of who we are will
> always remain and will always be fulfilled by God.
If that is what you wish to think then it will.
If you chose not to believe that then it won't.
W. I. Thomas's definition of the situation is about non physical
beliefs and their consequences for the believer. The definition
states that if a person believes a (nonphysical) event/idea/concept is
real then it is real in its consequences. Thus a belief in God/
spirits is real to the believing person and has real consequences
(emotional effects and "contingent" behavior) for the believer.
Likewise the opposite is true and the non-believer will not have
emotional responses and "contingent" behavior associate with this
disbelief. It is at this point religious people declare Gods/spirits
will have negative contingent behavior on the disbeliever as a result
of the disbelief.
> Not by how matter,
> living or not, behaves. The various fools in here that attempt to find
> God in matter and its laws are dumber than dumb.
Wow you are so much smarter than the average person you need to get on
that street corner and be the activist there instead of here where all
the dummies post.
> Actually, philosophically speaking, it seems most of the people that
> have attempted to tackle this seem to be out of their depth, including
> yourself.
But clearly not you, so you tell us. Maybe you should post on a
theology/philosophy web site. Your sun baked brilliance doesn't shine
for the TO dummies.
Jesus likes your humility I'm sure. But you have so little of it
that is seems like it may just be a belief with out being real.
Humans do those things you know.
> > --Iain
Burkhard
> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> of Charles Darwin
> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> Murray, Albermarle
> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
> sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
> the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
> ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
> product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>
> Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
Is that a trick question? Of course I can trust the monkey, but would
have serious doubts in the reliability of the man made in gods image.
Monkeys need to form accurate ideas about the world, need e.g to
distinguish predators from non-predators, edible form non-edible,
troop member from non-troop member etc etc. The ToE does away in fact
withthe need to postulate a pre-established harmony. Those animals
whose cognitive mechanisms don't give an accurate picture of the world
are eliminated (walking over a bridge that isn't really there
seriously harms your reproductive chances)
on the implications for epistemology see e.g.
Popper, Karl R. (1972), Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach,
Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
ibid. (1984), "Evolutionary Epistemology," in Evolutionary Theory:
Paths into the Future, (ed.) J. W. Pollard, London: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
Rescher, Nicholas (1990), A Useful Inheritance: Evolutionary Aspects
of the Theory of Knowledge, Lanham, MD: Rowman.
Riedl, Rupert (1984), Biology of Knowledge: The Evolutionary Basis of
Reason, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
The other great apes also have only a limited ability to deceive,
which means that we inherit our trust worthiness from our ancestors -
the lying we invented (largely) ourselves, so you could say we are
trustworthy _because_ we inherited some traits of related life forms
that could not but be truthful.
So that is the positive case for the monkey, now what about the case
for "in god's image" and its epistemological implications. First,
there is of course the question again which god(s) we are talking
about. If we are created in the image of Loki, Ananzi, coyote or any
other trickster god, our reliability is going to be pretty low. Given
our antics, that is empirically much more plausible than the Judeo-
christian god - we have extra-marital affairs like Zeus, are jealous
like Hera, kill like Odin etc etc. But the Judeo-Christian deity too
uses deception and lying strategically, (Abraham story, e.g.), so here
too in god's image is not realy a gurantoor for truthfulness.
More seriously though, even if we were designed in the image of a god,
"knowledge" does to seem to have been a feature of the original design
- not just in Christian doctrine, but in that of several cultures,
knowledge is initially prohibited and has to be stolen from the god(s)
- and in the christian tradition in particular, we seem to have got
only part of the real thing (otherwise we would be all-knowing). So
even if the gods have knowledge, and man is created in their image,
this does not guarantee in itself that we have reliable knowledge of
the world, it all depends how much ill gotten gains we got to overcome
the design flaws.
Finally, since these gods are also in varying degrees powerful, they
can (and in most traditions, including the Christian one) seriously
mess with your head. So everything you think you know/perceive/
reason would for you be indistinguishable from a deity giving you
an illusion for some ineffable reason.
So to some up: The ToE gives a prima facie argument why our knowledge
of the world is reliable - we would be dead if our cognitive
mechanisms had not developed reasonably accurate ways to represent
the world.
By contrast, no such reassurance can be given if deities are
involved, and all you think you know is at the mercy of in varying
degree capricious yet powerful beings who just might have messed
seriously with your head.
TomS
<71070012-0dbd-4ef4...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."
I have never seen why this often-repeated "argument against
evolution" has any particular relevance to evolution.
ISTM to have *more* relevance - if it had any relevance at all -
to a naturalistic account of reproduction. How can we trust thinking
if our brain was generated by chemical reactions? Chemical reactions
carry no guarantee of producing accurate thoughts. That might be an
argument for Scientific Storkism.
If, on the other hand, we are simply "designed" by "intelligent
designers", who might be: "the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen
or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens
from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown
intelligent being", how is that supposed to give us some confidence
in our thinking? (Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design
Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001),
page 165)
And I am tempted to make reference to the famous rejoinder of Thomas
Henry Huxley to Samuel Wilberforce, and say that I would have more
trust in what a monkey tells me ...
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Nashton
Oh look, the social worker-cum-evoACTIVIST has spoken.
Can you try to stay OT and comment on the philosophical implications of
Darwin's doubt?
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
There are none.
Science is a process. The attitudes of the scientists engaged in it does
not matter as long as they are following the process.
The most deluded, foolish or hateful person can be a good scientist if
he does not cheat on the results.
You are afraid of the discoveries of science.
Nashton
No, where did I say this?
>
>>> I wouldn't trust you, but I would indeed trust my
>>> own ability to reason from the data.
>>
>> Which brings us back to the question: Would you trust a monkey?
>
> Which brings us back to my original answer. Depends on the monkey.
If the original answer brought us back to my original question, what
you're stating is pointless.
I
> trust some monkeys, but not others. I don't trust you. I trust my own
> judgment. And we're both monkeys.
I'm glad that you have faith in your own little gang of what you
perceive to be monkeys. And zI wouldn't trust you to come up with
anything that I could use in my field either.
>
>>> But this is another variation on solipsism.
>>
>> Nope. Not unless you've been stranded in space for 10 years.
>
> I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.
You need to look up the definition of solipsism, then.
>
>>> How do we know our reasoning
>>> isn't faulty?
>>
>> Which is not an answer to the dilemma, but serves to underscore it.
>
> Indeed. You clever dog, you figured out that wasn't an answer. Was it
> the question mark at the end that clued you?
So fay, apart for some very snide remarks, you have yet to address my OP
in any constructive way. Would you be trying to avoid the question
altogether?
>
>>> How do we know the world is real? How do we know the past
>>> is real? Answer: we don't, but we have to make certain assumptions in
>>> order to do science, or in fact to live.
>>
>> Agreed, but you're going off on a tangent(s). The question about the
>> dilemma faced by the evolutionist who is faced with the notion that we
>> are essentially apes or chooses to think that we are a product of God
>> in his image. This is naturalism obliterating itself, philosophically.
>
> My point is that it isn't. Whether we're monkeys or God's creation (or,
> I might add, both), the dilemma is the same, and the solution is the same.
Nope. You may believe it, use wrong terms to define it (solipsism), but
you're definitely not taking into account the repercussions of
physicalism as a world view.
You can't have God intervening with his creation. Theologically, God
created nature and endowed it with natural laws. If you concede that God
intervened on occasion, it doesn't bode.
>
>>> And there's an exactly parallel question: Can Man's ability in
>>> describing nature be trusted, if he's simply a product of God?
>>
>> Theologically, you bet. God created nature ex nihilo and is separate
>> from his creation. But he *did* create it and Man in his own image. In
>> fact, it is the only option we have to trust our reasoning and our
>> conclusions.
>
> That isn't reasoning. It's a conclusion, but one based on what you want
> to be true. Can you provide any actual reasoning to support your claim
> that we can trust our reasoning?
No, it's established theology. Thats' why Christians are not
superstitious, at least the ones that understand scripture.
>
>>> How do we
>>> know that God made our brains in such a way that they properly
>>> interpret reality? And even if he did, how do you know that the
>>> proper interpretation is yours rather than mine?
>>
>> He did, but partially. Man cannot conceive of the complexity and
>> purpose of the Universe, hence he has to leave it up to God.
>
> How do you know that's true?
It's one of the logical conclusions that flow from Darwin's doubt,
taking into consideration the dilemma between whether we are made in the
image of God or are a product of randomness.
>
>> It's all in the Bible;)
>
> I don't actually think it's in the bible. But if it were, how would you
> know it was true?
I am not discussing the truth or lack thereof of the Bible.
This whole thing seems to have gone over the heads of everyone in here.
Perhaps Wilkins could chime in, given his background in philodphy?
>
Dan Listermann
>>
>
> No, it's established theology. Thats' why Christians are not
> superstitious, at least the ones that understand scripture.
>
Definition: believing in something without evidence or reason. It works
for two words perfectly, religion and superstition.
.
John Harshman
What bunch of monkeys were you talking about, then?
>>>> I wouldn't trust you, but I would indeed trust my
>>>> own ability to reason from the data.
>>>
>>> Which brings us back to the question: Would you trust a monkey?
>>
>> Which brings us back to my original answer. Depends on the monkey.
>
> If the original answer brought us back to my original question, what
> you're stating is pointless.
I merely point out that your original question was answered. You brought
us back to the question needlessly.
>> I
>> trust some monkeys, but not others. I don't trust you. I trust my own
>> judgment. And we're both monkeys.
>
> I'm glad that you have faith in your own little gang of what you
> perceive to be monkeys. And zI wouldn't trust you to come up with
> anything that I could use in my field either.
You have a field?
>>>> But this is another variation on solipsism.
>>>
>>> Nope. Not unless you've been stranded in space for 10 years.
>>
>> I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.
>
> You need to look up the definition of solipsism, then.
Or you could tell me what that was supposed to mean. Why are you playing
word games instead of trying to communicate?
>>>> How do we know our reasoning
>>>> isn't faulty?
>>>
>>> Which is not an answer to the dilemma, but serves to underscore it.
>>
>> Indeed. You clever dog, you figured out that wasn't an answer. Was it
>> the question mark at the end that clued you?
>
> So fay, apart for some very snide remarks, you have yet to address my OP
> in any constructive way. Would you be trying to avoid the question
> altogether?
No. I have addressed it in a constructive way, and you are ignoring my
point in favor of your little word games.
>>>> How do we know the world is real? How do we know the past
>>>> is real? Answer: we don't, but we have to make certain assumptions
>>>> in order to do science, or in fact to live.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but you're going off on a tangent(s). The question about the
>>> dilemma faced by the evolutionist who is faced with the notion that
>>> we are essentially apes or chooses to think that we are a product of
>>> God in his image. This is naturalism obliterating itself,
>>> philosophically.
>>
>> My point is that it isn't. Whether we're monkeys or God's creation
>> (or, I might add, both), the dilemma is the same, and the solution is
>> the same.
>
> Nope. You may believe it, use wrong terms to define it (solipsism), but
> you're definitely not taking into account the repercussions of
> physicalism as a world view.
I was using solipsism because I don't know of a single word that
expresses the entire concept encompassed by all the various refusals to
believe that reality is real. Do you?
> You can't have God intervening with his creation. Theologically, God
> created nature and endowed it with natural laws. If you concede that God
> intervened on occasion, it doesn't bode.
It's hard to tell whether you're being obscure on purpose or by
accident, but the result is the same. We have as much reason to believe
that we can trust our ability to think if we are evolved monkeys as we
do if we are special creations of god. Perhaps more reason. If you
disagree, make some sort of logical argument. Why does god's existence
mean we can trust our thinking?
>>>> And there's an exactly parallel question: Can Man's ability in
>>>> describing nature be trusted, if he's simply a product of God?
>>>
>>> Theologically, you bet. God created nature ex nihilo and is separate
>>> from his creation. But he *did* create it and Man in his own image.
>>> In fact, it is the only option we have to trust our reasoning and our
>>> conclusions.
>>
>> That isn't reasoning. It's a conclusion, but one based on what you
>> want to be true. Can you provide any actual reasoning to support your
>> claim that we can trust our reasoning?
>
> No, it's established theology. Thats' why Christians are not
> superstitious, at least the ones that understand scripture.
Do you mean that you can't provide any actual reasoning? Why is it
established theology? What leads you to believe it's true?
>>>> How do we
>>>> know that God made our brains in such a way that they properly
>>>> interpret reality? And even if he did, how do you know that the
>>>> proper interpretation is yours rather than mine?
>>>
>>> He did, but partially. Man cannot conceive of the complexity and
>>> purpose of the Universe, hence he has to leave it up to God.
>>
>> How do you know that's true?
>
> It's one of the logical conclusions that flow from Darwin's doubt,
> taking into consideration the dilemma between whether we are made in the
> image of God or are a product of randomness.
Please lead me to this logical conclusion by showing the logical steps.
If it's logical, you should be able to do this.
Note, by the way, that your last clause is another of those false
dichotomies so beloved of creationists.
>>> It's all in the Bible;)
>>
>> I don't actually think it's in the bible. But if it were, how would
>> you know it was true?
>
> I am not discussing the truth or lack thereof of the Bible.
Then why did you bring the bible into the discussion?
> This whole thing seems to have gone over the heads of everyone in here.
>
> Perhaps Wilkins could chime in, given his background in philodphy?
Or perhaps you could try very, very hard to make sense.
Iain
> Can you try to stay OT and comment on the philosophical implications of
> Darwin's doubt?
There are none. That's the whole point.
No scientist is still interested in what Darwin said or thought,
except out of historical curiosity.
The only people who have a practical interest in Darwin are
Creationists, who naively view Darwin as their opponents' Messiah.
It's this kind of grossly mislead, intractable attack on science which
just runs any intelligent discussion into the mud.
Iain
Mark Isaak
> Iain wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 1:53 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>
>> It's all becoming clear now. You think evolutionary theory is still
>> contingent on Darwin's life and work, as if it were your opponent's
>> Messiah, and that it should somehow bother anybody what Darwin thought
>> about anything. In other words, assuming other people view science the
>> same way you view your own religion.
>
> Not at all. This is a fundamental philosophical question revolving
> around well established notions of naturalism/physicalism, inherent to
> our human condition and understanding of nature and natural phenomena
> and how we relate to the physical world.
How do you resovle it, then?
Don't claim that not believing in being a monkey is any advantage. We
know that human minds are fallible in all kinds of ways, regardless of
how they arose. Don't claim that divine influence is any help, because
several of the failures of human thinking occur especially around ideas
of divine influence.
Science has ways of resolving doubts. Religions can, at best, ignore
them. And ignoring problems makes them worse.
Will in New Haven
> Iain wrote:
> > This is why you're outlook is impenetrable.
>
> It's not that my outlook is impenetrable, it's that existence itself is
> impenetrable and it won't matter if we ca predict a butterfly's fart
> with the help of science, the fundamental question of who we are will
> always remain and will always be fulfilled by God. Not by how matter,
> living or not, behaves. The various fools in here that attempt to find
> God in matter and its laws are dumber than dumb.
Then I have no serious disagreement with you on this. I would laugh at
anyone who claimed to be trying to find god via the scientific method.
God's existence or nonexistence is not something that science is
equipped to question. Of course, one can leave that mystery for others
to explore and still find out the truth of the mundane world, without
addressing this bigger question at all.
You, however, make the "yes" assumption on the existence of god,
without requiring evidence. That is what is called faith and it isn't
transferable, at least among adults. I see a mystery, as impenetrable
as you say it is, and choose to let it be a mystery, trusting that any
god who does exists can get along without my help.
Nashton
> On Dec 25, 3:34 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> Can you try to stay OT and comment on the philosophical implications of
>> Darwin's doubt?
>
> There are none. That's the whole point.
You can believe there isn't but you really haven't made any headway
towards proving it.
Remember that when you declare that one needs proof to believe in
something they can't perceive. If this whole debate has gone over your
head, the fact that you're declaring that the issue doesn't exist is a
matter of faith for you.
>
> No scientist is still interested in what Darwin said or thought,
> except out of historical curiosity.
The OP was not about Darwin but about a doubt he expressed that could
have been uttered by anyone of his contemporaries.
>
> The only people who have a practical interest in Darwin are
> Creationists, who naively view Darwin as their opponents' Messiah.
You can hold on to that thought if you believe it.
> It's this kind of grossly mislead, intractable attack on science which
> just runs any intelligent discussion into the mud.
Science is not some kind of deity that can't be touched or the methods
of which can not be or have not been modified in the past and will not
be modified in the future.
And you can dismiss logic or philosophy, but you are doing it at your
own peril and understanding.
You have failed to make any points that would either invalidate my
original argument and instead have resorted to digging your head further
in the sand.
>
> Iain
>
Nashton
You're contradicting yourself:
I would laugh at
anyone who claimed to be trying to find god via the scientific method.
And
You, however, make the "yes" assumption on the existence of god,
without requiring evidence.
Here's the contradiction: Anyone trying to to find God via the
scientific method is a fool whereas I would need or require evidence to
to make the assumption that God exists.
I rest my case.
Nashton
I have made a lot of sense, but you're obviously not familiar with
fundamental philosophical terms such as physicalism, ontology or
anything that you would need for this to make sense to you.
Boikat
In order for that to make any sense, you should have used quotation
marks and a coma:
Here's the contradiction: "Anyone trying to to find God via the
scientific method is a fool, whereas I would need or require evidence
to make the assumption that God exists."
But that is not a good paraphrase of what he actually said, is it?
Read his last sentence again: " I see a mystery, as impenetrable as
you say it is, and choose to let it be a mystery, trusting that any
god who does exists can get along without my help."
You seem to be reading something into what Will said that Will didn't
really say.
Boikat
Will in New Haven
I don't say that _you_ can't make the yes assumption. I just don't
think you can expect to convince other people or make any kind of
argument based on your faith.
John Harshman
answer them. Feel free to explain any words you like along the way.
We have as much reason to believe that we can trust our ability to think
if we are evolved monkeys as we do if we are special creations of god.
Perhaps more reason. If you disagree, make some sort of logical
argument. Why does god's existence mean we can trust our thinking?
> No, it's established theology. Thats' why Christians are not
> superstitious, at least the ones that understand scripture.
Do you mean that you can't provide any actual reasoning? Why is it
established theology? What leads you to believe it's true?
> It's one of the logical conclusions that flow from Darwin's
> doubt,taking into consideration the dilemma between whether we are
Bob Berger
Sure. Almost everything has a field associated with it. For example, the field
associated with Nashton results from the motions of the cloud of silly particles
that swarm about him like flies. The New York Giants, on the other hand, are
associated with football fields; while comedians are associated with W.C.
Fields.
Iain
> Iain wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 3:34 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Can you try to stay OT and comment on the philosophical implications of
> >> Darwin's doubt?
>
> > There are none. That's the whole point.
>
> You can believe there isn't but you really haven't made any headway
> towards proving it.
> Remember that when you declare that one needs proof to believe in
> something they can't perceive. If this whole debate has gone over your
> head, the fact that you're declaring that the issue doesn't exist is a
> matter of faith for you.
>
>
>
> > No scientist is still interested in what Darwin said or thought,
> > except out of historical curiosity.
>
> The OP was not about Darwin but about a doubt he expressed
Therefore it was about Darwin.
> that could
> have been uttered by anyone of his contemporaries.
Who are hugely uninformed by today's standards, but through no fault
of their own.
> > The only people who have a practical interest in Darwin are
> > Creationists, who naively view Darwin as their opponents' Messiah.
>
> You can hold on to that thought if you believe it.
>
> > It's this kind of grossly mislead, intractable attack on science which
> > just runs any intelligent discussion into the mud.
>
> Science is not some kind of deity that can't be touched or the methods
> of which can not be or have not been modified in the past and will not
> be modified in the future.
Yes, that is a lesson which you need to learn.
You think you are going for some kind of jugular by attacking Darwin.
This just makes your side of the debate look hopelessly callow.
It's actually rather twee. Your religion could be discredited if the
founder and old texts were discredited. So you assume that science
works the same way, so you attack Darwin and OSS, as if they still
have some kind of supporting role in the standing of evolutionary
thoery.
--Iain
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Iain wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 3:34 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Can you try to stay OT and comment on the philosophical implications of
>>> Darwin's doubt?
>>
>> There are none. That's the whole point.
>
>You can believe there isn't but you really haven't made any headway
>towards proving it.
>Remember that when you declare that one needs proof to believe in
>something they can't perceive. If this whole debate has gone over your
>head, the fact that you're declaring that the issue doesn't exist is a
>matter of faith for you.
>
>>
>> No scientist is still interested in what Darwin said or thought,
>> except out of historical curiosity.
>
>The OP was not about Darwin but about a doubt he expressed that could
>have been uttered by anyone of his contemporaries.
A doubt that no longer exists.
>
>>
>> The only people who have a practical interest in Darwin are
>> Creationists, who naively view Darwin as their opponents' Messiah.
>
>You can hold on to that thought if you believe it.
>
>> It's this kind of grossly mislead, intractable attack on science which
>> just runs any intelligent discussion into the mud.
>
>Science is not some kind of deity that can't be touched or the methods
>of which can not be or have not been modified in the past and will not
>be modified in the future.
>And you can dismiss logic or philosophy, but you are doing it at your
>own peril and understanding.
>You have failed to make any points that would either invalidate my
>original argument and instead have resorted to digging your head further
> in the sand.
The failure is, as normal, on your part.
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Nashton
> On Dec 25, 11:33 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>> Iain wrote:
>>> On Dec 25, 3:34 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>>> Can you try to stay OT and comment on the philosophical implications of
>>>> Darwin's doubt?
>>> There are none. That's the whole point.
>> You can believe there isn't but you really haven't made any headway
>> towards proving it.
>> Remember that when you declare that one needs proof to believe in
>> something they can't perceive. If this whole debate has gone over your
>> head, the fact that you're declaring that the issue doesn't exist is a
>> matter of faith for you.
>>
>>
>>
>>> No scientist is still interested in what Darwin said or thought,
>>> except out of historical curiosity.
>> The OP was not about Darwin but about a doubt he expressed
>
> Therefore it was about Darwin.
Thanks for playing, but I just can't discuss with thick skulled morons
that can't tell the difference between what someone said and whom that
someone happened to be.
<snip>
Nashton
Brave, brave man on the Usenet.
Is your field trying to be funny and failing?
Nashton
The OP was not about faith, if you happened to miss that.
Nashton
You have proved to be incapable of understanding an issue that I exposed
very well, but seems to be over your head.
Do your own search on basic philosophy and come back here to discuss
topics such as these.
You don't even know what solipsism is for crying out loud.
And really John, you're not as important as you think you are in your
head. Really.
Nashton
> "Nashton" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message news:hh0cnd$ike$1...@aioe.org...
>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:KoydnTh5F8x...@giganews.com...
>>>> How do you know that's true?
>>>>
>>>> I don't actually think it's in the bible. But if it were, how would you
>>>> know it was true?
>>>>
>>> can you trust, huh? .
>>>
>> You mention goat herders quite a bit. Have you ever been "wronged" by one?
>>
> Not that I can see much to it, but no, I have never been "wronged" by a goat
> herder, but I can't say that I put much stock into the mumblings of bronze
> age ones beyond the husbandry of goats. You seem to think much more of
> their capabilities.
What this has to do with my OP can only be explained by knowing the
inner workings of Dan's mind.
(scratching head)
>
>
> .
>
Dan Listermann
.
Dan Listermann
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f2a2fc8-6850-4d42...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
They are at a total loss.
.
John Harshman
Yes I do. And it has nothing to do with floating in space.
> And really John, you're not as important as you think you are in your
> head. Really.
>
Hey, Madman, look! Nashton is using your favorite excuse: "you just
don't understand". And unlike me, he refuses to explain.
Ye Old One
The only thing you ever expose is your own stupidity.
>
>Do your own search on basic philosophy and come back here to discuss
>topics such as these.
>
>You don't even know what solipsism is for crying out loud.
You seem to be a good example.
>
>
>And really John, you're not as important as you think you are in your
>head. Really.
But way more important than you.
Gene Poole
[SNIP]
>
> And really John, you're not as important as you think you are in your
> head. Really.
>
I can't speak for what goes on in Harshman's head, but a simple
statistical analysis of T.O over the past few years would indicate that
he's very important within the T.O community--I dare say THE most
important poster of late when it comes to debunking creationist nonsense.
I'm sure you or some other loon will accuse me of sucking up, but I
really don't care what a bunch of usenet nuts think of me anyway.
RAM
> "Nashton" <n...@nana.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:hh4sb9$dc0$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > Dan Listermann wrote:
> >>> Dan Listermann wrote:
> >>>> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:KoydnTh5F8x...@giganews.com...
> >>>>> How do you know that's true?
>
> >>>>>> It's all in the Bible;)
> >>>>> I don't actually think it's in the bible. But if it were, how would
> >>>>> you know it was true?
>
> >>>> If you can't trust the campfire babblings of bronze age goat herders,
> >>>> who can you trust, huh? .
>
> >>> You mention goat herders quite a bit. Have you ever been "wronged" by
> >>> one?
>
> >> Not that I can see much to it, but no, I have never been "wronged" by a
> >> goat herder, but I can't say that I put much stock into the mumblings of
> >> bronze age ones beyond the husbandry of goats. �You seem to think much
> >> more of their capabilities.
>
> > What this has to do with my OP can only be explained by knowing the inner
> > workings of Dan's mind.
>
> > (scratching head)
>
> Here is your answer: "It's all in the Bible;)"
>
> .
Nasty is full of random thoughts and random illogic that he thinks is
worthy of posting.
He's appears to be even more loony during the holidays. I report you
decide.
RAM
I'n short, Nasty is really declaring intellectual defeat.
Bob Berger
No; I would never attempt to compete with you in the field in which you have
demonstrated such proficiency. I did not intend to usurp your rice bowl.
Bob Berger
RAM says...
Nah. Just a variant of penis envy.
Ye Old One
He gets good marks for being funny but fails at failing. You, on the
other hand, get zero marks for being funny and at failing you are a
world champion.
RAM
Yes it is made clear in this statement what you mean by faith:
> the fundamental question of who we are will
> always remain and will always be fulfilled by God.
And my response was as follows:
"If that is what you wish to think then it will.
If you chose not to believe that then it won't.
W. I. Thomas's definition of the situation is about non physical
beliefs and their consequences for the believer. The definition
states that if a person believes a (nonphysical) event/idea/concept
is
real then it is real in its consequences. Thus a belief in God/
spirits is real to the believing person and has real consequences
(emotional effects [faith] and "contingent" behavior [church
attendance or anti evolution activism on TO) for the believer.
Likewise the opposite is true and the non-believer will not have
emotional responses and "contingent" behavior associate with this
disbelief. It is at this point religious people declare Gods/spirits
will have negative contingent behavior on the disbeliever as a result
of the disbelief. "
A consequence of your belief (in God) is faith.
Again for those who do not hold that belief (atheists) the consequence
is not faithlessness but an indifference to or lack of concern about
faith. Which when viewed from the faithful is indeed faithlessness
( (this the religious hated of atheists) but which indeed is not
faithlessness when viewed by the atheists since they have nothing to
be faithlessness toward.
Eric Root
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:KoydnTh5F8x...@giganews.com...
>
> > How do you know that's true?
>
>
> > I don't actually think it's in the bible. But if it were, how would you
> > know it was true?
>
> can you trust, huh?
>
> .
When you intrude with rude remarks about "the campfire babblings of
bronze age goat herders," you deflect Nashton from what was actually
starting to be a decent discussion, into another bunch of pejorative
BS. When a mind might be accidentally opening a crack, that kind of
cheap entertainment just slams it shut again.
Eric Root
Dan Listermann
"Eric Root" <er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:47918c37-cc47-46a0...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
and legends of a primitive people way ahead of observable and repeatable,
not to mention productive, science.
.
Will in New Haven
Why does he need to understand that? It's true but who the fuck cares
if he ever understands it. All he _has_ to do is breathe, eat and
eventually die.
Eric Root
Come on, _please_ don't chicken out. Try to answer Harshman's
questions. And, since you can't read minds, leave out strange
conjectures about how important he thinks he is. Almost nobody thinks
they are more important than they are, but plenty of people waste time
imagining how important other people think they are.
Eric Root
bpuharic
>"With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
>
>
>
>Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>of Charles Darwin
>Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>Murray, Albermarle
>Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
>-----------------------------
>
>Just so that I won't stoop to the abhorrent level of the various and
>sundry nut-jobs in here who copy, paste & run, this is in relation to
>the question of the argument/paradox that goes like this: Can Man's
>ability to be trusted in describing nature be trusted, if he simply a
>product of evolution and not made in the image of God?
>
>Would you trust a monkey to tell you where you originated?
w. edwards deming said it best:
'in god we trust; all others bring evidence'
and the evidence favors evolution.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>heh.. science sat on the side lines building the bombs, and other
>weapons of war for a buck.
>
>Yeah. Science is SOOO innocent.
doesn't matter if it's innocent. it only matters if it's right.
and creationism? neither innocent NOR correct
>
bpuharic
>John Harshman wrote:
>> Nashton wrote:
>
>How do we know the world is real? How do we know the past
>> is real? Answer: we don't, but we have to make certain assumptions in
>> order to do science, or in fact to live.
>
>Agreed, but you're going off on a tangent(s). The question about the
>dilemma faced by the evolutionist who is faced with the notion that we
>are essentially apes or chooses to think that we are a product of God in
>his image. This is naturalism obliterating itself, philosophically.
it doesnt matter what one 'chooses' to think. it only matters what's
true. and evolution is true
i admire the childlike innocence of creationists. they think that
easter bunnies exist, the tooth fairy is real, and the 'ghostbusters'
is a documentary
>
>>
>> And there's an exactly parallel question: Can Man's ability in
>> describing nature be trusted, if he's simply a product of God?
>
>Theologically, you bet. God created nature ex nihilo and is separate
>from his creation. But he *did* create it and Man in his own image. In
>fact, it is the only option we have to trust our reasoning and our
>conclusions.
actually it's not. evolution selected animals that had reasoning
abilities because those that didn't have 'em got dead.
>
> How do we
>> know that God made our brains in such a way that they properly interpret
>> reality? And even if he did, how do you know that the proper
>> interpretation is yours rather than mine?
>
>He did, but partially. Man cannot conceive of the complexity and purpose
>of the Universe, hence he has to leave it up to God.
so he invented god as a garbage dump to explain what he couldn't...
bpuharic
>>
>> Note, by the way, that your last clause is another of those false
>> dichotomies so beloved of creationists.
>>
>> >>> It's all in the Bible;)
>> >>
>>>> I don't actually think it's in the bible. But if it were, how would
>>>> you know it was true?
>> >
>> > I am not discussing the truth or lack thereof of the Bible.
>>
>> Then why did you bring the bible into the discussion?
>>
>
>You have proved to be incapable of understanding an issue that I exposed
>very well, but seems to be over your head.
>
>Do your own search on basic philosophy and come back here to discuss
>topics such as these.
>
>You don't even know what solipsism is for crying out loud.
>
>
>And really John, you're not as important as you think you are in your
>head. Really.
i've seen you explain nothing at all. you've never explained why, in
2000 years, creationism explained nothing. nothing at all.
you've never explained why, if the bible is literally true, we don't
see demons and angels now.
you've never explained the failures of creationism; its claim that
demons caused earthquakes or disease.
bpuharic
>Iain wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 1:53 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>
>> It's all becoming clear now. You think evolutionary theory is still
>> contingent on Darwin's life and work, as if it were your opponent's
>> Messiah, and that it should somehow bother anybody what Darwin thought
>> about anything. In other words, assuming other people view science the
>> same way you view your own religion.
>
>Not at all. This is a fundamental philosophical question revolving
>around well established notions of naturalism/physicalism, inherent to
>our human condition and understanding of nature and natural phenomena
>and how we relate to the physical world.
>
>This is a classic logical paradox and I could care less if it were
>Dawkins, Darwin or the guy next door that brought it up. The ToE
>actually kills the notion of physicalism. And the ToE is based on the
>world view of physicalism.
guess he's never read gould's view that human reasoning capabilities
could be a spandrel....
oh, well...creationists just aren't very well educated at all
>
>>
>> This is why you're outlook is impenetrable.
>
>It's not that my outlook is impenetrable, it's that existence itself is
>impenetrable and it won't matter if we ca predict a butterfly's fart
>with the help of science, the fundamental question of who we are will
>always remain and will always be fulfilled by God.
well, no it won't. the existence of atheism refutes that position.
Not by how matter,
>living or not, behaves. The various fools in here that attempt to find
>God in matter and its laws are dumber than dumb.
then why are you a creationist?