When the Expelled DVD was released, who was the only guy they could find to endorse it? That’s right — Ben Stein. Here’s the cover:
Seriously, why would they put the main actor’s endorsement of his own movie on the cover of the DVD? Are they that desperate?
I guess so.
(via)
Heh, and he gave it only four stars.
Terrible. The only defense I can think of is he’s trying to be funny. Like Stephen Colbert reviewing his own book and giving it his own award, etc…
Joel got it on the first try! It was funnier when Colbert did it, because he went so completely over the top with it, but it should be obvious this is the same sort of joke, only more subtle, and consequently less funny.
I saw it on the shelf at a used CD/DVD store for $7.99. I was tempted to pick it up just so I could say that I have seen it and it really is as devoid of intelligence as everyone says it is. Instead, I bought some anime.
It almost ruined my Christmas when my parents gave this movie to my brother-in-law (a huge evolution-denialist) and we almost had a family viewing. Luckily we had to eat instead…
Pingback: Fundie FAIL
Knowing Ben Stein and his sense of humor…it is kind of obvious that this is a joke; especially since he says he loves the film…
I got a dollar says Daniel knew it was a joke too.
Irony is so hard to pick up in the blog world.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure it was a joke, but it’s one hell of a lame one. I bet if they could have gotten a big name scientist to endorse it, though, they would have put it on the front.
Yeah, it might be a joke, but they wouldn’t have bothered making it, if they could have gotten someone else to endorse it…
Oh my goodness! Ben Stein endorsed his own movie! He couldn’t find ANYONE else to endorse it! It must be crap! Thank you Daniel! Thanks to your wonderful logic, reasoning, and argumentation, creationists can finally abandon their mythical ways.
Ok, I should apologize. My previous post was overly sarcastic.
Daniel Florien still mystifies me at how he must somehow think he’ll be “more right” if he shows no respect and attempts to ridicule the Christian religion and creationists with pathetic sarcasm and little jokes….I mean, what is his reasoning? Is he desperate? I don’t think he is. Is he just immature and rude? Maybe (but I don’t really know him that well)….but really, whats your point Daniel?
I just moved (back) to Orange County, CA (City of Yorba Linda), and this movie is the 2nd highest rated video on Netflix. Being a skeptic in Orange County is horrible!
Eric
Daniel knows it was a joke, he just wants to be inflammatory. If there is an opportunity to ridicule ID, YEC’s or Christianty, Daniel must take it.
Oh boy, when I first heard about this video, I didn’t know anything about Stein’s position on these things. I considered him pretty intelligent and had some respect for him.
But when I watched some excerpts from his movie, all of that went out the window. I can’t believe how bad it is. The tactics he uses to try and convince people of his view are utterly rediculous, and prove himself to be a moron.
What? Christians never make fun of atheists? Or liberals? Or Democrats? GMAB. Lighten up guys.
Eric(s)
Have you seen this movie? It is such a piece of shit.
Do you notice how defensive you guys get over nothing? Go back and read the post. Where again does Daniel ridicule Christians and creationists? It seems to me he is poking fun at Ben Stein, and his crap movie. If the fact that he may a creationist leads you to believe that Daniel is indirectly hating on all creationists, then you are entirely over sensitive and usually that happens for a reason. In the case of your presence on this blog, perhaps it is because your beliefs have been challenged, and you don’t like it?
Normally I would say that if you don’t like it, then see ya later, but because I enjoy the debate here, I don’t want to discourage anyone from participating.
McBloggenstein
Where did you watch the excerpts of Expelled? And do you feel like you can make a judgement about the whole movie when you haven’t watched it?
@Eric
Do you feel you can make a judgement about all the other gods which you know nothing about yet have dismissed? Honestly Eric take some time out and consider your behaviour.
Do you think you could have avoided the point I made about you criticizing Daniel for no reason any more blatantly?
I don’t remember where I saw them, somewhere on the interweb. I can’t recall specifics, but rather than arguing his side rationally, he uses low brow scare tactics to prove a point. You know, like having scary music and images when bringing up “silly” ideas that most scientists around the world have agreed upon so as to evoke an emotion out of the viewer. I don’t know what he is trying to do with this film, but I can’t understand how an intelligent man could use such methods to argue a serious point. It’s on my Netflix que, so I plan to watch it.
Notice: I am not saying anything about his side. I am just saying his method is sad. It’s important to note that I think Bill Maher used similar tactics in “Religulous”, but we’ll see if they were as rediculous when I watch “Expelled” in it’s entirety.
“If there is an opportunity to ridicule ID, YEC’s or Christianty, Daniel must take it.”
Here’s a newsflash for you. Atheists find many aspects of religion to be ridiculous. That’s why we often ridicule it. YEC is clearly ridiculous, and deserves every bit of ridicule it has coming. ID deserves ridicule because it is a poor attempt to make creationism & the denial of scientific realities seem less ridiculous.
The thing about freedom is that it gives you freedom to ridicule things. Lovely, isn’t it? If you want a world where nobody is allowed to make fun of your religion, Eric, then you had best get used to a totalitarian theocracy. That seems to be what you want. The right to declare some words out of bounds. You are anti-freedom. Only those who agree with you should be allowed to speak. I’m sure you will pretend thats not how it is, but I think you need a reality check.
Try to expand your horizons.
“Here’s a newsflash for you. Atheists find many aspects of religion to be ridiculous. That’s why we often ridicule it. YEC is clearly ridiculous, and deserves every bit of ridicule it has coming. ID deserves ridicule because it is a poor attempt to make creationism & the denial of scientific realities seem less ridiculous.”
QFT
Here’s an idea, Eric. Instead of whining when people make fun of you, try not supporting idiotic ideas instead.
Creationism is idiotic. ID is idiotic. Belief in a supernatural is idiotic. I’m not saying everyone who believes in such things is an idiot. I myself used to believe in such things, and I had exactly the same level of intelligence then that I have now.
But I was definitely ignorant for believing in and supporting such flawed ideas. And I was ridiculed for it often. And you know what?
I deserved it.
And so do you. Hopefully you will figure that out someday. In the meantime, whine about how mean everyone is. Because that totally works.
Oh, wait, was that sarcasm?
Atheists are making fun of Christians? Oh, boo hoo. Christians, on the other hand, go the extra mile and condemn non-believers to eternal damnation.
Or go even further and try to pass laws against them. That’s always a good time.
@Jesse: You thought this post was an argument against creationism? Seriously?
Update: Just saw your apology. I appreciate that. I mean it.
McBloggenstein: “Have you seen this movie? It is such a piece of shit.”
Yes I have, unlike you.
McBloggenstein: “Go back and read the post. Where again does Daniel ridicule Christians and creationists? It seems to me he is poking fun at Ben Stein, and his crap movie.”
This post is just a small example. Things like his post about “Johnny Zimzel back in 1923″ and his little story for “Irrefutable proof Baal exists” is all just complete idiocracy. The question still remains – is he desperate? Is his just simply rude and immature? Does he have nothing better to post to “prove his point”?
I really don’t mind him challenging Christianity/creationism, but there is really no reason for pathetic sarcasm and stupid little jokes.
Note: Eric (me) and Eric Kemp are totally different people.
Aor: “The thing about freedom is that it gives you freedom to ridicule things. Lovely, isn’t it?”
Yes, but its quite pathetic when quite often, all you seem to do is post childish ridicule of the Christian religion.
Aor: “If you want a world where nobody is allowed to make fun of your religion, Eric, then you had best get used to a totalitarian theocracy. That seems to be what you want. The right to declare some words out of bounds. You are anti-freedom. Only those who agree with you should be allowed to speak.”
Sadly, your way off. Mind quoting me and showing where I said Daniel shouldn’t be allowed to ridicule, make fun of, ect – creationism? I never said or implied that and he can all he wants (its his blog). But just looking at this blog, a lot of his posts simply involve “making fun of” and ridiculing Christianity. Sure, he can all he wants…but ridicule is very much an inadequate argument against Christianity.
@Eric:
We can agree on that.
Most of us around here enjoy poking fun of ridiculous things, just like anyone does. But I have brought serious arguments against Christianity, and will continue to do so.
Here are a few I’ve already written up:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/06/20/why-i-deny-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/11/16/an-evil-god-table-of-contents/
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/08/07/the-chapman-tragedy-and-the-absence-of-god/
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/09/16/the-futility-of-invoking-a-designer/
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/08/15/martyrdom-does-not-establish-truth/
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/09/20/the-double-standards-of-god/
I’m not saying those are the best or strongest arguments against theism or Christianity. I have many more outlined and planned. But this blog is not all ridicule, like you accuse me of.
By the way, I’m not ridiculing creationists or Christians in this post — I’m making fun of the creators of the movie and Ben Stein. Not sure how you applied that towards everyone.
I admit I’m a bit surprised Christians are taking offense at this post!
It’s not very original, though: the bible is the word of God… Says the bible. The pope is God’s representative on Earth… Says the Pope.
I do not think the entirety of this blog is ridicule (I have read many of your writings) but a large portion of it is dedicated to “poking fun”. Even in your articles thatwould seem to simply present the facts and evidence against Christianity all contain more than enough sarcasm, little jokes, and ridicule.
This reminds me of a question I have long had. Are there any jokes in the Bible? Any examples of humour? I personally don’t recall any but I am not as expert as many of you on the book. You know, this might seem like a sarcastic quesion but it really isn’t. I think it is odd, no matter who wrote it, that they skipped over humour entirely.
In the words of Chris Rock, if heaven ain’t funny, I don’t want to go.
I’ve always thought that the OT stuff (paraphrased):
“I am your god, and I’m a very nice god, but if you don’t do what I want, I will smite the holy shit out of you, and just to really get the point across, I will smite your great great great great grandkids some too, even though it isn’t their fault that you pissed me off.
Also, I am totally made of love.”
is hilarious.
Also, there’s that part where got smites the Philistines with hemorrhoids for stealing the ark. Smiting someone with hemorrhoids is funny.
“Even in your articles that would seem to simply present the facts and evidence against Christianity all contain more than enough sarcasm, little jokes, and ridicule.”
Which is all totally earned. I also hope Daniel makes fun of psychics and horoscope readers when presenting information debunking them, if he ever does.
McBloggenstein
Fair enough.
My only suggestion would be to keep this in mind when you watch it: Although Ben Stein’s personal beliefs is that the Judeo-Christian God exists, that’s not his point in “Expelled”. His only point in “Expelled”, his thesis, if you will, is “Why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?”
@Ty – Also, there’s that part where got smites the Philistines with hemorrhoids for stealing the ark. Smiting someone with hemorrhoids is funny.
LOL. I don’t remember that, thanks. Maybe the OT is god’s version of punk’d.
Ugh, expelled… Watching that movie made my brain want to cry. I’m very, very, VERY glad that when my boyfriend and I watched it, we had alternative subtitles we downloaded running at the same time, exposing the lies of the film. It made it bearable.
“Eric: Yes, but its quite pathetic when quite often, all you seem to do is post childish ridicule of the Christian religion.”
Childish beliefs deserve childish arguments. Atheists have tried well thought out and reasoned arguments against religion. However the circular logic that goes hand in hand with religion is an insurmountable defense when coupled hear no evil see no evil techniques.
I mean really. When you guys start cherry picking your favorite passages from the Bible, say “God said so”, and “well my heart tells me differently, and that’s a fact!”, no reasoned and intelligent debate will change your mind. And that is easier for you to resist and turn aside.
On the other hand, you get more offended by childish ridicule. You can’t sit idly by and say nothing as we make a well deserved mockery of your silly beliefs.
Probably because, deep down, that’s something that you can understand and agree with, and that’s more frightening than any reasonable argument that you can’t understand.
Well, it’s more “why aren’t we allowed to teach this in science class without first providing some scintilla of evidence?”, which is a rather different question.
He couldnt even get someone at the Catholic church to endorse it? No crackpot scientist or magazine? No one? Great!
@wintermute + Kemp:
… and of course the subtle point that darwinism => Hitler+Stalin.
… and also: science = evil conspiracy.
… and a lot of lies about the how the ID’ists were “persecuted”.
… and a bunch of lies about science and the theory of evolution.
Yes, how can we not take Ben Stein seriously.
@Eric (not Kemp)
In addition to the clips I’ve seen, I’ve read several reviews, good and bad. So I don’t agree that I’m not allowed to make any comment whatsoever on it. Rather than keep pointing out that I haven’t seen it yet, and therefore can make zero judgment about it, why don’t you refute my claims and tell us why it’s so good?
Yes, but you both were implying that Daniel was being anti Christian/creationist with this post. It was easier to reply to both of you with “Eric(s)”
Regarding this… It’s a BLOG, not the New York Times. If the author likes to use humor and sarcasm sometimes to make a point, then that’s just his personality, and I think in no way means he is rude or immature. Whether you like the approach or not has no bearing on the point’s validity.
@Kemp
I will keep that in mind of course, but I’m sure I won’t be able to ignore what trj just said.
“His only point in “Expelled”, his thesis, if you will, is “Why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?””
But we are talking about it. Again and again and again… There are tons of crazy “theories” out there with just as little evidence for them as ID, but we never talk about them. It’s just ID that we constantly have to debate. It’s only ID, among all the “theories”, that manages to get a court to assemble on its behalf.
As soon as some ID-supporter has an argument with even the tiniest bit of science in it we’ll be all over that. Just like we were with irreducible complexity. That has been discussed endlessly, by big names in biology.
This is all a propaganda war. Ben Stein and people need to claim that they are oppressed, because that’s the only way that they can explain that their writings can never be accepted by a peer-reviewed paper. They can’t let people understand that it is because they have no real scientific basis. So we talk and we talk and we talk…
And they bring up extremely spurious things like a proposed connection between Darwin and Hitler time and time again, and as soon as anyone complains about it people come out en-masse and claim that this is part of a persecution against Christians.
McBloggenstein
The stuff trj said is the crap I’m talking about.
“… and of course the subtle point that darwinism => Hitler+Stalin.”
Although Ben Stein does draw the obvious and irrefutable correlation between how Hitler USED evolution (incorrectly I might add) to further his own agenda, just as England used Christianity to further their agenda in Jerusalem during the Crusades, he also makes a distinct point of saying the opposite of what trj claims, that evolution doesn’t lead to Hitler. In fact, he says it at least twice. Just watch the movie.
“… and also: science = evil conspiracy.”
Never says this, not once, not even close.
“… and a lot of lies about the how the ID’ists were “persecuted”.”
If by lies you mean interviews with several professors and a reporter about what happened to them when they mentioned ID in their professions, then yea, Stein does that.
“… and a bunch of lies about science and the theory of evolution.”
Name one. And, trj, it’s going to be hard for you to come up with one, cause all Ben Stein does the entire movie is interview other people. It’s hard to argue with his statements about science and evolution when they come from other scientists.
The truth is, trj, you don’t take Ben Stein seriously because you’ve been told not to. If you were being an honest thinker, you’d welcome the challenge of open discussion to show your opponent exactly how wrong they are. Instead of doing this, you create the four massive strawmen in order to not discuss Ben’s main question.
Not even when he says this?
Cite
That doesn’t sound like he’s claiming there’s some direct link between science and Nazism?
And the Nazi eugenics program wasn’t in any way based on Darwinian evolution, but based on a system created out of whole cloth by Galton, which he called “social evolution” to make it sound more scientific. You could make a better case that he abused Newton’s theories when he had people shot, than that he abused Darwin’s theories.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Honestly, I can’t believe anyone is still willing to defend this turkey of a film.
wintermute
Although not in the movie, that is quite a quote from Stein! I think you left out the best part:
Wow. Just wow. A man that I once thought to be intelligent really thinks that science leads to killing people? It’s no different than the saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
If a powerful man uses his understanding of science to influence his pre existing racism, then if not for science, he would have found another reason to support his actions. Science is a discipline that constantly checks itself in an attempt to find the answers to our questions. If the argument is that because bad people manipulate what they have learned about science in order to commit genocide, that science is bad in some way, and should not be used as a way to find the true nature of the world, then how could we ever hope to further our civilization?
I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that what he said was like the gun analogy. I meant that the response to what he said would be the gun analogy.
@Eric Kemp
Blatantly false. I tend to use many methods, one of which is ridicule. I think you are just scrambling around for a way to insult me, but ridiculing those with ridiculous beliefs is not something I could possibly feel any shame for.
I’m not sure how you can pretend not to have something against the very concept of ridiculing christians when that is your basis for criticizing both Daniel and myself. I sense some hypocrisy there.. have you ever said out loud how ridiculous it is to think cows are holy? I bet you have. I bet right now you are wondering how the hell you could ever pretend you haven’t.
So you see, Eric Kemp, you ridicule other religions. I can’t see how you would not think that sacrificing blood from your penis to make the sun rise is ridiculous, and I can’t imagine you feeling the slightest compunction about ridiculing those who did. So you are just pretending, yet again.
You wish to be immune to ridicule, but are perfectly willing to ridicule others. This makes you a hypocrite. Enjoy your day.
Aor
Unfortunately, I never said what you quoted me as saying. Perhaps you are the one trying to decieve?
@Eric Kemp
Sorry wrong Eric.
See how easy it is for an honest person to admit a mistake?
Not that I would refrain from ridiculing you whenever I choose. This is the right of people in a free society. Nevertheless, I apologize for mistaking you for someone with a similar name.
@Eric (non-Kemp):
For the sake of your tender wee ego, Eric, do not visit Pharyngula.
You think Daniel is somehow insulting or rude? It’s odd how many people say that when their sacred cows get gored. We are happy to discuss matters with theists. But don’t expect us to see theism as anything but rank superstition.
Do you show respect to nouveau-Paganists? Conspiracy theorists? People who believe in the Timecube?
@Eric Kemp:
Young earth creationists deserve nothing more than ridicule. What is there to discuss with people who are indeed convinced that science–all of it–is nothing but a conspiracy? “Intelligent Design” creationists follow close on their heels. Many of them outright admit that ID is not science, but they’re happy to demand that schools teach a non-existent “controversy”.
Christianity itself gets just a smidgen more respect, I feel, because we recognize that it’s hard to break your cultural conditioning.
However–you’re not being fair. We consider all religions equally silly.
The principle behind “Expelled” isn’t “Why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?” It’s “Why won’t anyone let us teach creationism as science?” And the answer is “‘Cause it ain’t.”
The creators of that film didn’t just tell damnable lies about old dead guys–they recruited reputable scientists, interviewed them, and then edited the interviews to say the exact oppostie of what the scientists were saying. That’s why “Expelled” gets no respect: It’s dishonest from the first inch of film.
But then again, when it comes to dishonest argument, we see it all on the UF threads, don’t we?
Metro
“Young earth creationists deserve nothing more than ridicule. What is there to discuss with people who are indeed convinced that science–all of it–is nothing but a conspiracy?”
I know that you think this sentence makes you a logically superior thinker, and I know you think you’re being a good soldier in the PZ Myers brigade. But what it really shows is that you have no argument, and you must defend your worldview with insults and massive strawmen (YEC’s think science is a conspiracy? Give me a break). Someone who was truly confident in defending their worldview doesn’t need to resort to such tactics and would actually welcome open discussion instead of attempting to squelch it.
You’re just proving Stein’s point, that opposite thinking from evolution is being systematically and purposefully silenced by pretending that it shouldn’t be in the conversation, pretending that evolution is the ONLY answer. Really? Is that scientific, saying that evolution is the only answer? Or that for sure ID is not an answer? Can science really provide us with such positive and negative absolutes? Of course it can’t, and if you were honest, you’d admit it.
“You’re just proving Stein’s point, that opposite thinking from evolution is being systematically and purposefully silenced by pretending that it shouldn’t be in the conversation, pretending that evolution is the ONLY answer. ”
mark:What is the opposite thinking of evolution you are refering to? If you are refering to an intelligent designer, do you no the name of this intelligent designer? Also how do you know that the term shouldnt be Intelligent designers as in more than 1 god creating the universe?
Eric can you provide any proof of which religion this designer belongs to? Also if intelligent design should be taught in public schools dont you think students should now the specific name of the creator? Otherwise how do you know which specific god or group of gods are the intelligent designers?
Fixed that fore you.
There’s a huge amount of evidence in favour of evolution, from a dozen different disciplines, and not one iota against it, or in favour of any alternative. And the ICR (and their trained monkey, Ben Stein) think that evolution and ID should be involved in a dialogue of equals? That’s just not how science works.
When they come up with some reason why their ideas should be taken seriously, they will be. Otherwise, you’re making as much sense as complaining that geographers just point blank refuse to talk about the idea that the Earth might be flat…
Sorry, I meant the Discovery Institute, not the Institute for Creation Research. The ICR had nothing to do with Expelled.
Sorry folks for all of my misspellings.
Intelligent Design should not be in public schools because it does not meet the criteria of science. There is no test for its hypothesis (among other things) – which is part of the scientific method and what makes science science.
If I said I am a Christian because I believe Jesus existed but I think he was just a man and not God. Would you be okay with that? Would I be a Christian IYO? I would bet no because you have a standard as to what defines a true Christian – and that includes belief in the divinity of Jesus.
So just like I can say I’m a Christian, that doesn’t mean you accept me as a Christian – because there is an accepted definition of Christian that I do not meet – Intelligent Design does not meet the accepted definition of science. And should not be considered science, nor taught in SCIENCE classes.
It is really that simple. And it is why people go bug eyed over other people who refuse to see this. It is not science by definition of what science is.
(My first sentence above implies ID should not be taught in public school science classes, and is not meant to imply it can’t be discussed in a religion or civilization class or something related.)
@ Daniel
“By the way, I’m not ridiculing creationists or Christians in this post — I’m making fun of the creators of the movie and Ben Stein. Not sure how you applied that towards everyone.”
Because Kemp holds it up as some kind of “truth” because he identifies so closely with it, ridiculing the “truth” ridicules him. Is this a bad thing?
“All I have to say is, drop what you’re doing right now, go to your friendly neighborhood DVD renters and watch it TONIGHT! But seriously, it’s a really great movie that asks the question, “Why can’t we talk about Intelligence?” and shows Ben Stein attempting to get answers to that questions from various intellectuals around the world.”
“Someone who was truly confident in defending their worldview doesn’t need to resort to such tactics and would actually welcome open discussion instead of attempting to squelch it.”
But the issue *has* been discussed, and the overwhelming weight of evidence points to evolution by natural selection.
If another hyptothesis were to come around which explains speciation better than evolution does, then the self-correcting mechanisms of science will give it a fair hearing.
ID, however, is *not* that hypothesis. Pretending that there is even a controversy on this point is incorrect at best, deceitful at worst.
Too bad luminiferous aether proponents don’t have a few million bible-thumpers behind them to help manufacture a “controversy”.
@ John Charles If another hyptothesis were to come around which explains speciation better than evolution does, then the self-correcting mechanisms of science will give it a fair hearing.
ID, however, is *not* that hypothesis. Pretending that there is even a controversy on this point is incorrect at best, deceitful at worst.
To repeat my earlier comment, it doesn’t matter if ID is a great explanation or a whacked explanation. The more relevant issue IMO is that the hypothesis can not be tested, thus it is not science.
@Eric Kemp:
That’s rich, Mr. Kemp.
As to my statement that YEC types believe science is a conspiracy (you’ll note I didn’t include all ID types in that)–what else is the film about?
ID has been discussed and failed on its merits, or lack of them. It has no part in a science classroom until someone comes up with evidence to support the hypothesis.
Speaking of which–can we pick up our last little discussion where we left off yet? Any progress on the evidence issue? Or are we still at the “It-depends-what-you-call-evidence” stage?
Meanwhile, I’m so sorry that I’ve squelched and silenced you … oh, wait. That’s the one thing I seem to have been unable to do. Presumably your powerful truthiness is overwhelming my Pharynguloid radiation.
@Kemp:
I probably should’ve been more precise in my critique, so let me elaborate in the following.
Please. Throughout the movie, science is vilified by association to totalitarianism, suggested by the numerous not very subtle clips of nazis, the Berlin wall, etc. Towards the end of the movie, the role of “science” in eugenics is presented, and Stein even visits a Nazi death camp. WTF? What possible purpose does this serve in a movie about alleged suppression of academic freedom? The purpose, of course, is to taint science, and “Darwinism” in particular, by associating it with the ultimate boogieman.
My point is also well illustrated by Stein’s infamous off-movie statement: “[Stein talks about a family murdered in the holocaust] … that’s where science – in my opinion, this is just an opinion – that’s where science leads you. [...] Science leads you to killing people”.
What I mean by “evil conspiracy” is that the movie paints the scientific establishment as a close-knit elite, suppressing academic freedom and the “reasonable” ideas of ID. This is the premise of the entire movie.
If you dig deeper into these cases, you’ll find that they were “expelled” for reasons such as: the tenure expired; didin’t produce any research; or my favorite: the guy who wasn’t even associated with the faculty from which he was supposedly expelled.
You should head on over to http://www.expelledexposed.com and find some real examples of scientist and teachers who were actually expelled, due to political suppression.
Well, how about the “scientific” calculation of life beginning, involving 250 slot machines? Or representing the panspermia theory as a repesentative scientific theory? (BTW, kind of funny that Stein makes fun of the idea of aliens creating life on Earth, as this is one of the possible agents of creation in ID – at least officialy; we all know ID’ers really ascribe the origin of life to God).
Actually this point was mostly another way of stating my point #2. Science is generally portraied in a dishonest way, suggesting scientists must protect the Darwinian credo because of the threat ID and openness poses to it. “The Darwinian Establishment” is working against freedom of speech which hundreds of thousand of Americans gave their lives to defend (cut to Stein walking through a graveyard).
I have now explained my “strawmen” and I encourage you to dismantle my explanations.
This movie is simply fundamentally dishonest. And I have indeed wathced it. As for “open discussion”, do you really think this movie encourages such a thing?
The user comments I’ve just read are funnier and more enlightening than all the amazon reviews I read.
I despise the monetary system but that doesn’t discount the fact that Stein is a knowledgeable economist.
I’m just going to pretend that the guy who made this film is a different Stein.
Mark Bey
“Eric can you provide any proof of which religion this designer belongs to? Also if intelligent design should be taught in public schools dont you think students should now the specific name of the creator? Otherwise how do you know which specific god or group of gods are the intelligent designers?”
You’re loading up on the strawmen and red herring fallacies.
To correct your strawman: I never said ID should be taught in public schools. Nor did I say this was the point of “Expelled”. Stein’s question of “Why aren’t we talking about it?” is directed at the academic/scientific community at large. As in, why isn’t there an open and free discussion about the origins of this Earth? Why squelch?
To correct your red herring: When someone argues/mentions ID and the first thing you respond with is, “Yea, well which designer!?” is distracting from the original statement. ID guys don’t care “which” intelligent designer. The ID community consists of scientists from many different religions and backgrounds. And “which” intelligent designer doesn’t even need to be talked about when talking to an atheist. Any intelligent designer will destroy your atheism just the same as the next.
But you’re right, I shouldn’t have used the word “opposite”, I should have said “opposing”. My point is that scientific theories and experiments by themselves don’t make absolute statements. Science doesn’t PROVE anything, it just provides evidence for some things, and against other things. For these atheists to say that the evidence shows that ID “is not” the answer, is to give more power to the evidence than it has by itself. That is, they interpret the scientic evidence for evolution as absolute because they want it to be, not because the evidence actually supports that position. Making positive or negative absolute statements in regards to scientific inquiry adds metaphysical conclusions to scientific evidence and takes the evidence to heights it cannot go by itself.
Metro
“ID has been discussed and failed on its merits, or lack of them. It has no part in a science classroom until someone comes up with evidence to support the hypothesis.”
The problem with this is that PZ Myers and his followers believe that they have the monopoly on the definition of science. You decided what the definition is, so you get to decide what does and doesn’t fit into it. ID doesn’t fit into your definition of science, therefore it’s not science. It’s all very convenient for you.
Now, what you’re going to come back with, because I’ve heard a hundred times, is that the definition of science just is, there is no other definition. This is where you un-selfreflectiveness makes arguing with you pointless. Your definition of science includes the presuppositions that empiricism CANNOT measure the supernatural and that empiricism is the only true way to knowledge. If it’s not empirically verifiable, we can’t know it. These are two beliefs that science cannot verify, so you must presuppose them.
It is no surprise then, that a theory that leaves room for the supernatural doesn’t fit your definition of science. Only the ignorance of your own presuppositions makes you believe that you have “the truth”.
As far as arguing empirical evidence with you, we left off with me saying that there is no point. Evidence does not stand alone. Evidence must be interpreted. You interpret evidence through your presuppositions, I interpret evidence through mine. The only worthwile conversation is about the presuppositions that you and I hold, and which presupposition better explains the world around us.
If you’d like to discuss that, I’m more than willing.
@Kemp
“This is where you un-selfreflectiveness makes arguing with you pointless.”
Honestly Eric try and sit back and understand what you are saying. If you wish to state that your belief in your god is just based on faith then do so. I really don’t understand why you have to try and justify your views. It’s obvious that faith underlines your beliefs so why not just say it?
@ Eric Kemp
Your definition of science includes the presuppositions that empiricism CANNOT measure the supernatural and that empiricism is the only true way to knowledge.
I don’t think it is in the scope of science to say empiricism is the only way to knowledge. Some atheists may say that but I don’t think science speaks to that at all. Science and atheism are not synonymous. Philosophy is a whole branch of knowledge that is widely accepted, for example.
I don’t see why you would want to infiltrate the definition of science with unverifiable claims. Seriously, what is the big deal? Why can’t science be science and religion be religion, why do you need to change it? It seems dishonest. Just a way to get your worldview accepted. A method to convert subversively. It’s not like anyone is trying to change the definition of science on you, it is what it is. It is you who are trying to change the definition of science to suit your purposes.
@Kemp
Ugh.. Science is not an answer, nor does it provide evidence. Science is a PROCESS. A PROCESS.
The evidence is already there. Science just finds it and uses it to find answers.
The only reason people might have a bias for a PROCESS is because it has proven itself to be the best way to find answers.
Do you have any good reasons why anyone would want to support the idea of evolution if there wasn’t any evidence for it? Seriously think about this.
If you can’t come up with any good reasons, it is because you have it backwards. Evolution is supported because there is more evidence for it than any other explanation. Do you deny that?
@Metro
What the heck is that Time Cube stuff? Where’d you find that? It is insanity!
Eric Kemp said:
I find comments like this amusing. Do you really think we “follow” PZ Myers like you “follow” Jesus? We don’t think like you think — we don’t have prophets and infallible figures. We have smart people who we often agree with and respectfully disagree with. But we don’t follow people as god, like Christians follow Jesus of Nazareth as god.
@ eric
” ID guys don’t care “which” intelligent designer. The ID community consists of scientists from many different religions and backgrounds. And “which” intelligent designer doesn’t even need to be talked about when talking to an atheist. Any intelligent designer will destroy your atheism just the same as the next.”
mark: Are you serious are you telling me that Jehova witnesses, catholics, seventh day adventist or any of the other silly christian denominations who narrow mindely believe that god will only let thier particular religion or denomination into heaven dont care which particular religion or denomination the intelligent designer(s) belong to? Because if they are worshiping or believe in the wrong designer that would mean they burn in hell forever.
How valid can the idea of intelligent design be, if we dont even know what the designer is called or who the designer is.
If you are going to insist that there is an intelligent designer, or that there intelligent design gives answers about the origins of life then I think it is important to identity who the intelligent designer is.
Are you telling me that the identity of the designer wouldnt be important if you are a catholic, jehova witness or calvinist who believes that only their sect will go to heaven?
I do not understand how you could make such a statement because I would think if you are one of the intellectually bankrupt retards who believes that god will only allow their sect/religion into heaven who the intelligent designer was would make all the difference in the world.
Say there is a mormon lurker reading this thread right dont you think that who the designer is would make a difference?
“doesn’t PROVE anything, it just provides evidence for some things, and against other things. For these atheists to say that the evidence shows that ID “is not” the answer, is to give more power to the evidence than it has by itself. That is, they interpret the scientic evidence for evolution as absolute because they want it to be, not because the evidence actually supports that position.”
mark: Do you have evidence that Id is the answer, if so please break your evidence down. Also please break us down with some peer reviewed articles about intelligent design if you will.
“As far as arguing empirical evidence with you, we left off with me saying that there is no point. Evidence does not stand alone. Evidence must be interpreted. You interpret evidence through your presuppositions, I interpret evidence through mine. The only worthwile conversation is about the presuppositions that you and I hold, and which presupposition better explains the world around us. ”
mark: Eric please explain clearly what makes your non empirical evidence for the existence of god any more valid than any other religion. The difference between the presuppositions of atheist and christians is this yours says that anyone who does not believe the same presupposition that you do is going to hell.
But your presuppostion gets even sicker and more retarded because if implies that all other religious presuppostions are wrong and anyone who believes in the wrong one will burn in hell forever.
And Kemp continues with “believe that they have the monopoly on the definition of science. You decided what the definition is, so you get to decide what does and doesn’t fit into it.”
This is a pretty stereotypical thing to say. When they can prove that ID is science, they say that science must be redefined as something else to fit ID-”theory” into it.
But, like it or not Kemp, science is well-defined. We have an understanding and an agreement of what science is. We have this agreement because the process of science is what has proved the best way of finding answers.
If you can somehow prove that there is another process that provides more answers than the scientific process, then your process can most definitely be used in combination with or in addition to the scientific method.
And if you can come up with some way to “measure the supernatural” I promise you that scientists will be ecstatic. Studies of deities will become a whole new branch of science.
But until there is one or the other provided, science remains what science is. We do not alter the definition of science for any of the other “theories” that fail to live up to scientific standards. If we did science would become totally useless in providing anything testable and repeatable; it would become nothing but a collection of guesses.
Yes, science doesn’t contain the supernatural by definition, because so far we have only been able to observe, test and measure what we call the natural world. Science IS a study of the natural world, no matter what you think of that. This isn’t a definition that is made to somehow suppress ID, it’s just how things have to be for it to actually work.
When we use a handful of different scientific disciplines to make the integrated circuits used in your computer, we must presuppose that things work in a consistent, observable manner.
We COULD argue that there might be tiny, invisible demons running around in the transistors, pushing the electrons around merely making it seem like they obey the laws of physics as we understand them, and that we should account for that. But until we can somehow measure or show that there actually are any such demons it is pointless to speculate about it, instead we suppose that physics works without demons.
When someone can point at the demons, or an unmistakable sign that they are there, THEN we will start discussing them in earnest.
Daniel wrote’
“I find comments like this amusing. Do you really think we “follow” PZ Myers like you “follow” Jesus? We don’t think like you think — we don’t have prophets and infallible figures. We have smart people who we often agree with and respectfully disagree with. But we don’t follow people as god, like Christians follow Jesus of Nazareth as god.”
Actually, some people do ( they follow Richard Dawkins too) It’s human nature. They do it for the same reasons that we used to quote Jesus and Paul too; it is someone who authoritatively speaks for them. We respectfully disagree with them? Unless we have something remotely close to their PHD degrees how can we “respectfully disagree”?
Haven’t seen Ben’s movie, but if academic debate is the real subject then there IS something there. I certainly hope people don’t think scientists are all open-minded, only “going where the truth leads” types of people. Human nature demonstrates that we tend to gravitate to those who agree with us and naturally oppose (not just disagree with) those who think otherwise.
The trouble with ID is that it is always tied to religion. Why would a Designer have to have a name? Why is it assumed that such a being is much more mindful of us than we are of ants? Wouldn’t a designer be beyond our comprehension and knowing? And if he is, who cares? Not me. It wouldn’t bother me if some of the evidence was introduced into classroom debate, if there is someone who is championing the cause who doesn’t belong to a religious group. Don’t know that there is.
Love your post Daniel, it gets really good and interesting debate. Keep up the good work!
@ william schmitt
“The trouble with ID is that it is always tied to religion. Why would a Designer have to have a name? Why is it assumed that such a being is much more mindful of us than we are of ants? Wouldn’t a designer be beyond our comprehension and knowing? And if he is, who cares?”
mark: If you dont know who the designer is then how do you know there is a designer? How would you know that there isnt more than one designer.
If you have evidence of a designer, then shouldnt that evidence shed light on who this designer is.
As to who cares who the designer is, if like I said before you are one of those retarded theist that believe only christians, christians from different sects,muslims or jews are going to escape hell then it matter.
If you are a muslim and believe in the Islamic flavor of god then it would make a difference. A muslim who believes in a christian intelligent designer will burn in hell according to that muslims own theology. So as long as theist believe in the mythology of only thier special sect/religion escaping eternal hell then I think it does matter if anyone wants to advance the fiction that is ID.
Individual scientists have their biases, of course, but science as a whole has gotten very good at filtering those biases out.
And, as a rule, the people who go into science are the people who actually seek out opposing view points and enjoy debating the merits of different ideas, and are willing to change their minds when presented with good arguments. People who fit your stereotype of wanting to live in an echo chamber are simply ill-equipped to do science.
The short answer is that the academic debate that Stein and co want happened 150 years ago, and resulted in scientists utterly abandoning their previously-held ideas about the origins of life, and supporting evolution, due to the massive strength of the evidence. And, in the meantime, the evidence has only become stronger.
Should we also have an academic debate about the Zeus theory of lightning formation? That’s pretty much exactly what the creationists are asking for.
Mark Bey
“Are you serious are you telling me that Jehova witnesses, catholics, seventh day adventist or any of the other silly christian denominations who narrow mindely believe that god will only let thier particular religion or denomination into heaven dont care which particular religion or denomination the intelligent designer(s) belong to?”
I’m sorry brother, but you really gotta pay attention. The only person mentioning denominations and cults is you. When I say “ID community” I’m talking about scientists who do their work regardless of religious affiliation, if they even have one. I’m sure denominations want it to be “their” God, however, ID scientists couldn’t care less.
“How valid can the idea of intelligent design be, if we dont even know what the designer is called or who the designer is. ”
Good question. But ID, by itself, doesn’t care. But, as a Christian, I’ll of course tell you why the Biblical God has proved Himself to me.
“If you are going to insist that there is an intelligent designer, or that there intelligent design gives answers about the origins of life then I think it is important to identity who the intelligent designer is.”
I agree with you, however the ID community, as in the scientists who are doing science on the area of Intelligent Design, don’t care, it’s besides the point and outside of their scope.
“Are you telling me that the identity of the designer wouldnt be important if you are a catholic, jehova witness or calvinist who believes that only their sect will go to heaven?”
That you lumped these three together points to the fact that you don’t know much about religions and their definitions. You’re attempting to compare apples to oranges. ID scientists and the theology of different denominations don’t belong in the same conversation together.
The bottom line is Mark, I never said that individual adherants to different sects, denominations and cults wouldn’t care. I said ID scientists don’t care. And they don’t.
“The difference between the presuppositions of atheist and christians is this yours says that anyone who does not believe the same presupposition that you do is going to hell.”
Mark, you’re alittle bit out of your comfort zone here. In order to explain I want to ask you a question, and all I want is an honest answer. How do you know that the supernatural realm doesn’t exist? Put another way, how do you know that only matter exists?
Zabimaru
“Yes, science doesn’t contain the supernatural by definition, because so far we have only been able to observe, test and measure what we call the natural world.”
Let me ask you a question. Could you do a scientific experiment that proves that science could not measure the supernatural? Put another way, can you give me empirical evidence for the position that empirical study cannot show evidence of the supernatural?
The point is that saying that science can’t include the supernatural is irrational because science can’t tell you that science can’t include the supernatural. You’ve decided, absent of empirical evidence because there can’t be any, that science can’t give evidence of the supernatural. You’ve decided what science can and cannot do using circular reasoning.
We don’t know. Do you know it exists?
Let’s keep this simple. Yes or no, and why…
I find it telling that ID, touting an intelligent creator of life, vehemently refuses to even consider what this supposed creator is.
I have never, ever heard of any branch of science that deliberately refuses to even try to explain the fundamental mechanisms it concerns itself with. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Yet, for some reason, this is a cornerstone of the ID tenets.
Kemp, how do you know that 14 supernatural realms don’t exist? Or 903? How do you know Wiccans aren’t right? How do you know that the universe wasn’t created 9 seconds ago and all your memories created along with it? How do you know that Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown didn’t create the world in a crack fueled sex frenzy in 1998?
Drop the mystical mumbo jumbo. You only use it to obscure issues rather than deal with the conflicts within your belief system.
Kemp:
“Let me ask you a question. Could you do a scientific experiment that proves that science could not measure the supernatural? Put another way, can you give me empirical evidence for the position that empirical study cannot show evidence of the supernatural?”
“You’ve decided what science can and cannot do using circular reasoning.”
But what I’m trying to say is that we have a whole range of ways to measure things. We can measure things like electromagnetic waves, radioactive particles, mass, acceleration, relative velocity and so on. None of those ways of measuring things detects something that alters the natural order of things; things seem to work in a consistent and predictable manner without any hint of a supernatural entity or world altering that.
That is not based on circular reasoning, it is simply the way things are. If we manage to measure something that fiddles with the decay rate of a radioactive substance or something that rearranges the genome, then we will know that there is something out there that we at present have no natural explanation for. Then we can look for it and attempt to “do science on it.”
Until we have any evidence for something, direct or indirect, it’s pretty useless to try though. That isn’t science rejecting the possibility of the supernatural, it’s just how things work. We can come up with a thousand things that MIGHT be true, but we have no way whatsoever to test those things unless they have some measurable effect.
When there is something that we can’t explain we say “we don’t know why this is the way it is” and we investigate. We don’t assume that it has a supernatural, unmeasurable cause and call it a day. That’s the way things worked in the days before modern science, when we assumed that lightning came from the mighty god Thor (I’m Scandinavian) and didn’t investigate further since we had an explanation.
Nowadays we hold of until we find an explanation that we can test and measure, instead of assuming that it is a supernatural, unexplainable entity that does it. That is why we now know how lightning is formed.
If you can come up with a way to test something that has no noticeable effect on our world, then I guess I’m wrong. But so far we have only been able to test those things that can be observed in some way.
That isn’t because science has decided that the supernatural doesn’t exist, it is simply a consequence of our inability to do any sort of meaningful prediction about things we can’t observe. That isn’t a definition or circular logic, it is how things actually are until someone can show otherwise.
I don’t know if there is something untestable out there. I don’t know if we’ll be able to measure and observe more things in the future (but we probably will). I don’t know if there is a teapot between the Earth and Mars, disrupting our scientific efforts with its caffeine rays.
Until we have at least some indication towards any of it, it’s useless to speculate. We can talk endlessly about the existence and nature of creators, supernatural realms, alien visitations or whatever seems interesting over a glass of beer. But it has nothing to do with science until science can detect it.
“The supernatural” is defined as “things that science can’t study”. If we could measure its interaction with the real world, it could be a valid field of scientific study, and thus part of “nature” as defined by both methodological and ontological naturalism.
Generally, things that stay in the “supernatural” column are things whose supporters insist there cannot possibly be any evidence for. Because otherwise they’d have to face the fact that there’s no evidence for them.
If, one day, someone invents a God-o-scope and uses it to compare the power of various deities (in microThors, naturally), then gods will no longer be “supernatural”, and we’ll be able to have a meaningful scientific discussion about them. Until then: “supernatural” is synonymous with “no evidence”.
@Eric Kemp
I can think of a few ways to justify YEC:
A) God purposefully made the 6000 year old universe look like it was 14 billion years old to screw with us.
B) All scientists are mentally deranged. Every single one of the millions of scientists in various fields such as nuclear physics, geology, cosmology, biology — all of them have a very peculiar mental illness that causes them to misinterpret sensory data. But here’s the real kicker. Their derangements are convergent — they all suffer from the exact same delusions.
C) All scientists are liars and are involved in a massive cover up to preserve their cushy jobs.
I’ll admit I’ve seen (A) once or twice. I may have seen (B) once or twice, but certainly not articulately formulated — making the claim is really evidence of one’s OWN derangement.
But I’ve seen (C) quite often. So yes, Eric, YECs think science is a conspiracy. That is really the only meaningful way to reconcile their beliefs with the facts at hand, and it is in fact what a lot of YECs say themselves when asked.
Eric — we’ve done this a thousand times already. YOU are making the positive claim (“God exists” roughly). It is incumbent upon YOU to provide reasons for believing that. And your Kalam argument privileges are revoked. I’m sick of that one.
Also, if I could concoct a cosmological model that did not invoke an intelligent designer, would you consider my model even if there was no evidence to back it up? I’m honestly curious about this. What you seem to be saying is that since we can’t rule out the existence of God, we have to take the idea seriously. What about the other infinities of things we can’t rule out? Do we have to take them ALL seriously?
“If, one day, someone invents a God-o-scope and uses it to compare the power of various deities (in microThors, naturally)”
I think they should be measured in Timecubes.
TimeCube can measure four gods in one day.
Re: God being supernatural…
Let’s break this down a bit. The claim that “god exists” is not, in itself a supernatural claim, any more than the claim that “unicorns exist” is a supernatural claim.
For example, you can claim that “God exists, and people who worship him are immune to poison”. This is a natural claim, and we can investigate it with science. You can claim that “god exists and he talks to me”. This is also a natural claim, and we can study the brain activity during such a conversation to see what’s going on. We can use science to say whether or not such a god exists.
On the other hand, if you claim that “god exists, and it’s impossible to tell the difference between a universe in which god exists and one in which he doesn’t”, that is a supernatural claim, and science is (a priori) eliminated from being a useful tool to determine the truth of the claim.
If you believe that it’s possible to tell whether or not god exists, then you’re making a natural claim, and science can (at least potentially) investigate that claim and determine whether or not it’s true. If you believe that science cannot determine whether or not God exists, then you’re making a supernatural claim, saying that god’s presence or absence has absolutely no effect on the observable universe.
So, Eric Kemp: Do you believe that it’s potentially possible to know whether or not god exists?
@ eric
Me and Eric Kemp have an exchange going on that I believe needs clarification. So I copied and pasted the original statements that has generated this back and forth.
Eric :”” ID guys don’t care “which” intelligent designer. The ID community consists of scientists from many different religions and backgrounds. And “which” intelligent designer doesn’t even need to be talked about when talking to an atheist. Any intelligent designer will destroy your atheism just the same as the next.”
Mark :“Are you serious are you telling me that Jehova witnesses, catholics, seventh day adventist or any of the other silly christian denominations who narrow mindely believe that god will only let thier particular religion or denomination into heaven dont care which particular religion or denomination the intelligent designer(s) belong to?”
Eric :I’m sorry brother, but you really gotta pay attention. The only person mentioning denominations and cults is you. When I say “ID community” I’m talking about scientists who do their work regardless of religious affiliation, if they even have one. I’m sure denominations want it to be “their” God, however, ID scientists couldn’t care less.
Mark r: First of all what cults have I mentioned. If you think Jehova Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist and Catholics belong to cults I would agree with you. But I also believe that most christians belongs to cults. All religions are cults as far as Im concerned.
But to be even clearer I would also say that anyone who believes that a book (religion) that claims an all powerful and loving god would drown thousands of innocent babies (Noahs flood), give instructions on how to sell ones daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11), hold all future humans responsible for the behavior of adam and eve who lived thousands of years ago belong to a cult as well.
Anyone who believes in talking snakes or in either one of two different creation stories in the bible pretty much qualifies as a cult member in my opinion. What is your deffinition of a cult and why dosent your beliefs qualify as a cult?
Because Im willing to bet that I could apply your own deffinition of cult to your own beliefs.
mark: “How valid can the idea of intelligent design be, if we dont even know what the designer is called or who the designer is. ”
Eric:Good question.” But ID, by itself, doesn’t care. But, as a Christian, I’ll of course tell you why the Biblical God has proved Himself to me.”
mark: Exactly how did “the biblical God” prove himself to you did he speak in english, french russian. What process did “the biblical god” use to prove himself to you did he make you feel all good and tingling inside when you closed your eyes and raised your hands to the heavens. My problem with your statement that god proved himself to you is this, anyone follower of any religion can claim that god has proved himself that individual.
mark:“If you are going to insist that there is an intelligent designer, or that there intelligent design gives answers about the origins of life then I think it is important to identity who the intelligent designer is.”
Eric:I agree with you, however the ID community, as in the scientists who are doing science on the area of Intelligent Design, don’t care, it’s besides the point and outside of their scope.
mark: You keep insisting that intelligent design is science could you tell me how any of that science is being tested. Just point us to the way of a couple of peer reviewed articles if you dont mind then we can get down to analyzing intelligent design.
mark:“Are you telling me that the identity of the designer wouldnt be important if you are a catholic, jehova witness or calvinist who believes that only their sect will go to heaven?”
Eric:That you lumped these three together points to the fact that you don’t know much about religions and their definitions. You’re attempting to compare apples to oranges. ID scientists and the theology of different denominations don’t belong in the same conversation together.
mark: You can say whatever you want the fact is this, if you have scientist studying Id who are from competing religious traditions I would think it does matter who the intelligent designer is especially since believing in the wrong designer will lead you to an eternity of suffering. . If you cant Identify who the intelligent designer is then how do you know that their is a designer? Thats is a logical question that deserves an answer.
mark: “The difference between the presuppositions of atheist and christians is this yours says that anyone who does not believe the same presupposition that you do is going to hell.”
Eric: Mark, you’re alittle bit out of your comfort zone here. In order to explain I want to ask you a question, and all I want is an honest answer. How do you know that the supernatural realm doesn’t exist? Put another way, how do you know that only matter exists?
mark: I dont know that the suppernatural realm doesnt exist. I do know the no christian I have personally come across has ever demonstrated any proof of any supernatural realm to me. In fact I have found that all christian examples of proof for gods existence is based stricltly on emotion and faith. Faith is not science. The fact is this you and all other christians use the same type of methadology to prove the supernatural as any other religion I have come across period. The bible is just as ridicilous as the Koran or the Torah.
Also I get the impression that you are questioning my intelligence or you are trying to place yourself above me somehow. All I have to say is this, which one of these two people is promoting ignorance someone who believes in talking snakes without a shred of evidence or somone who says I have never seen a snake talk and I wont believe it until I can see it or someone proves it?
I don’t know that I’ve seen anyone mention The Wedge Strategy on Daniel’s blog before. If the term isn’t familiar to you, I encourage you to read this.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Long-Term Goals
-To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
-To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
-To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
Read the whole thing.
As to the discussion of “which God”…. in light of the DI goals, it is completely relevant to ask that question. They obviously have some God in mind because it is that version of God that will define their “religious, cultural, moral and political life”.
@wintermute:
I agree with your points, but Eric’s already gone and begged that question by assuming that God is hiding from us, at least from what sense I can make of what he’s saying.
Right now I’m just wondering how he gets around the fact that his arguments against materialism are cracker jack arguments for Hinduist, Buddhist, Islamic, Helenic, ancient Egyptian, and Norse cosmologies. After all, he can’t DISPROVE those. Why shouldn’t we be talking about them? And once we’re done with those, I figure I can make a career out of making up more stuff for people to talk about. As it turns out, all I need for my ideas to be credible is a complete lack of evidence either for or against them.
By the way, my hypothesis is that Ben Stein made this movie to try to galvanize the religious right that has been so good to his party. I don’t think he’s sincere in endorsing creationism except as a callous ploy. I don’t have any evidence (beyond the fact that he’s obviously smarter than your average IDiot), but I expect to be taken totally seriously. Seriously.
dan l” Right now I’m just wondering how he gets around the fact that his arguments against materialism are cracker jack arguments for Hinduist, Buddhist, Islamic, Helenic, ancient Egyptian, and Norse cosmologies. After all, he can’t DISPROVE those. Why shouldn’t we be talking about them? ”
mark: The fact is this you and all other christians use the same type of methadology to prove the supernatural as any other religion I have come across period. The bible is just as ridicilous as the Koran or the Torah.
mark : This is exactly my same point that I made to him and that I make to all believers. The only thing is when you asked believers this question they pretend they have forgotten how to read.
Also when I ask them exactly why would a loving christian/jewish/muslim god allow lies (other religions and scriptures) to exist they again pretend they cant read.
Its ok for believers (christians for example) to believe in talking snakes but believers of different religions cant have thier ridiculous and extrodinary beliefs. Funny how that works.
Sorry bout my spelling folks.
@markbey:
I’d hate to offend him, but I don’t think it’s worth getting worked up at all about Kemp. The best he can do is “you can’t disprove it!” followed by the Kalam argument, even though he’s been stuffed numerous times on both those topics. Every time I’ve ever argued with him, it’s pretty much ended up with me insisting he actually buy some books and learn something about the scientific method and the philosophy behind it before he shoots his mouth off.
And of course, he’s back a week later: “you can’t prove it! Also, everything that exists needs a creator. I’m not begging the question! You’re begging the question! Lalalalalalala!” That last with his fingers wedged squarely in his ears.
Eric Kemp said:
No Eric, I’m fairly sure it’s one of the several things you’ve never done, in fact. Or do you have a link to the thread you posted that bit of information in.
So … we’re waiting.
Until we get around to that, why don’t you define what you consider evidence? (Something else you haven’t done).
But if that’s still too much for you, why not enthrall us all with your particular definition of science, seeing as you don’t agree with the commonly accepted definition? As witness here:
So, any answers yet? Or should I expect another “It depends what the definition of ‘is’ is” post?
No need to hurry though. The last thing I expect from you is good faith or good sense.
My assumption is that Kemp only talks here in order to bring traffic to his blog. Hopefully that doesn’t work, it would be a shame to see a blowhard rewarded.
Pretty much. Perhaps why I haven’t gotten an answer to this exchange:
——
Kemp: “How do you know that the supernatural realm doesn’t exist?”
Me: We don’t know. Do you know it exists? Let’s keep this simple. Yes or no, and why…
——-
An incredibly straightforward question, I think. It should be easy for him to answer.
Mark Bey
“If you think Jehova Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist and Catholics belong to cults I would agree with you. But I also believe that most christians belongs to cults. All religions are cults as far as Im concerned.”
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what the word “cult” is defined as. Sure, you could call anything you want a “cult”, but that doesn’t mean it fits the academic/accepted definition of the word. A cult is defined as that which deviates from the basic tenets of Orthodox Christianity. This topic is easily researchable over the internet.
“What is your deffinition [sic] of a cult and why dosent [soc] your beliefs qualify as a cult?”
It’s not my definition. The word “cult” is just what Christianity has used for a long time to describe systems of belief that claim to be “Christian” but are actually far from it on a very basic level.
“My problem with your statement that god proved himself to you is this, anyone follower of any religion can claim that god has proved himself that individual.”
You’re right, anyone can say it and you would never know the difference. I get that. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that it very well could be true. Right? And yes, I had a personal, supernatural experience with God. I don’t expect to prove that to you, but you asked, so I answered.
“Just point us to the way of a couple of peer reviewed articles if you dont mind then we can get down to analyzing intelligent design.”
But wait, I thought that ID guys weren’t doing science so they can’t get peer reviewed. Which one is it? Do they need to be peer reviewed to be “science” or can they not be deemed science because they’re not peer reviewed? You can’t have it both ways. Also, can you please show me a definition of the word “science” that includes the necessity of peer review?
I was under the impression that science was merely the systematic study of the natural world.
“If you cant Identify who the intelligent designer is then how do you know that their is a designer? Thats is a logical question that deserves an answer.”
You’re right, that is a logical question, you’re just not accepting my answer. Again, wether they belong to a denomination, cult or neither, the individual scientist will reconcile this question within their own religious or non-religious framework on a personal level. But to the ID community itself, to the science being studied by the ID scientists, the question of “Which intelligent designer?” doesn’t matter and is outside of the scope of the research.
“I do know the no christian I have personally come across has ever demonstrated any proof of any supernatural realm to me.”
This is exactly the point of asking the question. Do you find it rational to demand empirical proof of the supernatural? Is this the only way that the supernatural can be proved, through scientific inquiry?
“The bible is just as ridicilous as the Koran or the Torah.”
Um, the Bible includes the Torah.
“Also I get the impression that you are questioning my intelligence or you are trying to place yourself above me somehow.”
Not at all, I’m no better than anyone. I’m merely trying to point out that perhaps you shouldn’t treat your opinion as fact, especially when you’re not as educated in a certain area. For instance the use of the word “cult” and the Torah being separate from the Bible.
“All I have to say is this, which one of these two people is promoting ignorance someone who believes in talking snakes without a shred of evidence or somone who says I have never seen a snake talk and I wont believe it until I can see it or someone proves it?”
So your criteria for believing in something is if you can see it and prove it?
@ eric thank you for your response give me a few minutes and Ill get back to you. Mark
@ eric
eric:” A cult is defined as that which deviates from the basic tenets of Orthodox Christianity. This topic is easily researchable over the internet. ”
mark: Eric what exactly is orthodox christianity?
1) Exactly how would you know if something wasnt othodox christianity?
2) For example would you consider Catholics, Jehova Witness, Seventh Day Adventist?
3) Would you give me a few other examples of somewhat popular or popular examples of sects that are not orthodox christian. Ill respond to your other points later. Thank you
@ eric
mark: I meant to ask what are the basic tenets of orthodox christianity.
@Kemp
cult noun 1 a a system of religious belief; b the sect of people following such a system. 2 a an unorthodox or false religion; b the people adhering to such a system. 3 an especially extravagant admiration for a person, idea, etc. 4 something which is popular and regarded as particularly significant by a certain group of people: a fashion, craze or fad. cultic or cultish adj. cultism
@ eric
mark:“If you cant Identify who the intelligent designer is then how do you know that their is a designer? Thats is a logical question that deserves an answer.”
eric:You’re right, that is a logical question, you’re just not accepting my answer. Again, wether they belong to a denomination, cult or neither, the individual scientist will reconcile this question within their own religious or non-religious framework on a personal level. But to the ID community itself, to the science being studied by the ID scientists, the question of “Which intelligent designer?” doesn’t matter and is outside of the scope of the research.
mark: Ok Now I feel like you are playing games with me to try to avoid the fact that intelligent design is religious based and not scientific. Also what do you mean by science what science exactly is the ID community studying?
mark:“My problem with your statement that god proved himself to you is this, anyone follower of any religion can claim that god has proved himself that individual.”
Eric:”You’re right, anyone can say it and you would never know the difference. I get that. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that it very well could be true. Right? And yes, I had a personal, supernatural experience with God. I don’t expect to prove that to you, but you asked, so I answered.”
mark: Your statement is a subjective one that can not be tested by sources other than yourself. Also your statement does not address the fact that what you believe could very well be untrue. Using your type reasoning the invisible pink unicorn could actually exist. I could say that I had a supernatural expierence and the invisible pink unicorn revealed himself to me during this expierence. Also one could argue for any type of supernatural belief they hold using your argument.
I know people who are muslims who were raised as christians who never had a supernatural expierence with god until they switched from the christian god you claim exist?
So what is it, you are saying that would actually convince someone who holds non christian religious beliefs that your christian is the one true god. Anything you could say would be based on no more than emotion.
Your offered no proof for those of us who dont hold religious beliefs that your god exist.
So, Judaism, Protestant Christianity, atheism and lawn tennis are all cults?
Anything that isn’t the capital-O Orthodox church is a cult? Somehow I doubt that is a commonly accepted definition.
@ eric
Mark:”“I do know the no christian I have personally come across has ever demonstrated any proof of any supernatural realm to me.”
eric:This is exactly the point of asking the question. Do you find it rational to demand empirical proof of the supernatural? Is this the only way that the supernatural can be proved, through scientific inquiry?
mark: A believer in Thor could use this exact same argument so what we are left with is your personal biased and subjective belief in a supernatural bieng that many folks do not accept. So using your argument how would you prove the existence of your god versus another non christian concept of god.
Using your argument a muslims, Jew or hindus, supernatural expierence is just as valid to him as your is to you. How would I know if a muslim who told me he had a supernatural expierence actually had one or not. Using your logic there is no way I could prove that scientology is not the word of god.
Lastly If Intelligent Design is based on the belief that god is the designer of all life on earth do you find it rational or even honest to call intelligent design science if you have no empirical proof for the existence of god in the first place?
Hellooooo? Eriiiiic?
Three questions? I posted them earlier? Maybe you didn’t spot them or something …
1) How did the Biblical God prove Himself to you? You did say you’d tell us.
2) What do you consider to be valid evidence?
3) Since you don’t like the accepted definition of science, what’s your alternative definition?
Any answers yet?
We’re waaaaiting. Though I’m sure none of us are holding our breaths.
Peer review is an important part of the scientific process that weeds out basic errors and unconscious (or otherwise) biases. It’s not an absolutely essential step, but missing it out is not a good sign.
Peer review allows scientists to critique each others’ methodology and conclusions before publication. The underlying assumptions should not make a difference to the review process, though obviously, if you start with the assumption that cows are a type of vegetable, you’re unlikely to survive the peer review process.
It’s possible to argue that journals are just throwing out good science written by creationists in order to maintain the hegemony, but a little research reveals that not to be the case. For example, the journal Biology had a total of 12 creationist papers submitted between 1995 and 2004; All of them were rejected for basic errors that any biologist would have been embarrassed to make.
Creationists are free, of course, to set up their own peer-reviewed journals, and indeed they have – La Rivista in Italy is possibly the highest profile creationist journal, but it rarely publishes actual peer-reviewed papers, as they only ever get informal letters submitted. The ICR had their own journal for a while (the Journal of Creation Research), but they’ve not published an issue for several years, presumably due to a lack of submissions. The Discovery Institute was offered a five million dollar grant by the Templeton Foundation to spend on pretty much any research project they could think of; the DI had to turn it down, as they couldn’t think of any experiments they could perform.
So, in answer to your question, you don’t need to be peer-reviewed to be doing science, but it certainly helps. Peer-review weeds out the obviously bad science from the maybe-good science. Creationists, on the rare occasion that they do anything resembling science seem to have an allergic reaction to peer-review, even if the review is being done by other creationists. Why do you think that is?
Metro
Believe it or not there are sometimes that I don’t get to spend all my time commenting on the blogosphere. I was quite busy the second half of yesterday and the first half of today. But i’ll get back to you later.
Mark Bey
Thanks for responding, those are interesting questions and I’ll also get to them later…thanks.
@Kemp
So you’ve ignored the bit where it’s been pointed out to you that you’ve decided to redefine the meaning of science and now cult to suit your own purposes. Nope can’t say I’m surprised that you’ve been deceptive yet again.
@ eric or any other believers who may be reading this post
mark: If humans get into heaven based upon thier belief in a supreme bieng. Then exactly why do christians pray for people who are already dead?
It seems to me that this is a total waste of time and would have no affect at all when it comes to helping the deceased person get into heaven.
“So you’ve ignored the bit where it’s been pointed out to you that you’ve decided to redefine the meaning of science and now cult to suit your own purposes. Nope can’t say I’m surprised that you’ve been deceptive yet again.”
Buddy, he said he’d get to them later. He’s said it before but I’m ever an optimist even in the face of ridiculousness.
Mark Bey
I’m still writing my response to you, it’s been a busy day!
Jabster
“So you’ve ignored the bit where it’s been pointed out to you that you’ve decided to redefine the meaning of science and now cult to suit your own purposes.”
This is a great example of the deception used to prove I’m deceptive. I never redefined the meaning of science, in fact I never put forth any definition of science. I made the statement that evolutionists think that they have a monopoly on that definition, and they get to decided what does and doesn’t fit into the perview of science. That’s all I said, but good job at forming a strawman.
Just because I have six people responding to me, and I don’t have time to get to them doesn’t mean I’m being deceptive or purposefully ignoring anyone.
@ eric
“Just because I have six people responding to me, and I don’t have time to get to them doesn’t mean I’m being deceptive or purposefully ignoring anyone.”
mark: I understand what you are saying but you must understand that a lot of non believers find religious disscussions intellectually stimulating.
If we are ganging up on, perhaps you could recruit a few strong believers so you dont have to take all of the questions/punishment.
Also take your time responding.
“I never redefined the meaning of science, in fact I never put forth any definition of science. I made the statement that evolutionists think that they have a monopoly on that definition, and they get to decided what does and doesn’t fit into the perview of science.”
“I was under the impression that science was merely the systematic study of the natural world.”
Again, Kemp says one thing and then forgets what he said 6 hours later. He’s not being deceptive, oh no.
Congrats on that strawman!
Its obvious that Kemp doesn’t agree with the standard definition of science and hints around that he has a better one.
Wait is he trying to redefine a word? I thought he hated when people try that.
“However, because a miniscule part of the population desires something, we should redefine a word that has existed as it is for hundreds upon hundreds of years to satisfy them?”
@Sunny Day
It’s not surprising as this is one of Kemp’s main tactics — he even tried to redefine what evidence was in one thread although trying to claim that only his religion isn’t a cult and the rest are is up there as well. He also seems to have picked up a habit of claiming every argument against him is a strawman. Is there some sort of “how to argue like a believer” website that teaches someone all this?
Hi Mr. Kemp:
So let’s review:
You offered, several comments ago.:
This you have not done, despite my directly asking you to:
You claimed that:
… but offered no definition of your own. When pressed thus:
… you … uh, have avoided answering yet again. How truly, amazingly, astonishing. And how convenient for you.
And just for $#!7s and giggles I threw in our ancient friend:
… as you’ve never answered that one either. Never. Not once, anywhere on this site.
I posted the three questions separately, and then together.
Your response? First you say “Oh, I’m too busy for you …”:
Later you respond to Jabster whilst staving off Mark Bey and utterly ignoring me.
I didn’t ask you for the meaning of life. I asked three simple questions that anyone with an organized, rational, mind would be able to answer in an argument such as the one we’re having.
So I have a trilemma: Either you’re arguing from a cracked brain, retreating because your arguments look nonsensical and you know it, or you’re just having fun piddling about in the threads (arguing in bad faith–something I’ve previously accused you of).
So to paraphrase C.S. Lewis: Is Kemp a liar or lunatic? As I’m an atheist we can leave out Lewis’ third option. And the idea of Kemp as lord would be enough to drive me to atheism in any case.
I just figure it’s (b) and (c). You don’t actually have any coherent arguments, but you’re having fun pretending you do. We’ve been at this long enough that I think you meet the accepted definition of a troll. Though you probably feel that depends on what the definition of “of” is.
So, one final time:
1) How did the Biblical God prove Himself to you?
2) What do you consider to be valid evidence?
3) Since you don’t like the accepted definition of science, what’s your alternative definition?
Answer, sir, if you wish anyone to take you remotely seriously. I mean, I know you’re a special case and all, but I’m working a lot harder trying to extract answers from you than I have to from your co-religionists (who admittedly don’t have your sticking power but generally expose themselves as hard-of-thinking earlier).
By the way–you’re a lousy witness for your god. I mean, if you’re lying then you’re destined for hell, no? (Not really–we know there’s no such place) Especially as you’ve repeated the offence on several other threads, and apparently without remorse.
On the other hand, if you’re telling the truth and arguing in good faith (which seems incredible, but atheists do believe in miracles) then you’ve so far proven pretty inept at proving your case. Which should surely be easy–just point us at your sure and certain proof.
Once you’ve defined it, that it …
Maybe there does need to be some website to demonstrate to theists how to argue convincingly.
Mark Bey
“1) Exactly how would you know if something wasnt othodox [sic] christianity? ”
There are some basic tenets of Christianity that are mandatory to be considered “orthodox”. These standards aren’t arbitrary, they are extrapolated from the text of the Bible. For example . . .
“2) For example would you consider Catholics, Jehova Witness, Seventh Day Adventist?”
Well, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the most straightforward of your examples. They aren’t considered orthodox because they reject the doctrine of the Trinity and you must work for salvation in the JW faith. Both doctrines violate orthodox standards.
Seventh Day Adventists are on a spectrum. The most mild just believe that Saturday is the true Sabbath (they’re right btw and they wouldn’t be considered unorthodox) while the most extreme believe that you’re not going to heaven unless you worship on Saturday. This violates orthodoxy because the Sabbath isn’t sacred to Christ, nor should it be put as just as important as a belief in Him.
Catholics are on a spectrum as well. I’ve met several catholics that I would consider orthodox, I’ve also met several that I wouldn’t. For the Catholic, it all depends on how important they make Mary and the worship of the saints. If either action is a requirement for salvation, that is not orthodoxy.
“3) Would you give me a few other examples of somewhat popular or popular examples of sects that are not orthodox christian.”
Sure, the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) are considered a heretical cult because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity as well as putting another book, the Book of Mormon, higher in authority than the Bible.
“Ok Now I feel like you are playing games with me to try to avoid the fact that intelligent design is religious based and not scientific. Also what do you mean by science what science exactly is the ID community studying?”
I understand your frustration. The confusion comes from the fact that you’ve been taught that evolution is a purely scientific worldview. It is not. Evolution is based upon a certain view of God, and is steeped in negative theological arguments starting the most basic one of “God would not have done it this way”. ID, on the other hand, is based on the theological argument of “God MIGHT HAVE done it this way, let’s find out”.
The point isn’t that those theological premises invalidate evolution, nor do they stop evolution from doing good science, but the point is that evolutionary evidence cannot be divorced from their particular view of God and the negative theological arguments. The same could be said for ID.
Ironically, I’m beginning a series on my blog called “The Rise of Evolution” that will explore the non-scientific, theological, and metaphysical arguments and ideas that got evolution to the place of prominence it now enjoys. Once I get to explaining more of these arguments that evolution uses, I’d love to discuss them with you.
“Your statement is a subjective one that can not be tested by sources other than yourself. Also your statement does not address the fact that what you believe could very well be untrue. Using your type reasoning the invisible pink unicorn could actually exist. I could say that I had a supernatural expierence and the invisible pink unicorn revealed himself to me during this expierence. Also one could argue for any type of supernatural belief they hold using your argument.”
Correct on all counts. However, ignoring my questions regarding empiricism makes this point one sided.
Let me explain.
I asked:
“Do you find it rational to demand empirical proof of the supernatural? Is this the only way that the supernatural can be proved, through scientific inquiry?”
and
“So your criteria for believing in something is if you can see it and prove it?”
The scenario you’re trying to paint is one in which empiricism is the only reliable way to knowledge and everything pales in comparison to it. That is, “Anyone can say anything they want, and claim God has spoken to them, and that their text is THE Word of God but if we can’t empirically test it, it means nothing”. This makes perfect sense in your worldview with your beginning presuppositions. However, that doesn’t make sense in my worldview and with my beginning presuppositions. In my worldview, God is the ultimate source of knowledge. So His Word trumps all empricism or all other presuppositions.
That our worldviews are different is no surprise to you, nor is that my point. My point is that empiricism, your ultimate source of knowledge, can’t inform you that empiricism is the ultimate source of knowledge. Scientific inquiry can’t prove that only scientific inquiry is reliable. So, that empiricism is your ultimate source of knowledge is a presupposition that can’t be proved by science. Also, that God is the ultimate source of knowledge, and speaks to His people, is a presupposition that can’t be proved by science. You and I are in the same boat. The only difference is that I recognize my presupposition, while you ignore yours.
That isn’t to say that every single claim of “God spoke to me” is valid. I agree that there must be certain criteria for that as well. However, the conversation of wether or not someone is correct about a supernatural experience, or the evaluation of a sacred text as “the Word of God” is a completely different topic.
So Jesus was unorthodox because he didn’t believe in the holy trinity. So was Paul. So were many if not most of the christians in the first couple centuries after Jesus. Isn’t that a lovely thought… Jesus was unorthodox.
Metro, Jabster and Sunny Day
At no point during any of my time on this blog have either you attempted to truly understand my arguments. Everything I have said has been met with the same vitriol and condescension. Your spoken tactic is to ridicule every single creationist for their belief because they deserve it. The affect of this two fold.
1. Every single claim you make against me is suspect because you have already decided that I’m an idiot. There can be no evidence that I’m rational, cause you’ve already decided that I’m not. So when you quote me and then come to the conclusion “He’s an idiot”, you argument holds no weight, you are merely re-stating your starting assumption.
2. This makes returning your comments a low priority for me. There are those on my blog that, while they disagree with me just as strongly as you do, are able to form arguments with out vitriol and carry on rational, cordial discussions. So, not only does the time I get to spend arguing on the blogosphere fluctuate due to real life, even when I get to, you are on the bottom of the list.
That being said, I do want to respond to you if I have the time.
Aor
Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. Would you like to provide evidence for those claims?
No, evolution says nothing about God. It simply describes the way in which organisms have changed over time. It’s certainly possible to argue about what the fruits of evolution says about a possible God – Darwin credited his agnosticism to the fact that he couldn’t in good conscience worship a God who had created ichneumon wasps. But there’s nothing in evolution that flat-out denies the existence of some kind of creator deity. A majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution, and (despite what Ben Stein tells you) many biologists are actually Christian, and find no conflict between their faith and a detailed understanding of evolution. The Pope, who is about as far from being an anti-Christian atheist as you’re likely to find, fully supports evolution and considers ID to be a complete waste of time.
It’s worth pointing out that the producers of Expelled deliberately chose not to interview Christian biologists, because acknowledging their existence would have “confused the film unnecessarily”, by leading people to understand that evolution isn’t explicitly atheistically.
ID, on the other hand, says “God did it, in such a way that it looks like evolution”, and then utterly fails to support that claim. Sure, they cite the impossibility of transitional forms that have been known to exist for decades, but if your argument requires that you remain wilfully ignorant of the evidence, you can hardly claim to do doing anything remotely resembling science.
Well, Kemp, the holy trinity was a concept that did not exist at the time of Jesus. Or of Paul. This is simple history. How about you go read some? How about you accept this historical fact and say so publicly, admit it to the readers here. Read about the council of Nicea. Read about Arianism.
When you realize that what I have said is true, I will expect you to publicly acknowledge it. This is a critical part of being open and honest. When something you publicly doubt is shown to be true, you should make your acceptance of it public. To do otherwise would be dishonest.
@Eric Kemp:
Well I have to say that that’s a new one. Shifting to the “But you aren’t listening to me,” complaint.
But you’re now a liar. I can’t speak for anyone else on this thread, but I’ve engaged with you from several different standpoints, and not once have I gotten a satisfactory answer. Hell, I disengaged myself from your endless circularity and re-engaged because I thought perhaps you might have to say that was worth reading. No dice so far. Just the usual obfuscation and “Depends what the meaning of “is” is” responses.
You get vitriol and condescension because you argue like a petulant child. Creationists get ridiculed because they argue the same way you do.
Makes a nice diversion from the usual continued obfuscation, goal-post moving, etc., though.
I don’t think I’ve ever called you an idiot. In fact I’ve been quite reasonable in response to your continued failure to debate in good faith. I’ve called you a troll. At this point it’s really up to you to prove me wrong. And nothing you post disabuses me of the notion.
Seems unfair when I continue wasting perfectly good electrons, time, and thought trying to get a straight answer out of you.
Of course, my three questions haven’t been answered yet either. Let me repost them for the fourth time:
1) How did the Biblical God prove Himself to you? You did say you’d tell us.
2) What do you consider to be valid evidence?
3) Since you don’t like the accepted definition of science, what’s your alternative definition?
It seems to me that you’ve now wasted more time and effort avoiding answering these three questions than it would have taken to answer them.
@Kemp
“At no point during any of my time on this blog have either you attempted to truly understand my arguments.”
Well firstly yes there where replies to your ‘argument’ which you either ignored, put you fingers in your ears and shouted not listening … not listening or just repeated that’s not right god did it. I decided against the second method of understanding what you were saying as I really just can’t drink that much beer any more and I had no intention of wasting my bottle of Ardberg Airigh Nam Beist on you.
“Everything I have said has been met with the same vitriol and condescension.”
When you try and actually listen to what other people say instead of just ignoring them maybe you’re get a better reception — oh and maybe you could try not being so deceitful as well that would help. It must come as a real shock that all the statements that your fellow godbots have lapped have been so complete pulled apart.
“Your spoken tactic is to ridicule every single creationist for their belief because they deserve it.”
No that only comes when it’s obvious that they have absolutely no intention of listening (are you getting the hint yet). I’m mean really — poor little Christians having those horrible atheists say nasty things just because they have zero evidence to back up their claims but will not admit it. How unfair is that?
Metro
“But you’re now a liar. I can’t speak for anyone else on this thread, but I’ve engaged with you from several different standpoints, and not once have I gotten a satisfactory answer.”
Metro, if you can’t be self-reflective enough to realize that you’ve already decided that you’ll NEVER get a “satisfactory answer” from a YEC, then it’s no wonder we can’t communicate.
There is something you should know about me. I’m a presuppositional apologist. That is, I tackle the underlying, preconceived assumptions that we all hold to. I’m interested in worldviews, the logic that supports them, and their explanatory power. My previous stint on this blog centered around the demand for me to produce some “empirical evidence” for my God. Empirical evidence, by itself, does not a worldview make. Nor do I have any interesting in trading empirical evidence for empirical evidence. You and I can look at the exact same piece of empirical evidence can come to the complete opposite conclusion. Why? Because our worldviews are in opposition to each other.
So why not discuss the worldviews, and the presuppositions we all hold to? That is the root of the disagreement my friend. If we don’t get to the root, and spend all our time wondering why we interpret empirical evidence so differently, we are both wasting our time. For instance, by demanding empirical evidence for God, you are assuming that the only way that God would be verifiable, is if we could empirically test Him. That is, empiricism is the only way to true, reliable knowledge. This is a presupposition. Why? Because empiricism can’t tell you that empiricism is the only way to true, reliable knowledge. That is, you cannot do a scientific test to see that only testing scientifically gets us reliable answers. So, if you can’t empirically test that empiricism is reliable, how do you know that it is?
I do not hold to the empiricism presupposition. I don’t live in your universe. If you have no interest in discussing presuppositions, what they are, if you have them,
and/or how we know that they’re reliable, then just say so and we won’t converse again. So, to answer you directly.
“I don’t think I’ve ever called you an idiot. In fact I’ve been quite reasonable in response to your continued failure to debate in good faith. I’ve called you a troll.”
Although it’s probably happened, I don’t recall specifically being called an “idiot”. I was using the word to describe your basic assumption about all YEC’s (which is that we’re brainwashed, illogical, blinded, nincompoops who deserve ridicule), so concluding your starting assumption isn’t surprising to me.
However, I hope you now see at least partially why you think I don’t debate in good faith. I don’t play by empirical rules, because I don’t subscribe to the presupposition.
And my previous comment was merely attempting to describe why getting back to you folks takes some time, sometimes. You must realize that every time I post a comment here, with in 6 hours 6 people have responded. I just don’t have that kind of time, especially when the vast majority of responders are being belligerent and/or sarcastic. So, I try pick the least belligerent/sarcastic, and I try to get back to them. If you get ignored, well, you weren’t the least belligerent/sarcastic.
“1) How did the Biblical God prove Himself to you? You did say you’d tell us.”
Since my presuppositions consist of God acting among human beings and God being the ultimate source of knowledge, a supernatural experience with God Himself is not a leap in logic. And that is what happened to me (and has happened several times). I have had a personal, supernatural experience with God where He confirmed His Word to me through circumstances, events and direct communication. Audibly? No, but no less understandable and certain.
“2) What do you consider to be valid evidence?”
Empirical evidence is valid within it’s limited scope. Divine revelation is also valid evidence, God’s Word is valid evidence. Logic and reason are valid evidences.
“3) Since you don’t like the accepted definition of science, what’s your alternative definition?”
I don’t recall agreeing with you on what the “accepted” definition of science is. If it’s “the systematic study of the natural world” or something to that affect, then we’re on the same page. I only remember objecting to the majority of academia’s position that science cannot provide evidence of the supernatural. Sure, the scope of science is limited, however people don’t get to arbitrarily limit it. Could a scientific study tell you that science cannot test the supernatural? Of course not, so then why do you believe it?
Metro, I wasn’t avoiding you. I was ignoring you. It was just that you just weren’t the least belligerent/sarcastic, Mark Bey was. And I was spending the time I had to respond to him. Sorry if you didn’t get responding to by now, and thank you for sticking with me, it wasn’t anything personal, nor am I afraid to answer your questions.
Aor
“How about you accept this historical fact and say so publicly, admit it to the readers here. Read about the council of Nicea. Read about Arianism.”
I asked for evidence for you claims, and all you did was repeat your claim. This is not an argument Aor, and I shouldn’t have to slog through such fallacies with intelligent people. Your specific claim is that the doctrine of the Trinity is a man-made invention that doesn’t exist in the Scriptures. What would classify as “evidence” of this claim would be specific passages in Scripture that show the opposite of the doctrine of the Trinity or the totality of passages that, when speaking of the Nature of God, doesn’t talk about a Trinity. Until you’ve done so, you can claim it’s “history” all you want, but your position hasn’t been supported.
You are attempting to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented at the First Ecumenical Council of 325 CE, also known as the Council of Nicea (it’s good to specify which ecumenical council you’re talking about because there was another Council of Nicea, about four hundred years later, but that was the 7th
Ecumenical Council). You’re wrong in two major ways (oh, and please don’t act like your argument is some revelation to me, as if I’ve never heard it before or researched the topic).
1. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t even finalized until the 2nd Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381, 56 years later. Your “plain history” is even wrong.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is based upon the totality of Scripture and how it describes God. Your argument basically boils down to “Well since the Bible doesn’t say the word ‘Trinity’ therefore the idea of a Trinity never existed in the Bible.” It’s absurd. Let me give you an example you can relate to:
Let’s say for a second that Darwin, in writing Origin, didn’t use the word “evolution” to describe his theory, in fact he never once used the word. Instead, he used the phrase “progressive natural selection”. Everything else about Darwin’s Origin stays the same, but he never used the word “evolution”. Fifty years later, someone else coins the word “evolution” to describe Darwin’s theory. “Evolution” is certainly easier to remember and say than “progressive natural selection” and yet describes Darwin’s idea perfectly, and from then on, everyone starts referring to Darwin’s theory as “evolution”. Would you then say that since someone else besides Darwin coined the term “evolution”, therefore “evolution” wasn’t Darwin’s invention?
We do this all the time in language, coin a term or phrase used to represent an idea, teaching, theory or any other piece of knowledge where everyone knows what it represents. So, the doctrine of the Trinity is merely a term used to describe the teachings of Scripture. So, I’d like to hear your evidence of how the doctrine of the Trinity does not represent what Scripture teaches.
This is actually a pretty accurate description of the history. Darwin disliked the term “evolution” as it was, at the time, heavily tainted with Lamarkian chain-of-being associations. He didn’t use the term in Origins, prefering “natural selection”, and he got angry when people described his ideas as “evolution”. He certainly wasn’t the first person to suggest that organisms changed over time due to natural processes, but he was the first co come up with an accurate description of how and why it happened.
Was “evolution” Darwin’s invention? That really depends on exactly what you mean. The general idea had been floating around since at least his grandfather’s time.
So, Kemp, you aren’t disputing that the holy trinity wasn’t a required part of christian beliefs at the time of Paul? Not to mention Jesus (he wasn’t a christian at all). You don’t dispute any of that. You tried, and then proved yourself wrong at my urging! What you are doing now is nitpicking and trying to muddy the waters, rather than admit that the simple fact is that the trinity was not part of christian teachings at the time of the early christians. Not a word on that issue from you. Not a single word to dispute that premise. Just distractions and evasion, yet again.
I said this:
You respond with this:
And then, after denying what I said, you go and research it and find that yes indeed what I said was true. The trinity was not part of early christian teachings. Jesus and Paul were unorthodox by modern definitions. You don’t change your tune and admit I was right. Not a single word about that. You refuse to concede a point.
Jesus did not believe in the holy trinity. True or false.
Paul did not believe in the holy trinity. True or false.
No screwing around, Kemp. Those are the issues I raised, those are the issues you disputed, those are the issues you carefully work your way around admitting I was right about.
Stop trying to distort things, stop trying to move the goalposts. You didn’t need me to provide evidence, did you? You looked it up, like I said to. Then you want to spin it otherwise when you could simply admit that what I initially said was true.
You are a truly dishonest person, Kemp. Not that this is a surprise.
So, you’re saying that Aor was wrong about early Christians not being Trinitarianists because the concept of the Trinity wasn’t formalised until even later than he said?
How can you be so ignorant as to imagine that would get past me? So I didn’t get the year of the trinity right be 56 years! Hooray, therefor Jesus believed in the trini…er, wtf are you saing again Kemp?
Why do you keep digging yourself into these holes, Kemp? Haven’t you learned that on a battleground where you can’t delete dissenting opinions you inevitably look the fool?
@Eric Kemp:
I’m still not sure I understand. Who decides which tenets constitute orthodox Christianity and which tenets do not. It seems like you’re just citing arbitrary examples.
I’m sincerely curious about this. Given a particular tenet of a Christian sect, how can I tell whether that tenet makes the sect orthodox or heretical?
You are right that empirical evidence doesn’t make a worldview, but all worldviews ARE dependent on empirical evidence. And evidence-based reasoning similar to the scientific method is used to decide on what is “true” within the fields of, say, history, economics, sociology, and political science besides just the hard sciences. So I’m not sure what we gain by your tactic of throwing out empiricism. It seems like that only makes it more difficult for people to agree on what constitutes “truth.”
You also keep employing this particular argument where you and one other person regard the same piece of empirical evidence and disagree on the interpretation. Well, what if one person has a really good explanation for his interpretation and the other person can only defend HIS interpretation by saying, “It’s how I feel,” or “I have faith in my interpretation.” What if 100 people regard the same evidence and after each of the original two people present the arguments for their respective interpretations, 90 or more of those hundred agree with the investigator with the reasoned explanation? Conversely, what if 90 of the people agree with the “faithful” guy? Does that make them right? Is there no way to actually determine the truth of the situation?
I’m not entirely sure whether it’s even worth getting into this particular counterfactual, though. It would be much more instructive for you to give us an actual example of empirical evidence that we will interpret differently because of our worldviews.
Finally, I would like to point out that the major advantage of empiricism in seeking truth is that one can always check one’s answers, so to speak. I can check my answers against the next guy, and we can both set up experiments to check our answers against what actually happens. I am unaware of any other approach to epistemology where one can actually verify whether one’s results are reasonable or unreasonable. You seem to think that it constitutes a bias for us to a priori rule out the supernatural, but I would submit that it’s a necessary step in any systematic approach to truth. If there is such a “supernatural,” admitting its existence is tantamount to saying that truth is arbitrary and there is no way to actually determine truth. In other words, in a world that includes supernatural causation, there is no such thing as truth at all.
Considering the number of true things that I already know and the number of new true things I discover daily, I simply find this to be an untenable position. For the most part, people DO agree on the results of empirical results regardless of their “worldview.” It seems like it’s only in a few rather inconvenient fields of inquiry that the rational basis for empiricism comes under fire. The roundness of the world is not often called into question, but the truth of evolution often is — despite both being “merely” empirical results. If empiricism is on such shaky grounds, shouldn’t I worry about the ground turning to liquid as I get out of bed in the morning? Shouldn’t this “worldview” business matter in more contexts than just evolution and cosmology?
Perhaps I simply don’t understand your position on this. Do you believe there is a systematic approach to deciding the truth value of propositions aside from empiricism? If not, what good is the notion of “truth” at all?
Dan L.
“Perhaps I simply don’t understand your position on this. Do you believe there is a systematic approach to deciding the truth value of propositions aside from empiricism? If not, what good is the notion of “truth” at all?”
Eric said:
“Divine revelation is also valid evidence, God’s Word is valid evidence.”
In other words “Making Stuff Up”.
@Sunny Day:
Well, I’m obviously starting out from a similar position to your own, but I am curious as to how Kemp would distinguish between a “divine revelation” that is true versus a “divine revelation” that is false. If there is a way to do such a thing, I would certainly like to hear it. If there isn’t, then I would still like to know what Kemp thinks the word “truth” even means.
Well, King Ahab certainly couldn’t tell the difference. And 2 Thessalonians goes so far as to say that God will force you to believe his false revelations, and then damn you for doing so…
Dan L:
“but I am curious as to how Kemp would distinguish between a “divine revelation” that is true versus a “divine revelation” that is false.”
Eric Said:
“I only have two main presuppositions. That God exists and that the Bible is the Word of God.”
If it fits Erics presuppositions then it must be true.
Also known as looking for facts to fit your conclusions.
@Sunny Day:
In that case, there’s nothing I can say that Bill Hicks hasn’t said better:
plausible.
Aor
Saying “Jesus didn’t believe in the Trinity” is an asinine and ignorant statement of epic proportions. Jesus taught the Trinity, and so did Paul. Just because the word Trinity wasn’t coined until much later, doesn’t mean they didn’t teach it. The term Trinity being coined later is besides the point, the point is wether or not Jesus and Paul taught it.
Let me ask you again, since you are the one who is dodging. Can you provide ANY evidence that Jesus and Paul did not teach the Trinity? Or taught the opposite of the Trinity? I’m waiting.
Aor
You acted arrogant and superior in your pointing out of history, as if I’ve never studied early church history and you dropped some life changing, revelatory bomb on me. Not only did I not have to look anything up regarding the Council of Nicea since it’s all still in the ol’ noggin’, I pointed out that your history was wrong. Don’t get mad, just get your history right.
Aor, I’ve never deleted a dissenting argument on my blog. Not once. If someone didn’t form an argument, and didn’t even have a point, then sure, I’ve deleted a few of those. My blog is a place of discussion, not a place to pop off without a point.
Dan L
“I’m sincerely curious about this. Given a particular tenet of a Christian sect, how can I tell whether that tenet makes the sect orthodox or heretical?”
I wasn’t being arbitrary, you gave me particular examples and I responded with why those systems weren’t considered orthodox. I’m not interesting in listing the basic beliefs of Christian orthodoxy when the information is so easily accessible to you if you want it to be. If you have any questions about what you read, you know where to find me.
“So I’m not sure what we gain by your tactic of throwing out empiricism. It seems like that only makes it more difficult for people to agree on what constitutes “truth.” ”
No, Dan L, that’s the point. Worldviews are NOT based on empirical evidence. You misunderstand the definition of “worldview”. A worldview, at it’s core, is made up of basic presuppositions that CANNOT be verified with empirical evidence.
I didn’t throw out empiricism, I just pointed out that it is a presupposition, and that I don’t hold to that presupposition. And that empiricism being reliable is unverified by empiricism since that would be circular.
It isn’t about what is “easy to agree on the truth”, it’s about recognizing the basic presuppositions of our worldview, and how it affects what we believe, and how we interpret evidence.
“Is there no way to actually determine the truth of the situation?”
Actually, if you’re talking about empirical evidence, no there isn’t. Empirical evidence, by itself, doesn’t tell us about “situations”, interpretive conclusions do. Sure, some explanations might make more sense than others, but there is no such thing as an “objective interpretation” of evidence. But what happens when we are looking at the same piece of evidence and, filtering the evidence through our worldview, we have equally valid explanations (working with in our particular framework of course)? How do we decide?
“It would be much more instructive for you to give us an actual example of empirical evidence that we will interpret differently because of our worldviews.”
Sure, I’ll let you choose the example.
“In other words, in a world that includes supernatural causation, there is no such thing as truth at all.”
Dan L, by golly, you’ve got it. You’re right, in a world where supernatural causation is possible, EMPIRICAL truth doesn’t exist, but “truth” just switches places. If God is the source of supernatural causation, then HE becomes the epistemological source of truth. This is why supernatural causation (God causing phenomena) was thrown out by the 18th century modernists (Christians included), because if we assumed it was possible, we couldn’t assume empirical evidence was valid.
But don’t you see the problem there? 300 years ago we began assuming that the supernatural didn’t exist, or God didn’t use it to act in the world, merely because therefore science wouldn’t be absolutely viable or reliable. Instead of throwing out the supernatural in order to find science reliable, shouldn’t we try to find the truth, even if the source of that truth is God?
“For the most part, people DO agree on the results of empirical results regardless of their “worldview.” ”
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that our worldviews come into play when I look at the fossils of two species and ask “are they similar”? I think we can agree, within reason, what characteristics they share and which they don’t. However, when we begin to interpret what that evidence might “mean”, our presuppositions are in full force.
“The roundness of the world is not often called into question, but the truth of evolution often is — despite both being “merely” empirical results.”
The difference is that the conclusion of “therefore the world is round” is empirically verifiable while the conclusion of “therefore we all came from a common ancestor” is not. Again, I’m not challenging empirical evidence as a source of evidence, I’m challenging the scope of empirical evidence and “empiricism” as a presuppositional position that ONLY empirical evidence can give us reliable knowledge.
“If empiricism is on such shaky grounds, shouldn’t I worry about the ground turning to liquid as I get out of bed in the morning?”
You shouldn’t worry about it, but you should recognize that empiricism can’t tell you that it won’t, because empiricism can’t predict the future.
“Shouldn’t this “worldview” business matter in more contexts than just evolution and cosmology?”
Of course it does.
“Do you believe there is a systematic approach to deciding the truth value of propositions aside from empiricism? If not, what good is the notion of “truth” at all?”
Now, I haven’t gotten this far. My only point is that you can’t know that only empiricism is reliable because empiricism can’t tell you that only empiricism is reliable. So demanding empirical evidence of God so that you might believe in Him is begging the question of how you empiricism is reliable.
But I think what you might be getting at is this. Within my framework of an all-powerful, rational God who created everything we see, I can know that empiricism is reliable. Empiricism is reliable because God made a rational universe governed by universal natural laws. On the other hand, the atheistic worldview, where no such guiding or creating has happened, cannot explain why they consider empiricism to be reliable, as I just showed above. So, in the case of empiricism, my worldview has explanatory power, and the atheistic one has none. I don’t know if this answers your question of “truth”, but it shows which worldview can better explain empiricism.
Dan L.
“If there is a way to do such a thing, I would certainly like to hear it. If there isn’t, then I would still like to know what Kemp thinks the word “truth” even means.”
That’s a good question. If God wanted to speak to His people in a reliable way, and a way that wouldn’t FORCE everyone to believe in Him, how do you think He would do it?
They’re both equally verifiable. Yes, it’s possible that there’s an omnipotent being who deliberately fudges any attempt at measurement, so that the world appears round when it’s really flat, but you don’t believe that any more than I do. For some reason, you do believe that an omnipotent being deliberately falsifies evidence and measurements so that all organisms appear to have a common ancestor when they were really created as-is a few thousand years ago.
Why do you dismiss one of these scenarios as being so ridiculous as to be not worth considering, yet believe that the other must obviously be true?
@Eric Kemp
If either of them had taught it, it would not have taken over 300 years for their followers to catch on to that fact. Arianism would not have existed because there would have been firm teachings in the bible that contradicted it. It would not have taken hundreds of years and councils of priests because the concept would already have been firmly established. The simple fact that the christians of the era had to meet and discuss these particular things shows that you are wrong. If the trinity had been part of the religion prior to that point, by any name, there would never have been a reason to have a meeting about it or to KILL OTHER CHRISTIANS who did not believe in it.
@Eric Kemp
I respected you more before I knew you were a young-earth creationist. You hold your holy book in one hand and claim it’s proof of your god, but dismiss the entire body of scientific knowledge out of hand because, as you yourself point out, it doesn’t suit your presuppositions.
Tried that. It didn’t work.
I have asked you repeatedly for the foundation, the evidence upon which you base your worldview. I’ve even invited you to make up your own definitions for “evidence”.
And what it comes down to is this:
And how do you know your god exists? What evidence do you present? This:
And except for the meaningless phrases “Divien revelation” and “God’s Word,” I agree.
And neither can anything else. So why should I believe it exists?
And yet you have, not ten words earlier, declared its limits.
Um, actually, it can and does. The supernatural has been investigated fairly thoroughly, and in every verifiable instance has proved an utter sham.
The problem with further discussion, Eric, is that your argument is a perfect circle based on faulty premises: “God exists because he says he does.” So does Carl Sagan’s invisible dragon.
And also: “I feel he must exist, therefore he does.” But this isn’t evidence of anything except your wish that things were thus-and-so. And that’s fine. But you can’t come here and claim you have proof that they are.
Of course, if your god exists, he’s welcome to reveal himself to me, clearly and unambiguously. And don’t mistake my words: I longed for that meeting in my heart when I was a believer, and have not even now cast that faint hope aside.
But as an adult, I recognize that wishing things were thus-and-so doesn’t make them so. There is no god. Never was. Faith in an invisible deity is a byproduct of evolution, allowing disparate tribes to make common cause above the level of extended family groupings. And we’ve hopefully begun to outgrow that need, as our reason has developed, and our knowledge has revealed the origins of thunder, hailstorms, and earthquakes.
There’s not much left to discuss, is there? Your arguments are circular–”tailchasing” was what I called them earlier. And as you have neither evidence that reasonable, reasoning people could agree upon as evidence, and are quite happy saying so, then is there anything further to talk about?
Thanks for finally getting back to me. I’d feel better about this if we hadn’t wasted all this time and all these electrons to get back to “God exists because he says so and I feel that it must be so.”
“Goodnight, and may your god go with you.”
~Dave Allen
“The supernatural” is defined as “those things science can’t test”; that is, those things for which no evidence can be accumulated because they don’t interact with the universe in any way whatsoever. If something can be studied scientifically (because it has an effect on something else that can be measured), then it’s natural and not supernatural.
It’s like asking someone to prove that it’s impossible to eat things that are categorised as inedible. Maybe it will one day be possible to study something that is currently classified as supernatural (after all, it happened with weather) but that won’t mean that we can study the supernatural; just that we were wrong about it being supernatural in the first place.
I know this is at least the third time I’ve explained it to you; is there anything I can do to make the concept clearer for you?
@wintermute
What–you’re not even going to offer him the chance to redefine “scientifically” to mean “By reading the Bible”?
[/snark]
@Metro
As far as I can tell Kemp believes that science should encompass anything that proves that his version of the Christian god exists but excluding other religions. So maybe the new definition should be:
“science noun 1 the systematic observation and classification of natural phenomena in order to learn about them and bring them under general principles and laws. 2 a department or branch of such knowledge or study developed in this way, eg astronomy, genetics, chemistry. 3 any area of knowledge obtained using, or arranged according to, formal principles • political science. 4 acquired skill or technique, as opposed to natural ability 5 making stuff up to support my own world view. sciential adj referring or relating to science; scientific.
ETYMOLOGY: 14c: from Latin scientia knowledge, from scire to know.”
@ eric
danL:“I’m sincerely curious about this. Given a particular tenet of a Christian sect, how can I tell whether that tenet makes the sect orthodox or heretical?”
eric:I wasn’t being arbitrary, you gave me particular examples and I responded with why those systems weren’t considered orthodox. I’m not interesting in listing the basic beliefs of Christian orthodoxy when the information is so easily accessible to you if you want it to be. If you have any questions about what you read, you know where to find me.
mark:Why wont you list the basic tenest of gods divinely inspired word. Is it because you know that this is just your personal interpretation about what gods word actaully is.
danl:“So I’m not sure what we gain by your tactic of throwing out empiricism. It seems like that only makes it more difficult for people to agree on what constitutes “truth.” ”
eric:No, Dan L, that’s the point. Worldviews are NOT based on empirical evidence. You misunderstand the definition of “worldview”. A worldview, at it’s core, is made up of basic presuppositions that CANNOT be verified with empirical evidence.
eric:I didn’t throw out empiricism, I just pointed out that it is a presupposition, and that I don’t hold to that presupposition. And that empiricism being reliable is unverified by empiricism since that would be circular.
mark: If somethng cannot be verified by empirical evidence, please tell me how we would go about verifying something. The reason I asked this because if you empirical evidence to prove something then anyone can make up any reason for any claim they wish to make. For example their are thousands of contradictory claims by religious folks all over world.
Once again anyone can use this logic to prove any religous belief they want to.
danl:“Is there no way to actually determine the truth of the situation?”
eric:Actually, if you’re talking about empirical evidence, no there isn’t. Empirical evidence, by itself, doesn’t tell us about “situations”, interpretive conclusions do. Sure, some explanations might make more sense than others, but there is no such thing as an “objective interpretation” of evidence. But what happens when we are looking at the same piece of evidence and, filtering the evidence through our worldview, we have equally valid explanations (working with in our particular framework of course)? How do we decide?
mark: So Eric basically what you are saying is that you have no more proof than any other religion that your religious beliefs are true. If anyone reading this blog was searching for god how would they know which subjective belief in god to chose from. How would they know whether or not to between chose Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism or the correct flavor of christianity if all we have for evidence about gods existence is subjective evidence.
Also why would a loving god send folks to hell for picking the wrong god if a they had to choose from was a subjective choice?
Eric Kemp and the Timecube Guy, one in the same?
No, not even Eric is that hatstand.
“No, not even Eric is that hatstand.”
But the Timecube revealed it to me!
Good enough for Kemp, good enough for me.
Dan L has a question:
“I am curious as to how [you] Kemp would distinguish between a “divine revelation” that is true versus a “divine revelation” that is false. If there is a way to do such a thing, I would certainly like to hear it. If there isn’t, then I would still like to know what Kemp thinks the word “truth” even means.”
Eric Kemp also has a question:
“That’s a good question. If God wanted to speak to His people in a reliable way, and a way that wouldn’t FORCE everyone to believe in Him, how do you think He would do it?”
Sunny Day has a question too:
Because I’m a big dishonest coward I’ll turn the question back around and ask Kemp,
“I am curious as to how [you] Kemp would distinguish between a “divine revelation” that is true versus a “divine revelation” that is false. If there is a way to do such a thing, I would certainly like to hear it. If there isn’t, then I would still like to know what Kemp thinks the word “truth” even means.”
Wintermute
““The supernatural” is defined as “those things science can’t test”; that is, those things for which no evidence can be accumulated because they don’t interact with the universe in any way whatsoever.”
That’s my point. That’s how YOU naturalists have defined the supernatural. You also assume that this is the ONLY definition of supernatural. This is not the Christian definition of the supernatural.
The only thing you’re making clear to me is that you can’t look past your assumptions, and you can’t even see them for what they are, even when they are pointed out to you.
Metro
“You hold your holy book in one hand and claim it’s proof of your god, but dismiss the entire body of scientific knowledge out of hand because, as you yourself point out, it doesn’t suit your presuppositions.”
I don’t reject scientific inquiry, I reject evolutionary presuppositions. You are fooling yourself if you think evolution is pure scientific inquiry. Evolution stands inseparably upon the presuppositions of naturalism, empiricism and uniformitarianism among a few others. These are presuppositions I reject, therefore evolution is not convincing to me. If you hold to those three presuppositions, then surely, evolution is convincing.
“And except for the meaningless phrases “Divien [sic] revelation” and “God’s Word,” I agree.”
You cannot see past your metaphysical and presuppositional nose. You cannot even see what you are doing. I will attempt to explain it to you. You are demanding empirical evidence for my God. At the same time, you are making statements that are unverifiable with empirical means. You make the statement that “Divine Revelation” and “God’s Word” are meaningless, and yet empirical methods cannot tell you that they are. You seem to be the only one that can hold to empirically unverifiable beliefs. It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest.
“Um, actually, it can and does. The supernatural has been investigated fairly thoroughly, and in every verifiable instance has proved an utter sham.”
Hilarious. Wait, I just want to hear you say this, so answer me this. Are you saying that science has proven that the supernatural does not exist?
“The problem with further discussion, Eric, is that your argument is a perfect circle based on faulty premises: “God exists because he says he does.” ”
The only reason this is a problem is if God truly hasn’t said anything to me. If He hasn’t, then you’re right. But if He has . . .
In the same way, your belief that empiricism is the only source of reliable information is unverifiable by that same source you consider to be the only way to knowledge. By your only true source of knowledge (empiricism), you cannot know that empiricism is the only reliable source of knowledge. So where does that leave us?
But the difference between my circular position and your circular position (as I said in my previous comment to Dan L. or to you, I’m not sure who), is that my position can EXPLAIN your position, can explain why we consider empirical evidence reliable. While your position, on the other hand, can do no such thing.
Aor
Now you’re just purposefully being daft. You can’t be that stupid, I know you can’t be. I will say the point one more time, and then I’m done. It isn’t that Jesus’ and Paul’s followers took 300 years “to catch on”, it’s merely that the word Trinity wasn’t used to describe the teaching of Jesus Christ, and indeed the OT as well, until 300 years later. You are stuck on the word and are ignoring that the teaching of a plurality within God existed thousands of years before Jesus was born (as is evidence by the teaching in the OT). Your position is that since Jesus didn’t use the world “Trinity” therefore He didn’t believe in it, especially after it’s explained to you twice now that “Trinity” is only a world used to describe a concept, is ignorance and purposeful stupidity.
“If the trinity had been part of the religion prior to that point, by any name, there would never have been a reason to have a meeting about it or to KILL OTHER CHRISTIANS who did not believe in it.”
The reason for the Council of Nicea, and all the other councils, was because Christianity was becoming the official state religion of Rome. It needed to be qualified in terms that everyone agreed upon for the first time. The reason everyone agreed upon the doctrine of the Trinity, is because it accurately described something THAT THEY ALREADY BELIEVED. Seriously, the secular early church history class I took at a secular university taught this. The professor did not believe, yet he understood the history of the councils and what the early Christians believed. Read some history before you make claims about it.
And now you’re just making stuff up. No Christians killed the Arians for believing what they did. In fact, one of the most promiment Arians, Eusebius, was the right hand man of Emporer Constantine.
You have AGAIN ignored my call for evidence regarding the teachings of Jesus and Paul being opposite of, or silent in regards to, the doctrine of the Trinity. You have not supported your claim even in the slightest. I already told you what would constitute “support” for your claim, you haven’t even tried to do this.
Kemp, Jesus was a Jew. The Jews did not believe in the trinity. Not then, not now.
Plain and simple, isn’t it?
PS. Arians didn’t get persecuted? How’s this quote for you:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm
Aor
You have no basis for your claims, you’ve been asked for evidence and you’ve refused. You are also completeley devoid of all sense and logic. The point has been explained to you three times over, and not only are you not providing a counter-argument to the point, you are purposefully being stupid so that you can avoid it.
Your statement of “Jesus was a Jew. The Jews did not believe in the trinity. Not then, not now.” Is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard. Ever. You have absolutely zero education when it comes to this subject. Nor do you want to educate yourself, because a simple reading of the Bible would show Jesus’ deviation from the Judiasm of the day on so many levels that you’d be forced to actually re-think your position, and that’s some thing that you’re dogmatically not willing to do.
I’m honestly incredulous that you think your argument is rational or valid here. Especially since the counter-point has been made three times and has gone undisputed.
Also, you said that Arians were killed for believing in Arianism. I claimed that they were not, the Church did not kill Arians. Now you provide a theological condemnation of Arianism as proof of murder? Yes, Arianism was condemned by the Church, because it was a heresy. And those who did not relinquish their Arianism were excommunicated, because it was a heresy. It was a theological debate about what the Bible taught, and Arianism lost. Excommunication and condemnation does not make murder. So nice try.
So let’s recap, you’ve gotten early church history false, have provided ZERO evidence for why Jesus and/or Paul didn’t teach the Trinity, you’ve made statements of ignorance regarding Jesus’ beliefs based SOLELY on his Judaism (as if He was bound to it), and you’ve provided a theological condemnation as proof of murder. Perhaps your feeling of superiority should give way to a desire to educate yourself on subjects you make statements about.
Mark Bey
“Why wont you list the basic tenest of gods divinely inspired word. Is it because you know that this is just your personal interpretation about what gods word actaully is.”
Fine. I’ll go as basic as I can. God created everything, visible and invisible. God has always existed in a Divine Trinity. That is, He is three persons in one God. The Father is not the Son is not the Spirit yet they are all three equally God. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, He is Just and Righteous in the most ultimate definition of the words. He separated out the Jewish people to be His people, and in his Grace promised them a Messiah, who would save them from His wrath, the wrath brought on by His people’s violation of His Divine Law. That Messiah was born to a virgin in Bethlehem, performed many signs and wonders before being crucified at the age of thirty three. Jesus was both man and God equally and He rose from the dead on the third day and Ascended to heaven and sit’s on the right hand of the father. The Holy Spirit was then given to the Church that would give them power to be Jesus’ witnesses on this Earth. Those that believe in Christ as their savior and recieve the Holy Spirit will spend eternity in heaven with God.
That’s off the top of my head, so I might have left something basic out. Anyway, any system that deviates from these beliefs is considered unorthodox or a “cult”.
Also, that brief list doesn’t answer the question of “why” they’re considered orthodox, only “what”.
“If somethng cannot be verified by empirical evidence, please tell me how we would go about verifying something.”
I will answer your question, but first I want to point out what you are doing. You argument is called “rejecting the consequent”. That is, since the alternative is “unlikely” or “harder”, therefore you must be right. It’s a logical fallacy.
But you’re asking the right question, it’s similar to one Dan L. asked. I’m not saying that every single “God told me so” claim is correct or that every “God told me so” claim is hogwash. I’m just saying that it’s a reliable source of knowledge and I agree with you that there SHOULD be a reliable way to verify the claims. In order to better answer your question, let me ask you a question similar to the one I asked Dan L. If God wanted to make his knowledge (as much as He could impart upon us humans) known in a reliable way, yet still not FORCE anyone to believe or follow Him. How do YOU think He would do it?
“So Eric basically what you are saying is that you have no more proof than any other religion that your religious beliefs are true.”
Absolutely not. My only point is that we all have presuppositions that inform us on how we interpret evidence and/or ideas. Of course I think that Christian presuppositions are superior, but I can’t even get you folks to acknowledge that you have presuppositions, so why would I start explaining my own?
But Mark, I’m confused. What is the point of your line of questioning? Are you just curious, concerned and interested in how Christians can know that “their” God is the real God? Are you concerned with the reliability of Biblical intepretation? If so, are you asking because you want to know if “which God?” and how doctrine is verifiable? Or do you think it’s a question Christians can’t answer?
Kemp, Jesus was a Jew. He (may have) thought he was the Messiah, and its rather hard to be the Jewish Messiah without being a Jew. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is utterly impossible to be the Jewish Messiah without being Jewish. You may want to claim that he was a heretical Jew, but you cannot claim he was not a Jew. If he was not a Jew, then he could not have been the messiah, then you would be a heretic for thinking Jesus was not the messiah. Are you a heretic? Do you believe Jesus was the Messiah?
You don’t think christians killed heretics? Christians persecuted other religions, including other versions of their own religion. Including Arianism.
The divisions in early christianity were marked with vicious acts on all sides. It was theological civil war. Arianism, Ebionism, Trinitarianism, Manichaenism, Priscillianism. Their followers attacked each other. Each side thought they were defending orthodoxy. In those situations, true believers are willing to torture and kill others.
The trinity was not orthodox in that era. There was no accepted orthodoxy in those days. They couldn’t even agree on who to preach to, what day to preach on, who should be circumcised, what to eat, when to fast, if to fast… there was no universal agreement even on things so simple.
Constantine outlawed Arianism. Diocletian ordered the Manicheans “consumed by fire.” Christians filled wells with the bodies of heretical christians for not following quite the right version of their religion. Being called a heretic was often a death sentence. You cannot argue that the Arians were heretics without accepting that in that time and place the followers of one religion were quite willing to torture and kill those of another religion. Those attitudes were across the board. Persecution went in all directions.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/orthodoxy.html
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/revelation.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/beginnings.html
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/romestat.htm (info from Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)
Riots! Wars! No Arians murdered by other Christians? Give me a break.
I think you just hit meaninglessness. Science doesn’t presuppose evolution. It just proves it.
Eric, I’m just a bit tired of this. You’ve explained that your presuppositions include the idea of a working god. But that presupposition is false from the start. Or at least, you have no evidence that it’s true except your own conviction–Am I right? So we’re back to the Flying Spaghetti monster.
You claim personal interactions with this God. Any reason that those experiences couldn’t just originate from your own self? That might be evidence, if you could prove it.
The meaninglessness of the terms “divine revelation” and “god’s word” stem from the fact that you yourself admit that these experiences are unshareable. I cannot experience your conviction that god exists. If god does not exist, which is my assertion, then both those terms are null and void. And if you’re placing your source of belief in those books and that Word, then you need to prove them true. Which you do by simple assertion. Not a valid technique of debate.
You have asked me to prove a negative (the non-existence of your god), which we both know is impossible. I asked you to prove the positive complement (his alleged existence). You have said you can’t.
I say that while science has not conclusively proven that there’s no such thing as the supernatural (which as pointed out elsewhere means “that which science can’t measure”), it has debunked the involvement of anything supernatural in every case of alleged supernatural occurence where the scientific method has been rigorously applied.
Poppycock. Empiricism is the best, most reliable tool we have for picking away at the workings of the universe. More effective and accurate than “divine revelation” at any rate.
What? Your “word of god” and “divine revelation” explain why empiricism works? And yet I’M the one being circular?
However, empiricism explains quite nicely why theism doesn’t work.
Your presupposition of the existence of god, and your unwillingness to defend that presupposition in any sort of logical way, really do seem to lead to you making silly statements.
I’m not sure where this discussion can go from here. You continually confuse your non-evidentially-based philosophical position
with a real-world evidentiary outlook.
I will readily and instantly convert to the theism that provides me with clear proof of the existence of its particular god. You come at me with a fundamentally erroneous assumption and ask me to accept that that assumption means that my philosophical foundations (which seem to match the real world quite well) are irrelevant, and that I should accept your gut feeling, your ancient books, and your personal conviction as Truth.
No can do. My presupposition, as you call it, biases me toward positions supported by evidence and/or proof. Evidence and proof you cannot provide.
Do you have nothing at all that you feel is convincing as an argument for anyone else to support your presupposition?
@aor
Shorter Kemp:
“So let’s recap, lalalalalalalalala I don’t have evidence and I’m not listening.”
@ eric
Mark bey: Once again you had to play games before you answered a simple question. Although this behavior is extremely annoying, especially when Im tryng to pin you down on something extremely bias or silly you have said. As far as the 3 in one person thing goes that makes absolutely no sense and it sounds like mythology and I wish you would admit it. How can Jesus be both man and god equally if all men are flawed (because of the fall supposedly) and will die but god is perfect, all knowing, all powerful and eternal? If man is sinful and finite but god is perfect,good and infinite then how can you make such a contradictory statement such as Jesus was both man and god equally? That is pure sillyness.
As far as only believers in christ going to heaven, I think that is morally and intelluctually bankrupt position because it is a fact that many, many humans where never exposed to christianity before they died but you insist that those who are not christians will not get to heaven. How is that a just god, if he dosent show some humans his word and yet he wont let them into heaven for not accepting his word. In my opinion your concept of god is an intellectually and morally bankrupt concept of god.
Also if god is going to keep some folks out of heaven for not believing in him, then I would think that all humans would have an equal amount of time to find god otherwise your god isnt just. It is a fact that some folks are criminals and atheist for 25,35, 45 years and don’t get saved until they after they are locked up several times after a life of crime (and harming innocent people)becoming christians in their 40s,50s or sixties. While on the other hand some atheist who are not criminals and do not harm society only live until the age of 20 or so. I just cannot reconcile a just and loving god allowing some folks more of an oppurtunity to get to heaven than others. I find that thought to be retarded. Lastly although I am glad you finally answered my question I still find your answer to be subjective, biased and childesh.
@ eric
I forgot to post the comment the way I wanted to here is the revised post.
Mark:“Why wont you list the basic tenest of gods divinely inspired word. Is it because you know that this is just your personal interpretation about what gods word actaully is.”
Eric:Fine. I’ll go as basic as I can. God created everything, visible and invisible. God has always existed in a Divine Trinity. That is, He is three persons in one God. The Father is not the Son is not the Spirit yet they are all three equally God. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, He is Just and Righteous in the most ultimate definition of the words. He separated out the Jewish people to be His people, and in his Grace promised them a Messiah, who would save them from His wrath, the wrath brought on by His people’s violation of His Divine Law. That Messiah was born to a virgin in Bethlehem, performed many signs and wonders before being crucified at the age of thirty three. Jesus was both man and God equally and He rose from the dead on the third day and Ascended to heaven and sit’s on the right hand of the father. The Holy Spirit was then given to the Church that would give them power to be Jesus’ witnesses on this Earth. Those that believe in Christ as their savior and recieve the Holy Spirit will spend eternity in heaven with God.
Mark bey: Once again you had to play games before you answered a simple question. Although this behavior is extremely annoying, especially when Im tryng to pin you down on something extremely bias or silly you have said. As far as the 3 in one person thing goes that makes absolutely no sense and it sounds like mythology and I wish you would admit it. How can Jesus be both man and god equally if all men are flawed (because of the fall supposedly) and will die but god is perfect, all knowing, all powerful and eternal? If man is sinful and finite but god is perfect,good and infinite then how can you make such a contradictory statement such as Jesus was both man and god equally? That is pure sillyness.
As far as only believers in christ going to heaven, I think that is morally and intelluctually bankrupt position because it is a fact that many, many humans where never exposed to christianity before they died but you insist that those who are not christians will not get to heaven. How is that a just god, if he dosent show some humans his word and yet he wont let them into heaven for not accepting his word. In my opinion your concept of god is an intellectually and morally bankrupt concept of god.
Also if god is going to keep some folks out of heaven for not believing in him, then I would think that all humans would have an equal amount of time to find god otherwise your god isnt just. It is a fact that some folks are criminals and atheist for 25,35, 45 years and don’t get saved until they after they are locked up several times after a life of crime (and harming innocent people)becoming christians in their 40s,50s or sixties. While on the other hand some atheist who are not criminals and do not harm society only live until the age of 20 or so. I just cannot reconcile a just and loving god allowing some folks more of an oppurtunity to get to heaven than others. I find that thought to be retarded. Lastly although I am glad you finally answered my question I still find your answer to be subjective, biased and childesh.
Mark Bey
Unfortunately for you, God’s definition doesn’t rest upon what you think about it. The definition of God that I gave you is the Biblical definition (as well as I could describe it in such a short space). Let me ask you a question; what would you have God do with those who break His Law?
“I just cannot reconcile a just and loving god allowing some folks more of an oppurtunity to get to heaven than others. I find that thought to be retarded.”
Are you saying, for God to be fair, he has to force everyone to live the same amount of time?
So basically Mark, your argument boils down to, “I don’t like how God did it, therefore I don’t believe in Him”? Are you sure you want to risk your eternity on, “I just don’t like it. . .”?
So let me ask you: How would you have God do it?
Metro
“Eric, I’m just a bit tired of this. You’ve explained that your presuppositions include the idea of a working god. But that presupposition is false from the start. Or at least, you have no evidence that it’s true except your own conviction–Am I right? So we’re back to the Flying Spaghetti monster.”
Well, the point has been explained to you. If you will not accept that you also hold to presuppositions that cannot be proved by empiricism, then you’re right, there is nothing left to talk about. If you think that every thing you believe is proven scientific fact, then I can no longer waste time on folks who delude themselves just because it suits their worldview.
You merely restate your position, “Empiricism is the best, most reliable tool we have for picking away at the workings of the universe. More effective and accurate than “divine revelation” at any rate.” Without being able to explain how. I’ll ask you though, how do you know that empiricism is “the best, more reliable tool”? Don’t restate your position, tell me how science proved that science is the best.
“Your presupposition of the existence of god, and your unwillingness to defend that presupposition in any sort of logical way, really do seem to lead to you making silly statements.”
Why would I defend my presuppositions when we can’t agree that you also hold to presuppositions? I know you would love that kind of conversation, where you can further stand upon your self-constructed “solid” ground of empiricism without reflection on the presuppositional nature of empiricism.
“You continually confuse your non-evidentially-based philosophical positionwith a real-world evidentiary outlook.”
My point is that your “real-world evidentiary outlook” is a delusion that you’ve created. It’s blind presuppositionalism. You stand on beliefs that cannot be supported by empirical evidence, and then pretend that those beliefs don’t exist. If you can’t be philosophically self-reflective about the basis of your empiricism, then you’re correct, there is nothing left to talk about.
“My presupposition, as you call it, biases me toward positions supported by evidence and/or proof. Evidence and proof you cannot provide.”
You’ve again missed the point. It is your presupposition that tells you how to interpret evidence, not evidence that tells you your presupposition is correct. You keep demanding evidence for God because empiricism is the only way to knowledge, while ignoring you have no evidence for empiricism.
“Do you have nothing at all that you feel is convincing as an argument for anyone else to support your presupposition?”
Of course I do, but why would I present it when I can’t get you to agree that you also hold to presuppositions? Again, I’m sure you’d love a discussion where you can just attack instead of having to think through your own position.
On the other hand, if we could start with the realization that my presuppositions of God and His Word, and your presuppositions of empiricism, naturalism, materialism and uniformitarianism are both equally unverifiable by scientific inquiry, then we could discuss the merits and logic of our particular presuppositions.
Aor
You have not an honest bone in your body, nor are you even able to follow the argument of your opponent. You constantly move goalposts when your points are destroyed. Each comment shifts positions from the next. You started saying Christians killed Arians, then you say they were excommunicated, then you switch and say that Christians killed others besides Arians. That’s not logical discussion. I’ll now stop wasting time on you.
“I can no longer waste time on folks who delude themselves just because it suits their worldview.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself Eric. But what the heck, I’m still here.
I go with empiricism because it works. And several thousand years of human endeavour have proven it not absolutely correct, but at least self-correcting, which is more than the Bible is.
How do I know this? Are you waiting for me to tell you it’s received knowledge? Of course it is. I wasn’t in the lab when they first created a critical mass, any more than you were present when the scholars boiled down the bible for King James. But I’ve watched science at work. I’ve never seen your god at work.
Science is consistent, the Bible is not.
However, there’s a clear experiment, as suggested elsewhere on one of the UF threads. The Bible says that faith will keep you safe from poison. Would you drink drain cleaner based on the word of your god? And videotape the results for us unbelievers?
You keep coming at me saying “empiricism can’t prove empiricism is true.” But it works much better than scripture, which can actively prove itself, if not totally false, then ridiculously unlikely.
“You have not an honest bone in your body, nor are you even able to follow the argument of your opponent.
Kemp you are an utterly dishonest scumbag vainly attempting to accuse others of what you do yourself.
“You constantly move goalposts when your points are destroyed.Each comment shifts positions from the next.”
Kemp Shifting the goalposts and positions: “No Christians killed the Arians for believing what they did.”
After the Goalpost Shift: “I claimed that they were not, the Church did not kill Arians.”
But Kemp isn’t shifting the goalposts, that would be dishonest.
Kemp tells us:
“Each comment shifts positions from the next.”
“Proto
“According to wikipedia, the average lifespan of the time was around 20-30 years, so assumption of eye witness status is questionable.”
Kemp
“And plus…we weren’t talking about average life span; you made the statement that people DID NOT live that long. Obviously they did as recorded by history.”
“I wasn’t trying to prove an increased average age, only show that Proto’s claim of “people DO NOT live that long” wrong. I did that.”
Kemp doesn’t shift positions, he just flat out lies. When caught in his lie, instead of admitting that perhaps he made a mistake he quietly leaves and hopes nobody calls him on his excremental behavior.
Kemp continues on his missing the point:
“You started saying Christians killed Arians, then you say they were excommunicated,”
Well yes Kemp what the F do you think happens when you’re excommunicated? Do you think they pat you on the head and tell you what a nice guy you are even though you’re a heathen? Or, do they burn down your house and kill you and your children because you didn’t leave town fast enough?
“then you switch and say that Christians killed others besides Arians. That’s not logical discussion.”
Aor’s Illustration
“The divisions in early christianity were marked with vicious acts on all sides. It was theological civil war. Arianism, Ebionism, Trinitarianism, Manichaenism, Priscillianism. Their followers attacked each other. Each side thought they were defending orthodoxy. In those situations, true believers are willing to torture and kill others.”
That wasn’t a switch you freaking retard! That was a Illustration of what was going on during those times and only a slackjawed credulous asshat would think that “True Orthodox Christians” were above it all.
Kemp closes”
“I’ll now stop wasting time on you.”
Thanks. It was getting hard to keep up with all your petty lies and evasions.
@Kemp:
Instead of addressing your last reply to me point by point, I’m simply going to point out to you why empiricism is not a presupposition and argue that the presuppositions on which empiricism is based are much weaker and more reasonable than your presuppositions. I am going to finish by explaining to you why the fact that you have very strong propositions does not help your case at all.
Before I get too deeply into this, I would like to say that I think your dismissal of “everyday truths” as being relevant to this argument is dishonest. Do you think what is true does not apply to day-to-day life? We all routinely apply empiricism successfully all day every day to the extent that we don’t even notice (often completely unconsciously, as when predicting the path of a thrown object to catch it); why do you think this isn’t worthy of consideration when appraising the strength of the empirical position?
So I’m asserting that empiricism is not a presupposition, and this is my reasoning: true skepticism would lead me to believe that my own personal observations of phenomena are not reliable. I could easily hallucinate a ringing sound for example. Thus, my “worldview” or what have you does not include the proposition that my personal observations are reliable.
So how do I go about determining whether a particular observation of my own is valid? I look for multiple independent confirmation. I ask someone “Did you hear that ringing sound?” My presupposition here is that other people have minds. You could get picky and say that I’m also assuming that when I understand what one is saying it is because I actually do and not because of some crazy coincidence, but I think that’s going a little overboard. My presupposition is simply that other people have minds at least somewhat like mine.
These other people seem to have experiences, and if their descriptions can be trusted, most of these experiences seem rather consistent with my own. How could this be? How could most of our subjective experiences be so similar? How can we account for this? I hypothesize that there is something called the “real world” which accounts for the stimula which are commonly called “sensory experiences.” This hypothesis is tested all day every day, and so far has not been invalidated. Denying its truth (which I’ve seen you do) leads people to some pretty preposterous conclusions. The argument for this hypothesis, in my opinion, trumps the argument against by a wide margin. Thus, I’ve derived the fact that there is a real world from the presupposition that other people have minds. This is, in essence, empiricism; the notion that there is a real world, and that propositions about the real world can be determined to be true or false by multiple independent confirmation (or disconfirmation). It’s derived from the presupposition of other minds, and that’s it. It’s not a presupposition unto itself.
Are you unwilling to assume that there are other minds? In other words, are you a solipsist? Or is it that you think your own experiences are “truer” than those of other minds?
Wow, Eric, you’ve completely failed to substantively respond to any of my points.
Actually, that wasn’t me. And obviously the information is not easily accessible since so many people who self-identify as Christians are clearly incorrect (according to you, on your own say-so). And since reading about what makes one a true Christian when I don’t believe in God or the divinity of Christ would be a big waste of time, why don’t you just help me out and provide me with a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for a particular set of beliefs to constitute Christianity? Otherwise, stop using the “no true Scotsman” argument; it’s getting old and it’s meaningless when you refuse to define terms.
I understand the argument, but again, you have provided no way of determining whether a proposition is true or false within this religious framework. Therefore it is useless as a system for deciding the truth value of propositions. Try again?
They are equally verifiable given your arguments — neither is in any way verifiable. Our empirical verification of the world’s roundness could be fudged by the very same God who hid all those fake dinosaur bones in the ground just to screw with us. He’s omnipotent after all.
But what is “reliable” knowledge? If you tell me a proposition and assert its truthfulness by reason of divine revelation, how do I know that you’re not lying to me? Not simply mistaken? Not deluded? Not describing a hallucination? All of these are simple, straight-forward explanations about why you might assert the truth of a proposition despite the fact that it is false, and all of them are commonplace, as opposed to the experience of a magical sky fairy directly dumping knowledge in your head, which is not particularly commonplace.
And yet it does. Routinely. Every day. That is the point. Gravity always works the same way; QED always works the same way, and that is why we’re able to live the lives that we do with the technology that is accessible to us — it is only because we can predict the behavior of materials when put into certain configurations. I can predict that if I pull on a spring, it will resist with a force proportional to the distance by which it has been stretched — I’m using empiricism to predict the future. And golly gee — it worked.
Yes, your position can explain ANYTHING. But because it’s consistent with any set of facts — including those that aren’t true — it doesn’t actually explain ANYTHING AT ALL. Your “worldview” can’t tell us what is physically impossible (because within your worldview, nothing is impossible) while the laws of science CAN.
This is why it doesn’t help your case to have strong presuppositions. You begin with the presupposition that literally anything is possible and then you seem surprised at the fact that events fit your interpretation. Your “worldview” has no explanatory power whatsoever because it predicts every possible future, not just the one that actually happens. Empiricism, in contrast, has a great track record of not only predicting the future (despite your denial of this simple everyday fact), but predicting ONLY the future and nothing else.
Dan L.
“Your “worldview” has no explanatory power whatsoever because it predicts every possible future, not just the one that actually happens.”
Bad has already covered this ground with Kemp. I hope you have better luck than he had.
“When Theism Cannot Explain Anything (Origins Especially):
Using God in this way is much like answering a multiple choice question by filling in every option, and then claiming that you have answered the question correctly. But while you are indeed sure to have filled in the correct bubble at some point in the process (unless of course, we’ve tricked you by simply not offerring the right answer there at all), your “answer” doesn’t actually tell you or anyone else which option was the correct one.”
http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/when-theism-cannot-explain-anything-origins-especially/
@Dan L
Thanks so much for providing a succinct and thorough explanation of why empiricism is more valid than faith. I wish I believed Eric might be convinced. But he isn’t convince-able of anything save his personal prejudices.
@ eric
Mark:” I just cannot reconcile a just and loving god allowing some folks more of an opportunity to get to heaven than others. I find that thought to be retarded.”
Eric: Are you saying, for God to be fair, he has to force everyone to live the same amount of time?
Mark: No. What I am saying is IF your Christine, divine, just, holy and moral god is going to set the game up with a reward (heaven) at the end. Then I will not think of that god as just or moral if people who have been destructive to this world and human kind have more of an opportunity than an atheist or non-Christian to get into heaven based solely on bieng a christian.
Another reason why I brought up the athiest dying younger than the destructive christian argument is for this reason. It is a fact that some people are able to process imformation quicker than others, or any other words some folks are more intelligent than others.
My thinking is this, if christianity is gods word, and by reality man is compelled to figure out and chose the correct religion or go to hell. Then I cannot understand the concept of a just god allowing some nazis to live long lives, repent, find him and eventually into heaven. While on the other hand some athiest and non christians die before they have had anywhere near the amount of time to find this christian god?
Do you really think it is just for god to allow some people more time to earn thier way into heaven than others
Also please answer my question about how could Jesus be man and god equally if man is mortal and god is eternal or if god is perfect and man is sinful by his nature.
Take your time answering if you will but please do not evade questions.
@Metro:
Actually, after thinking about it a bit, I think I have an even better defense.
First off, I think we all have to concede the truth of the proposition “I have experiences.” This is a similar claim to Descartes “I think therefore I am,” but is actually weaker. This is not a presupposition; if there is such a thing as brute fact, this is the ultimate brute fact. I cannot be more sure of anything than the fact that “I have experiences.” It is so immediate that I’m not sure it would even qualify as an empirical result.
I’m not saying anything about the quality of those experiences; simply that I have them. The “brain in a vat” thought experiment doesn’t have any impact here because even if I am mistaken as to the nature of my experiences, I can still be as sure that I have them as I am of anything else.
Following that, I have only two explicit presuppositions:
1) Logical inferences are valid. — This is a presupposition that everyone engaged in this sort of debate, including Eric Kemp, is forced to make to be able to proceed (actually, Nietzche explicitly argues against this presupposition, but let’s leave that aside for a bit).
This is enough to justify the notion that one cannot disprove a universal existential proposition through empirical means (usually stated glibly as “you can’t prove a negative,” which is not strictly true — this is why I’ve qualified it so much. I would love to see a counterexample of my statement if anyone has such a thing). That is to say it is possible to universally disprove the existence of something analytically (e.g. a square circle) and it is possible to prove a non-universal existential negative (e.g. there are no crows in the box) and it is possible to prove a universal non-existential proposition empirically (e.g snakes can’t dance), but it is impossible to prove any negative universal existential proposition (God does not exist, unicorns do not exist, Russel’s teapot does not exist). I disregard the double-negative construction as a trivial counterexample to the principle (unicorns do not not exist is trivially equivalent to unicorns exist, so it’s not REALLY a negative).
2) Occam’s razor — the most parsimonious explanation for a phenomenon is the correct explanation.
Now, one might object that one can imagine a situation where there are two explanations for a phenomenon and one is more parsimonious than the other, but the less parsimonious explanation is the correct one. There are two cases:
A) It is impossible to determine which one is actually correct.
B) It is possible to determine which one is actually correct.
In the case of (B), we actually have a contradiction. If we can determine that the more parsimonious explanation is incorrect, then it must not have actually accounted for the phenomenon. Thus, whenever we run into an example where the less parsimonious explanation is the correct one, it is only because it is impossible to determine which one is correct (case (A)).
Even in such a situation, there is a good case to be made for choosing the more parsimonious explanation. First and foremost, the less parsimonious explanation will be more likely to admit untrue propositions (in the same manner that the proposition “an omnipotent God exists” can be used to explain any set of facts, whether or not they’re true). Another reason is that because of the presupposition of Occam’s razor, we will likely be reusing any assumptions we make to draw more conclusions. Assuming the weaker or more parsimonious explanation limits the amount of damage we do downstream, so to speak, if we happen to choose the wrong one.
This is also a good presupposition because it limits the amount of propositions found to be true to the absolute lower limit (as opposed to the presupposition that there exists an omnipotent God, which maximizes the amount of propositions that can be determined to be true). Thus, we will inevitably arrive at as few false positives as possible.
***
Once I’ve assumed these two things, the fact that “I have experiences” immediately starts giving me results. The most parsimonious explanation for many of my experiences is that there is a “real world” (though it could, of course, be the Matrix). Quoting from Harry G. Frankfurt’s “On Truth” (which includes a few great attacks on postmodernism):
The brute fact of our experiences, the fact that they are not completely under control of our wills, and the presupposition of Occam’s razor give us the entire material world and the solution to the problem of other minds. Once we have other minds, we can again make our determination of the truth values of propositions more rigorous by seeking multiple independent confirmation.
The existence of an “immaterial world,” unless one is indicating by that only those experiences where it is not immediately apparent that they are imposed by the material world, is not implied by any of this. It may be invoked as a fairly parsimonious explanation of, for example, the experience of a particular emotion or for emotions in general. However, since it is not normalized to our assumption of the material world, it is not particularly parsimonious and thus violates Occam’s razor. Since we already have one world and we’re not quite sure what’s possible there, why posit a whole new one just to explain anger or sorrow or love?
The supposition of an “immaterial world” is also problematic because it requires some way to interface with the material world. Presumably, many actions I take in the material world are motivated by my experience of emotion; thus, if my experience of emotion is dependent on some sort of immaterial existence, there is a chain of causality stretching from immaterial existence to my actions in the material world and suddenly we can begin to make falsifiable propositions about the immaterial world. In this case, something must be happening in my brain that cannot be predicted by the laws of material science. If all the events in my brain ARE predicted by the laws of material science, the proposition of an immaterial cause for emotions is falsified. This is an extreme example, but I have little doubt that a cleverly designed experiment could yield a more reasonable one.
So there you have an account of empirical materialism based on two very defensible presuppositions and a few fundamental observations.
A question remains: given the fact that no one here is willing to concede to Kemp’s presuppositions, why does he stay here to argue? Progress is impossible if we can’t agree on the fundamental assumptions within the universe of discourse. I think he gives a clue here:
He’s trying to demonstrate to us that his system is “better” because it accounts for our system and has a bunch of other neat bells and whistles as well. He’s wrong, of course; I’ve just explained why atheists believe empiricism is reliable without even relying on the argument from utility (which is must stronger than Kemp is willing to admit). Of course, he’s still missing the point that stronger presuppositions have less, not more, explanat power than weak ones because they are almost always consistent with untrue propositions. I like the analogy of filling in all the multiple choice answers and insisting you answered the question correctly. Think about that for a few minutes, Kemp, and you might get why Occam’s razor is such a great presupposition from which to work.
@Dan L.
A nice, thorough explanation.
With specific respect to Eric, the problem is the presupposition that “God exists, therefore empiricism works.”
The trouble is that nothing in shared human experience suggests that the first supposition is necessary to explain the second.
I only read the first 30 comments or so, because I really just stopped in to joke about Ben’s endorsement of his own film.
I work in a store that has a video rental section, and apparently his self-review on the cover was enough to cause the person who handles our new movies to label this one with a “Comedy” sticker!
“I work in a store that has a video rental section, and apparently his self-review on the cover was enough to cause the person who handles our new movies to label this one with a “Comedy” sticker!”
They should give that guy a raise.