An old high school acquaintance recently friended me on Facebook and saw a disparaging comment I'd made about public schrool education. The original status post had been "Why are people upset about the gov't taking over health care?" and I had quite reasonably agreed! I mean, obviously, the gov't has done such a bang-up job ejakayttin the masses, why wouldn't we want a massive governmental bureaucracy controlling the industry?
So this acquaintance pointed out that we had both gone to a good high school, a magnet one in fact. Indeed, the exception serves to prove the rule - we went to a magnet school and that school still had many problems and had many serious shortcomings. One of which was the teaching of Darwinian evolution as fact in the science classroom.
An acquaintance of hers said, "It is fact." Wait for it...
I asked for evidence.
Another acquaintance said, "Google 'peppered moths'."
And that, friends, is pubblyk skul edjakayshunn at work. I rest my case.
Those amazing little peppered moths... God bless 'em.
ReplyDeleteRhology,
ReplyDeleteThis is one subject I can agree with you on completely! I was a high school teacher (10th gr. Soc. Stud. & 12th gr Eng.) & saw first hand the deplorable condition of "pubblyk skul edjakayshunn." The administration wanted us to pass all students, regardless of their academic performance. The concept of failing a student was not in the scope of their thinking.
Now, I teach on the elementary school level. Special education has become a monster out of control, being financially fueled by the federal gov't. While I recognize that some children belong in the category of "special needs" MANY do not. Rather it is just the case of children who are rebellious and have no respect for authority. Diagnosing children with "obstinate defiant disorder" is just another cover for what they really are - and I'll leave you to fill in the gap. :)
Darlene, {{shudder}}.
ReplyDeleteWait, seriously, are you complaining that the school didn't properly educate you because they DID teach you the fact of evolution? What a lucky, lucky human you are to know something so awesome and not be deluded into thinking this earth is the paltry plaything of some maniacal egotistic diety. Oh wait - I forgot whose blog I was on. (Just teasing.)
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, please look at TalkOrigins.org. I was a creationist for 25 years and it really embarrasses me now to realize how fundamentally ignorant I was of the facts. Even something as simple as understanding the meaning of the word "Theory" in a scientific context can really help someone see the world the way it truly is.
To Darlene - as the mother of a special needs elementary school student, I sincerely hope you never contact with kids like him. What an awful, inhuman thing to say about children who do not possess all the gifts and abilities for social and emotional control that YOU do. Teachers who loathe children IMO is one of the problems with our education system - not the fact that children who were previously neglected are finally being given a fair chance. You make me sick.
No no, they definitely should have taught it to me. It's teaching it as FACT that's unacceptable, b/c it's actually a load of horsecrap.
ReplyDeleteAnd Talkorigins is sometimes impressive and sometimes pretty shoddy. I would say it's the best I've seen, but that's not saying a whole lot, and it usually doesn't deal with my own arguments, b/c my arguments are uncommon. Not unique, but uncommon. Not the typical ID or YEC screed, I should say.
See here a dismantling of two of their articles.
What an awful, inhuman thing to say about children who do not possess all the gifts and abilities for social and emotional control that YOU do.
Wow.
1) So clearly you've seen all that Darlene has seen and are thus qualified to make such a sweeping judgment.
2) Are you seriously unaware of the well-reported problems of excessive prescriptions of things like Ritalin and overdiagnosis of ADHD? That fits very well in this category.
3) You're an atheist. Where do you get a moral standard by which to judge anyone else as good OR bad? I'd love to know how you judge things objectively good and bad.
4) Is it objectively wrong to loathe? How do you know?
5) RE: "inhuman" - do you oppose abortion, perchance?
6) Speaking of which, what is the objective definition of "human" and why **SHOULD** anyone hold to it or respect it?
My guess is you'll backtrack and give your own personal opinions, "Well *I* think it's bad!" But if that's all your morality amounts to, why SHOULD anyone else care, since apparently there's no overarching standard and anyone else's opinion is just as valid (that is to say, INvalid) as yours?
Peace and patience to you,
Rhology
But Evolution *is* a fact, and even if it wasn't, that wouldn't make creationism any more likely to be true. Teaching fact as "maybe true" would be irresponsible. I understand your frustration, because I was a creationist Christian during high school biology class and I was deeply offended at being told that evolution was a fact. My feelings on the matter didn't effect the truth or falsity of evolution one tiny bit. It's true. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the METHOD of the FACT of evolution that is *most likely* to be true, based on ALL available evidence. If mounting evidence for a *more likely* theory emerges, I - and everyone else who accepts evolution as true - will happily change our stance. That's the beauty of not being tied to dogma and an ancient manuscript. As new information is available, we don't have to wrestle with it. We can just accept and use that knowledge (like scientists in health and biological fields have done to create vaccines and antibiotics).
ReplyDelete1) I didn't make a sweeping statement on her character. I said it was an awful thing to say, and it was. It was callous to children who are vulnerable, by someone in a position of authority over them, making assumptions about their mental health that as a public school social studies/english teacher she is not qualified to make.
2) An astonishing number of children who are over-diagnosed are done so at the behest of the teacher and the school administration. The factory-model of our education system is designed largely to control groups, rather than to educate and inspire. That's why classroom size and student teacher ratios matter so much. If a child isn't engaged - because he's bored, because the subject matter isn't challenging, or because sitting at a desk for hours isn't natural for a small child - the school may be the one to push for a diagnosis and medication. It's sure easier than having smaller classrooms and better teachers.
3) I get my morals from the same place you do - common sense, our parents, and our culture. You think the Bible is the literal Word of God and so does Fred Phelps, but I'll bet ya $20 your morals are closer to mine than they are to his. The idea that 10% of the US is living completely without morals is ludicrous - IF you're excluding all the pedophile priests and youth leaders and camp counselors and music directors etc etc etc AND the money-grubbing charlatan evangelist mega-church word-of-faith "now accepting PayPal" types. If they total 10% than I could agree with you. But it's not the atheists living with abhorrent morals and behaving reprehensibly in public. Just look at any news site. I've got a Google news alert for "church" and "scandal" that pops up 50 news articles a day. Don't try telling me Christians have more morals or a more secure basis for their morality. Some of the worst humans to ever spew hate speech were religious (including Hitler!)
Now I obviously know that not all Christians are like this and I DON'T treat all Christians as such or paint the entire religion and its adherents with that broad brush. Please show the same respect to me and other atheists.
4) People can only behave slightly better than they feel. Think about it - when you're tired or hungry, you have a shorter temper and you're more likely to be mean to someone. It happens to all of us. Likewise if you resent someone or feel contempt towards them, there is no way you can possibly be a kind or even neutral figure in their life. I'll leave the claims of "objective" morality to you.
) Lol, that's a whole other debate. Let's do a specific post on this. Tell you what - I'll open it on my blog and you can come over there and comment all you want. I'll publish every one of them. You can invite your friends and I'll bring mine and we'll all have a big pow-wow.
ReplyDelete6) You seem really concerned with things being "objective". Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that reality is objective. But I don't know that morality is. Your need for ethics to be so confined and rigid, so clearly defined and pre-described so that no special allowances can be made depending upon circumstances is really evident. And confusing. Ethics are of *course* situational. Had Darlene been a professor at a university, working with adult students fully capable of voicing their concerns, of transferring out of her class, of complaining to her supervisors, etc. I would not have felt the need to speak up. But the mistreatment of children is of prime concern to me, especially within religious institutions and religious homes. And to see a Christian public school teacher claiming that children with special needs - like my son - are simply "children who are rebellious and have no respect for authority" and that their medical diagnoses (from people who went to med school, unlike Darlene) are merely a way of "covering" for what she no doubt thinks of as their sinful nature greatly offends my MORAL sensibilities. I'm sorry but you cannot for one SECOND tell me that Darlene has shown in this exchange a better objective OR subjective morality.
I judge morals and ethics based on how people treat those with fewer advantages. That's the true way to know a man, not by how he treats his equals or his betters.
Wait, which scientifically illiterate objection to the evolution of peppered moth melanism do you hold to?
ReplyDelete1) IT'S JUST MICRO EVOLUTION.
2) PEPPERED MOTHS DON'T REST ON TREE BARK! THEY STAGED THOSE PICTURES!
3)DR. KETTLEWELL COOKED THE DATA!
Let me know so I can properly correct you. If it's one, perhaps you should have made it more clear that you accept the Darwinian mechanism for evolution (natural selection plus random mutation), you simply object to common descent.
my arguments are uncommon
Wow. What do you think are your "original" arguments? Omphalos? "Who are you to judge bad design"? "Macroevolution hasn't been observed"? "Your evidence fits just as well with intelligent design"? "Fossils don't count as evidence"?
I hear all of these so often, I sometimes think you people all get your arguments handed to you on postcards from some sort of Head Creationist.
You obviously don't read a lot of creationist literature, because all of your arguments are about as common as a soiled diaper in a landfill. Please browse the Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International websites one of these days to get a fuller sense of how you're just a grain of salt in an ocean of creationists.
Incidentally, I do agree that the public education system is unforgivably poor. This is probably best demonstrated by the fact that a full forty-four percent of Americans think that God "poofed" human beings into existence fully developed.
@justfinethanks - I think I love you.
ReplyDeleteYou know, there are lots of evolutionists that google the blogs every day, looking for someone to argue with.
ReplyDeleteYou can write about almost anything else in the universe and get next to no response whatsoever, but say that evolution is a crock, and they come crawlin' outta da woodwork.
You can write about almost anything else in the universe and get next to no response whatsoever, but say that evolution is a crock, and they come crawlin' outta da woodwork.
ReplyDeleteTrust me, I'd be equally disturbed and argumentative if half the nation held to the hollow earth theory. Creationism just happens to be the most popular pseudoscientific conspiracy theory right now, so it gets the most attention.
My goodness, Angie. You've made some sweeping judgments about me from a small post! I won't address your individual comments about me just yet. Let's just review what I said and perhaps we can clear matters up a bit.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I mentioned that administration wanted teachers to pass students, regardless of their performance. So, if they refused to do any or little work inside or outside of the classroom, if they failed their tests, still, we were supposed to push them through.
Secondly, I have made no pronouncement on the condition of your child. Further, I did say that there are children that are truly special needs. Those children deserve special attention and help. As a matter of fact, I designed my tests and educational material to specifically suit their needs. I offered help to them outside of school on a regular basis and communicated with parents on their child's ed. performance.
However, when I speak of spec. ed. being a monster, I am referring to the gov't offering spec. finan. incentives to schools. These incentives make it beneficial to diagnose as many child. as poss. as special needs. A large portion of stud. are diag. w ob. def. disorder. The definition of this disorder is very controversial even among clinical and school psychologists.
So, the problem with students diag. w. this disorder was their refusal to take responsibility for their behavior. I am speaking here of high school students. However, even the non-spec. ed students took no onus for wrong behavior. The difference was, when a spec. ed. student threatened to punch me out, or throw a desk at me, or used foul, unacceptable language, or refused to do their homework, or ignored correction in class, THERE WERE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR WRONG BEHAVIOR. These students could lie, cheat on tests, come to school stoned or drunk, threaten teachers, and get away with it.
If a student shows a willingness to learn, and even moreso, a willingness to follow the rules for normal, social behavior, this can set the stage for a positive learning environment. However, if a student thinks school is a place where they can act rudely and speak profanely, and not admit to their wrong behavior, all the great learning materials, special lesson plans, etc. will be of little value.
Angie,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "An astonishing number of children who are over- diagnosed are done so at the behest of the teacher and school administration."
Do you have statistics for this? I will speak from my own experience. Many parents pushed for their children to be placed into spec. education. Their reasons varied but if and when a parent insisted, regardless of the admonition not to put their child in spec ed, the parent's wishes were honored.
The teacher has very little to say as regards to the size of the classrooms. In fact, if every teacher had their way, none would have over-sized classrooms. It isn't conducive to a positive learning environment.
Angie,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "But it's not the atheists living with abhorrent morals and behaving reprehensively in publc."
I was raised in an atheist-agnostic home and my parents had very strict morals. Stricter than many "Christians" have today. I would call them "moral" atheists.
I agree with you about the reprehensible behavior of many who call themselves "Christians." As regards Hitler, I'm not sure what you mean by "religious." The man was a megalomaniac, consumed with the lust of power. He was his own god.
You said, "But the mistreatment of children is of prime concern to me."
First Angie, I think you are over-reacting. You can't even cite an example or proove I mistreated anyone. You are reading far too much into a small post.
Secondly, these "children" were 15 -18 yrs. of age. Certainly old enough to know better than to use profanity, verbally threaten the teacher and other students, refuse to abide by common courtesy, etc. I'm not talking about elementary school children here.
You said, "and that their medical dianoses arer merely a way of "covering" for what she no doubt thinks of as their sinful nature..."
Angie, you didn't even as yet have any correspondence with me and again are making a sweeping judgment. Perhaps you would like to ask me directly how I viewed my students.
BTW, I was not then nor am I now a "fundamentalist" Christian. It is because I am a follower of Christ that I can have compassion on others, esp. those who have handicaps and are beset with many weaknesses.
You said, "I'm sorry but you cannot for one SECOND tell me that Darlene has shown in this exchange a better objective OR subjective morality."
Angie, I didn't know that I revealed so very much of my morality within two short paragraphs. However, I would certainly be glad to answer any questions you might want to ask me as regards my morals.
Peace to you this day.
Darlene
Angie,
ReplyDeleteI think you greatly over-emphasize what science can tell you. Science is not some body of information that can be used to test the truthfulness of a world view, as you apparently want to do. At its core, modern science explains a set of data through a naturalistic interpretive grid. This means scientific explanations come with an inherent naturalistic bias, and you can't rely on scientific explanations to discriminate between truth claims of competing world views, such as atheism and Christian theism.
Darlene - I'll admit that your original comment made my blood boil, and that I wrote passionately. Obviously the situation you describe of the physical safety of you or students is not at all a good one, and you should not be asked to be in that situation. However, as the mother of a special needs child - which is the only way I *can* view such things - it greatly concerns (and offends) me when people who do not lack the requisite knowledge and experience in diagnosis attempt to categorize or determine based on their own non-expert, non-parental judgments the mental state of their students. I cannot tell you how many armchair psychiatrists in church, school, or at the playground have told me "what's wrong" with my son. And then of course there are the deniers who claims that *nothing* is wrong with him, and that I'm being overprotective and "spoiling him" by catering to his special considerations.
ReplyDeleteI'm someone the system failed epically. The school administrators, guidance counselors, teachers, church leaders, and HRS (who my brother called) all abandoned me to my fate. So yeah, protecting kids is kind of a big deal for me. I still think that teaching and working with children requires passion and patience, and if either is waning it may be time to take a hiatus. After all, it's not like the pay is great (unfortunately).
Science is not some body of information that can be used to test the truthfulness of a world view... you can't rely on scientific explanations to discriminate between truth claims of competing world views, such as atheism and Christian theism.
ReplyDeleteWhat measure or method do YOU suggest we use to test the truthfulness of a world view or to discriminate between truth claims of christianity? (Since atheism does not make the positive claim for the existence of a supernatural all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving unprovable and unproven deity, it's not the one under scrutiny.)
And let's not forget that Christianity makes scientific claims about the origin of our universe and our species, about the existence of non-observable "souls", about a virgin conceiving a child against all we know about biology and sexual reproduction, and about physically living after death (resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus). Not to mention the sun stopping in the sky for a big battle, rains of frogs and rivers of blood in Egypt, a talking snake, a talking donkey, the sun rotating around a "fixed immovable" earth, etc. These are inherently scientific claims, and their truthfulness can most certainly be effectively judged by use of the scientific method.
--I think you greatly over-emphasize what science can tell you. Science is not some body of information that can be used to test the truthfulness of a world view, as you apparently want to do. At its core, modern science explains a set of data through a naturalistic interpretive grid. This means scientific explanations come with an inherent naturalistic bias, and you can't rely on scientific explanations to discriminate between truth claims of competing world views, such as atheism and Christian theism.--
ReplyDeleteActually, science as a method doesn't have an inherent naturalistic bias (which is not to say that some scientists don't):
a. there is no a priori barrier to supernaturalistic explanations, if they can be used to set up hypotheses etc etc - unfortunately, 'God just did it' is about as useful as a chocolate teapot for formulating some sort of basis to work from, since it gives you absolutely no guidance as to what you should be looking for to determine if the real world is consistent with the existence of said deity. Furthermore, many superntaural explanations become self-sealing arguments via way of ad-hoc hypotheses (such as the aforementioned Omphalos hypothesis)
b. many claims require holding no bias one way or the other as regards naturalism vs supernaturalism (although they may exclude certain variants of either, such as YEC in the example I'm about to give) eg the earth could be 4.5 billion years old, or it could have been created 1000 years ago - a person could hold to either view (depending on which was supported by evidence of course) without the need for affirming naturalism or supernaturalism
c. many supernatural worldviews (such as Christian theism) do make claims that can be checked against reality, eg:
- that distinct groups of organisms called kinds exist and can be categorised to exclude other equally distinct groups (both living and fossilised) based on their genetic and/or morphological characteristics, in particular with humans being distinct from all other animals
-the earth is relatively young, in the order of 1000s t0 10s of 1000s of years old
-prayer can effect great change in the natural world, including altering otherwise unchangeable physical facts about reality
and so on and so forth
Hi Angie,
ReplyDeleteif it wasn't, that wouldn't make creationism any more likely to be true.
Hmm, not even a little? I bet it's at least a little.
My feelings on the matter didn't effect the truth or falsity of evolution one tiny bit. It's true. Evolution is a fact.
If it were true, I'd expect to see some evidence for its factuality.
If mounting evidence for a *more likely* theory emerges, I - and everyone else who accepts evolution as true - will happily change our stance.
I don't believe that for one second, sorry. I've seen too much to believe that.
That's the beauty of not being tied to dogma and an ancient manuscript.
Yeah, it's way better to be tied to dogma and less-ancient manuscripts like Dawkins'.
1) I didn't make a sweeping statement on her character.
"You make me sick" comes pretty close. Backtracking much? Of course, you're welcome to retract.
Look, I'm about to get into all your statements about morality, and you're a total neophyte on this topic. Not trying to be mean, but you need to do some catching up.
3) I get my morals from the same place you do - common sense, our parents, and our culture.
You apparently know little about my position.
But you'll notice that you're answering a question I didn't ask. How do you know what's objectively good and bad? Mind answering?
The idea that 10% of the US is living completely without morals is ludicrous
Sad strawman. Tell you what, since the rest of your comment exhibits similar and complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying, let me recommend you do some reading on my actual position and you can come back to this. As it is, you're acting like it's the 1st time you've interacted with a presuppositionist, and it shows.
But it's not the atheists living with abhorrent morals and behaving reprehensively in publc
Actually, quite a few do, but there are so few of you that you don't make the news as much.
And atheists are the top mass murderers in world history, so...
Don't try telling me Christians have more morals or a more secure basis for their morality.
The latter is what I am saying. An unchanging document describing an unchanging fundamental being is far more secure than "my parents told me it was good".
including Hitler!)
Godwining already, I see.
And Hitler wasn't a Christian. Religious, sure, but so what? Who'd defending "religion" here?
Likewise if you resent someone or feel contempt towards them, there is no way you can possibly be a kind or even neutral figure in their life.
You are totally and completely wrong. I myself have, thru the grace of God, been a kind figure in the lives of numerous ppl for whom I had little more than contempt.
Jesus is another notable example. Try again.
And of course, if there's no objective reality, I guess it's not wrong to be unkind. It just IS. You think it's bad, maybe I think it's good. Who's right and how can we know?
Let's do a specific post on this.
What, on objective morality?
I've done quite a lot thereon. I seriously recommend you read up on what I've already written first before you shoot off at the mouth like that. So many strawmen do no one any good.
But I don't know that morality is.
You seem pretty sure when you condemn pedophiles and Darlene. Backtracking again?
no special allowances can be made depending upon circumstances is really evident.
Once again, you have no idea what I think. If you did, you'd know you're pulling stuff out of the air.
But one has to have a standard to which to compare things. What's yours?
(cont)
ReplyDeleteBut the mistreatment of children is of prime concern to me,
But it's not objectively wrong. So maybe you think it's wrong and I think it's right. Who's right?
Tell you what, go on your blog and answer my scenario and its followup and we can talk then.
I judge morals and ethics based on how people treat those with fewer advantages.
OK, and I judge morals and ethics based on how much pain one can inflict on another. Who's right and how can we know?
What measure or method do YOU suggest we use to test the truthfulness of a world view or to discriminate between truth claims of christianity?
I'll answer for myself. Again, read the first links I gave you at the other post. When you do, you'll know the answer.
Since atheism does not make the positive claim for the existence of a supernatural all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving unprovable and unproven deity, it's not the one under scrutiny.)
Yeah, it just thinks that life, the universe, and everythg poofed spontaneously into existence, uncaused, out of nothing. Speaking of lame.
And it has no idea of the origin of the laws of logic. Or how they exist. Or how to explain them. But atheists go on believing. Their faith is strong.
These are inherently scientific claims, and their truthfulness can most certainly be effectively judged by use of the scientific method.
The existence of an immaterial thing like a soul is a scientific question? You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Then you overemphasise the power of induction wrt the virgin birth.
Life after death is a scientific question?
Pfff, you're a neophyte in this too.
jft,
you simply object to common descent.
Correct.
Insults
Yawn.
because all of your arguments are about as common as a soiled diaper in a landfill.
Really?
Who in the YEC crowd is a presuppositionalist?
Who has put fwd my challenge? Just curious.
I do agree that the public education system is unforgivably poor.
Angie thinks you're evil.
Dr Funk,
science as a method doesn't have an inherent naturalistic bias
Angie would like a word with you.
Dr Funk - I don't disagree with anything you've said. Thanks for attempting to explain science to a group determined not to learn. It might be futile, but it's still noble.
ReplyDeleteRho - you asked to be informed of trackbacks. Okay. This post was linked on
my blog today.
I'm done talking with you until you can refrain from using ad hominems and inappropriately and inaccurately applying the label of neophyte.
What measure or method do YOU suggest we use to test the truthfulness of a world view or to discriminate between truth claims of christianity?
ReplyDeleteAdjudicating truth claims between world views and within one world view is totally different. You need to perform an internal critique of a world view to determine its truthfulness. Within Christian theism, you compare competing views against Scripture. And, yes, atheism is under scrutiny. It is a different belief system that makes claims about the world. As such, it is not immune from having its internal structure evaluated.
And let's not forget that Christianity makes scientific claims
Here's your confusion about what science can and cannot do. You are trying to use naturalistic presuppositions to evaluate a set of bare facts collected from experiments. Then you want to use those interpretations to castigate a different world view. It doesn't work that way. A world view gives meaning to facts, and different world views can give meaning to the same set of facts in different ways. By the way, how did you intend for science to ever evaluate non-material entities, such as a soul? I think this just further illustrates your failure to grasp exactly the limits of science.
Man, PChem, I'd bet you'd make a good scientist. You should look into that field of study.
ReplyDelete---Here's your confusion about what science can and cannot do.---
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately it appears to be you that is confused PChem - I gave an example of things that should reasonably be expected to be true on Christianity that are all amenable to being investigated by science. None of them require the prior assumption of naturalism in order to be tested. For example, if believers can alter facts about the world by prayer, or have some sort of communication with an all knowing infallible being that provides a basis for knowledge of certain facts about the world, then we should expect this can be demonstrated in the real world.
---You are trying to use naturalistic presuppositions to evaluate a set of bare facts collected from experiments. Then you want to use those interpretations to castigate a different world view.---
not really - eg evaluating whether animals can be grouped into archetypes based on genetics and/or morphology doesn't require naturalistic presuppositions. Either they can or they can't, regardless of whether a supernatural entity exists or not.
It wouldn't outright prove creationism true were it the case, but it'd certainly be extremely consistent with it and show many potential alternatives (eg other creation myths, common descent, Lamarckian progression etc etc) to be false to boot.
---By the way, how did you intend for science to ever evaluate non-material entities, such as a soul?
Whether science could investigate a soul I'm not sure, but then science is applied all the time to investigate non-material entities/phenomena, or the effects that supposedly result from them. Eg, it's used to investigate non-material phenomena such as telekinesis or mind reading
Please don't confuse atheism with science as if they're at all directly connected. All atheism is is a lack of belief in god. There is no belief system, there is no other consistent common thread among atheists beyond that lack of belief. You don't HAVE to be an intelligent, educated person to be an atheist - most people who are atheists are because rational thinking leads to curiosity/critical thinking which promotes education. Irrational thought - theism, superstition, etc. - is a realm of easy answers where thought is not only not a requirement but in a lot of cases it seems to be discouraged or in the least, strictly controlled.
ReplyDeleteYes, a lot of atheists are also champions of science because science provides verifiable evidence to back up its explanation of things (and also has the ability to say without fear 'we don't know that yet' as opposed to 'God did it! Look we have ALL the answers!') as opposed to religion which makes arbitrary claims and then demonizes anyone who dares question those claims - a cult tactic and classic bully behavior.
As for asking people to prove evolution to you - you've rejected the concept already. Animal husbandry - controlled evolution. The reason if you have a grandmother with red hair, you have blond hair, and your kid has red hair - recessive genetics which is a facet of evolution. Rapid and documented aviary speciation lends proof to evolution. If you need information, go to school and learn something. The verified examples of evolution are overwhelming. If you want to be given examples which you will immediately and smugly counter with some trumped of version of 'nuh uh! goddidit!' then quit asking for proof and recede back into internet obscurity where you belong.
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, but I believe you are an adherent to Young Earth creationism. That is, my impression is your belief is Earth itself is merely several thousand years old (rather than 4.54 billion years old, as the scientific consensus currently estimates). Again, if I am mistaken, correct me, please.
Moving ahead with that assumption, just as a hypothetical, suppose that you somehow came to the certain knowledge that Earth actually was 4.54 billion years old, as scientists say. This says nothing of evolution, but merely Earth's age. Would this grievously wound your worldview? Could you just “swap” to Old Earth creationism, without much rejiggering?
Take it a step further and suppose, by some method, you came to the certain knowledge that Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) first walked the Earth in our most primitive form, as science has estimated, about 195,000 years ago. Again, this does not speak to Darwinian evolution, per se, but instead to man's appearance--however we came to be. Would THIS fact grievously harm your worldview?
Finally, suppose you knew, as a matter of indisputable fact, that Darwinian evolution by natural selection had occurred. It might have been a god-designed process, or might have been entirely natural and without direction...but macroevolution did occur and continues to operate. Now then, would THIS grievously or irreparably injure your worldview?
I laid out this “thought experiment” on my blog a few days ago and, it just so happens, it seems to apply perfectly to this post.
Again, for the moment, set aside questions of evolution's factuality and consider the hypothetical.
then we should expect this can be demonstrated in the real world
ReplyDeleteHere you are conflating reality with what science tells you. Science *may* describe reality, but it may not. At its core, science is the accumulation of facts through experimentation. These facts are like all others; they carry no intrinsic interpretation. They are bare facts, and it is a world view that is used to ascribe meaning to them. The current method for explaining facts in the scientific establishment is one of naturalism. If the world is purely naturalistic, then we would expect science to correspond to reality. But, if this is a non-naturalistic world, say theistic, one would expect some breakdown in what science can say about reality. Saying this is a naturalistic world by appealing to science is begging the question.
not really - eg evaluating whether animals can be grouped into archetypes based on genetics and/or morphology doesn't require naturalistic presuppositions. Either they can or they can't, regardless of whether a supernatural entity exists or not.
Your missing it. The morphological and genetic data are the bare facts. When you start to explain them you are injecting a world view because that is what a world view does. It gives meaning to bare facts. If you want to invalidate one grouping strategy over the other, you need to perform an internal critique on the interpretive grid that led to those explanations.
advertisinglies,
ReplyDelete"Atheism" in this case is just shorthand for any worldview that is nontheistic. There are multiple flavors, yes, but don't be obscurantist, please.
Animal husbandry - controlled evolution.
I love it when ppl mention that. It's actually far more akin to intelligent design. The crux of the debate between evolution and ID is INTELLIGENCE, and husbandry is intelligently guided. I doubt you want to go there.
recessive genetics which is a facet of evolution.
And a creationist view. This isn't unique to evolution.
Further, PChem is a Ph.D in physical sciences from a large secular university with over 25K students. I don't know if anyone should expect you're in a good position to critique him on the nature of science...
JN,
Hello again!
Yes, most days I'm YEC, and a few here and there I'm undecided. So I'll defend YEC b/c that does mostly describe me in all honesty.
Could I swap to OEC? Good question. Tell you what, yes, and here's how. The reason I believe in YEC is b/c I believe it is the best explanation of the biblical revelation, at the base (and I have all sorts of reasons why that is the case, many of which I believe we've discussed). So, if I *were* to switch, it would be b/c I'd become convinced that the biblical revelation actually expresses OEC instead of YEC.
It would require some retooling, tho, I'll grant you that, and many of my arguments would change, but not all, certainly not all.
RE: homosapiens walking the Earth 195K yrs ago... you know, I don't know enough about a good, nuanced OEC view to say yes...I think it would be difficult to see how the Genesis narratives fit in, to be honest. But maybe someone like Ken Ham has a well-thought-out explanation for it.
I think it would be yet tougher than that to accept common descent, really. There's an awful lot there that I don't think could be reconciled to the Bible, not just Genesis, but statements that Jesus and Paul make, for example, that are supposed (by which I mean that we suppose them) to be authoritative and not wild allegory, etc. I really don't think evol with common desc is compatible with any consistent biblical hermeneutic at all.
Peace,
Rhology
me: you simply object to common descent.
ReplyDeleteYou: Correct.
Ok, then. It sounds like what happened here is that you expressed skepticism of Darwinian evolution, and someone responded by giving a legitimate example of Darwinian evolution. This appears to be a failure on your part to specify what you are precisely skeptical of, not the public education system.
Insults
Yawn.
Gahhh, curses! He is immune to my barbs! I am foiled!
Seriously, though, you can't honestly tell me have a problem with insults. Firstly, they're fun. Secondly, you employ them all the freaking time.
And also, I have never insulted you. I've just corrected you (with jokes!)
Really?
Who in the YEC crowd is a presuppositionalist?
Presuppositionalism is the MO of Ken Ham and answers in Genesis. A lot of their stuff is mostly wanky Bahnsenian talk of "competing worldviews."
Like this article: Atheism: an Irrational Worldview
Or this Article: What's Your Worldview?
Or this Book: War of the Worldviews
Frankly, why did you even try to claim that your creationist arguments are original when it is plainly obvious that you don't even spend any time reading creationist literature? What were you basing the originality of your arguments on? Apparently I know more about what creationists have to say about creationism than you do.
I would say that I'm sorry for bursting your delusions of originality, but I'd be lying.
Angie thinks you're evil.
No she doesn't. She loves me. She even told me so.
Of course, a private school is no guarantee you'll get a good education either. I, for example, went to a private Christian high school where they showed Kent Hovind videos during class. Looking back, it's a shock that they would be so willingly negligent in my education.
Let me tell you, becoming an adult, doing your own research, and discovering that the people who you had invested the most trust (parents/teachers) had baldly and repeatedly lied to you about the nature of the natural world can seriously fuk you up.
Actually, what's Christianese for "fuk you up."
Ah yes, that's right. It can seriously "change your heart."
Remember that when you talk to your kids about the origin of the universe and humanity.
I really don't think evol with common desc is compatible with any consistent biblical hermeneutic at all.
Weirdly, I disagree. I've always found the "evolution=atheism is true" argument to be really intellectually lazy. But hey, on this point you have common ground with Dawkins. So maybe world peace is possible after all.
---But, if this is a non-naturalistic world, say theistic, one would expect some breakdown in what science can say about reality. Saying this is a naturalistic world by appealing to science is begging the question.---
ReplyDeleteAgain you seem to be missing my point. the examples I gave require absolutely no prior commitment to naturalism whatsoever. The scientific method does not a priori favour supporting creationism over supporting common ancestry. But if a theistic God is claimed to be active in the world, then we need to have some way of evaluating this otherwise it's just an empty claim, which is no better than me claiming no theistic God is active in the world. If we were solely interested in internal critique then views such as The Force in Star Wars, or the magical goings on in the Lord of the Rings could be assumed to be true on the basis that the storylines are consistent, yet clearly neither makes any true real world claims.
I've also not at any point said that scientific findings validate naturalism, because that's never been my claim - what I am saying is that it can validate or invalidate certain variants of either. Disproving common ancestry would not also disprove naturalism, while disproving independent creation would not invalidate other forms of supernaturalism. But if we're essentially reduced to a game of relativisim where claims can be made about what does and doesn't happen in the world with no objective means of evaluation or supporting them, then anything one person claims is as good as anything anyone else claims.
eg If I claim that praying to Ahura Mazdra enables me to flap my arms and fly round my room, while the NT claims that believers can perform all sorts of feats by praying to Yahweh, the scientific method provides a means to validate one or the other (or neither). In principle, either could be true before conducting said test, and again doesn't require an a priori commitment to naturalism to refute either, since one supernatural claim could be true and the other false. On the other hand, if we simply reduce it to the fact that making a claim that is part of a given worldview can be accepted purely because it's a corollary of a set of assumptions that someone holds to then I will enjoy my afternoon of gliding gracefully around my house ten feet off the ground.
---Your [sic] missing it. The morphological and genetic data are the bare facts. When you start to explain them you are injecting a world view because that is what a world view does. It gives meaning to bare facts.---
Correct, the data are the bare facts, which could in principle be explained by a variety of theories (eg common ancestry or independent creation). But the fact is anyone could evaluate the claim in the same manner via the scientific method - as you seem to be a scientist from what Rhology says, like me I'm sure you've worked with people from all sorts of backgrounds with all sorts of religious views - yet they all do their science according to the very same method. On the other hand if we can simply apply any old set of assumptions to shoehorn new data in our prior assumptions (such as the Omphalos theory that rhology subscribes to, an assumption which simply dissolves any worldview into a form solipsism/Cartesian demon style scenario) then we're just playing a game of relativism, in which case anything goes.
cont...
ReplyDelete---If you want to invalidate one grouping strategy over the other, you need to perform an internal critique on the interpretive grid that led to those explanations.---
I'm not seeing any obvious way someone could answer a question such as whether groups of organisms divide into archetypes (or not) other than by the scientific method - obviously if it just boils down to someone's say-so and things like morphology or genetics are irrelevant (again, off the top of my head I can't see any other obvious means of judging relationships between organisms, whether it be two humans or, say, chimps and humans) then I can't see any reason to accept the claim - after all if we played that game what's to stop me claiming that my family and I were the result of the independent creation of two of my distant ancestors a few hundred years ago at the exact point in the past where there are no longer any written records of my genealogy (which I would guess would be a few hundred years back), and that ultimately I share no ancestry with other human beings?
---I really don't think evol with common desc is compatible with any consistent biblical hermeneutic at all.---
I'm always surprised by the lengths folk of a more liberal stripe will go to to pass off Genesis as allegory or whatever, given the numerous references by Jesus in the NT to the stories in Genesis clearly suggest that the people depicted in the bible really thought these were true or approximately true.
One of the few honest things AIG have done is compile the discrepancies between Genesis and the findings of modern science, and they are correct when they highlight the incompatibility of the two.
Dr. Funk,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your opinion. Science is not an objective standard by which world views are tested against. You correctly agreed that the experiments generate bare facts. The instant you begin to interpret what those facts mean, you are operating through a world view. If you disagree, then you need to explain how you derive meaning from bare facts in the absence of a world view.
My position is that the process of interpretation necessarily requires a world view. Mainstream science currently uses methodological naturalism. If this universe is not purely naturalistic then one would not expect all of science to correspond to reality. That is, some portions of science - as explained through naturalism - may have pragmatic value, but those portions would be interpreted non-realistically.
The instant you begin to interpret what those facts mean, you are operating through a world view. If you disagree, then you need to explain how you derive meaning from bare facts in the absence of a world view.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we disagree on what "worldview" means. When police detectives investigate crimes, they gather evidence (facts), make observations, and draw conclusions. In other words, homicide detectives for instance, don't simply collect facts. They DO derive meaning from these "bare facts" to move forward with arrests, prosecutions, and hopefully justice and rule of law.
Now you might say that the police officers had a "worldview" in which people are occasionally murdered by other people. But most of us would NOT consider that operating premise (that people sometimes kill people) to be a "worldview". We'd just consider it to be, yet another, fact. By putting together the general "bare fact" that people sometimes murder, with the specific "bare facts" of the homicide investigation can lead police to identifying a murderer. It is *exactly* because police do "give meaning" or interpret these facts within the context of reality and past experience (meaning, that people break laws, or that someone who has murdered before is more likely to murder again than someone who has not committed murder, etc.) that criminals can be brought to trial, and it is this same evidence (or "bare facts") that is later presented to a jury, who will also interpret or give meaning to these facts to determine if they fit the allegations of the case.
Do you believe homicide detectives are operating from a "worldview" when they investigate crimes? If a worldview can only be assessed from within the worldview (as you stated elsewhere, when explaining that only Christians can determine the validity of the Christian worldview) how would you determine the appropriate worldview for law enforcement officers? Are all worldviews equally constructive within society, or is one superior to another? What criteria do you use to compare these worldviews and to determine which worldviews would be desirable for a law enforcement investigator?
Angie,
ReplyDeleteI'll get to your other comments later. This one stuck out to me.
as you stated elsewhere, when explaining that only Christians can determine the validity of the Christian worldview
I never said that only Christians can evaluate Christianity. I said that the internal structure of a world view has to be evaluated. For example, you and I (at least I am assuming you reject pantheism) can look at a pantheistic world view and reject it because the pantheism is internally inconsistent.
Now you might say that the police officers had a "worldview" in which people are occasionally murdered by other people.
ReplyDeleteNo, this is not how I would define their world view. Thanks in advance for bringing this up. It points out that I was sloppy in my writing.
within the context of reality
Right. You cannot rip a fact out of its immediate context and assign it any arbitrary meaning. That would be foolish. Given the context of hateful intentions and a dead body, one could reasonably infer murder. Maybe it is better if I put it this way. Facts themselves do not carry meaning, but the context or perspective they are evaluated under imputes meaning to those facts. However, it is possible that under a different context or framework of meaning the meaning imputed to the facts would change.
Let's turn back to science now. When a scientist performs an experiment he/she is collecting facts. These facts are bare, but they are given meaning through the context or perspective they are viewed under. My point is that if one uses a naturalistic perspective, you cannot take that and use it critique a non-naturalistic perspective. Put another way, if the scientist chooses to place the data in the context of naturalism, that does not mean the results become evidence for a naturalistic world view.
Are all worldviews equally constructive within society, or is one superior to another?
There are only a few mutually exclusive world views. Only one can be correct.
What criteria do you use to compare these worldviews
As I said before, you examine the worldview itself and see if it makes internally inconsistent claims. You see if it make unaffirmable or undeniable statements.
---As I said before, you examine the worldview itself and see if it makes internally inconsistent claims. You see if it make unaffirmable or undeniable statements.---
ReplyDeleteBut as I pointed out before, consistency isn't proof of the truth of a proposition or set of propositions
eg, there's an example given by the presuppositionalist John Frame that I use quite often, where he gives the case of a student who has the assumption that everyone is trying to kill him. Of course, the assumption is nonsensical - but he can easily shoehorn facts into this assumption to maintain consistency (eg his teachers are only being nice to him to disguise their motives or so he will let down his guard and make it easier for them to kill him). Of course, his views are completely internally consistent with his initial assumption, but entirely untrue. This is basically exactly the same as invoking things like the Omphalos theory or a designer that likes to mimic common descent to explain away data that doesn't fit with a worldview. Likewise, there's nothing internally inconsistent about people being able to fly around on broomsticks in the Harry Potter world, but it's not true in the real world.
Furthermore, you still need a set of consistent, unbiased standards or assumptions by which to conduct the internal critique - for example, the standards presuppositionalists allow for internally critiquing their own beliefs would never be extended to that of any other worldview
Taking these examples as a case in point:
\\\With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, Van Til denies that the paradox of the three and one can be resolved by the formula "one in essence and three in person." Rather, "We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person." Van Til's doctrine, then, can be expressed "One person, three persons" -- an apparent contradiction. This is a very bold theological move. Theologians are generally most reluctant to express the paradoxicality of this doctrine so blatantly.\\\
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/frame_vtt.html
Obviously anything can be dismissed as merely an 'apparent contradiction' if it starts to cause confusion within the internal critique. If 1 person=3 persons is only an 'apparent contradiction', why is the fact that the Qu'ran says to trust the bible (2 books not consistent with each other) not merely an apparent contradiction also, particularly in light of the fact Frame admits he can't actually explain the 'apparent contradiction, of the trinity to any satisfactory degree:
\\\the Christian God is a three in one. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one God… But the Father is God…, the Son is God…, and the Spirit is God… Somehow they are three, and somehow they are one. The Nicene Creed says that they are one “being” but three “substances,” or, differently translated, one “substance” and three “persons.” I prefer simply to say “one God, three persons.”
---The technical terms should not be understood in any precise, descriptive sense.The fact is that we do not know precisely how the three are one and the one is three.---
We do know that since the three are God, they are equal; for there is no superiority or inferiority within God. To be God is to be superior to everything. All three have all the divine attributes. (Apologetics to the Glory of God, p. 46)///
(emphasis mine)
continued (thanks to Blogger's rather annoying character limits!)
ReplyDeleteLikewise, on an earlier thread regarding the birth narratives in the gospels, I highlighted Gleason Archer's approach to biblical contradictions:
\\\Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it.\\\
This is pretty much exactly like Frame's student - if you can imagine it and it maintains consistency, it counts as truth whether it's actually true or not
Presumably Archer would also not have us extend this courtesy to the Qu'ran or Book of Mormon.
Furthermore, in instances where Archer's claims are merely conjecture or hypothetical and unverifiable to boot, why are they to be preferred over my claim that no such events to allow the harmonisation ever occurred, particularly if what I am saying is actually better supported by what is in the text? Ultimately the expectation is always that the presuppositionalist's view should be seen as some sort of default or authority position that we should always defer to in the event there's event a slight hint of doubt, no matter how badly supported their view is.
\\\That is to say, all the testimonies of the various witnesses are to be taken as trustworthy reports of what was said and done in their presence, even though they may have viewed the transaction from a slightly different perspective.\\\
Again, this assumption would never be allowed by an apologist for any non-biblical text, and there's no a priori reason to privilege one set of writers with an inability to make mistakes, dishonestly or not.
\\\This, of course, is the assumption made by opponents of the inerrancy of Scripture, and it leads them to totally false results.\\\
Again, why should we take Archer's assumption to be true for the bible and not anything else? Ultimately Archer knew exactly what he wanted to believe, as do all presuppositionalists, and nothing will shake them off this assumption no matter how ridiculous the assumptions they need to be allowed to do it are.
So, just like evaluating claims about the physical world requires a set of objective standards, so does conducting an internal critique - but then from what you've said PChem, these operating assumptions would also be worldview dependent (as Archer's clearly are, since he presumably didn't also apply them to evaluate the reliability of the Qu'ran)
Hi PChem. I'm a big nerd and love the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I read/watch a lot of fantasy and sci-fi. All of these stories are in settings where things behave differently from here (ie, witchcraft is obviously powerful and effective, monsters are real, vampires, zombies and other undead wander around and need killing sometimes). Buffy is such a huge favorite of mine in part because of its high INTERNAL CONSISTENCY. No one ever kills a vampire by covering him with jam. Because the "rules" within the show aren't violated, it's easier for me to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story.
ReplyDeleteI can look at this internal consistency and I can compare it to other shows in the genre, or other stories in general. I can see that it is good storywriting. What I can't see from merely examining whether or not the show (or a worldview) is factually correct. (Vampires aren't real. Yes, that's an inductive statement and a positive claim. I'm cool with that.)
Regarding what science does/doesn't do I suggest you re-read Dr. Funkenstein's long and thorough comments.
Dr. F,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the very long post. I'll make mine short because I frankly don't have the time you must have. First, to determine the falsity or truthfulness of a world view you must perform an internal critique of that world view (as I have said numerous times now). I believe, at most, consistency is a negative test for truth. I did mention consistency in passing and you really ran with it. I didn't realize that was something you were so passionate about or I would have spent more time developing my thoughts. Again, it is a time issue. I am starting my fall semester and have a new baby. If I spend too much time here I start to get strange glances from my wife.
Inconsistency is a sign that a world view is false, but consistency does not guarantee its truthfulness. I think you would agree with this. I also submit that a world view that makes unaffirmable statements is also false. There are only so many mutually exclusive world views. One strategy could be to demonstrate that all but one make unaffirmable statements. Even this does not lead to proof that the remaining is true. It just shows the others are not true. I think a positive test for truth can be made with undeniability. These are the tools that someone would use to evaluate a world view.
Angie,
I really hope that deep down you realize that Buffy is not a world view. It is a fictional world, but it is not a way of viewing the world.
Also, you are right. Dr. F. has given a long list of experiments that he believes do not rely on any presuppositions whatsoever. I am sorry, but claiming that you can analyze the data resulting from those experiments without recourse to any interpretive framework is just plain silly. If you two can't see that then I am not sure there really is much more to discuss.
PChem - congrats on your new family. I'll be brief.
ReplyDeleteInconsistency is a sign that a world view is false, but consistency does not guarantee its truthfulness. I think you would agree with this. I also submit that a world view that makes unaffirmable statements is also false.
Christianity makes unaffirmable statements. Using your own logic, Christianity as a worldview is false. Thanks for agreeing :)
One strategy could be to demonstrate that all but one make unaffirmable statements. Even this does not lead to proof that the remaining is true. It just shows the others are not true.
I think this sounds like a fantastic evaluative method. Since Christianity does make several unaffirmable statements, like every other religion, we may not yet know the "one true" worldview, but we can certainly rule out all religious worldviews.
I really hope that deep down you realize that Buffy is not a world view. It is a fictional world, but it is not a way of viewing the world.
Correct. The Bible is likewise fictional. (Do you see now why I chose such an example?)
Christianity makes unaffirmable statements.
ReplyDeleteLike what?
You claim there are unaffirmable statements. What are they?
ReplyDeleteYou keep talking about not knowing the one true world view. There are only a handful of mutually exclusive options available for consideration.
Before we launch down this road. I do want to clarify that to affirm means to maintain as true. Thus, something that is unaffirmable is something that cannot be maintained as true. A very simple example is "there is such a thing as a square circle."
ReplyDeleteSee, I thought "unaffirmable" meant essentially "unprovable" (and bloody unlikely given all the facts). If you just mean that you can somehow justify in your own head the illogicality of a god with triple-omni characteristics, well there's one for you.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hZka_-elP4
Ah, well, naturalism is itself unprovable as well. So I guess we have something in common!
ReplyDeleteIf you disagree, prove naturalism. (Hint: Don't use inductive arguments.)
If you just mean that you can somehow justify in your own head the illogicality of a god with triple-omni characteristics, well there's one for you.
ReplyDeleteDid you paste the wrong link? This is a thing about freewill, and you're talking to a Calvinist, a compatibilist. I'm sorry, but I've seen no evidence you're equipped to deal with this question.
At any rate, perhaps you could regale us with your best explanation of why one homoousios revealed in three hypostases is irrational and/or contradictory.
jft,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like what happened here is that you expressed skepticism of Darwinian evolution, and someone responded by giving a legitimate example of Darwinian evolution.
Ah, a demonstration of how poor education isn't limited to pubblyk screwelz, I see.
How precisely are the peppered moths exemplary of Darwinian evolution?
You're not unique
OK, fine. And no, I don't read much creationist stuff. Don't care to.
they showed Kent Hovind videos during class.
Yikes.
The only excuse I could see for that would be to show one of his debates and say, "Here are two good examples of what not to be - an evolutionist, b/c as you can see, his case is terribly weak and Hovind is stomping him, and an overliteral overzealous, careless creationist, b/c half his data are bunk."
it's a shock that they would be so willingly negligent in my education.
Well, now you know a bit how I feel when I look back on all my teachers who presented evolution as a fact.
---First, to determine the falsity or truthfulness of a world view you must perform an internal critique of that world view (as I have said numerous times now).---
ReplyDeleteI'm not disagreeing, but it's not the only thing that needs to be done as ridiculous ideas can be internally consistent but ultimately false, the only way to determine this being by comparison with the real world (like the examples that Angie and I have given such as Harry Potter etc). Additionally there needs to be a set of objective guidelines for conducting the IC - if I were to use Frame and Archer's guidelines to set the bar, I'm pretty sure I could prove just about any worldview to be internally consistent.
---I didn't realize that was something you were so passionate about or I would have spent more time developing my thoughts.---
Not particularly, but presuppositionalists attempt to claim the truth of their worldview via internal critique, yet when we see what their operating assumptions are they clearly aren't applying the same set of standards when analysing their own view vs any other. This discrepancy in standards is a pretty good indicator that they can't actually defend the nonsense they are promoting by any commonly used or fair guidelines.
---I am sorry, but claiming that you can analyze the data resulting from those experiments without recourse to any interpretive framework is just plain silly.---
I find it strange that you say the guidelines for investigating the real world (ie doing science) can't be divorced from worldview concerns, yet the ones for conducting an internal critique can when clearly I've shown that worldview concerns quite easily bias those guidelines. Surely you realise an internal critique also requires a method? If there's one set of rules for an IC of one worldview and different rules for another, then how do you decide in which circumstances this is fair - eg would it be fine if I applied Archer and Frame's guidelines when assessing the consistency of the Qu'ran?
I'm also not denying you need a set of guidelines/a method to analayse and interpret data, but clearly there are many methods in science that are as amenable to investigating the claims of a supernatural worldview as a non-supernatural one - for example, standard phylogenetic methods used to validate or disprove ancestry work just fine for showing the pattern of relatedness of eg birds, (ie they'll show that not only are all birds related, but are also more closely related to each other than, say, one subset of birds is to chimps vs other other birds), something creationists would agree is true and a claim that can be tested. Clearly such a method works perfectly well for evaluating claims of ancestral relatedness, without requiring any supernatural/natural bias. Unfortunately (for creationists at least), the same methods show the relatedness 'out of kind' of birds with other non-bird life forms, or things like the relatedness of humans to other primates which is also not compatible with creationism. On the other hand, if such claims (eg that 'kinds' exist) have no method of supporting them, then why should anyone be expected to accept them?
---Again, it is a time issue. I am starting my fall semester and have a new baby. If I spend too much time here I start to get strange glances from my wife.---
No worries, I just do this stuff for my own amusement, I realise everyone has other stuff to do that means they sometimes can't respond in full!
Rhology
ReplyDelete---How precisely are the peppered moths exemplary of Darwinian evolution?---
because they demonstrate the shaping of a population that displays a source of variation by a selective pressure - surely that should be patently obvious?
---an evolutionist, b/c as you can see, his case is terribly weak and Hovind is stomping him---
Yet the only way you can answer this supposedly 'weak' case is by coming up with unverifiable fantasy scenarios such as the Omphalos theory (which could be used to support any supernatural view of the world that said eg the earth was created 1 million years ago as opposed to 6000 years ago equally well), ignoring facts such as that animals like as chimps are more closely related genetically to humans than some animals you consider to be part of a kind are to each other, or demanding that scenarios where you can provide no actual data to support your claim be accepted in favour of ones that can be supported with large amounts of real world data (eg chromosomal fusions and karyotype variation in populations of related organsisms)?
---At any rate, perhaps you could regale us with your best explanation of why one homoousios revealed in three hypostases is irrational and/or contradictory.---
Presumably you read the Frame/Van Til quotes I provided - if 1 person=3 persons isn't a contradiction, nothing is. Frame even acknowledges he can't explain the 'apparent' contradiction.
Furthermore, Bahnsen describes God (singular) at two points in the Bahnsen-Stein debate as:
"God is a person, makes choices, and does things"
and
"God is a personal, non-physical being."
yet those who subscribe to the notion of the trinity also speak of the 3 persons of the trinity - clearly if God singular is a person (as Bahnsen affirms) as well as Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit being 3 persons as affirmed here
http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/trinity
this equates to 3 persons=1 person.
CARM's analogy that
"Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one."
fails because noone claims that eg the distant past, the distant future and the present are the same thing all at once - eg if I took a point in the past, such as the American Civil war, I would not also say that at the instant that was occurring I was also sitting typing this message (present) and humans were also building colonies on Mars (future), which is a problem since the trinity states that Jesus, the Father and the HS are all God at the same time.
(similar to the water/ice/steam analogy that is often used - a block of ice is not also a puddle of water and a cloud of steam at the same time as being a block of ice)
Besides, why is it up to us to disprove this clearly contradictory, inexplicable (on the admission of an apologist) nonsense - surely you should be attempting to do better than Frame's failures on this front, since it's your positive claim?
Dr. F,
ReplyDeleteThanks for understanding my upcoming lack of response or very brief comments. I also have a proposal to submit in about three weeks.
Only two comments on your response. I fleshed out my opinion on how to test worldviews in addition to internal consistency. A world view that makes unaffirmable statements is false and one that makes undeniable statements is true.
Second, I'm glad to see that you agree that science relies on methods of interpretation. That is the main point I have been arguing for. Now, since an interpretation is certainly grounded in a worldview, how do you propose to use those interpretations as evidence for the truthfulness of something (e.g., naturalism), as many do, without giving a circular argument. Note, the question of how to discriminate the true worldview has nothing to do with this. It merely is an argument against evidentialism with regard to the popular level notion that science science supports a naturalistic worldview as opposed to a non-naturalistic worldview.
---Only two comments on your response. I fleshed out my opinion on how to test worldviews in addition to internal consistency. A world view that makes unaffirmable statements is false and one that makes undeniable statements is true.---
ReplyDeleteRight, but just as what counts as internal consistency seems to vary quite a lot with worldview concerns, what constitutes 'unaffirmable' or 'undeniable' also seems to be hampered by background assumptions as well, something I've pointed out several times. After all Islam or Mormonism make several contradictory claims that could probably be shown to be non-contradictory using Archer/Frame's guidelines. Besides, surely internal consistency is basically the same thing as making undeniable statements ie true, non-contradictory claims?
If you're not meaning 'contradictory' (see previous examples) or 'blatantly false' (which takes care of such things as people flying on broomsticks a la Harry potter or raising other people from the dead a la Jesus Christ), the only other thing I can think of is unprovable claims - but ignorance of an answer (provided it's not because the claim in question is clearly contradictory) doesn't invalidate a worldview eg not being able to prove I'm not a brain in a vat doesn't mean that I therefore am a brain in a vat thus invalidating anything else I believe for example.
If it's not any of these, then what is it you mean?
Now, since an interpretation is certainly grounded in a worldview, how do you propose to use those interpretations as evidence for the truthfulness of something (e.g., naturalism), as many do, without giving a circular argument.
Ultimately what you are saying is self-refuting, as you appear to think science can't be done apart from worldview concerns, but on the other hand other forms of analysis require no assumptions at all?
I'm not using science as a validation for naturalism, which I've made pretty clear a number of times, since the method I described (phylogenetics - since on Chistianity there has to be at least some common descent from the original 'kind' pairs that left the Ark) doesn't require any assumption of the truth of naturalism to apply.
To use another example, Christianity requires at the very least that Jesus was a real person, which is supported by the historical method as far as I can gather. Likewise, using a basic version of that same method can show that Luke Skywalker or Bilbo Baggins were not real people, hence the reason that just because they are consistent or don't make any contradictory claims etc doesn't mean anyone thinks they are real.
On the other hand, if such methods are not valid [due to worldview concerns], on my say-so Christianity could be false by me simply claiming no such person as Jesus ever existed and there are just a load of stories built around a non-existent person (eg like John Frum and the cargo cults). This claim wouldn't disprove supernaturalism, but then if there's no way to support the historical fact of Jesus' existence, then it just boils down to anyone's opinion being as valid as anyone else's.
It merely is an argument against evidentialism with regard to the popular level notion that science science supports a naturalistic worldview as opposed to a non-naturalistic worldview.
My argument isn't that it supports a naturalistic worldview though (which I've also now made clear about 3 or 4 times!) - my contention is that it shows Christianity, which happens to be one particular supernatural worldview, to be false and that this can be done using methods that are neither biased for nor against the finding of common ancestry of all life forms any more than they are biased for or against finding that animals only show ancestry up to a point and are otherwise separate archetypes.
Dr. F,
ReplyDeleteI'll have to get back to most of this at some other time. I want to zero in on your last comment. Look back at the history of this thread. My comments were originally geared to Angie. Later you showed up and the two began to meld. I realize you are rejecting this claim, but you must be aware that the vast majority of lay people view science the way I described. Also, I diagree that your experiments can eliminate Christianity as a viable option. Christianity can account for the results of those experiments. You may not like the results, but it can do so. My point is that those explanations wouldn't count as evidence for Christianity any more than a naturalistic explanation, which common descent most certainly is, counts for a naturalistically driven world view. Frankly, I don't see why this is so hard to see.