Heh, gotta love this. Get popcorn. I was tipped off to this by Chris Mooney in a Tweet where he’s calling for reinforcements:
Kevin Green of the American Enterprise Institute got the war of words rolling with these comments at Mooney’s new digs at scienceprogress:
Ken Green ·
Right, so let’s continue on your dismiss-a-thon of leftist anti-science, shall we? DDT and cancer, BPA and phthalates as carcinogens and endocrine disruptors; claims that organic food are safer because they have less pesticides/contaminants; claims that eating local foods are better for the environment than foods from elsewhere; claims that re-usable cloth bags are better for the environment than plastic or paper bags; false claims of species endangerment; pseudo-scientific claims about species loss treated as gospel; claims that climate models have predictive power; claims that individual weather events represent climate change…I think you missed a few.
Ken Green ·
Oh, wait, I forgot a few: frogs dying from climate change, alligator penis malformations from endocrine disruptors, bees dying from climate change (or is it cell-phones this week?), butterflies dying from BT crops…And, let’s not forget Alar, or cancer from video displays, or cell phones, or anything vaguely reminiscent of modernity.
Ken Green ·
Oops! Oh yes, then there’s the giant plastic ocean graveyard that was never seen again, and, let’s not forget the now-famous drowning polar bears.
Chris Mooney replied, though it is hardly much of one, which is why I suppose he’s trying to get Revkin and Kloor interested in it for defense.
Chris Mooney · Top Commenter · Yale University
This is quite a grab bag of claims. Many are misleading, some might be valid, some are wrong claims that have been made sometimes on the left but refuted just as vigorously by fellow liberals….including me.
I was pretty amazed (as were other commenters on other issues) that Mooney didn’t bother to address the totally bogus and overhyped “frogs dying from climate change” issue, because that was one of the worst blunders in climate science ever.
It turned out to be totally unrelated to climate, as I’ve addressed here on WUWT. The frog decline was definitively linked an infection of the chytrid fungus. The PNAS peer reviewed paper slapping down this nonsense said:
Finally, almost all of our findings were opposite to the predictions of the chytrid-thermal-optimum hypothesis.
Even Hansen’s buddies at Columbia agree. See this: Global Warming not to blame for toad extinction
Mooney was undeterred by the rebuttals, and the war was on. Green made a full post out of it at the AEI blog:
====================
Over at scienceprogress, Chris Mooney opines that the political Right is more “anti-science” than the political Left. He points to climate change and evolution as areas where the Right is anti-science, and dismisses the idea that the Left is anti-science when it comes to things like their exaggerations of the risks of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and vaccines.
His reasoning seems to break down into two arguments:
1) Chris argues that one can’t really tag the Left as being anti-science on things like vaccines and nukes because he (and a few other environmental journalists) have done their own policing on the issues, or, at least, walked away from actively shilling them. Chris actually says that he and journalists on the Left have “chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse.” That’s going to come as a shock to virtually every social-network user, who probably sees half-a-dozen anti-vaccine posts a week.
2) Chris argues that the anti-science issues usually associated with the Left (vaccines, nuclear-danger exaggerations, GMO danger claims) aren’t really left-wing issues, but rather, are held by people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Read it all here at So Who’s Anti-Science?
The “anti-science” label (which I think was coined by Joe Romm, if not he’s the worst serial user of the phrase) is no different that the “denier” label. The idea is to denigrate your opponent by applying ugly labels.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“legatus-
your argument – your howl of outrage – rests on nothing but appeal to divine authority. gaze in terror as it whirls down the vortex with a whoosh and a gurgle. you show yourself to be disturbed to the point you’ve even lost muscular control. exposing yourself to the public is probably a bad idea just now. everybody will see how easy it is to pwn a fanatic. they’ll make sport of you forever. you know how cruel people can be.
but obviously you can expect no sympathy for your panic. it’s what you paid for when you chose to stop thinking for yourself. you get what you settle for.”
This entire post is an Ad Hom. You may think you’re being clever. You aren’t. You’re being rude.
Late on this thread, but let me just say that those who paint the anti-vaccine types as nutso religious fanatics have an all too blind faith in scientists and WAY too much faith in Big Pharma. They are under the mistaken notion that Big Pharma wouldn’t fudge test results in order to get a multi-billion dollar product to market. Especially one that is mandated by the state.
They are also under the mistaken assumption that all vaccines react exactly the same way in every single person on earth the same way they did with the study group or that every single vial of vaccine is an exact copy of the study vaccine and/or manufactured to the same tolerances.
Not saying I agree with the anti-vaccine types (especially not the ones playing it strictly for political gain) but their are reasons for some precautions.
Let’s not forget how many perscription drugs have been recalled for deathly side-effects that were not detected in trials.
*there are*, spelling boo-boo. Just not a good day.
There is no such thing as nothing? Now, there’s a logic puzzle. Allow me to refer you back to my earlier quote from Nobel Laureate, Dr. Leon Lederman:
Dr. Lederman doesn’t seem to have a problem with the universe being nothing then something. Nor do I or most other scientists although it is cause for much head scratching. For now, the questions of what caused it to happened and how it happened remains philosophical ones as we lack the the understanding to know how validate or invalidate any scientific proposition about it. By your strict logic, any conjecture put forth would be anti-scientific. I remain in disagreement.
You used the term “lie”. A lie is where one states something to be accepted as truth when they know it to be patently untrue. All cultures, as far as I know, judge a lie as immoral. False is a boolean state. In the context of your usage, they are not interchangeable and thus, your point confused.
Post normal relativism? That came out of left field. I don’t know how to begin to respond to the bunny trail that follows as it seems you want to chide and dance around metaphors. I’m not so good at innuendo and double entendre so I’ll respectfully acknowledge that you certainly did run me around the palm tree to the point of being dizzy from changing direction so many times. Enjoy them pancakes.
@Legatus says:
September 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Wow, such prodigious writings! I understand the scope of the topic is the enemy of brevity, but, you should chop those up a bit. The responses would require even more writing. If we were to engage in a dialogue, in the end we would both be writing books.
I agree with your quote of Romans, but I don’t agree with the interpretation. It states all that is necessary is already shown. But you seem to be arguing we must look for what is already shown and thus known? Please remember the lesson of Thomas. (doubting) Further, I was more speaking towards the greater aim of Christianity rather than attempting to scientifically answer the original questions.
I haven’t read the read of your comments to others here, but for the most part, I agree with your response to me, save for the introduction. And assuming your questions such as this, “Are you trying to replace faith based belief in magical beings with faith based belief in magical universes with magical beings, have you even really replaced anything here?” Aren’t directed at me and are rhetorical in nature. Because, I certainly haven’t advocated the existence of alternate universes.
Faith and belief in God’s grace are the requirements to Christianity. While endeavoring to find answers to questions to satisfy people that won’t listen anyway may be a lofty goal, it isn’t required.
James
gnomish says:
Unbearable form of writing, sans caps in the proper place; is this “sod” in a different incantation?
It would explain a lot. Speaking of which, how’s that blog “Seed of Doubt” (from whence ‘sod’ comes from) coming along?
.
“Dr. Lederman doesn’t seem to have a problem with the universe being nothing then something. Nor do I”
-nailed it, didn’t i?
no big quibble. when you use the word ‘lie’ next time i’ll know what you mean by it. remember, the definition of truth, which anybody who knows what truth is can state explicitly in a single sentence, requires that the context of the proposition be defined.
words are our tools of cognition. logic can’t be without them. reason can’t be done without logic. rationality is out of reach without reason. definitions lead to rationality.
i know you are being rational because you can handily define any word you use at any time so whatever you say can be evaluated as logically as you strive to present it, amirite?
still, if your grammar parses ‘nothing’ as equivalent to ‘something’ – it definitely needs a syntactical tune-up.
logic begins with the law of identity, a = a
that means ‘a thing is itself’
now you, victim of the oldest trick in the Book of Lies, state that you believe nothing exists.
that’s represented as a = -a
that happens to be the very definition of falsehood – self contradiction. logic has no gray areas. self contradictory statements are false.
so you are proposing a self evident falsehood as true. do you take no responsibility for uttering falsehood in this way on the grounds that you believe it yourself? do you demand that anybody overlook, immunize or grant you absolution for irrationality? is it rude or is it remedial to correct you on such a fundamental error?
i mean- that bug is so bad that you may actually need a reset to fix. the prognosis, in my experience, is seldom positive.
Huh? Are we saying the same thing in different languages? I’m really not sure what you think you nailed.
Double Huh? Go back and follow our dialog, I didn’t use the word, you did.
At no time did I ever say that nothing is equivalent to something. That is something you interjected into the conversation and now make it my point to defend. It needs no defense as it wasn’t my point.
May I call your attention to your rather pendular swings:
and only a few malformed sentences later:
Who’s being irrational?
gnomish, you’re an overflowing fountain of enigmatic quips. Yes, you are rude and impossible to connect with in any way that creates common ground for a meaningful exchange. I’m packing it in.
James Sexton says:
September 26, 2011 at 3:57 pm
@Legatus
Sorry, upon reflection, I see where I should have expanded on why I disagreed with your interpretation of Romans 1:19 and 20. It is because you took it out of context. You must read the prior and subsequent verses for proper context. I was hesitant to do this because I don’t like to interpret the Bible for other people, but, I don’t believe the interpretation should be left as you put it. And so, as not to become a stumbling block……… (This passage should be used often in the greater cli-sci discussion.)
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,…”
Again, I’m sorry for not clarifying earlier. I let time be my master instead of doing what was right.
My best wishes,
James
Dear HankH,
i’m used to it. the job of making sense of things often falls to me and not the other guy – because i can.
you’re welcome for the ‘malformed’ sentences. i understood that without some endearing infirmity you’d find me intolerable.
lack of tags does make it hard for someone who isn’t clever enough to recognize it – but that’s deliberate. i like to see who is smart enough to recognize it on his own. it’s economical and reasonably accurate. unlike clothes or titles, smart can’t be counterfeited well enough to pass scrutiny.
the main implication of my statement, when properly parsed, is that without proper definitions, one lacks the most basic cognitive tools and therefore can not parse reality correctly much less do an accurate semantic analysis on somebody’s statements and that until a person is able properly to perform logic – the act of non.contradictory identification, he can’t trust his own attempts at reason – but you will have proven this to yourself many times and need no chafing reminder from me, i think. getting the law of identity wrong is cause for great shame to any man who claims the title sapiens. it’s not timor domini that’s principia sapientiae, eh. it’s the law of identity which is.
to your credit, you didn’t go completely off in the ozone but maintained a certain stability.
that parses out: a couple fellows went on a psychotic fugue, but you didn’t lose it. plz consider that a compliment.
i don’t really love pancakes so much, you know…lol definitely not a substantial diet.
put tags where you need them. they are different than . no sarc here.
wordpress vanished my irony tags –
the word ‘irony’ should precede every occurrence of the word ‘tags’
@- gnomish says:
September 27, 2011 at 12:39 am
“the main implication of my statement, when properly parsed, is that without proper definitions, one lacks the most basic cognitive tools and therefore can not parse reality correctly”
Its a common mistake to think that accurate definitions are a primary factor rather than a possible but unlikely contingent result.
The whole idea of a ‘proper’ definition is a Procrustian fit of meaning to word that gains less than is lost. The idea that a word can HAVE a absolute precise definition is always the sign of an arrested mental development!
Izen says:
“The idea that a word can HAVE a[n] absolute precise definition is always the sign of an arrested mental development!”
Wrong. Words have specific meanings, which is why Trenberth tries to change the meaning of the null hypothesis. “Arrested mental development”?? That is pure psychological projection. The alarmist crowd cannot win the debate by using honest terminology, so they distort the meaning of words. No wonder they run and hide out from any real debates – which they invariably lose. The whole CAGW edifice is based on unscientific BS, from pal review to models to UN/IPCC horse manure.
Yes gnomish, you have certainly proven that statement.
———–
unlike clothes or titles, smart can’t be counterfeited well enough to pass scrutiny.
@- Smokey says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:52 am
“Wrong. Words have meanings….”
Yes of course they do….
Just not fixed, absolute and singular meanings!
Izen, deconstructing your arguments is child’s play.
The closer a word is to having a ‘fixed, absolute and singular meaning’, the more useful the word is.
But what you want are post-normal science words which, like Humpty Dumpty’s words, mean whatever you want them to mean. That’s the only way you can win an argument. However, this is a science site, not a fantasy blog, where you should probably be posting your meaningless words.
“The idea that a word can HAVE a absolute precise definition is always the sign of an arrested mental development!”
nice job, izen – you delivered the anti-intellectual manifesto in a single sentence. have you been able to convince your children of it? what about other people’s children? most effective if you start on them when they are just learning to speak, btw. it’s a root exploit- you must cripple a human’s cognitive ability before it really develops, as you know, or else critical thinking can happen.
care to explain the real nature of your objection to absolutes? are you on the verge of insisting there are absolutely no such things?
This/ these discussions are very reason i love this blog. And the premise is most certainly a fun however the inital dicussion is plagued by problems of definition. Firstly what is ‘Science’ and then what is ‘antiscience’? If science is ‘a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.’ Then anti-science must be the belief in unknowable, untestable explainations for the universe. A disbeleif in the face of results contradictory of said tests could also construe being anti-sceince on one level but this must not be confused with healthy skepticism on another. A beleif in god, could therefore seen as antiscience, but then a beleif in something being harmful (such as low level rediation) against all contrary evidence could be seen as antisceince until such time as this beleif is empriically proven. Im not saying I beleive that low level radiation is harmful to human life but sceince would be the lesser without the sceptics and the heretics, i would go so far as to say sceince relies upon heretics to move forward, like the guy who proved ulcers were causedby bacteria in the gut or einstein himself (who may be in the process of being empirically undermined as we talk). So, some antisceintists are indeed sceintists in that they are neccessary to sceince. (if i could spell the word it would help) and THATS the easy part.
In the UK we have a very different view upon the Left/ Right political spectrum than you in the US, with some of what you call ‘liberals’ over here seeming more like what I would regard as freemarket rightwingers. This only demostrates the uselessness of the left/right political spectrum in describing political beleif and discourse. It was after all invented to describe one french parliament of the 17th century. i would advocate adherence to something more like the hans slomp projection which uses cross combination of four terms Authoritarian, Libertarian, Right and Left as more specific, but even this has difficulties in placing any given individual and would face similar problems in descriptive power against the US/ UK example i gave earlier. To then supplant beleifs about sceince upon all this is just plain confusing. And im pretty sure the ‘right’ didnt have a monopoly on religious conviction last time I checked.
For the record im a socialist libertarian atheist who is sceptical about the impact of climate change but wants to be innoculated against low level radiation.
Then what conclusion are we to have about the semantical systems that we have devised and use in order to give a single meaning to a word in its usage? Natural language is built upon morphemes, the least common denominator of words. For example the bound morpheme “non” conveys only one meaning. For it to convey more than one meaning makes it useless in the construction of words. Does the fact that we have over the years added more such morphemes in language mean we, as a species, are headed towards arrested mental development?
In communications the speaker and the listener (or writer and reader) understand the same syntactical and contextual rules. The more precise the communications must be, the more selective the words and semantical rules. In science the meanings of words must be more precise than say construction work. As such, the scientist will carefully choose the word and the context of its usage to convey exactly one precise definition. Are we then to say that scientists are more developmentally arrested than construction workers?
Going further, how many meanings a word can have is language dependent. In English, we use some 180,000 commonly spoken words. Spanish speaking individuals use almost 320,000 commonly spoken words. For this reason, Spanish words have fewer meanings – one of the reasons I enjoy reading poetry in Spanish. Are we to say that on this basis, the Spanish are more arrested in their development than the English?
Finally, in our advanced learning we had to invent languages where words can have only one precise meaning, syntactical rules are rigid, and there exists no contextual rules. It’s called computer languages. Mathematics is another such invention. That we saw the need to invent such languages to convey more complex meanings, does it suggest we are becoming more developmentally arrested? No, the logic of language works against your assertion.
muy bien dicho Hank.
another nice thing about spanish is that subjunctive tense is alive and well – so it’s hard to be ambiguous about what is a fancy and what is a fact.
( straying slightly off topic…)
did you know about king sejong’s invention, hangul?
the original characters were actually maps of tongue, lips and teeth in the position to pronounce the characters. a child could learn to read in a day.
o.t., i know, but it was really brilliant.
ooh- Hank – did you notice that if you transliterate spanish it comes out almost chaucerian english?
i know, o.t., again…
“Wow, such prodigious writings!”
The scope of my writing is that God may be known by the physical world, by all of science. Obviously, if I am talking about all of science, I should at least mention some of it, and post links to it, which I did (try clicking some of them to see). The entire universe and the science of it cannot be a small subject, and this is the very edited and chopped version.
“I agree with your quote of Romans, but I don’t agree with the interpretation. It states all that is necessary is already shown.”
Look at it again, really LOOK, look at the very specific wording, and the order of those words, lets see the context:
Rom 1:18 Some guyz are bad and they are gonna git whats comin’ to em. Ah, but perhaps they have an excuse, you say, perhaps they do not know, even cannot know, that there is a God, and that thus they may be doing wrong and may be punished. After all, how can they know of the existence of an invisible, extra dimensional being? Good question, answered in…
Rom 1:19 Ah, but they do know, God has shown then. But, you say, God is invisible, how can they be shown something that they cannot see?
Rom 1 :20 Gods existence and qualities, even though God is pointedly stated here to be invisible, are clearly seen from that which is made and is visible, as specifically contrasted here to Gods invisibility. Well, what is “that which is made? Look around you, can you see anything, as in “clearly seen” that qualifies as “that which is made”, things that are “visible”? It further qualifies it by stating “from the foundation of the world”, thus including ALL the things that are visible, are “made”, can be “seen”, and have existed throughout all of time to the beginning of that time. Thus, it is clearly stating here that Gods invisible qualities and existence can be seen by the entire visible universe.
Rom 1:21-22 But, we are fallible and prone to error, how will we be able to see what the physical world, “the things that are made’, the visible, material world, shows about God? After all, we may decide we don’t want to see God, and therefore don’t want to look too closely at the physical world, and see what it tells us. We may become vain in our imaginations, may think ourselves wise, yet become fools.
Soooo, what method is there to accurately see what the physical world is really like, especially all the way back to “the creation of the world’, despite human fallibility? May I suggest “The Scientific Method”, specifically designed to get at the truth of what is or is not true about the physical world despite the acknowledged fact that human beings are prone to error and even lying to themselves or others about this physical world (hence, this site). And when we look at this universe all the way back to “the creation of the world”, specifically, the big bang, we see a very odd thing. That is, that a big bang should not be able to create a universe such as this one, in fact, science says that this universe is so very VERY unlikely to be created by a big bang that they now have to invent an infinite number of universes (all invisible since we cannot detect them) to get around the fact that otherwise, we are forced to conclude that it was created by an infinitely intelligent being. Such luminaries as Steven Hawkins admit that this entire universe, especially all that big bang stuff, sure makes it look like there is a God, however, he then goes on to state that it is the job of scientists to try and explain that away (and since when did that become the job description of scientists, I thought they were to concentrate on the physical world, not religion one way or the other?). His and others method to try and explain how this universe can come from a big bang necessitates their “infinite universes”, for which there is not the slightest evidence. Thus, they substitute for God invisible magical universes, magical because somehow things can happen there that cannot happen here, and they can suddenly spring into being by methods we know nothing about and cannot test even if we think we do. Example, the very very low entropy state at the moment of the big bang, which is so very unlikely that it has been given the chance to happen randomly as one chance in 10*10*123, a number so big that it essentially makes it impossible. Creating more (invisible, imaginary) universes to solve this problem does not help, as the universe that this one sprang out of would then have to start at an even lower state of entropy, and thus be even more unlikely than this one. And it gets worse if you add even more universes. Hence why I say “magical” universes, universes where things somehow are said to happen that we can prove are impossible, and yet are now said to be not just happening once, but over and over, and sequentially. Basically the old argument of turtles all the way down http://theolarch.tripod.com/turtle.html
So, to replace an invisible, magical God, these scientists, who are against the invisible and magical, first admit that, yes, the universe sure does look like it could only be made by just such a God, and then invent multiple invisible, unproven and improvable universes (thus departing from the scientific method and going into the realm of fantasy and, dare I say it, perhaps even religion), and not only that, magical ones at that, where things can happen that we can prove, scientifically, are not possible. So we have the choice, the idea God, which cannot be proven directly to not exist, or the idea of magical universes, where things happen what we can prove are impossible. When we have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth.
And a question, an object at rest will tend to remain at rest unless acted on by an outside force, right? So there was this pre big bang singularity, what made it go bang, what was that outside force? Outside what? And do you know what the universes initial “low entropy state” means? It means that the universe contained information. So, now we have a force, outside this universe, which acted on this universe as the outside force, and contained nearly infinite information. What does that sound like to you?
Faith and belief in God’s grace are the requirements to Christianity. While endeavoring to find answers to questions to satisfy people that won’t listen anyway may be a lofty goal, it isn’t required.
Incorrect:
1 Pet 3:15 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Note what it says, “always”. This is a command, therefore it IS required. It is basically the same as Jesus’ “great commission”, also a command. Note also the word REASON (not just emotionally, what REASONS you have to believe this stuff). Note also the “gentleness and respect” part, if they don’t want to hear it, you are not to beat them over the head with it. Present it, and they can take it or leave it. If they “won’t listen anyway”, that is not your concern, they asked, you answered, and you at least have done what was required of you. Go to someone who will listen, who actually wants the answer to their question, instead of a liar who may ask a question but does not really want to hear the answer, which makes their very questioning a lie.
gnomish
What is “anti-science” about religion?
First, what is anti, to begin with? Well, if we are anti science, shouldn’t we be against science? One might call it non science, but that is a very differtent kettle of fish than calling it anti-science. There are things that scientist say now, but cannot prove, is that also anti-science? I see no evidence that religion is itself anti science simply because they may or may not be able to prove any of it. To actually be anti-science, you would have to be anti, against, science, to actively oppose it. Simply saying something which science may (currently) not be able to prove is not active opposition.
Note, also, at least for the Christian religion, it itself is based on evidence that they say is, in fact, evidence, Acts 4:20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”. And, they further go on to say that there is even now extant evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin http://castroller.com/podcasts/FocusOnThe/1415285 , in case you decide to automatically discount the original eye witness accounts (despite not being able to prove your assertion, which would make you anti-science, right?).
one of the distinguishing characteristics of religion is belief in an afterlife, right?
science is the process of verifying a logical proposition.
the statement ‘death is (everlasting) life’ is a logical self contradiction.
therefore a basic tenet of religion is anti-science.
Uh, your argument was one wee little problem, at least in regards to the Christian religion. The Chrsitian religion does not deny death of the body. In fact, it admits that death is, well, death, bleedin’ demised, is no more, is an ex person http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 (sorry, got carried away there). In other words, it say, yes the BODY dies. However, it then says that this thing called a soul, the software if you prefer to the bodies hardware, gets saved, in much the same way you might save software by transfering it to a new computer if the old one dies. This soul (or more specifically spirit) is said to be essentially the same sort of extra dimentsional being as God, also called a spirit, and thus, not being material, cannot die. However, it freely admits that the body can and does die. Thus, one can be dead, even very dead, bleedin’ demised, oh, sorry, there I go again, anyway, they can be both dead one way and “alive” in another. Their hardware, their body, can die, while their software, their soul (their “you-ness”) can continue to exist, although in another form. Thus to say that “death” and “everlasting life” are a contradiction is to ignore the fact that they are in fact two different and sperate catagories, the first talking about the physical body, the second one NOT talking about the physical body. And that is not even mentioning people who have died on the operating table and been revived and then reported going to heaven, or hell…
Your argument here is basically assuming that “life” and “eternal life” are the same thing and can be compared, and thus one must be the opposite of the other. This is known in logic as the fallacy of:
Bad Analogy:
claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren’t. For example, “The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also.”
Or, “Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is.”
a proposition which can not be falsified, such as an invisible supernatural entity that’s omniscient and omnipotent and wants to be friended on facebook, is not to be accepted as true.
accepting as true, that which is not susceptible to verification at all – that’s anti-science.
You call it anti-science, you say we should eccept this definition, why?? Why should we just accept your definition, simply be cause YOU say it? Do you realise what you are doing? You are reverting to the pre scientific way of thinking. In that method, to “prove” whether something was true or not, you invoked the authority of some famous old dead greek guy, and what was considered “true” was the winner of an argument who could “prove” that their famous old dead greek guy was more famous and more to be beleived. Deciding what was true was thus more tricks of rhetoric and clever speaking than actual evidence of any type. So, in this age of science, why should we buy your definition of “anti-science”, simply because YOU said it? The only way I can beleive it simply because YOU said it is if you can prove that EVERYTHING you say is true, that you are, in fact, all knowing. So, when we really look at it, your argument is this:
There is no God.
And you should beleive me because…
I am God.
Well, sorry, you just told me that you don’t exist, so I don’t have to beleive you.
Religion requires faith. faith means belief because of no proof. that is anti-science.
Well, lets look at this, another typically unsupported statement which we are to believe simply because you said it, to accept your word on faith, despite the fact that to do so would be “anti-science”. Scientists looking at the big bang, specifically Steven Hawkins, admit that the big bang cannot result in a universe like this one except in a very very unlikely coincidence, so unlikely that the only scientific way to explain it is to say that it must have been planned. So, to get around the necessity of believing in a God, which we know Steven Hawkins does not want to do (he having said so), he and others have invented a way around this, saying that there are an infinite number of universes, thus thinking that they will thus get around the problem of needing a God for this one. However, there is not a smidgeon of evidence for any of these universes, zip, zilch, zero, nada. Soooo, Steven Hawkins is anti-science, right? Since he and other “scientists” (can they still be called that?) believe this without proof, they must be using blind faith, right? So, to get rid of religion, they invent yet another religion??
So we are left with this, according to scientists:
The big bang created a universe like this one, which says that there must be a God, the evidence, the entire universe, which we can see.
The big bang created a universe like this one, which says that there must be an infinite number of universes, which we cannot see, the evidence, the evidence…well, we have to admit, there isn’t any.
And finally, not really on topic, but you brought it up, Anton Lavey and his “clever” writing? He is a Satanist, as a Satanist, obviously, he must believe in Satan, right? But where is there a source to say that there even is a Satan? Well, the bible. So Anton Lavey must believe the bible. If he does, and he must to even believe that there is a Satan, he will read in that bible that Satan is a liar and, ultimately, a loser. So Anton Lavey is against God even though he must believe in the bible to believe in Satan, and he follows Satan who is said to be a liar and a loser. And I am supposed to think his writing will be clever when he states that he follows a liar and a loser?? Or, perhaps he is following what he knows to be a purely imaginary Satan, well, if he knows what he is following is false, I am supposed to believe him?
As far as I can see, he espouses “personal freedom and individualism”. Well, why would one have to give that up simply to believe in God? After all, I believe in other things, things that I have evidence for, if I see evidence that there is a God, and further evidence of which God it specifically is, am I free to, you know, go with the evidence? How would doing that cause me to lose my “personal freedom and individualism”? Am I not free to believe things that have been proven true? If I chose to not believe in things that have been proven by science, am I not being “anti-science”?
I see no reason, simply because you believe in God, to give up the ability to think critically, even about God. In fact, I see no reason why you should not even, dare I say it, question God. I believe that if you do, you will get something many don’t expect.
Answers.
” another typically unsupported statement which we are to believe simply because you said it, to accept your word on faith”
it seems we agree on the definition of faith, at least- accepting unsupported statements as truth.
happily enough, you also seem to agree that it is not required to choose faith. given that faith must not depend on reason, do you consider it virtuous for a person choose against reason?
(indeed- do you not consider faith The Primary Virtue?)
this thing you have about appeal to authority- plz note that i’ve cited none for logic requires no man to vouch for it. whereas, if you forgo your appeals to authority, what do you have left?
when i define a term i use, you should accept my definition as the meaning of the word when i use it. feel free to make your own meaning clear by defining your terms.
it’s really hard to be confusing that way – if your purpose were not to confuse.
anti- is a prefix meaning ‘against’. a synonym is contra-. the word ‘contradict’ derives from words that mean ‘speak against’ which means repudiate. anti-science is that which contradicts abstraction of truth by means of logic and experiment which is science.
those ‘commands’ you speak of- this is some supernatural authority issuing the ‘command’?
you say it requires obedience?
obedience is to substitute the judgement of another for your own – it’s a default of reason – that’s anti-scientific. it’s worse. for a creature who depends on reason for his survival, obedience is a way to repudiate his own nature. can you picture a bird struggling to rip off his own wings? a creature that contradicts its nature receives the name ‘monster’.
i’m certainly not certified as any authority – i’m not even peer reviewed like the bible is.
i’ve never issued any commandments, for sure. i merely know what i know.
you know, halloween is coming up. kids will dress as ghosts and devils and witches and try to scare people. are they satanists?
lavey was an entertainer like billy graham. he yanked the same chains – but in the opposite direction. he believed in giving a show.
Forgive me for coming 4 days late to this party I hope the topic not too stale.
As an engineer I’m always curious and a bit befuddled when I’m told that because of my religion I’m defacto ‘anti-science’. That a belief that God created man in his image somehow invalidates my analysis of a given data set. Never mind that so called ‘Creationism’ didn’t prevent or even arguably delay the discoveries of Louis Pasteur, epidemiology, penicillin, and the like.
Please understand, I’m empirical by nature, an experimentalist. I’ll prove it myself. How then can I be a ‘man of faith’? After all, as gnomish posited:
“religion requires faith. faith means
belief because of no proof. that is
anti-science.”
Forgive me if this was addressed earlier, but gnomish doesn’t understand what faith is or how someone gets faith.
From the source documents we find:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
As Tonto might say, “Where does it say ‘no proof’ white man? ” Faith IS the substance, faith IS the evidence. One exercises faith because faith is an action word.
I can, an have, used the Scientific Method on the hypothesis of the existence of a Supreme Being. I put ‘Christianist mythology’ to the test with my skeptical eye. The test subject was me, and I injected the serum into my veins. I tested prayer, scripture study, and living the Gospel the best I could. I will unambiguously testify that my data (evidence) of things not seen is an unequivocal yes, He lives. I have complete faith in that.
Just because I can’t see God doesn’t mean I can’t SEE how He’s blessed me & my family. Just because I haven’t touched the Resurrected Christ doesn’t mean I can’t FEEL Him touch me & my family. And my list of data (blessings) could go for pages. I have thus published my results, and if anyone wants access to my faith based data archive send me an FOI request. 😉
However, as a good engineer I must point out that faith (and by extension belief & testimony) are intensely personal/individualistic results. Therefore the data is non-transferable/applicable to others. I can & will witness to it’s veracity, but each individual must verify/prove the hypothesis by doing the experiment for themselves.
The idea that any given science factoid proves or disproves the existence of God is laughably absurd. Faith is fundamental, Ephesians 2:8 For by grace ye are saved though faith…
Hence, a deterministic knowledge of Him is not going to happen, that will only occur through faith.
Lastly I’d like to talk to the source document we’ve been referencing. Remember, the Bible of Judeo/Christian tradition is NOT a science book, and it’s NOT a Political Science reference. What we know as the Bible is a compilation of religious texts to document God’s dealings with his children on earth. That’s it. Anyone that tries to justify or rationalize this or that science theory is just fooling themselves.
I feel pretty confident in saying that God did not look for a PhD in Astrophysics to author Genesis. Obviously the author had no knowledge of celestial mechanics, and to him a black hole was a deep hole in the ground. The author is describing events the best way he can given his experience and knowledge that what’s important is the religious. Come’on folks, think critically, not dogmatically!
By having faith I know I’m a better engineer because I know we humans don’t know everything. I have faith in God, all others bring data. And a computer model is not data, it’s a simulation. Just sayn’…