Battle Talk ~ BR IX

Status
Not open for further replies.

Balder

New member
Hi, Hilston,

Since I can't edit, I'm adding this additional post:

Would it be fair to say that, within your paradigm, the only real scientists are those who profess to be Christian and who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Can "successful science" only be done by Christians?

Best wishes,

Balder
 

aharvey

New member
Balder said:
Hi, Hilston,

Since I can't edit, I'm adding this additional post:

Would it be fair to say that, within your paradigm, the only real scientists are those who profess to be Christian and who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Can "successful science" only be done by Christians?

Best wishes,

Balder
Can I also note that Jim seems to be subtly shifting his position towards some real trouble? Whereas Jim first was using his arguments to identify "what is and is not science," he now seem to be using his arguments to identify "who is and who isn't a scientist," no doubt trying to wiggle out of the dilemma that his criteria, applied to science itself, would disqualify all of science.

But now we're heading directly towards the circumstantial ad-hominem fallacy. And we're faced with the prospect of potentially coming to diametrically opposed conclusions regarding a single study depending on what we think the responsible parties' beliefs concerning the Bible might be? And we're still left scratching our heads about what constitutes real science, or is that no longer an important question?
 

SUTG

New member
aharvey said:
we're still left scratching our heads about what constitutes real science, or is that no longer an important question?

It is a question that can only be justifiably asked byborrowing from the worldview of the Creationist, by the impossibility of the contrary. :dead: I hereby declare victory for the transcendentalists in this debate, also by impossibility of the contrary. :chuckle:
 

aharvey

New member
aharvey said:
I'm not asking for tens of thousands of words of explication (in fact, I'm begging you not to go that route!), just a simple outline that organizes the ideas into the logical arrangement that you perceive for them.
Now you know why I made this request!
 

mighty_duck

New member
Notes on Hilston's 5th post.

Notes on Hilston's 5th post.

Desperation marked the theme of Jim's latest post. Jim really wants us to expand Evolution in to places it doesn't belong. If stratnerd would have a similar MO, he would expand the Christian worldview to include Santa Claus, then call the entire thing irrational.

It was by far his longest post, but there was really nothing new there. Just restating the assertion that scientists must borrow from the creationist to do science. In many, many more words. I thought he would at least TRY to back this up by now, as his whole case rests on it...

1. Claims he could do science while invoking supernatural causes, which shows how Jim misunderstands what science is, even after all the virtual ink spilled by stratnerd the last few posts.

2. Underpinnings of Evolution - ie aboigenesis. The Evolutionary Theory doesn't care one bit where that first reproducing organism came from. It could have come about by nature like some atheists claim, it could have been created by God, it could have been implanted by aliens. All of these don't affect the theory one bit. We are looking at one scientific Theory, not a worldview (does God exist? different debate).

3. Cosmic "Evolution" vs Biological Evolution. What is Jim smoking (or home brewing)? Cosmic "Evolution" has nothing to do with the biological kind, which is the topic of debate. For the purposes of this debate, I would just concede the Cosmic "Evolution" is bunk, and focus on the real topic here. If we prove the biological Evolution, it has little bearing on abiogenesis, BBT, etc.

4. Worldviews extracted from Evolution. I agree with Jim, that is not science. But it is not claiming to be, so why bring this up? Does Jim really think any Secular Humanist who bases his views on some form of Evolution, is being scientific?? I call strawman.

5. Evolution and Methodological Naturalism are NOT worldviews. Metaphysical Naturalism is, but it need not be held to use the tools of Methodological Naturalism. Science is Meth-Nat. Jim has not brought any counter argument to that. This is where his argument falls apart.

6. Jim confuses "unproven" with supernatural. UoN, while it may not be "proven", is still natural.

7. Uses this line over and over (and over), without understanding it.
stratnerd said:
If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do [believe that supernatural forces are at work] - mathematics."
Basic reading comprehension please. Stratnerd is implying that he doesn't define natural as only five senses.

8.
The Methodological Naturalism hypothesis posits a causal relationship between the laws of logic/science and true explanations/results.
Is Jim disputing this statement? If he is, he just threw away all of science. If he isn't disputing it, then he has agreed to stratnerd's description of science.

9. Jim claims he has never seen a rational answer that is not correct. This is easy, just make a rational deduction when one of your premises is wrong. For example a premise of an inerrant Bible will lead you to some crazy deductions...

10. Stratnerd's request to Jim to back up his claims is met with a "I can, but you would dismiss it". No comment necessary..

11.
In order to [verify] that a certain method "works," one cannot use that method to assess it.
This is the most ironic statement yet. Jim is basically saying you can't use your premise when trying to prove your premise, that would be circular. I heartily agree.

12. We need to define what natural is, because there is obviously a misunderstanding. If Jim claims that gravity is super-natural, we have a problem.

13. Jim claims induction can't fail. He later comments this is true only if one is omniscient. Induction produces unreliable results for humans, so why must we have 100% certain knowledge of its verity to use it? Our results our not going to be 100% acurate anyway.
 

GuySmiley

Well-known member
mighty_duck said:
Desperation marked the theme of Jim's latest post. Jim really wants us to expand Evolution in to places it doesn't belong. If stratnerd would have a similar MO, he would expand the Christian worldview to include Santa Claus, then call the entire thing irrational.
Maybe you should PM Stratnerd with quotes from Christian theologians and show that the Christian worldview used to include Santa Claus, but has recently changed because of embarassment.
 

GuySmiley

Well-known member
GuySmiley said:
Maybe you should PM Stratnerd with quotes from Christian theologians and show that the Christian worldview used to include Santa Claus, but has recently changed because its too hard to defend.QUOTE]
 

mighty_duck

New member
GuySmiley said:
Maybe you should PM Stratnerd with quotes from Christian theologians and show that the Christian worldview used to include Santa Claus, but has recently changed because of embarassment.

Do you really want to go there? Christians have said some very silly things in the past, everything from a flat earth, to witch burning etc.
They even inferred these things from your inerrant Bible. Does that mean that the a)Bible is errant, or that b)people can make some silly inferences?

Evolution is an explanation for the Diversity of life, starting from the first reproducing organism. Do you think that we continue to use the same tools of Biological Evolution to create hypothesis regarding the Big Bang, formation of the earth, or abiogenesis? stratnerd explained this pretty well in his 5th post, which is why it is looking like a desperation move by HIlston to keep bringining this up.
 

Mr Jack

New member
Seems to me that Hilston spends a long time in his latest post trying to confuse the issue by conflagating the Theory of Evolution with the more general uses of the word evolution. What gets me most is that his quotes (apart from those from Dobhansky, of which there are several) quite clearly do not support his assertion.

Sagan refers to "Cosmic Evolution" not just plain "evolution" or the "theory of evolution", while the term "evolution" is entirely absent from the quote taken from Dawkins. To explain life, abiogenesis is certainly required, but ToE cannot explain the origin of life, since non-life does, by definition, lack the requisite characterisics for evolution to occur.

I might talk about "the evolution of car design", or "the evolution of medicine" but to confuse these terms with actual, biological, evolution is simply to misunderstand the subject.
 

aharvey

New member
word games

word games

Mr Jack said:
Seems to me that Hilston spends a long time in his latest post trying to confuse the issue by conflagating the Theory of Evolution with the more general uses of the word evolution. What gets me most is that his quotes (apart from those from Dobhansky, of which there are several) quite clearly do not support his assertion.

Sagan refers to "Cosmic Evolution" not just plain "evolution" or the "theory of evolution", while the term "evolution" is entirely absent from the quote taken from Dawkins. To explain life, abiogenesis is certainly required, but ToE cannot explain the origin of life, since non-life does, by definition, lack the requisite characterisics for evolution to occur.

I might talk about "the evolution of car design", or "the evolution of medicine" but to confuse these terms with actual, biological, evolution is simply to misunderstand the subject.
Suckerpunched again! This is one reason I object to the distinction between “big-E” and “little-E” evolution! This is why I have always tried, at least until I got lazy during this debate, to refer to “evolutionary theory” and not just “evolution.” Hilston has mined some quotes about “evolution” from popular papers (i.e, aimed at a general audience, not part of their research on evolution) written by some evolutionary biologists. None of these more expansive views about the general concept of “evolution” is part of “evolutionary theory.”

I would in fact be happy to acknowledge that this expansive, thought-provoking arm-waving does not represent science per se. It also does not represent evolutionary theory. A worldview may emerge from the consideration of a scientific theory, and you may even want to give the worldview the same name, as Jimmy does here, but that doesn’t make them one in the same!

As to the assertion that Stratnerd is trying to move the goalposts, I would suggest that it’s reasonable to assume that a debate on whether evolution is science would refer to the concept(s) of evolution that get studied by scientists, not those that get philosophical musings.
 

aharvey

New member
Allow me to repeat my request to Jim H.: please provide an outline of his chain of reasoning. You know, make explicit and concise the exclusive relationship between Biblical inerrancy, logic, science, and "justification." Your latest logorrheic exercise almost seems designed to hopelessly muddy the waters.

Oh, and, incidentally, when Stratnerd remarked that, by your definition of supernatural ("Anything we can't detect with our five senses" or something like that), mathematics would be supernatural, I think he was pointing out the limitations/absurdity of your definition, not agreeing with it! Your last post has a rather embarrassing over-reliance on your hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural. Perhaps you want to return to the concept that most people, scientists or not, use? Something like "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature."
 

aharvey

New member
mighty_duck said:
9. Jim claims he has never seen a rational answer that is not correct. This is easy, just make a rational deduction when one of your premises is wrong. For example a premise of an inerrant Bible will lead you to some crazy deductions...
Top notch post overall, md. I just wanted to follow up on this one point. From the start Jim has tried to claim his arguments speak to "Evolution is not science," not "Evolution is false." But he can't seem to keep them straight. Perhaps this is the explanation why: he sees truth and rationality as interchangeable. I'm guessing he would not recognize your example as legit, though! In an earlier post, though, he did say that creationists were not always right, but they were always justified (one of his slippery terms, to be sure!). When a Creationist is wrong, is he therefore being irrational? For example, were all the geocentric explanations for why the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west irrational?

I think Jim's interpretation of the relationship between truth and rationality is fairly flexible.
 

Metalking

New member
k of Nature"..what is beyond this term?... the 5th dimension? or is it in the same category, I think not.You can look at out of the norm and it is abnormal, but areas like ,time travel,turning lead to gold,evolution..etc..can simply be put best as Science Fiction under review.Example: Partical beam and lazer weapons are now no longer Science Fiction.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
"No soup for you!"

"No soup for you!"

I know I'm way behind, and may never catch up, but while I'm here, I thought I would take a dip in the hope of offering further clarity where possible. This is a combined reply to:
  • Mr. Jack
  • aharvey

Mr. Jack

Hi Mr. Jack,

Thanks for your post.

Mr Jack said:
Seems to me that Hilston spends a long time in his latest post trying to confuse the issue by conflagating the Theory of Evolution with the more general uses of the word evolution. ...
I think a more careful reading of what I wrote would disabuse you of this thinking, as it was not my intent. Confusion is not my goal, but clarity. I explicitly stated that we would stick to Stratnerd's definition. I explicitly stated that the reason for my quotes of various Evolutionists was to show that Stratnerd's effort to completely ignore the foundation and implications of Evolution is out of step with his predecessors.

Mr Jack said:
What gets me most is that his quotes (apart from those from Dobhansky, of which there are several) quite clearly do not support his assertion. ... Sagan refers to "Cosmic Evolution" not just plain "evolution" or the "theory of evolution", ...
Sagan was not a head-Buried-in-the-Sand (BS) Evolutionist. He knew quite well, and fully acknowledged without shame or embarrassment, his commitment to the Evolutionist worldview and all that it entails. He did not shrink away from the necessary foundational matters of the theory or avoid the necessary ramifications of biological Evolution the way we see many doing in this forum.

Mr Jack said:
... while the term "evolution" is entirely absent from the quote taken from Dawkins.
The subtitle of Dawkin's book is "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." The chapter from which I quoted is titled "Origins and Miracles." The term may be absent from the citation, but it is assumed throughout the book. To ignore that is to plunge one's head in the sand, right next to everyone else in this forum who refuses to acknowledge these things.

Mr Jack said:
To explain life, abiogenesis is certainly required, but ToE cannot explain the origin of life, since non-life does, by definition, lack the requisite characterisics for evolution to occur.
I agree, "by definition." I'm talking about more than its definition. I'm talking about its necessary foundation, what the theory is built upon, and it necessary implications, how the theory relates to what is actually true. To ignore these things is to be a BS Evolutionist.

Mr Jack said:
I might talk about "the evolution of car design", or "the evolution of medicine" but to confuse these terms with actual, biological, evolution is simply to misunderstand the subject.
Take the multiple-choice test for BS Evolutionism!

Question 1: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of biological traits across taxa
b. Shared ancestry of animal species
c. Survival of the fittest
d. Origin of life
e. Evolution of medicine

Question 2: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of brain function across taxa
b. Comparative neurology
c. Survival benefits of sentient animals
d. Origin of sentience
e. Evolution of car design

If you answered "d" and "e" to both questions, you're a BS Evolutionist. If you chose only "e" to both questions, then you're NOT a BS Evolutionist.

aharvey

Hi aharvey,

Thanks for your comments.
aharvey said:
Allow me to repeat my request to Jim H.: please provide an outline of his chain of reasoning.
Here is my chain of reasoning:
  • God created the universe in accordance with His own character (orderly, logical).
  • God created humans in His image (rational, perceptive, personal, spiritual).
  • Therefore:
    1. Humans are able to rationally perceive and comprehend certain aspects of creation.
    2. Humans can rely upon the tools and methods of science to give them generally reliable data about certain aspects of creation.
I realize you may want further detail or clarification. I leave it to you to request exactly what you're interested in. I will be happy to elaborate.

aharvey said:
Oh, and, incidentally, when Stratnerd remarked that, by your definition of supernatural ("Anything we can't detect with our five senses" or something like that), mathematics would be supernatural, I think he was pointing out the limitations/absurdity of your definition, not agreeing with it!
There was unequivocal affirmation in his statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."

aharvey said:
Your last post has a rather embarrassing over-reliance on your hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural. Perhaps you want to return to the concept that most people, scientists or not, use? Something like "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature."
That's the one I'm using, aharvey. We have to be careful not to confuse the supernatural (or extra-natural) itself from the application or effects of the extranatural. We all use the extranatural laws of logic and mathematics in our daily experience. But no one experiences the actual laws themselves. Laws are not experienced; they are themselves transcendental in character. No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses. They are conceptual in nature and as such are not experienced by human beings. However, we see their applications and effects all the time, and these must not be confused. So, no, aharvey, there is no "embarrassing over-reliance" on a "hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural." It corresponds exactly to the definition you offered, which I encourage the use of in any future dialogue on this subject.

aharvey said:
Perhaps this is the explanation why: he sees truth and rationality as interchangeable.
Stated more carefullly, I would say that which is true is the same as that which is rational, and vice versa, by the ordinary understanding of those terms.

aharvey said:
I'm guessing he would not recognize your example as legit, though!
Are you referring to an earlier post by mighty_duck? I'll have a look and try to comment later. There's a lot here I haven't read yet.

aharvey said:
In an earlier post, though, he did say that creationists were not always right, but they were always justified (one of his slippery terms, to be sure!).
It's Stratnerd's term, aharvey. I'm using it the way he does. You can check his posts for discussion of it. He gives plenty of examples. I don't think I've violated it in any way.

aharvey said:
When a Creationist is wrong, is he therefore being irrational?
Absolutely.

aharvey said:
For example, were all the geocentric explanations for why the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west irrational?
Absolutely.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Jim
 

mighty_duck

New member
Jim,

If you plan to answer any of my posts, the only one I am really interested in is post 365. I'll quote it here:

mighty_duck said:
Jim,
I'm enjoying this dialog as well. You're one of the better TAGers I've seen. It is unfortunate that your weapon of choice is fatally flawed, but it is a credit to you as a debater to carry on wielding it so well.


Since you have an aversion to using the word axiom, I will use the word presupposition more, even though it is much longer and harder to type. I will make a distinction of using axiom as a presupposition (per Bahnsen's definiton) that is accepted without further need for proof or justification. I still claim that we all use axioms, even a creationist, but more on this at a later time.



Here's my problem. There are really two issues at hand, but they are intertwined, and difficult to separate. You seem to be using only one at a time, pulling out the one that suits your purposes.
1. The verity of a presupposition.
2. The ability of a presupposition to explain other things.

What we are trying to determine, first and foremost is #1. Your presuppositions aren't yet proven, but you will happily throw it in the atheist's face that his presuppositions aren't proven, and is therefore irrational. Since the purpose of this dialog is to determine which one of our presuppositions is justified, using the conclusion that yours are already justified is circular. If you win us over, and we concede that your presuppositions are justified, then you can use that fact to further your case.

This is why your claims that we are all really pretending to be creationists are met with ridicule. If you manage to prove your case, then you can use your conclusion. Otherwise you are question begging. It would be like me presupposing that Jesus was actually Satan, and then dismissing anything you say because you are really a lying cheating Satan worshiper, therefore proving my case.

#2 is less interesting, since even if it is true, we still don't know if #1 is true. If your premises are wrong, you can reach wrong conclusions even by using valid and rational means. It is also ambiguous, as you have shown:

You complain that my worldview is irrational because it can't answer "why" Logic is correct , or why nature is uniform. Not knowing why something exists, in no way precludes us from knowing that it IS true.What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.

I will claim that your worldview is equally irrational, because it can't account for "how" God did or does anything! How about why are God's morals what they are? Why couldn't they be totally different? Why is God logical?

You also refuse to answer "why" God exists, since you claim that question itself is irrational. This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God. You will need to account for God before you blankly assume your worldview is rational.

I could draw a parallel, if I define that Logic is eternal and transcendent and necessary as part of the nature of the universe. Asking why it exists, according to you, is just as irrational in that case.
 

Balder

New member
Hi, Jim,

Although I have a number of unanswered posts, I won't hold you to them. I know your hands are full!

Hilston said:
But no one experiences the actual laws themselves. Laws are not experienced; they are themselves transcendental in character. No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses. They are conceptual in nature and as such are not experienced by human beings. However, we see their applications and effects all the time, and these must not be confused. So, no, aharvey, there is no "embarrassing over-reliance" on a "hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural." It corresponds exactly to the definition you offered, which I encourage the use of in any future dialogue on this subject.
I do not agree that concepts should be considered supernatural or extrasensory. They are "beyond" our usual Wenstern classification system of five senses, but that is not the only sensory classification system mankind has devised. Buddhist tradition speaks of mind as a sense as well, perceiving mental objects rather physical objects. Of course, what we perceive and conceive are very complexly interrelated, so "mind" is involved in the perception of external physical objects as well as "internal" objects such as ideas, images, concepts. To say "no one has tasted a summation" is as meaningful as saying "no one has ever heard the color red." Not being able to hear red no more disqualifies it as a "natural" sense object than not being able to taste a concept.

Best wishes,
Balder
 

mighty_duck

New member
Hilston said:
Take the multiple-choice test for BS Evolutionism!

Question 1: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of biological traits across taxa
b. Shared ancestry of animal species
c. Survival of the fittest
d. Origin of life
e. Evolution of medicine

Question 2: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of brain function across taxa
b. Comparative neurology
c. Survival benefits of sentient animals
d. Origin of sentience
e. Evolution of car design

If you answered "d" and "e" to both questions, you're a BS Evolutionist. If you chose only "e" to both questions, then you're NOT a BS Evolutionist.

I love multiple-choice personality tests! And from my experience with various tabloids, they are always right.really.

The first one is easy. a-c deal with traits and behavior of living things, while d-e do not.

The second one is harder. Origin of Sentience, that's a loaded term. Depends on your definition of sentience (according to your 1st or 2nd post I conlcuded that bacteria are sentient). And also the definition of Origin (how far back do you want to go).

If you define those terms as I do, That bacteria are NOT sentient, and origin in this case means a move from non-sentient to sentient, then Evolution explains this perfectly. Sentience is the result of our big brains. Our big brains are the result of Evolution.

Hilston said:
Hi aharvey,

Thanks for your comments.Here is my chain of reasoning:
  • God created the universe in accordance with His own character (orderly, logical).
  • God created humans in His image (rational, perceptive, personal, spiritual).
  • Therefore:
    1. Humans are able to rationally perceive and comprehend certain aspects of creation.
    2. Humans can rely upon the tools and methods of science to give them generally reliable data about certain aspects of creation.
I realize you may want further detail or clarification. I leave it to you to request exactly what you're interested in. I will be happy to elaborate.

The only thing missing from that is how you justify your belief in the existence of God. If God did not exist, then all of your deductions are false (according to you they are also irrational, but we differ on that point).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top