tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post5623844802864588673..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Open Letter to PZ MyersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-17920518856345948732012-08-10T12:01:30.018-07:002012-08-10T12:01:30.018-07:00Wished. One can wish for things one does not beli...Wished. One can wish for things one does not believe in.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-37310283663645865602011-06-24T14:51:08.079-07:002011-06-24T14:51:08.079-07:00======
David said:
Yes (yawn) I've been wished...======<br />David said:<br />Yes (yawn) I've been wished dead and to hell by atheists.<br />======<br />An atheist that believes in hell?Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-21448182501936852372011-06-06T08:21:35.221-07:002011-06-06T08:21:35.221-07:00Yes (yawn) I've been wished dead and to hell b...Yes (yawn) I've been wished dead and to hell by atheists. But the point isn't what a few fringees do (and I doubt your man "Khalid" even pretends to be a Christian) -- it's the general tone of PZ's site that belies the generalizations he makes. <br /><br />Ironically, in your attempts to make science the be-all-and-end-all of empirical reasoning, you ACTUALLY emphasize the importance of HISTORY: <br /><br />"Hasn't logic evolved as we have learned more? . . . Hasn't mathematics evolved as we have learned more? . . . What about the scientific methodology itself? Has it not, itself, been tested and refined over the centuries?"<br /><br />These are all HISTORICAL claims, for which you cannot, even in principle, provide any purely SCIENTIFIC evidence. Q.E.D.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23537445136783976762011-06-06T00:05:56.828-07:002011-06-06T00:05:56.828-07:00If I may quote the opposing side:
"Khalid Sa...If I may quote the opposing side:<br /><br />"Khalid Salad (@Young_Salad) 4/9/11 3:02 PM @LadyAtheist @DaBoyBanks i treat other women much different then how i treat u f***** atheist"<br />https://twitter.com/young_salad/status/56809169629609984 [I redacted the one word]<br /><br />Or I could mention the constant death threats many people get from "true believer" Dennis Markuze. Do YOU get daily (sometimes 100's a day) emails from some atheist threatening to cut off your head?<br /><br /><br /><br />You say "[PZs] argument is one of scientism: the tacit assumption that the only way to know anything is through scientific testing. It is like watching a dog eat its own tale: a self-contradiction painful to observe"<br /><br />I would argue it is not Scientism specifically, unless you can quote him saying that you are just projecting. I wouldn't be shocked to find that PZ accepts that we have certain innate knowledge (like the ability to acquire language, which doesn't function in some people due to brain damage so it can be lost).<br /><br />But, in a generic sense... What do you think are things we KNOW that cannot be tested in something akin to a scientific method?<br /><br />Like logic? Do we not observe, measure, and test logic for accurate and correct results? Hasn't logic evolved as we have learned more?<br /><br />Mathematics? How do we know the axioms of mathematics give accurate and correct results? Do we not observe, measure, and test mathematics as well? Hasn't mathematics evolved as we have learned more?<br /><br />What about the scientific methodology itself? Has it not, itself, been tested and refined over the centuries?<br /><br />How about love? Science cannot measure love can it?<br /><br />http://66.199.228.237/boundary/Sexual_Addiction/romantic_love_an_FRMRI_study_of_mechanism_for_Mate_choice.pdf<br />http://www.publicacions.ub.es/refs/Articles/atracsexual.pdf<br />http://www.helenfisher.com/downloads/articles/Fisher-et-al-Rejection.pdf<br /><br />Do you really believe that it's impossible to scientifically measure emotions and eventually thoughts? However difficult the task might be due to the scale of the problem, nothing we know indicates these things cannot be done.<br /><br />The point is that while you CAN know some things without formal science, you cannot really know to what extent those things are correct without some form of scientific inquiry being brought to bear on the question.<br /><br />The sky is blue. No, blue light is scattered by the atmosphere making it appear blue. What is blue? Well, blue is both certain frequencies of light and mixtures of light and it's only BLUE by convention. And things that appear blue are really just reflecting blue light due to specific electron behaviors of the molecules. So the trivial observation, "the sky is blue" is not really very reliable knowledge.<br /><br />Just about everything we "knew" of the world from the past was WRONG in light of quantum mechanics and relativity.<br /><br />So in that context I'm very curious to hear what we can know that cannot possibly be validated through careful observation (other than god)?Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25096476645484248062011-05-31T14:57:13.533-07:002011-05-31T14:57:13.533-07:00======
DM: Almost all of your arguments are based ...======<br />DM: Almost all of your arguments are based almost entirely on human testimony.<br />======<br />Actually, with the possible exception of a few political opinions, practically none of them are.<br /><br /><br />======<br />I'd hate to irritate some patient reader ... finds there an interminable debate about epistemology. <br />======<br />Yes, good point there.<br /><br /><br />======<br />Your misconceptions are common ones, <br />======<br />I'd say, rather, that yours are. But as you say, that's a debate for another place and time.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-86124732893914005592011-05-31T14:52:24.194-07:002011-05-31T14:52:24.194-07:00======
Crude said:
Yeah, I always hear this. And m...======<br />Crude said:<br />Yeah, I always hear this. And my response is always the same: "Everyone is nicer within swinging distance." <br />======<br />True enough. As I've often said elsewhere (even elsewhere on this blog, I believe), on the internet everyone is free to be an arrogant bastard without fear of reprisal.<br /><br />======<br />I've been around since freaking BBS days and Fido.net, nerd that I am.<br />======<br />As have I -- and clearly my comments about delving into Usenet to grow a thicker hide don't apply to you. However, I included that information, originally relayed to David in private, at this request. I've little doubt that it applies to -some- posters here, at least.<br /><br /><br />======<br />When you keep spelling his name as Meyers rather than Myers, I have to wonder how familiar you really are. <br />======<br />I believe I stated outright that I don't know him well. We used to occasionally nod at each other in the shared quonset hut where he tended the brine shrimp used to feed his zebrafish, and where the lab I worked in kept our Aplysia californica.<br /><br />Add to that that I am an indifferent and often phonetic speller, and that this blog lacks a spellcheck utility, and I think you have all the explanation required.<br /><br />My question to you is: are you primarily riled by Myers' position, or by his attitude?<br /><br />If the former, then perhaps you should engage in debating that position.<br /><br />If the latter, then clearly spending a long time on the early, unruly, unrefined frontier of online fora is not a universal prescription for thickening one's hide.<br /><br />Worked for me, tho'... ;-)Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-26618475944269685252011-05-30T21:52:52.662-07:002011-05-30T21:52:52.662-07:00Dr H,
And in person he was much more mild-mannere...Dr H,<br /><br /><i>And in person he was much more mild-mannered and laid back than you might expcect from the agressiveness of his posts.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I always hear this. And my response is always the same: "Everyone is nicer within swinging distance." If anyone acted RL the way Myers does - and this is on any topic of note, not just atheism - they'd have a fight on their hands.<br /><br />Further, I've been around since freaking BBS days and Fido.net, nerd that I am. As such, please, spare me the "Usenet is a rough and tumble place for the hardcore" line. I think "Online, people - especially wimps - love to talk and act a lot tougher than they really are" is closer to the mark. In Myers' case, there's also the angle that he has to be entertaining.<br /><br />Finally, you say you're familiar with him, but I've got to say this: When you keep spelling his name as Meyers rather than Myers, I have to wonder how familiar you really are. To me, this is like hearing someone talk about the views of physicist Stephen Hawkins, knowing they aren't making a joke about Stephen Hawking. Maybe he's been misspelling his name all these years and you know the truth, though. Maybe it's an in joke. But I'm laying it out there.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-66980837055570424032011-05-26T16:50:13.881-07:002011-05-26T16:50:13.881-07:00Dr. H: I certainly did, many times. But I'm no...Dr. H: I certainly did, many times. But I'm not going to go over that yet again.<br /><br />Almost all of your arguments are based almost entirely on human testimony. I've made that point before, too, in case you've forgotten. But this is only distantly related to the topic of this post. I'd hate to irritate some patient reader who is interested in the beef about Myers, follows the argument all the way to the end, and finds there an interminable debate about epistemology. <br /><br />Some time I'm going to have to take another crack at the subject. Your misconceptions are common ones, and if I'm not mistaken, I think I sensed (Winston Wu taught me this) your opinion budged in the direction of sense almost half a micron over the course of our 254 year debate.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-42343160698566755082011-05-26T12:06:24.728-07:002011-05-26T12:06:24.728-07:00======
David said:
The argument is long since won,...======<br />David said:<br />The argument is long since won, from my POV.<br />======<br />Well, you can pat yourself on the back and declare victory for some arbitrary 'argument' if that make you feel good. But you have failed utterly to show that anecdotal evidence is strong evidence, or to seriously address the many reasons why it is inherently weak evidence. Such defense of that postion as you have presented has either ignored context, or been based on the fallacy that 'having a lot of weak evidence is the same as having strong evidence.'<br /><br />=====<br />You have proven that you are willing to spend years on end passionately making the case for all kinds of things based on nothing other than testimonial evidence.<br />=====<br />Indeed? What "things" have I done that with?Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-77886669894883275542011-05-25T14:44:40.775-07:002011-05-25T14:44:40.775-07:00=====
Crude says:
As it stands, I go by what Myers...=====<br />Crude says:<br />As it stands, I go by what Myers has actually said - I could always have missed something, <br />=====<br />Well, I won't say that I know Meyers well, but I did actually encounter him in person on various occasions, years back. He was doing (I think) post-doc research while I was working on my master's at the same university, and we worked in adjacent labs. At the time, I didn't even know that he was an atheist; it wasn't something that he wore on his sleeve. And in person he was much more mild-mannered and laid back than you might expcect from the agressiveness of his posts.<br /><br />But for that matter, so, probably, am I.<br /><br />I am also familiar with PZ from various Usenet newsgroups, especially sci.skeptic. I think -- and I already conveyed this to David privately -- that people who have not "done time" on Usenet have a, shall I say, very urbane and refined set of expectations about how internet communication ettiquette works, or is supposed to work.<br /><br />Blogs like this, or even like Meyer's "Pharyngula" are like sitting around in an upscale coffee house, sipping lattes and discussing philosophy; Usenet is like hanging out in an alley behind the pool hall, passing a bottle of cheap wine in a paper bag, and playing the dozens. PZ and I are both veterans of that dank alley.<br /><br />Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems to me that bloggers who haven't paid their dues on Usenet tend to have thin skins, and judge aggressive posters more harshly than they may deserve.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-46772571583573824272011-05-25T14:39:54.602-07:002011-05-25T14:39:54.602-07:00=====
Crude says:
'Christian principles of beh...=====<br />Crude says:<br />'Christian principles of behavior', without qualification and under even a broad reading, wouldn't be possible, no. Just like you can't expect an atheist to follow the 10 Commandments, not because of all 10, but because of 1, 2, and arguably 3.<br />=====<br />However, this is /not/ the reason the Christians I've polled have given. Not one of them ever opined that an atheist wouldn't be able to follow a particular commandment. The reason they did give, as I said, was that acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior was necessary.<br /><br />One could argue whether the ten commandments were even addressed to Christians: where they are presented in the Bible they are addressed to the Hebrew tribes. God certainly didn't bring any Irish, Zimbabwean, or American Christians "out of Egypt."<br /><br />I also dispute whether it is impossible for an atheist to obey the letter of the first three commandments. <br />Using myself as an example: since I have no gods at all, I certainly have no gods "before" the God of the first commandment. And I neither make nor worship any idols, since I don't worship at all, so #2 is no trouble.<br /><br />#3, I agree, might be a little problematic. But really, how many people raised in a Christian culture -- even devout Christians -- can honestly claim that they have never, ever exclaimed "God DAMMIT!" when they hit their thumb with a hammer or stubbed their toe on a table in a dark room?<br /><br /><br />=====<br />...once we start counting orthodox Christian views about sex, abortion, and elsewise, the 'atheists are pretty much the same morally' argument is threatened.<br />=====<br />Only if you assume that "atheists" all subscribe to some homogenous belief system as Christians of a particular sect are expected to. Such an assumption would be fallacious. I know atheists who elected to refrain from sex until they had found their life-partner. And I know atheists who do not like or support abortion.<br /><br />Of course there are other atheists for whom these things are not true, just as there are plenty of Christians who have had premarital or extra-marital sex, and plenty of Catholics who have had abortions.<br /><br />But this is wandering from the issue. I made no claims about "all atheists" in my post. I related one particular response that I got from Christians to the posit <br /><br />..."Can't _one_ live a life which is moral according to Christian principles of behavior, and be a moral being even though they may not believe in either God or Christianity?" (emphasis added).<br /><br /><br />=====<br />I brought up the importance of understanding what the 'atheist perspective' in question is.<br />=====<br />My point was that there -is no- "atheist perspective," any more than there is a "theist perspective". Atheism and theism are but aspects of one's larger wordlview.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is -not- erroneous (although perhaps imprecise) to speak of a "Christian perspective" or a "Catholic perspective," etc. It would be erroneous to compare either to an "atheist perspective," however, since atheism is a single belief element and not a belief -system- in the way "Christianity" or "Catholicism" are.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-21188435324059552722011-05-25T13:56:33.927-07:002011-05-25T13:56:33.927-07:00Dr. H: The argument is long since won, from my POV...Dr. H: The argument is long since won, from my POV. You have proven that you are willing to spend years on end passionately making the case for all kinds of things based on nothing other than testimonial evidence. If you're willing to devote your life to the proposition that testimonial evidence is worth such sacrifices and such passion, who am I to stand in your way?David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-68593776608201597542011-05-25T13:42:10.574-07:002011-05-25T13:42:10.574-07:00=====
David says:
Trying to persuade you of the ce...=====<br />David says:<br />Trying to persuade you of the central importance of testimonial (not "anecdotal," of course) evidence is like pushing the rock up the hill in Hades.<br />=====<br />You can rest easy on that one, David. You don't need to convince me of the -importance- of testimonial. I understand that it is vitally important, essential even, to your arguments.<br /><br />Your task is to convince me that a particular form of evidence which is demonstrably inherently /weak/ is, in fact, /strong/ evidence.<br /><br />Or to convince everyone else, I suppose. Good luck with that.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-46198263226304004602011-05-22T12:47:20.320-07:002011-05-22T12:47:20.320-07:00Becky: Of course I don't know anything about t...Becky: Of course I don't know anything about that history. What was your main quarrel with Myers about, if I can ask? <br /><br />Does it matter which group a person chooses to hate? That hating out-groups is one of the power sources that make the engine of Pharyngula run becomes more clear the more I observe the site. The snazzy photos of nature never get a quarter of the commentary. <br /><br />But I was thinking -- maybe the relationship here is that Myers gets his kicks showing people freaks -- freaks of nature, or Christian freaks. Maybe he's bored with the normal. Maybe he's the modern equivalent of PT Barnum.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61937481715369986052011-05-22T11:15:15.438-07:002011-05-22T11:15:15.438-07:00Personally, I found PZ Myers isn't as radical ...Personally, I found PZ Myers isn't as radical or even as liberal as he claims to be. As he stooped as low as attempting to humiliate me in front of everyone on his blog by claiming that I wasn't a real woman (whatever that means) because I'm transsexual I now don't seem him as fundamentally any different from any other loud-mouthed egotistical bigot.<br /><br />Oh well, he may not see me as the real deal when it comes to womanhood, but tbh, conversely, I don't see him as the genuine king of sceptism that he lays claim to be. <br /><br />The fact that him and his Pharyngulite followers then proceeded to lie and falsely accuse me of posting messages on the Internet confirmed the gut feeling that I initially had about him and what appears to be his sect. The fact that I'll never even know what it was I am accused of having said because these messages were deleted before I even had a chance to see them I find kind of sinister. Now, in an obviously minor sort of way, (together with the punitive psychology tactic that he tends to employ against many of his critics) that really does has echoes of Stalinism.<br /><br />Becky xAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-79089371311820051022011-05-17T19:27:44.320-07:002011-05-17T19:27:44.320-07:00Dr H,
I have directly asked a number of Christian...Dr H,<br /><br /><i>I have directly asked a number of Christians, "Can't one live a life which is moral according to Christian principles of behavior, and be a moral being even though they may not believe in either God or Christianity?"<br /><br />The majority of those I have asked have replied "No".</i><br /><br />'Christian principles of behavior', without qualification and under even a broad reading, wouldn't be possible, no. Just like you can't expect an atheist to follow the 10 Commandments, not because of all 10, but because of 1, 2, and arguably 3.<br /><br />Various moral acts, individually, and given the qualification I add (unless I missed something) is another story. As you said, YMMV. I'll also note that Orion did not speak about 'living according to Christian morality' - which was probably intentional, since once we start counting orthodox Christian views about sex, abortion, and elsewise, the 'atheists are pretty much the same morally' argument is threatened.<br /><br /><i>If the theist perspective is merely the belief in God, then this must be true for the theist perspective, as well.</i><br /><br />Sure, go for it. It just serves to back up the point I made - I brought up the importance of understanding what the 'atheist perspective' in question is.<br /><br /><i>Orion's admirable statement of Meyer's position</i><br /><br />Still waiting on anyone to show that this is Myers' position, complete with quotes, as opposed to an imaginary / heavily altered view of what someone thinks Myers maybe could possibly think in theory.<br /><br />This sort of thing is reverse-strawmanning - taking someone's bad argument or lame statement, and building it up to be more impressive than it ever originally was. As it stands, I go by what Myers has actually said - I could always have missed something, but in the posts where I read him actually engaging this, his statement of his position was pretty far from, and stronger than, Orion's version.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-33193224870052237132011-05-17T18:36:00.172-07:002011-05-17T18:36:00.172-07:00Dr. H: Trying to persuade you of the central impor...Dr. H: Trying to persuade you of the central importance of testimonial (not "anecdotal," of course) evidence is like pushing the rock up the hill in Hades: I recognize that it will never stay at rest on the heights heights it ultimately reaches, but will in your mind immediately come crashing back down to the depths. It would be wiser to focus the energy spent on that futile task into writing a book on faith, reason, and a Christian epistemology (amateur version), and persuade everyone else, first. For now, I'll decline to assume the burden again. <br /><br />I think I've got Myers right, he does seem to fall for this embarrasingly unreflective idolization of science hook, line and sinker. Who wouldn't want to be a star? But I'll keep my eyes open for any sign of self-awareness or philosophical depth on the issue.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-5058111849998233622011-05-17T18:06:01.116-07:002011-05-17T18:06:01.116-07:00=====
David Marshall said:
It appears to me that M...=====<br />David Marshall said:<br />It appears to me that Myers is, in fact, operating from an assumption of scientism, not fideism. He denies that there is any scientific evidence for God, implicitly conflating "evidence" with "scientific evidence."<br />=====<br />David, I see you here substituting "evidence" for the very specific phrase "<i>conclusive</i> evidence" which appears several times in Orion's admirable statement of Meyer's position. You and I have run around similar definitional trees before, including the definition of "evidence," and the conflating of "evidence" with "proof".<br /><br />In short: stating the conditions under which <i>evidence</i> does not constitute <i>conclusive</i> evidence, is <b>not</b> the same thing as denying that there can be any evidence.<br /><br />In our own dance the misunderstanding was more over the quality of particular kinds of evidence, with you wanting to assign a much higher value to anecdotal evidence than it logically warrants. Yet at no time did I deny that anecdotal evidence was <i>per se</i> indeed a form of evidence.<br /><br />I believe you are on the verge of similarly misunderstanding PZ Meyers position.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-38459465506630560162011-05-17T17:49:31.247-07:002011-05-17T17:49:31.247-07:00=====
David Marshall sez:
...appeals to authority ...=====<br />David Marshall sez:<br />...appeals to authority (which is what journals are, and why notes are used, and where peer review comes in) . . . <br />=====<br />Um... there is nothing wrong with appeal to a legitimate authority so long as one does so as <i>part</i> of a larger picture of examining and testing evidence.<br /><br />Appeal to authority becomes problematic -- a logical fallacy -- when one insists that a claim is true <i>simply because</i> it has been uttered by a recognized authority on some subject.<br /><br />Done in <i>proper context</i> appealing to authority is part of the larger scientific process of <i>replication</i> and <i>peer review</i>. But it is only one part of that larger process.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-10535625984539030662011-05-17T17:11:44.828-07:002011-05-17T17:11:44.828-07:00=====
David Marshall said:
Mutual submission withi...=====<br />David Marshall said:<br />Mutual submission within relationships of limitted delianated authority is a necesssary part of life. <br />=====<br />Some of us think of this as <i>cooperation</i>, rather than as "mutual submission."Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-4118881351197578172011-05-17T17:09:10.381-07:002011-05-17T17:09:10.381-07:00=====
Crude said:
Can that which is not "scie...=====<br />Crude said:<br />Can that which is not "scientific" be presented as "scientific" without warrant?<br />=====<br />Of course. Two examples which immediately come to mind are "creation science" and "intelligent design".<br /><br /><br />=====<br />Does merely saying "this statement is the conclusion of science or scientific thinking" make it so?<br />=====<br />Of course not. It must be demonstrated that the statement is based on conclusions drawn from<br />practices which adhered to the scientific method, with all that entails.<br /><br /><br />=====<br />if the 'atheist perspective' is merely 'the lack of God belief', then isn't it likewise true that "Viewing society from the atheist perspective does no provide any barriers against any acts whatsoever, whether typically thought of as heinous or righteous"?<br />=====<br />If the theist perspective is merely the belief in God, then this must be true for the theist perspective, as well.<br />Mere belief in God provides no barriers agaist such acts, and indeed has often been cited as justification -for- them.<br /><br />Life is more complex than simple a "theist" or "atheist" perspective, either of which is going to be merely a single<br />part of a multifaceted world view.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-62699459714991024382011-05-17T16:46:12.828-07:002011-05-17T16:46:12.828-07:00=====
Crude said:
I'm aware of no Christians w...=====<br />Crude said:<br />I'm aware of no Christians who deny that one can do this or that (as construed by the Christian) moral act without being a Christian or a even a believer in God.<br />=====<br /><br />I am.<br /><br />I have directly asked a number of Christians, "Can't one live a life which is moral according to Christian principles of behavior, and be a moral being even though they may not believe in either God or Christianity?"<br /><br />The majority of those I have asked have replied "No". <br /><br />When pressed for explanation they mostly produce variations of what boils down to "Unless you accept Jesus Christ as Savior, you cannot be saved. If you are not saved, you will be cast into the lake of fire."<br /><br />In other words, in their eyes, a life of faultlessly moral behavior -- by their own standards -- would still result in an unbeliever being treated as an unmoral, or evil being, and subject him to eternal damnation.<br /><br />At this point in my life I'm so familiar with this attitude that it pretty much rolls off me like water off a duck. But in my younger days the untractable arrogance that position seemed to display prompted me to more than one outburst of venerable four-letter Anglo-Saxonisms in response.<br /><br />As they say, YMMV.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-81368870205906051782011-05-17T16:27:07.753-07:002011-05-17T16:27:07.753-07:00=====
Orion Silvertree said:
[PZ Meyers] encourage...=====<br />Orion Silvertree said:<br />[PZ Meyers] encourages forthright criticism, in direct contrast to the submissive attitude encouraged among adherents to the Christian system of thought.<br />=====<br /><br />Just thought I'd mention that David does the same, with this blog. ;-)Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-36209079089257035722011-05-17T10:42:33.902-07:002011-05-17T10:42:33.902-07:00David,
The only kind of fanatic from whom one can...David,<br /><br /><i>The only kind of fanatic from whom one can expect much consistency is a trained philosopher, which Myers certainly is not (I hope!). So I won't be surprised if you find statements from him suggesting utter fideism, and also total commitment to the evidence.</i><br /><br />Fair enough, I suppose we could agree on that much.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-85818502717753969492011-05-17T10:40:38.982-07:002011-05-17T10:40:38.982-07:00Another comment.
Science is an atheistic system o...Another comment.<br /><br /><i>Science is an atheistic system of thought, in the minimal sense that it does not take the existence of a god or gods as an axiom</i><br /><br />That's nonsense. You may as well argue that Thomas Aquinas' works are atheistic, on the grounds that Aquinas argues for, rather than axiomatically assumes, God's existence. This is a case of trying to rework definitions mightily to label something desirable "atheistic". (I imagine prisons are filled to the brim with people guilty of atheistic crimes.)<br /><br />Theism is entirely compatible with science, and the demarcation problem of science is a tricky issue besides.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com