As soon as you question the opinions of popular atheist idols, critics attempt to wrongly label this as an ad hominem attack. Ironically, it is the followers of the one who says "Nothing must be held sacred" who are the most agitated when the logic (or lack thereof) of their leader is critiqued. It is quite easy to demonstrate that the top atheist apologists tend to avoid logic like the plague. PZ Myers founded the most popular atheist science blog, Pharyngula, and I'll send a biscuit to the first person who can find a single well-constructed logical argument on the entire Pharyngula blog. Instead, there is a potpourri of religious ridicule, science fluff and a continuous interest in animal sex.[1] It was in PZ's most famous blog post entitled "The Great Desecration" that he declared, "Nothing must be held sacred." after he childishly attempts to scientifically (empirically) demonstrate this notion.[2] The conclusion of Myers' most popular blog post, however, is nothing but a logical fallacy, a bald assertion completely unsupported by true premises and void of any logical principles whatsoever.
William Lane Craig outlined in his book, On Guard, how "the central argument" of Richard Dawkins' most famous book, The God Delusion, has a completely illogical form and conclusion: "Dawkins argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion, "Therefore God almost certainly does not exist," doesn't follow from the previous statements even if we concede that each of them is true."[3] Atheists can hype it up as much as they want to at a Reason Rally, but until they can present their ideas logically and rationally, anyone with an open mind will recognize that their illogical ranting and raving will only serve to underscore the truth of God's existence all the more.
It's not just the leaders that avoid logic, it's the zealous followers as well. An atheist blogger, Chad Orzel, who seems to enjoy a somewhat higher level of intellectual discipline than PZ Myers, pointed out that Myers' blog followers behave like a bunch of "screeching monkeys."[4] When I posted a comment there recently the responses were predictable. The article I posted on stated that the onus is on the theist to present a logical argument. When I challenged anyone to disprove my logical arguments, neither the premises nor the forms of the arguments were addressed. There were just off-hand remarks and insults. One blogger stated "No, existence isn’t a matter of proof, ignoramus." And other comment offered that existence is not an attribute, "It’s like, I have a 2008 toyota pickup truck, it is red and fast and 4×4, and it exists. logical “proof” does not show existence."[5] It seems that these bloggers were referring to St. Anselm's argument for God, an ontological argument for God's existence which posits that the perfection of God's existence is a quality.[6] There are at least three reasons why the Pharyngula bloggers responses were invalid.
Firstly, I didn't offer them any ontological arguments (completely theoretical and abstract). These arguments include empirical observation. Secondly, I'm not positing that God's existence is a quality. Thirdly, there is no logical reason why empirical observation alone should be considered as proof of anything. If the screeching monkeys want to disprove the following argument from my blog, they need to disprove one of the premises, not make excuses for avoiding this. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins have refused to debate William Lane Craig for illogical reasons,[7] just as Pharnygula blog, Debunking Christianity and Austin Cline have offered illogical reasons for not debating me.[8] The general strategy seems to be the following:
'The onus is on theists to prove God, but we will make illogical excuses for not debating, therefore we're right!'
Possible reasons why atheist apologists avoid logic like the plague
1. Logic tests the truth of ideas.
2. Logic dismantles the "empirical data only" fallacy.
3. Logic requires more than atheist one-liners.
4. It's embarrassing that philosophical positivism is considered dead.
5. Logic is equated with the nature of God in John 1.1.
1. Logic tests the truth of ideas. It's easy to mock, ridicule and showboat at a Reason Rally, but it's not so easy to formulate a logical argument that stands up to testing. In an example of logic avoidance, Stephen Law presented a 1.5 hour long video-taped analysis of The God Delusion and did not once address "the central argument" of the book, as defined by Richard Dawkins.[9]
If a person is drawn to truth he or she will be drawn to logic, because the laws of logic help in testing to see whether or not ideas are true. People living in deception will generally avoid the laws of logic. So what does that say about atheism?
P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles.
P2. Sound logic is required in order to test the truth of foundational precepts and conclusions.
P3. People interested in true and valid logical conclusions are interested in testing their ideas logically.
C. Therefore, top atheist apologists have demonstrated that they are not interested in testing their foundational precepts and conclusions.
2. Logic dismantles the "empirical data only" fallacy. Atheist Scientists tend to insist that only empirical data is valid as evidence. But this is not logically supportable. Logic is the foundation of science, while science has nothing to say about logic whatsoever. Simply put, without the laws of logic no science would be possible, because science is based on logical deduction. Consider that the Law of Non Contradiction is not based on any empirical observation. The law basically states, "Something cannot be true and not true at the same time, in the same way."[10] This is a completely theoretical truth, and a very important one.
P1. The world is more accurately described using the laws of logic.
P2. The laws of logic include observable principles and abstract, theoretical ones.
C. Therefore, the world is more accurately explained using both empirical and theoretical knowledge.
3. Logic requires more than atheist one-liners. PZ Myers' most famous statement, "Nothing must be held sacred" proves nothing. A logical argument requires at a minimum two premises and a conclusion. PZ's grand proclamation is nothing but a bald assertion that is made in a logically invalid form. Again, I'll ask if anyone can point out one single logical argument at PZ's blog.
4. It's embarrassing that philosophical positivism is considered dead. Atheist scientists, such as Myers and Dawkins, tend to avoid debate with theists well versed in logic and philosophy. They tend to downplay the need for philosophy and promote science as the highest form of truth. Though reluctant to actually choose a philosophical disposition, this view is defined as positivism. Most secular philosophers have labelled this philosophical view as a "dead" one and this is quite embarrassing to for atheists to acknowledge. Stephen Hawking is an atheist scientists who has been outspoken in his defense of positivism.[11]
5. Logic is equated with the nature of God. The word logic was coined by Aristotle, who described his conception of God as the "Unmoved Mover" or "Prime Mover" in Book Eight of his Physics. Aristotle's logical God dwells at the circumference of the universe in a mystical, supernatural manner. Logic is a mysterious phenomenon that has both subjective and objective aspects. It is used practically in minds (subjective) but the laws are timeless, universal and unchanging (objective). If logic is the mere product of a biological, evolutionary brain, then why does it have objective qualities? The scriptures offer that "Wisdom cries out in the streets." This could be paraphrased as, 'Logic is seen everywhere in the world.' Though scripture does not use the word logic, the word wisdom is a close alternative, which describes the nature of God. A person can be described as wise or unwise, logical or illogical. Take William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers as examples. Can they be shown to be wise or unwiuse? Yes. This shows that logic may be considered a personal characteristic. Thus, when we look around and see the created hierarchy and order in the cosmos, any open-minded person would logically conclude that this points to a wise creator.[12] Jesus, the Creator, is described in John 1.1 as the Logos or "Logic" of God.
Again, I'll put forth the challenge to Pharyngula to refute a logical argument for God's existence. In order to refute a logical argument a premise must be shown to be untrue or the form must be shown to be invalid.
Argument from a Created, Hierarchical and Interdependent Universe
P1. The material universe is a highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system.
P2. The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
P3. Therefore, the organization of the physical universe required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
P4. The purposeful use of energy and intelligence in forming the universe is best explained by God's existence.
C. Therefore, it is most probable that God exists.
Conclusion
Though I offer satirical images at times in an effort to highlight the absurdity of atheist positions, my critique of top atheist apologists is based on examining their arguments and ideas based on the objective principles of logic. The avoidance of logic is found in a scriptural context as the avoidance of truth and especially the truth of God. Romans 1.18-32 outlines the active suppression of truth by atheists.[13] Atheist apologists aren't stupid, just blinded. They are in a state of denial.
As I was waiting to enter the library in Southampton NY one morning, I spoke with a lawyer regarding the extremely low state of news journalism and mass media today. This led to the subject of critical thinking wherein the lawyer stated that critical thinking requires academic rigor. I countered that logic and open-mindedness are the most important aspects for critical thinking. I offered that secular education often has the opposite effect, it produces people who are taught to blindly follow influences such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, who eschew logic. Richard Dawkins seems to hold his CV as some sort of evidence that he is an authority on what is true. This is called ethos based rhetoric. Jesus had no college degree but everyone acknowledged that he spoke with authority. Why is this? Because true authority comes not from academia and a piece of paper known as a diploma, but true authority comes from knowing the truth and expressing it logically. Society is failing to a large extent because of misguided secular humanist education. And it's people like PZ Myers who claim that "Nothing must be held sacred" who are hastening the collapse of Western Civilization.
References
[1] Templestream, PZ Myers' Animal Sex: A Big Question For PZ, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/pz-meyers-animal-sex-big-question-for.html
[2] Pharyngula, The Great Desecration, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php
[3] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, p.121, see online, Reasonable Faith Forum, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493
[4] Uncertain Principles, The Cost of Not Framing, http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_cost_of_not_framing.php
[5] Pharyngula, Why I am an atheist – Torsten Pihl, comments March 24, http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/24/why-i-am-an-atheist-torsten-pihl/comment-page-1/#comment-295158
[6] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ontological Argument, St. Anselm's ontological argument for God, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
[7] Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html (Myers also claimed 'moral supremacy' as an excuse for not debating, an illogical assertion for a moral relativist. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/08/why-i-will-not-debate-william-lane-craig/ - "If William Lane Craig were to offer a debate in a written format, would you accept?" - No. Why? "appalled at his words" (8 November 2011 at 7:19 pm)
[8] Templestream, Top 20 Atheist Bloggers Decline Challenge to Reason, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/07/top-20-atheist-bloggers-decline.html
[9] Templestream, Remember When WL Craig Refuted The God Delusion? http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/remember-when-wl-craig-refuted-god.html
[10] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Contradiction, Law of noncontradiction (LNC), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/
[11] New World Encyclopedia, Positivism, "positivism is dead" http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism, see also Hawking quotes: Templestream, Why the God Debate is Valid and Necessary, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-debate-is-valid-and-necessary.html
[12] Templestream, The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
[13] Romans 1.18-32, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-32&version=NASB
Tags: Is atheism illogical?, PZ Myers' most popular atheist blogger, logic and God, atheists avoid logic, professor chaos, logic is the basis of true reason, logic is the basis of science,why relativism is false, origin of universe, what is critical thinking? critical thinking requires logic, secular humanist education is a failure, why public education is a failure, why society is failing, why postmodernism is failing, atheist excuses, PZ Myers' screeching monkeys, collapse of Western Civilization, Dawkins enemies of reason,
(article updates 03/02/13)
Related:
Premise 1 is inaccurate. But let's allow it for the purposes of continued analysis.
ReplyDeletePremise 2 is wrong. Even if premise 1 is correct, the introduction of a bold and extraordinary assertion requires additional proof or logic.
Premise 2 is a simple assertion with neither additional proof nor logical basis.
Would you accept that "There are no REAL things that cannot be empirically tested or proved." as a premise? Clearly, all things that can be tested are clearly real things, and there aren't any counter-examples, are there?
In fact, that we can observe other stars forming from natural processes which we do understand and that we can observe planetary nebulae forming similarly, clearly destroys that second premise.
Hi Tim,
ReplyDeleteYour criticisms don't seem well supported to me.
P1 is a basic summary, it is not meant to be an all-inclusive encyclopaedic definition. Please point out which aspect is erroneous. The universe is not complex and does not have hierarchical qualities in your opinion? I believe it would be simple to show otherwise.
You state P2 is wrong:
"...we can observe other stars forming from natural processes which we do understand and that we can observe planetary nebulae forming similarly, clearly destroys that second premise."
- So in your view, Tim, forming stars and planetary nebulae constitute "the organization of a new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system."
The following is a definition of Nebulae - Astrology Encyclopedia:
"Star clusters in which the light of the individual stars, because of their distance, merge to give the impression of a cloud with a more or less well-defined center."
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dictionary/nebulae.php
Nebulae don't seem to be very "complex" or "hierarchical" do they, Tim? They seem, well, nebulous.
That is a familiar word in everyday vocabulary that basically means "indistinct, vague" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nebulous
As far as star formations are concerned. I'm not sure how you would characterize that as "the organization of a new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system."
Would you care to offer some official definitions from astronomy websites to validate your claims?
- Just curious, are you from the Pharyngula blog?
Regards,
Rick
Oh? Atheists "avoid logic like the plague"?
ReplyDeleteWrong, wrong.
In regards to your point #4, you should read athiest philosopher Stephen Law's blog sometime.
In other words, you are wrong with point #4 (4. It's embarrassing that logical positivism is considered dead.)
It's actually worse than that for you: You claimed that 4. It's embarrassing that logical positivism is considered dead. Atheist scientists, such as Meyers and Dawkins who tend to insist that philosophy is useless and only empirical data counts as valid evidence, are in a bit of a quandary.
Neither person from what I see actually said that philosophy was "useless". Myers only said that too much of it is bad, while Dawkins said that philosophers have to be scientifically literate.
Myers figures hard science is a lot better at learning how things in the world work, and is a far better tool for learning new things than just philosophy itself, but then so do I.
Looks like you're lying with that Point #4 of yours, Warden.
3. Logic requires more than atheist one-liners. PZ Meyers' most famous statement, "Nothing must be held sacred" proves nothing.
He was not trying to prove anything with that statement: He was just saying that no beliefs should be off-limits to investigation.
Logic needs more than xian "misunderstandings" of what people are saying.
Seriously, if you can't even figure out what a person is saying, if you can't even figure out when they are trying to make a logical statement and when they're not; what right do you have to try to accuse them of bad logic?
A logical argument requires at a minimum two premises and a conclusion. PZ's grand proclamation is nothing but a bald assertion that is made in a logically invalid form. Again, I'll ask, if anyone can point out one single logical argument at PZ's blog, I'll send them a biscuit.
How's about getting over your PZ Myer's fetish? First it was Dawkins, now Myers. And to top it off, you're taking your complaints against Myers and applying it to all atheists.
You go on to say here:
I offered that secular education often has the opposite effect, it produces people who are taught to blindly follow leaders such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers.
Really? In no high school I ever heard of or went to did I hear anything about "blindly following anything". If you had actually put some thought in writing this blog entry, you'd have realized that that "illogical" statement of Myers you quoted earlier on about "nothing must be held sacred" directly contradicts the point that you are trying to foist off about how secular education promotes "blind obedience"!
If you want to know where blind obedience is taught, look to the various holy books out there, including your own.
Colossians 3:22
Hebrews 13:17
1 Samuel 15:22
Hello Reynold,
ReplyDelete>Neither person from what I see actually said that philosophy was "useless". Myers only said that too much of it is bad, while Dawkins said that philosophers have to be scientifically literate.
- Perhaps I was too harsh. I'll amend that.
>He was not trying to prove anything with that statement: He was just saying that no beliefs should be off-limits to investigation.
- I'll take issue with you here. I definitely believe Myers believed he was actually proving a point in hammering a rusty nail through a communion wafer and throwing it in the garbage. He uses the word "must" when telling us what we should believe in accordance with his demonstration.
-No fetish with Myers and Dawkins, just facts to show truth, as opposed to deception.
>In no high school I ever heard of or went to did I hear anything about "blindly following anything".
- Try telling the science teachers you don't believe evolution is adequately supported with evidence and see what grade you will automatically receive, despite whatever evidence or logic you may present.
-Faith is not less than reason, it is more.
- I'll take issue with you here. I definitely believe Myers believed he was actually proving a point in hammering a rusty nail through a communion wafer and throwing it in the garbage. He uses the word "must" when telling us what we should believe in accordance with his demonstration.
ReplyDeleteYour belief is one thing: a fact is another. You are making a strawman based on your belief, without evidence. Not very logical. Let's see you follow the rules of your own blog here: Make a logical argument for that assertion of yours.
You would have noted in that article, that Myers also garbaged one of Richard Dawkins books. He was showing that no belief should be above investigation or ridicule by including those held by someone who believes the same as he does.
Again, he was not making a logical statement. Did you ever stop to think maybe that's why that "atheist one-liner" didn't match the structure of a logical statement?
-No fetish with Myers and Dawkins, just facts to show truth, as opposed to deception.
Sorry, but given that last post about Myers and bestiality of all things, what can one believe, but that you have some kind of fetish? (see if you can get the inside joke here)
- Try telling the science teachers you don't believe evolution is adequately supported with evidence and see what grade you will automatically receive, despite whatever evidence or logic you may present.
Do you have any idea why they'd flunk you out, if they even would?
Bottom line: Evolution has a lot of evidence for it. Creationism, not so much.
One could just as easily say the same thing about trying to bring up astrology in an astronomy class and whine about how the free speech of the astrologer is being denigraded.
In other words, it has nothing to do with "blindly following" authority, much as you are trying to paint it as such.
My statement stands: No where in any high school I've heard of has "secular education" encouraged "blindly following authority".
I notice that you said nothing about those bible verses I posted that actually do argue for blindly following authority. Shall I also mention the statements of faith that the various creationist organizations require of their members?
Unless you agree to all of their points, you are not even allowed to work for or join them. Yet you say nothing about their authoritarian ways.
I forgot to note that you said nothing about the links I gave at the start of my first reply to you, where atheists themselves talked about logic, thus contradicting the very title of this blog post.
ReplyDeleteIn case you don't receive email article updates, the following new article addresses your point:
DeleteStephen Law Helps Reveal the Nature of Truth and Logic
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html
Where is my first reply to you? It was minutes before the one that just got posted.
ReplyDeleteI'll just repost it from memory...only this time I'll save a copy!
- I'll take issue with you here. I definitely believe Myers believed he was actually proving a point in hammering a rusty nail through a communion wafer and throwing it in the garbage. He uses the word "must" when telling us what we should believe in accordance with his demonstration.
Belief is one thing...facts are another. Making a point is NOT the same as making a logical statement, as you say he was trying to do. Did it occur to you that the reason that this "athiest one-liner" did not match the structure of a "logical statement" was because he wasn't trying to make one?
You'll note that Myers also garbaged a book by Richard Dawkins, someone who believes the same as himself. Myers was saying that no beliefs should be held above examination or ridicule, even his own. It was an opinion that he has, which most if not all atheists including me would likely share; it's also something that he's willing to live up to.
You say that he's "Telling us what we should believe"? Like what? That no belief should be unexamined? Sounds like good advice to me; why are you whining about it? Oh yeah, because it's not a "logical statement". It wasn't meant to be.
- Try telling the science teachers you don't believe evolution is adequately supported with evidence and see what grade you will automatically receive, despite whatever evidence or logic you may present.
Ever stop to think that maybe the reason that they'd flunk you, (if they even would!), is that unlike creationism, the evidence is on the evolutionists side?
Sometimes, an idea is disparaged because it is rightfully dead.
One may as well complain about how astrologers are treated in astronomy class!
If you want blind authoritarianism, how's about reading some of the creationist groups statements of faith, which one has to sign and agree to abide by before you're even allowed to join or work for them?
I note that you don't mention those when you're complaining about "blind obedience".
And no, the weird-ass "link" you're contstructed between PZ Myers and bestiality...I'm sorry, but I believe* that it is a fetish of yours, and an ad-hom attack besides.
*See if you can catch the inside joke there.
Reynold,
DeleteMyers was saying that no beliefs should be held above examination or ridicule, even his own. It was an opinion that he has, which most if not all atheists including me would likely share; it's also something that he's willing to live up to.
- So if PZ believes that no beliefs should be "held above examination", then why do Dawkins and Myers refuse to debate Craig for 'moral' reasons. Quite humorous.
>the weird-ass "link" you're contstructed between PZ Myers and bestiality...I'm sorry, but I believe* that it is a fetish of yours.
- PZ defends his daughters views on bestiality and regularly publishes animal erotica. How is that a weird-ass "link"? If he had any intellectual integrity he would post his views on the subject clearly and definitely. However, he appears to be quite a disingenuous and illogical fellow for a number of reasons, as noted.
They refuse to debate Craig for "moral" reasons because the man is, as you well know, an apologist for genocide. Why would anyone share the stage with such scum?
ReplyDeleteI sure as hell wouldn't. How does their moral revulsion at that guy equate to their being afraid to examine their views?
As to "defending" his daughters' views on bestiality, you've gotten it twisted. What exactly IS his daughter's views? I suspected from what I remember reading, that it is not what you think it is.
As for his links to "animal erotica", you did notice that he's either mocking them, or otherwise saying how weird those people are, right?
>They refuse to debate Craig for "moral" reasons because the man is, as you well know, an apologist for genocide.
ReplyDelete- This is a childish excuse by those afraid of debating a man familiar with logic. If they thought they could win a debate with him, they would debate him in a second.
Dawkins' first excuse was that WL Craig's CV was not up to par with Dawkins'
The fact that neither Dawkins nor Myers seem to have any objective basis for morality, it is a logical fallacy to object to debate someone for moral reasons. This is particularly foolish coming from a man who says "Nothing must be held sacred." I suppose the implied parenthetical escape clause reads (only what we decide is sacred must be held sacred).
>What exactly IS his daughter's views?
- There is a long statement at the article link. 1) She believes animals can agree to consensual sex with humans and 2) She believes it is not a moral violation in any way as long as no one gets hurt.
>saying how weird those people are...
- "Those people?" Actually, it's Myers himself who is making all the sexual comments about the animals and how they remind him of porn. A one-time post could be considered an anomaly, but continuous posts about animal sex is more like a fixation and a bit odd.
If he is so confident of his beliefs, and so confident there is nothing sacred, then why doesn't he state whether or not he believes bestiality is morally justifiable or not? - Hint - He doesn't have a logical answer to offer because his beliefs don't offer him any objective moral foundation. Professor Chaos is one lost puppy.
The fact that neither Dawkins nor Myers seem to have any objective basis for morality, it is a logical fallacy to object to debate someone for moral reasons.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a logical fallacy and this is why: They are not trying to prove or give evidence of anything by refusing to debate him. They just don't like the guy and don't want to give him legitimacy.
As for that baloney about "not having any basis for objective morality"? Please. Your own god has babies and pregnant women killed. That's not something even an abortionist would do.
People of honest morality find the moral hypocrisy of people like William Craig disgusting, especially since those people pretend to have a standard of "objective morality" when they actually don't. Just a huge double-standard.
Grief, for a person who talks and talks and talks about "logic" the way you do, you seem to be pretty bad at using it. Or maybe just pretty selective?
And now the theistic canard: "athiests don't have a basis for objective morality". In truth, no one truly does, least of all bible theists! Why? You people call yourself "pro-life" while praising the "morality" of a god who has babies and pregnant women killed.
You people claim that your god is the objective basis for such morals as "truth" when it was your own god who in 1 Samuel 16:1-6 had Samuel lie to Saul about where he was going that day.
You people do NOT have any source for "objective morality". You have a god who does and orders actions that if a human were to do them, would be illegal. What you people have is a double-standard, and a huge dose of self-righteousness.
This is particularly foolish coming from a man who says "Nothing must be held sacred." I suppose the implied parenthetical escape clause reads (only what we decide is sacred must be held sacred).
See what I said before. You are very good at ascribing motives to people when you have no evidence for doing so. Not very honest, but I've never expected honesty from people like you.
If he is so confident of his beliefs, and so confident there is nothing sacred, then why doesn't he state whether or not he believes bestiality is morally justifiable or not?
You can't tell from the tone of his posts? The mocking he gives those people? Are you that dense, or just dishonest? You can guess which one I think you are...
- Hint - He doesn't have a logical answer to offer because his beliefs don't offer him any objective moral foundation. Professor Chaos is one lost puppy.
You as usual, are trying to manufacture a moral controversy where in actually none exists. Especially foolish for a person who pretends to care about "logic" as you do, because if you were honest, you'd see these accusations of yours as pure ad-hom fallacies!
Not good for trying to prove any points, but excellent for poisoning the well.
Since you're engaging in using logical fallacies then so will I:
Remember Neal Horsley? One of you guys who unlike Skatje has no reason to feel even repulsed by bestiality.
Still want to keep rattling on about how you people have the "objective basis for morality"?
Maybe you should go back to Myers blog or maybe over here and do some actual reading?
So once again one of my replies has gone missing...fortunately I've saved it this time. I'll wait and see if it shows up later. If not, I'll just repost.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteYou had a few different versions of comments in the spam folder. I posted the most recent ones.
>They are not trying to prove or give evidence of anything by refusing to debate him. They just don't like the guy and don't want to give him legitimacy.
- So, in your opinion, if Dawkins and Myers could beat William Lane Craig in a logical debate they would not do it so as to underscore the truth of their beliefs? - Be honest.
If they don't like the guy, don't you think showing the world he is wrong would be more of a service to their cause than avoiding him?
These are very poor excuses, Reynold. I'm surprised you fall for this weak logic.
The ultimate logic of militant atheism is that aggression trumps discussion. I'll post an article on this hopefully soon. In the mean time, consider this was the main underlying message of the atheist "Reason Rally" as described by its organizer:
"We want no dialogue"
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/03/reason-rally-organizer-says-no-dialogue/
I've challenged your preferred example of atheist logic to refute my last article:
Stephen Law Helps Reveal the Nature of Truth and Logic
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html
I'm doubtful that he will respond with a logical reply or desire for a debate because, as I point out, he seems more interested in analyzing logic than actually using it practically. Though he has an opportunity to try and prove me wrong if he so desires.
The main thing is difference of opinion which is usual.
ReplyDeleteIf they don't like the guy, don't you think showing the world he is wrong would be more of a service to their cause than avoiding him?
ReplyDeleteThey do. In print. Why in print? Myers gives an example, with an explanation:
The Gish Gallop is a notorious tactic used by creationists: spew out lots and lots of bad arguments at a rapid fire pace, and mire the poor scientist in efforts to refute them one by one…which she can do, but only at a slower pace than the creationist can assert them.
These are very poor excuses, Reynold. I'm surprised you fall for this weak logic.
Can you logically prove that those "excuses" are weak, given that they DO confront Craig, in a medium that he does not dominate in?
Meantime, I'm not surprised by the fact that you keep using logical fallacies like ad-hom and poisoning the well on your blog against atheists while pretending to value logic and "forbidding" ad-hom attacks here.
If you truly care about "logic" then you will have some problems with your hero, William Lane Craig. Why?
Here's why (you have to scroll way down):
Craig quote:
I once asked a fellow seminary student "How do you know Christianity is true?" He replied "I really don't know." Does that mean he should give up Christianity till he finds rational arguments to ground his faith? Of course not!
...The fact is we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not.3
"Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer's faith, they are never properly the basis of the faith."5
So, just how "logical" are those arguments, Rick?
Reynold,
DeleteI. "Myers gives an example, with an explanation...The Gish Gallop..."
This is a poor analogy.
A) Craig does not debate science. People who tend to focus on evolution tend to get into a mire of tit for tat scientific facts. Craig does not do this. He debates very simple and straightforward logical arguments.
B) "showing the world he is wrong would be more of a service to their cause than avoiding him? - They do. In print."
Myers and Dawkins do NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to disprove Craig's actually arguments. Show me where they actually address his arguments in print, as opposed to whining about his style or his morality.
II. I'm poisoning the well?
A) The term poisoning the well refers to character assassination prior to an officiated debate or legal trial. The 'slander' generally has no bearing on the actual issue or debate at hand. The question of PZ's views on bestiality is not a "side issue" but is directly related to his bold claim that "Nothing must be held sacred." My points are not trumped up or taken out of context, so, therefore, these examples do not count as mere slander or character assassination.
B) Quoting a person's opinion - and defense of bestiality in complete context - is not character assassination. it's simply documenting a fact, a central point with regard to PZ's underlying philosphy.
C) Quoting the bloggers who oppose bestiality at PZ's own blog is not character assassination, it is simply presenting a fact.
D) Presenting PZ's continuous infatuation with animal sex at his own blog is not character assassination, it is merely presenting a fact.
E) Finally, if "Nothing must be held sacred", as PZ offers, then even if these points were completely unrelated to the main philosophical criticism and question, which they are not, then your criticism of "poisoning the well" in order to defend PZ's reputation or to present some type of logical fallacy would be completely unsubstantiated in accordance with PZ's own beliefs.
I. "Myers gives an example, with an explanation...The Gish Gallop..."
ReplyDeleteThis is a poor analogy.
Wrong. The method of debating is the same. The fact that it's different topics being debated is not relevant.
Sure, Myers is talking about the "gish gallop" method in regards to science, but I used that link to show why it's unwise to verbally debate people who use Gish's (and Craig's style). And yes, I was at one of his speeches a long time ago. I've seen the man, and I figure "gish gallop" gives at least a partial description of his style.
So you have successfully dodged an actual reason why some people won't debate Craig.
Myers and Dawkins do NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to disprove Craig's actually arguments. Show me where they actually address his arguments in print, as opposed to whining about his style or his morality.
Easy. As Lawrence Krauss noted: Absolute Morals: Craig argued that the existence of absolute morality gives evidence for God.
So, if one shows that this source of this so-called "objective morality" is actually morally inconsistent, then they've just shot down one of Craig's "proofs" of god.
Myers did that in one of his posts, but you'd just call that "whining".
Yeah, so much for that "pro-life" rhetoric I hear you people talk about!
The question of PZ's views on bestiality is not a "side issue" but is directly related to his bold claim that "Nothing must be held sacred." My points are not trumped up or taken out of context, so, therefore, these examples do not count as mere slander or character assassination.
The hell they aren't. Show me exactly where PZ says that he APPROVES of bestiality, please.
B) Quoting a person's opinion - and defense of bestiality in complete context - is not character assassination. it's simply documenting a fact, a central point with regard to PZ's underlying philosphy.
ReplyDelete"Defense of bestiality"? The hell? Uh yeah, lying about a person like that is most certainly character assassination or, more properly, an Ad-hom attack. Hell, even if it wasn't a lie, it's still an ad-hom fallacy. Guess why?
It has nothing to do with his other beliefs, or even if atheism is true or not. It's strictly an attack upon a person.
E) Finally, if "Nothing must be held sacred", as PZ offers, then even if these points were completely unrelated to the main philosophical criticism and question, which they are not, then your criticism of "poisoning the well" in order to defend PZ's reputation or to present some type of logical fallacy would be completely unsubstantiated in accordance with PZ's own beliefs.
Huh? How so?
Oh wait, let me guess: You're pretending that PZ is actually considering bestiality according to his belief that "nothing must be held sacred", right?
Have you given any thought that the man has decided to reject that idea, and has decided instead to mock it? I mean let's face it: It doesn't take a biology major (and Myers is a biology professor) to know that humans and animals aren't compatible, and that any mating is not only impossible, but as any decent person knows: Any mating that does not have informed consent is disasterous for the morale and well-being of the other person involved.
And I'm sure even you know that animals can't give informed consent.
Not that any of this will stop you from your continued well-poisoning: You're just trying to justify your continued use of it.
As I said once before: If you are trying to give the impression that Myers is supportive of bestiality, I want a quote, in context, that shows his express APPROVAL of it! Something along the lines of that Neal Horsely guy I linked to above earlier. THAT is a true defense of bestiality.
By the way, this little tidbit from your post:
The onus is on theists to prove God, but we will make illogical excuses for not debating, therefore we're right!'
Where in hell did you get this? How can you possibly claim that the atheists' "refusal" (never mind that several actually have) to debate people like Craig would in itself constitute evidence that atheists are right? Name ONE atheist who used a refusal to debate biblegod's existence as evidence that there was no god.
Did I not post a second part to this reply? I'll wait and see if it shows up.
ReplyDeleteScrew it...here it is:
=========
B) Quoting a person's opinion - and defense of bestiality in complete context - is not character assassination. it's simply documenting a fact, a central point with regard to PZ's underlying philosphy.
"Defense of bestiality"? The hell? Uh yeah, lying about a person like that is most certainly character assassination or, more properly, an Ad-hom attack. Hell, even if it wasn't a lie, it's still an ad-hom fallacy. Guess why?
It has nothing to do with his other beliefs, or even if atheism is true or not. It's strictly an attack upon a person.
E) Finally, if "Nothing must be held sacred", as PZ offers, then even if these points were completely unrelated to the main philosophical criticism and question, which they are not, then your criticism of "poisoning the well" in order to defend PZ's reputation or to present some type of logical fallacy would be completely unsubstantiated in accordance with PZ's own beliefs.
Huh? How so?
Oh wait, let me guess: You're pretending that PZ is actually considering bestiality according to his belief that "nothing must be held sacred", right?
Have you given any thought that the man has decided to reject that idea, and has decided instead to mock it after he's decided it's unjustified? I mean let's face it: It doesn't take a biology major (and Myers is a biology professor) to know that humans and animals aren't compatible, and that any mating is not only impossible, but as any decent person knows: Any mating that does not have informed consent is disasterous for the morale and well-being of the other person involved.
And I'm sure even you know that animals can't give informed consent.
Not that any of this will stop you from your continued well-poisoning: You're just trying to justify your continued use of it.
As I said once before: If you are trying to give the impression that Myers is supportive of bestiality, I want a quote, in context, that shows his express APPROVAL of it! Something along the lines of that Neal Horsely guy I linked to above earlier. THAT is a true defense of bestiality.
By the way, this little tidbit from your post in your odd take on the atheist position (which is called a strawman, another fallacy):
The onus is on theists to prove God, but we will make illogical excuses for not debating, therefore we're right!'
Where in hell did you get this? How can you possibly claim that the atheists' "refusal" (never mind that several actually have) to debate people like Craig would in itself constitute evidence that atheists are right? Name ONE atheist who used a refusal to debate biblegod's existence as evidence that there was no god.
Reynols,
ReplyDeleteI asked for a logical reason why Dawkins and Craig refuse to debate Craig. You answered with a quote by Myers on the Gish gallop. But your quote does not reference Craig. In any event, even if Myers were to use this excuse specifically for Craig, it's an extremely poor one, as I've outlined.
Here's your reply:
"They do. In print. Why in print? Myers gives an example, with an explanation:
The Gish Gallop is a notorious tactic used by creationists: spew out lots and lots of bad arguments at a rapid fire pace, and mire the poor scientist in efforts to refute them one by one…which she can do, but only at a slower pace than the creationist can assert them.
Here's my reply:
PZ Myers, William Lane Craig and the Gish Gallop Question
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>"Defense of bestiality"? The hell? Uh yeah, lying about a person like that is most certainly character assassination or, more properly, an Ad-hom attack. Hell, even if it wasn't a lie, it's still an ad-hom fallacy. Guess why?
- In post, PZ Myers' Animal Sex: A Big Question For PZ, I referenced PZ's adamant defense of his daughter's views supporting legalized bestiality. There was no hint whatsoever he had any qualms with it. No, PZ just kept on posting his weekly animal sex innuendos. When a person adamantly defends someone's beliefs, it would almost seem as though the person personally agreed, although I would not go be so presumptuous as to claim that. My view is that PZ should probably at some point try to state his own views clearly on the subject for his adoring fans.
>It has nothing to do with his other beliefs, or even if atheism is true or not. It's strictly an attack upon a person.
- No, as I stated, PZ has the presumption to tell the world "Nothing must be held sacred." Yet, he is apparently afraid to voice his opinion on a controversial subject related to this theme.
>Oh wait, let me guess: You're pretending that PZ is actually considering bestiality according to his belief that "nothing must be held sacred", right?
- No pretension. If nothing is sacred, then one of the main reasons for human exceptionalism is dismissed, the idea that we are created in God's image, a foundational point of Western Civilization for 2 thousand years.
>Have you given any thought that the man has decided to reject that idea, and has decided instead to mock it after he's decided it's unjustified?
- So he was mocking bestiality when he ranted and raved about someone simply posting an observation of his daughter's views on bestiality? Interesting way to express it.
Reynold, I'm not quite sure what your point is in all these remarks. It would be interesting to know your beliefs. Would you say it was character assassination if I asked you whether or not you believed bestiality was morally justified and asked you to present a logical defense either way?
Judging from your comments, it seems you would probably think so. I apologize in advance for offending you if this is so.
- In post, PZ Myers' Animal Sex: A Big Question For PZ, I referenced PZ's adamant defense of his daughter's views supporting legalized bestiality
DeleteYou outright accused him of supporting bestiality:
II. PZ Myers is apparently not opposed to bestiality
No, PZ just kept on posting his weekly animal sex innuendos. When a person adamantly defends someone's beliefs, it would almost seem as though the person personally agreed,
He was defending his daugher from slander.
... although I would not go be so presumptuous as to claim that....
You just DID! That's what one of your blog posts is about! I quoted from it above!
That's what your picture for this blog post implies. You just stay one step shy of actually outright accusing him of it. You keep questioning and questioning, implying and implying.
Semantics at best.
My view is that PZ should probably at some point try to state his own views clearly on the subject for his adoring fans.
My view is that you are either too dense, or too dishonest to realize what mocking looks like. I asked for, and you have failed to deliver any quote by Myers where he says he approves of bestiality.
Myer's "adoring fans" are able to see it, why can't (or won't you)?
- No, as I stated, PZ has the presumption to tell the world "Nothing must be held sacred." Yet, he is apparently afraid to voice his opinion on a controversial subject related to this theme.
Bullshit. As I said, if you'd bothered to read the man's blog and not just cherry-pick and distort, you'd see that Myers heaps ridicule upon those people. And maybe some pity as well.
If you're too dishonest to let go of this strawman, well...I don't care anymore.
Reynold, I'm not quite sure what your point is in all these remarks. It would be interesting to know your beliefs. Would you say it was character assassination if I asked you whether or not you believed bestiality was morally justified and asked you to present a logical defense either way?
So now you're trying to link me with it?
1) It's not biologically sensible or feasible (member of each species have evolved to be able to reproduce only within each species, thus for non-brain damaged members of each species, physical desire is thus limited)
2) Informed consent is impossible
3) Harm of a physical and mental nature is probable if not inevitable.
Let me guess, though: In your view, that is not a "logical argument" though, is it?
Of course, if you then start saying that I have no "logical defense" against the morality of bestiality, it would be character assasination.
That, and I would ask you to provide one: Just to see what such a "logical" justification against it would look like.
You did bring up one interesting point:
Delete- No pretension. If nothing is sacred, then one of the main reasons for human exceptionalism is dismissed, the idea that we are created in God's image, a foundational point of Western Civilization for 2 thousand years
So then according to your post about More Evidence That False Philosophies Lead To Sick Societies so then would you be willing to agree that your philosophy is false then, do the the centuries of grief it'c caused: heretic killing, "witch"-killing, crusades, the murdering missionaries who came to the new world and helped wipe out many of the native peoples?
BTW how does He's just got to dive into the Marianas Trench. Quote-mining (badly) my daughter isn't just ugly, it's vile and loathsome and despicable... count as his "defending" his daughter's views on bestiality?
After all:
Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 2, 2008 8:26 PM
PZ Myers condones creationism, pseudoscience, and Biblical literalism. He's actually written that it shouldn't be criminalized, nor the perpetrators put in jail. So let's photoshop his head onto a televangelist and all have a snicker. That's where it leads, that sort of condoning.
Hey, just thought I'd throw my two cents in here:
ReplyDeleteIn (1) P1, you mention that 'the top atheist apologists avoid or seriously misuse logic.' Pardon me if that's already been deconstructed above, but that's a subjective blanket statement unsupported by figures and can't be used as a valid and truthful premise.
For the Law of Non Contradiction in (2), may I point you to Schrödinger's cat in that something may exist as true and not true simultaneously until seen/proved?
Ah, positivism in (3). I'm not against positivism, I'm just saying it's only one side of a many-sided object.
I suppose my last bit is with your P2 argument at the end- intelligence is NOT required for a complex system to arise, only a necessity of a behaviour to grow and the superiority of it above other behaviours.
Hi Christina,
Delete1. "('the top atheist apologists avoid or seriously misuse logic)- that's a subjective blanket statement unsupported by figures and can't be used as a valid and truthful premise."
- I believe it is a very objective statement based on a number of criteria. If you consider public ratings of popularity, respect and influence, then it's not difficult to tell who the 'top' defenders of atheism are. Then, it's not difficult to analyze their logic.
If you research the most (Google) searched for atheists, you'll find Woody Allen at the top, then Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. I just searched now for most influential atheists and found Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and then Daniel Dennet as most influential:
http://www.superscholar.org/features/influential-atheists/
Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking both lean towards a positivist view of truth - that scientific, empirical knowledge is more important than the logical justification of beliefs. This is especially displayed in Dawkins' God Delusion, as noted in my article here. I will publish an article on Sam Harris and show the lack of depth in his logic as well.
In order to disprove my claim, please propose your example of a top atheist who uses sound logic to defend atheism.
Cont...
Part 2
Delete2. Schrödinger's cat. You wrote,
"something may exist as true and not true simultaneously until seen/proved."
Is your own statement a true statement? Or is it simultaneously true and not true?
This question may seem humorous, but it points to an issue hierarchy in logic. First I'll give you my answer, then I'll offer the 'official' answer to your question.
I personally agree that many logical paradoxes exist at the quantum level. That's one of the main points of my article, How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence.
To me, non-locality is even more puzzling. - How a particle may be split and act as one unit though both halves are miles away.
When you look at cutting edge thought on QM, you will math is usually the main tool of analysis. Why? Since Einstein broke off from Newtonian physics, this subject has become increasingly theoretical, often based on math equations alone. Why is math reliable? Math itself is based on the presupposition of the laws of logic as absolutes: LNC, LOI, etc.
According to my understanding of working math examples, QM phenomena may be isolated into phenomena packages or sets and treated as such logically:
"...these scalars partition into sets which are logically distinct: those with valid existence with respect to this algebra, and those with indeterminate existence..."
http://steviefaulkner.wordpress.com/
This alludes to a hierarchy of logic and ultimately supports the concept that absolute truth and logic do exist, though at certain scales it does not seem so.
A practical example is the contrast between the atomic strong force, weak force and the force of gravity. in every day life we understand the law of gravity works everywhere. But at an atomic level, gravity is negligible and the attractions of the strong and weak forces predominate. Does this mean that the law of gravity has been 'broken'? No, just that in this set relationship it is negligible.
Now for the official Schrödinger's cat explanation:
According to Wikipedia (that bastion of wisdom) The Copenhagen interpretation is "The most commonly held interpretation of quantum mechanics". And,
"Analysis of an actual experiment found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave function before there is any conscious observation of the measurement."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
3. Positivism
"I'm not against positivism, I'm just saying it's only one side of a many-sided object."
- As I've noted, people who lean towards positivism, tend to lean away from logic. I side with the majority of secular philosophers who agree that positivism is a dead philosophy. The Encyclopedia Britannica points this out.
3. "...intelligence is NOT required for a complex system to arise..."
Delete- A previous poster, Tim, made a similar statement and I asked him for a specific example. In order to refute P2, please provide one example of a spontaneously appearing
"new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system"
BTW - I'd to post an article on Sam Harris' poor logic soon that will address your fist point.
While I don't agree with everything you've said, I do respect that you back up your opinions strongly and thoroughly. And I'd love to go tete-a-tete on some of your points but I have exams to study for this week. Rain check of a few days?
ReplyDeleteHi, sure, no problem.
DeleteRick: P1. The material universe is a highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system.
ReplyDeleteOur commoving patch of the universe was chaotic in the early universe, and the laws of physics explain how it got from that state to the current state, so P1 is irrelevant.
Rick: P2. The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
This is a mere assertion, and needs to be demonstrated.
And since the laws of physics provide a fairly thorough explanation of how the universe became a "highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system", P2 is therefore false.
Ricn: P3. Therefore, the organization of the physical universe required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
Since P1 and P2 have failed you, P3 fails. The best you might be able to get is an intelligence was required to "create" the laws of physics, but then you'd need to actually show this to be the case. You haven't.
Rick: P4. The purposeful use of energy and intelligence in forming the universe is best explained by God's existence.
There are likely an infinite number of explanations, what makes the Christian God the best?
A Deistic God is more in line with the evidence, so that would be a better explanation than the supposedly highly interventionist Christian Deity.
P4 fails.
Rick: C. Therefore, it is most probable that God exists.
Since NONE of your premises succeeds, your conclusion cannot be derived from them.
Perhaps you need to try a little harder Rick ;-)
Rick, you might find this interesting - "Dawkins' Gambit, Hume's Aroma and God's Simplicity"
ReplyDeleteIt's by our old favourite Erik Weilenberg (whose argument for a non-Theistic grounding of morality you failed to understand and refute).
Havok,
ReplyDelete>"..the laws of physics explain how it got from that state to the current state.."
1. Are the laws of physics NOT a part of the physical universe?
2. No matter how great a scientist may be, it is speculation to assume the laws of physics ALONE could have brought about such things as the atomic frequencies of the Periodic Table of the Elements and other such requirements.
- P1 is not effected by your uninformed comments.
> P@ - This is a mere assertion, and needs to be demonstrated. And since the laws of physics provide a fairly thorough explanation of how the universe became a highly complex...
ReplyDelete- It's not just an assertion. Why? I can personally build such a system if I want to. Just about any human being can create one, that is, if their minds haven't already been incapacitated and turned into jello by the public school system.
However, nature is not shown to create any such spontaneously occurring inanimate system. The rest of your sentence is addressed in my previous comment.
>Since P1 and P2 have failed...
- You seemed to in a denial, Havok. We'll pray for you today.
>There are likely an infinite number of explanations, what makes the Christian God the best?
When you understand the nature of truth and logic, you realize it is more in harmony with theism and Christianity than atheism. That is perhaps why Stephen Law seems to be having a difficult time answering my simple questions:
Stephen Law Helps Reveal the Nature of Truth and Logic
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html
The nature of truth being more in harmony with xianity? Read 1 Samuel 16:1-5.
DeleteRick: 1. Are the laws of physics NOT a part of the physical universe?
ReplyDeleteYes they are - they're explanatory tools we use to explain phenomena.
Rick: 2. No matter how great a scientist may be, it is speculation to assume the laws of physics ALONE could have brought about such things as the atomic frequencies of the Periodic Table of the Elements and other such requirements.
Since all you were referring to was the current state of the universe, and since the universe as we see it today is handily explained as the resulting from an unordered "primordial" state, your argument is soundly refuted.
The periodic table of elements can be handily explained by quantum mechanical principles, so once again, you undermine your own case through your ignorance.
Rick: - P1 is not effected by your uninformed comments.
P1 is completely undermined, since your argument appears to rely upon this complex "things" existing without non-intelligent explanation, but since the visible universe is explained as deriving from a simple, flat physical system, then all the non-theist needs to explain is the original state of the universe, not it's current complexity.
And since the God hypothesis provides no decent explanation for this initial state either, is completely ad-hoc in nature, and has no independant evidence to support it's claims, there is no reason to favour the God hypothesis over a possible non-theistic, scientific explanation.
Rick: - It's not just an assertion. Why? I can personally build such a system if I want to. Just about any human being can create one, that is, if their minds haven't already been incapacitated and turned into jello by the public school system.
ReplyDeleteIt is just an assertion because you have not bothered to demonstrate that this is the ONLY way in which such a system can arise. And as I have pointed out regarding the current state of the universe, intelligent intervention is not required as an explanation.
Rick: However, nature is not shown to create any such spontaneously occurring inanimate system. The rest of your sentence is addressed in my previous comment.
There we have the assertion Rick.
"Nature cannot do X" - no effort is taken to actually back up this claim on your part - all you do is claim that since intelligent agents like us CAN do X, therefore X can ONLY result from the action of intelligent agents (like us, whom we have independant evidence supporting the existence of).
Rick: - You seemed to in a denial, Havok. We'll pray for you today.
Perhaps instead of talking to your imaginary friend Rick, you could try to learn a little something.
Cosmology and formal logic seem to be areas where you lack expertise, so perhaps you could start reading up in those areas.
Rick: When you understand the nature of truth and logic, you realize it is more in harmony with theism and Christianity than atheism.
When you are committed to being a Christian, you rationalise your belief in all sorts of ways which are illogical and ridiculous.
Rick: That is perhaps why Stephen Law seems to be having a difficult time answering my simple questions:
I don't see why you bring up things like this Rick, when your blog is littered with questions you're had "difficulty" answering.
Of course, admitting to such a thing would undermine the image you have of yourself as some kind of intellectual heavyweight.
>Rick, you might find this interesting - "Dawkins' Gambit, Hume's Aroma and God's Simplicity" It's by our old favourite Erik Weilenberg (whose argument for a non-Theistic grounding of morality you failed to understand and refute).
ReplyDelete- I wrote to Wielenberg 3 times at his academic email address asking him for a rebut to my article - no answer. It seems I did a better job of refuting his article than you suppose.
Atheists seem to be long on bravado and very short on logic and answers. Please show me one logical argument written by the most popular atheist blogger PZ Myers. Show me one person out of the 20 I challenged last year to refute my article, "How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence" but none one was willing to or has to date.
You are perhaps the worst example of all Havok. You post comment here for a while and then after you become completely frustrated at your lack of answers you begin a slanderous rant and I have to enable comment moderating. Additionally, when your baseless slander is pointed out to you you show no inclination whatsoever towards apologizing:
Dec 8, 2011 06:41 AM
Havok,
Very interesting.
After posting off-topic at my most recent article (The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle), for the sole purpose of slandering me, I asked you to post some evidence of the alleged valid critical comments I supposedly ignored (or at least one) with dates, but in response you have not even posted one.
It's interesting how you wrote I 'smeared' Dawkins for posting actual, documented reviews describing his work as pseudoscience (Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine - December 6, 2011 1:32 PM ), but you smear me with the following unfounded comments at my most recent article and you can't seem to back up your own slanderous comments with any evidence. I suppose this is an example of hypocrisy. Let's review your colorful commentary:
"Rick, all of the supposed proofs you've posted have been flawed. The many of the flaws have been pointed out to you. You have, as far as I can tell, generally ignored the flaws and continued to claim, illogically, that your logical arguments are valid and sound." (December 4, 2011 11:00 PM )
(My response: Havok, you did not produce any serious criticisms of my Identity/logic/physics proof.)
"Yes I did Rick, as did many other commenters." (December 5, 2011 2:03 AM )
(Rick: If so, if you have anything, what date was your point or proof on?)
"Go back and look youself Rick. You ignored and didn't respond to the criticisms the first time around, I'm not going to do your work for you." (December 5, 2011 2:03 AM )
"Rick, you've demonstrated a complete inability to understand critiques of your points, to understand basic logic, or to modify your beliefs due to additional data...Apart from the fun of reading your often incoherent rantings, there really is no need to interact with you." (December 5, 2011 2:31 PM )
- I asked you, Havok, to post just one example to justify your slander "Take the very best point that I supposedly did not address in defense of the above proof and post it here for all of us to see." (How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence - December 7, 2011 5:10 AM) And all you have done is offer some new critiques.
So, Havok, if you cannot back up your slanderous accusations with actual dated comments, you should probably apologize for your slander. I have no problem addressing your new points, but I don't think you should so quickly attempt to sweep your deleterious slander under the rug. :-)
Havok,
ReplyDelete>Yes they are - they're explanatory tools we use to explain phenomena.
(Rick: 1. Are the laws of physics NOT a part of the physical universe?)
Wow, Havok, you seem to be really 'out there' today.
So, if you don't want to use the "tool" of gravity, then you don't have to?
While it is possible to suggest mathematics is merely a human created tool, I don't know of any serious thinker who has proposed the laws of physics are "merely explanatory tools we use to explain phenomena."
- Sorry, major fail.
> "...since the universe as we see it today is handily explained as the resulting from an unordered "primordial" state, your argument is soundly refuted."
- There have been a multitude of such "handily explained" theories. It's funny how the latest one is always supposedly the theory to end all theories - as you yourself imply. :-)
>The periodic table of elements can be handily explained by quantum mechanical principles, so once again, you undermine your own case through your ignorance.
- No, wrong again. "quantum mechanical principles" do not explain HOW carbon has attained the exact atomic frequency allowing it to form into 1.7 million different combinations allowing for life on earth.
"...Carbon is one of the main building blocks of life, and it is unique among the elements with regard to the vast number of variety of compounds it can form, up to 1.7 million. Carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules have three different vibration modes. All together there are 117 elements on the periodic table. Because the combination tendencies are embedded in the elements themselves, the Periodic Table of the elements helps to represent the hierarchical structuring of molecules: "It is not a human-devised structure but a fundamental picture of nature disclosed by human investigation. ...It is worth reiterating that those individuals who deny the existence of hierarchical structure and firm taxonomies, and some current humanists do, are denying the very basis of both modern chemistry and modern biology."[12]
The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
>(Rick: - P1 is not effected by your uninformed comments.)
>P1 is completely undermined, since your argument appears to rely upon this complex "things" existing without non-intelligent explanation...
- Havok, that's not undermining my argument. That's the main point of the argument.
Too bad there is no over the counter medicine for denial.
Rick: I wrote to Wielenberg 3 times at his academic email address asking him for a rebut to my article - no answer. It seems I did a better job of refuting his article than you suppose.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could then go back and answer the questions I had concerning your mirepresentations and misunderstandings - no need to bother Weilenberg when you're unable to demonstrate your case to me :-)
Rick: Show me one person out of the 20 I challenged last year to refute my article, "How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence" but none one was willing to or has to date.
Rick, the comment thread of your cherished "logical argument" is littered with refutations, people pointing out your misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and you generally failing to grasp your failure.
Rick: You post comment here for a while and then after you become completely frustrated at your lack of answers you begin a slanderous rant and I have to enable comment moderating.
Rick, calling you out as a liar is not slander.
You knowingly lied. I pointed it out to you. Instead of doing the decent thing and admitting your mistake, you doubled down on the idiocy and tried to justify your ignorant lie.
Rick: Additionally, when your baseless slander is pointed out to you you show no inclination whatsoever towards apologizing:
Why apologise for the truth, Rick?
Rick: So, Havok, if you cannot back up your slanderous accusations with actual dated comments, you should probably apologize for your slander. I have no problem addressing your new points, but I don't think you should so quickly attempt to sweep your deleterious slander under the rug. :-)
You do enjoy given people homework assignments don't you?
Here, here, here, and here are some comments which you failed to respond to. And that is from a brief look at a single comment thread, and only counting comments that I made.
Multiply that by the number of blog posts you've actually made, and you'll begin to get the idea ;-)
>Perhaps you could then go back and answer the questions I had concerning your mirepresentations and misunderstandings - no need to bother Weilenberg when you're unable to demonstrate your case to me :-)
Delete- I showed that pain is not an adequate anchor for morality because it would be conceivable to have a planet where no biological pain existed in beings.
I showed that giving people what they deserve is an inadequate foundation because there is no agreement as to what people deserve. Capitalists believe people deserve the fruits of their labors, no matter how great. Marxists believe everyone deserves property equally. Please show exayctly where you addressed these points, the article, comment date and time.
> Rick, the comment thread of your cherished "logical argument" is littered with refutations, people pointing out your misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and you generally failing to grasp your failure.
Delete- Ho-Hum. More ambiguous, unreferenced, false generalizations. Next
>Rick: Additionally, when your baseless slander is pointed out to you you show no inclination whatsoever towards apologizing.
DeleteWhy apologise for the truth, Rick?
So, you are back to promoting unsubstantiated slander again. If you can't support your slander, I suppose maybe I shoud just make a standard Havok reply to all your comments. Maybe it will go something like this:
Havok is a good object lesson. In December 2011 he became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do is post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of article, How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence. But Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post unsubstantiated claims and slander. Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, he demonstrates the frustration atheists often feel when they have a lack of answers. Second, Havok demonstrates that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will deny that it exists.
Rick: I showed that pain is not an adequate anchor for morality because it would be conceivable to have a planet where no biological pain existed in beings.
DeleteFor a start, Weilenberg is not "anchoring" morality on pain. Pain is an intrinsic bad. On this view, even if pain did not exist for some beings, it would still be bad if and when it was experienced. Your thought experiment shows absolutely nothing :-)
Rick: I showed that giving people what they deserve is an inadequate foundation because there is no agreement as to what people deserve. Capitalists believe ... Marxists believe ...
"Giving people what they deserve" in the context of Weilenberg's paper relates to justice, not to economic policy Rick.
We can also claim that our knowledge of matters can be in error, while the ontology remains the same - Capitalists and Marxists could disagree, while the states-of-affairs that Weilenberg is refering to in his paper still obtain - there is room for disagreement Rick.
Now, perhaps you'd like to reread Weilenberg's paper, and refamiliarise yourself with the various comment threads that resulted from it, and get back to me when you understand why your critiques fail, and why your own position appears to rely on the same sort of "ethical brute facts" that Weilenberg relies upon.
Thanks :-)
As for the quite accurate accusations of lying I levelled at you - It starts around here
ReplyDeleteIt seems you deleted my a response of mine, since I answered your most recent comment there.
The grammar at your link is on my side, Havok. The meaning of a sentence is different depending on whether the word but or though is used. There is no lie, only your state of denial.
DeleteI did not delete any of your comments there, Havok. But since it is apparent in your recent comments that you have chosen to just start slandering again, I now how to choose whether to start comment moderating again or avoid wasting my time by giving all your comments a standard Havok Spam reply.
Anyway, thanks for providing an excellent example showing that the sin nature is alive and well.
I posted a new response to the above thread here
ReplyDeleteHopefully you won't delete this one :-)
Rick: I showed that pain is not an adequate anchor for morality because it would be conceivable to have a planet where no biological pain existed in beings.
ReplyDeleteWhich does nothing to undermine the claim that pain is inherently bad. It just means that pain would not exist on that planet.
Rick: I showed that giving people what they deserve is an inadequate foundation because there is no agreement as to what people deserve.
That's an epistemological rather than an ontological issue, and can equally be levelled at your theistic morality - there is no agreement as to what God wants.
Thanks for agreeing with me that your moral system is a failure :-)
Rick: Capitalists believe people deserve the fruits of their labors, no matter how great. Marxists believe everyone deserves property equally. Please show exayctly where you addressed these points, the article, comment date and time.
I can do it here.
Capitalism and Marxism are economic philosophies, not ethical or moral ones, therefore though economics can have moral dimensions, your comparison is basically irrelevant to the discussion.
Rick: So, you are back to promoting unsubstantiated slander again. If you can't support your slander, I suppose maybe I shoud just make a standard Havok reply to all your comments.
Do whatever you want Rick.
I've substantiated my claims. You brought it up Rick, I simply pointed out, once again, that my charges are legitimate.
Rick: The meaning of a sentence is different depending on whether the word but or though is used. There is no lie, only your state of denial.
Obviously this can be the case. What you've completely failed to show is that the words Dawkins used should be interpreted as you claim they should.
I merely pointed out your mistake, and then when you insisted on continuing to knowingly promoting the falsehood, called you out on your lies.
This is a Havok Spam Reply,
ReplyDeleteFor the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commentator named Hovok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of article, How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence. But Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist I am lying about Richard Dawkins by pointing out the simple implications of grammar, as noted in an article:
"Firstly, consider Dawkins use of the word "though" as opposed to "but" leading off the parenthetical phrase. It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" at the beginning of the parenthetical phrase, but he did not."
In addition, Havok stands by his ridiculous claim that the laws of physics are not a part of the physical environment, but are merely human explanatory tools and that's it.
Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, he demonstrates the frustration atheists often feel when they have a lack of answers. Second, Havok demonstrates that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will deny that it exists.
Rick: In addition, Havok stands by his ridiculous claim that the laws of physics are not a part of the physical environment, but are merely human explanatory tools and that's it.
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be attributing things to me that I never said Rick.
If we follow the link you posted here, we see that I stated:
Yes they are - they're explanatory tools we use to explain phenomena.
So in a sense you are right - the laws of physics are human explanatory tools (the "merely" is irrelevant here, and you are using it to belittle my position). But there is no sense in which I am claiming that "that's it". I indicate that the laws of physics are models/explanatory tools which explain phenomena - the phenomena exist outside of our explanatory framework.
As usual you're reading to "win" rather than reading for understanding, clarification, and to approach the truth about reality.
Your "Havok Spam Reply" act is rather childish, by the way ;-)
There is one point in your sentence in which you are correct. It's true, your childish slander is quite appalling. I really am going out of my way to avoid comment moderating and so I have to make adjustments for the bad apple who has to act like a child. But you do make for an excellent object lesson, Havok.
DeleteI've adjusted the Havok Spam Reply accordingly.
This is a Havok Spam Reply,
For the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable and pointless to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commentator named Havok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence". However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics. There are 2 reasons why this is Dawkins' implied position, as noted in my article. First, the parenthetical context of Dawkins' view:(though [I'm still] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]). Second, the meaning of the word "though" relates to its context in a sentence and not just as a word definition."It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" at the beginning of the parenthetical phrase, but he did not."
Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, his need to resort to unsubstantiated slander and lies, instead of valid points and arguments, represents the frustration of many atheists. Second, his consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.
Rick: It's true, your childish slander is quite appalling.
DeleteSo now you're playing "I know you are but what am I"?
You really are a shining example of Christianity.
Rick: I really am going out of my way to avoid comment moderating and so I have to make adjustments for the bad apple who has to act like a child.response.
In this case I feel like I should side with mr. Warden. Yes, his claim that prof. Dawkins is "cautiously open-minded" towards the moral viability of eugenics is horribly, terribly, wrong, but I do not believe that he's knowingly lying.
ReplyDeleteYes, he has been informed that his argument is wrong - the thing is, due to his confirmation bias he rejects any information that contradicts his arguments.
Therefore, he still honestly believes that his interpretation of prof. Dawkins quote is the correct one, and only contradictory information from a trusted source would force him to reasses his arguments. At the moment, no atheist qualifies for him as trusted source, which is why he continues to repeat his mistakes.
Kazeite,
DeleteI find it amusing how people like to make claims that a person is "terribly wrong" without offering any valid supportive evidence.
1. True or false: Pulling a definition out of a dictionary does not necessarily inform as to the preferred use of a word or words in their comparative syntactical meaning in a sentence (as in the case of words "but" versus "though").
2. Is there a grammar or syntax source that offers an explanation of words "but" and "though" opposed to the syntax meaning comparison I offered? There is one that supports my interpretation.
http://www.grammar-quizzes.com/9-2.html
3. Which specific word or words in the following parenthetical clause cause you to believe Dawkins is against eugenics and not cautiously open-minded towards it:
(though [I'm still] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]).
You were talking about a "confirmation bias" were you, Kazeite?
I find it amusing how people like to make claims that a person is "terribly wrong" without offering any valid supportive evidence.
DeleteI have familiarized myself with counter-arguments regarding your claim. So did you, judging from your many answers. Simply declaring them invalid does not make them so, Mr. Warden. The fact is, your claim is wrong - the fact that you deny it does not alter the reality.
1. True or false:
True.
2. Is there a grammar or syntax source (...)
Yes there is. You were already made aware of them.
3. Which specific word (...)
The entire sentence caused me to believe Prof. Dawkins is against eugenics and certainly not "cautiously open-minded towards it".
You were talking about a "confirmation bias" were you, Kazeite?
As in, reinterpreting one single sentence in a way that goes contrary to persons overall beliefs, but supporting your beliefs? Yes, I was talking about such confirmation bias. Your bias, Mr. Warden.
Kazeite
Delete>Yes there is. You were already made aware of them.
- I saw one dictionary definition offered for "though". Please point out the source for grammar or syntax that opposes my claim.
>Which specific word (...)
The entire sentence ...
How very ambiguous of you. Thanks for your support.
>"a way that goes contrary to persons overall beliefs..."
- Where else exactly did Dawkins discuss his beliefs on eugenics? I only found this one source.
As my article shows, we do have quotes that quite clearly imply Dawkins is not very concerned about moral abuses in the name of evolution:
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’
So, Dawkins does not deny there is a moral vacuum implied by evolution. He does not deny this fact may cause some type of ethical and moral abuse. He offers no suggestions as to how to possibly avoid moral abuses. His basic message could be paraphrased as, 'Tough luck if there is moral abuse because of evolution.'
Kazeite, is this the kinder, gentler Dawkins you are refereeing to?
- I saw one dictionary definition offered for "though".
DeletePlus all the information provided by Havok.
How very ambiguous of you. Thanks for your support.
What else do you require, Mr. Warden? Prof. Dawkins is (still) not confident about the moral or political desirability of eugenics. How exactly does it make him a proponent of eugenics?
- Where else exactly did Dawkins discuss his beliefs on eugenics? I only found this one source.
Precisely.
As my article shows, we do have quotes that quite clearly imply Dawkins is not very concerned about moral abuses in the name of evolution:
No. It doesn't. That's the belief of "large group of people", belief that may be incorrect. Rejecting evolution merely on the base of ones irrational beliefs is not logical.
So, Dawkins does not deny there is a moral vacuum implied by evolution.
Mr. Warden, in the future, it would be helpful if your arguments were consistent with each other. Before, you've claimed that evolution justifies racism and genocide. Under the criticism, this claim has changed to "some people may use evolution to justify racism and genocide". And now it appears that your argument is "evolution implies moral vacuum."
- I wrote, I saw one dictionary definition offered for "though".
DeleteYou wrote, Plus all the information provided by Havok.
- It's now becoming apparent that you don't have a clue what you are writing about.
Havok was the one who offered the one quoted definition for one word, and that's all he offered. You'll have to work a bit on your bluffing skills if that's your debating style.
This is all that was offered:
"If we look at Merriam Webster, we see though defined as:
1. in spite of the fact that
2. in spite of the possibility that
(Note: a google search shows there is fairly uniform agreement to this definition)."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/dawkins-evolution-justifies-racism-and.html?showComment=1334549266105#c4618925083565501921
>What else do you require, Mr. Warden?
What else? How about one valid point?
I don't really enjoy debating with bluffers. The fact that you feel the need to bluff, though, in order to try and look convincing, does help to show that my point was correct all along.
Thanks. Now go find another person to try and bluff.
- It's now becoming apparent that you don't have a clue what you are writing about.
DeleteOn the contrary, I have witnessed how Havok kept pointing out flaws in your argument, which apparently frustrated you so much you've decided to resort to internet equivalent of so-called rage quit!
This is all that was offered:
Plus this, and this, and this.
I've done my homework, Mr. Warden. You haven't. Which only goes to show how wrong you are. Again.
Kazeite: which apparently frustrated you so much you've decided to resort to internet equivalent of so-called rage quit!
DeleteRick behaving like a primary school child does seem to line up with his grasp of logic (and grammer) :-)
And Rick, don't forget that the ONLY thing you offered in support of your idiotic misinterpretation of Dawkins was a link to a grammar quiz - how very thorough of you!
I wonder how long you had to search to find something that supported you rather than the bulk of material which appears not to.
Rick behaviour simply reinforces the impression that he doesn't actually care about arguments and evidence.
DeleteHe knows that he is right, that what he claims is true. He knows this not because of any evidence or arguments, but simply because he feels sure. Therefore any and all evidence which looks to support his a priori commitment to his beliefs must be correct (such as his little grammar quiz), while anything which does not support his a priori commtiment must be false.
Arguments and evidence don't matter do they Rick. Only what "feels" true matters.
Which is why I think he shouldn't be called a liar in this case. Indeed, if one is convinced that he's telling the truth, even if he's wrong, is he truly a liar?
DeleteHowever... Observe his claim in this thread.
Mr. Warden, it is your claim that all Havok has offered was only one quoted definition for one word.
If that is the case, then how can you explain this response?
One can clearly see that you actually have responded to Havok about the second link, only to dismiss it as ' “although” versus “while” ' lesson.
Now, Mr. Warden, this is the evidence: your response proves that you have clicked the link, provided by Havok, even before the post with Merriam Webster link.
And now you are claiming that Merriam Webster link was the only one provided.
You clearly did go back to this thread, if only just to get the direct link. You had to scroll through yours and Havoks responses. You had to see and remember your own response, the one claiming that it is merely a ' “although” versus “while” ' lesson.
And I cannot dismiss it simply as a case of your confirmation bias, Mr. Warden. You've tried to bluff your way out of the corner and you've failed.
You, sir, are a liar.
Now, I would be lying if I said that it gives me no pleasure to expose you, but my satisfaction is quite irrelevant here. What is relevant is your willingness to bend truth, which is quite incongruent with Christian principles I'm familiar with.
You, sir, are a terrible Christian.
Rick doesn't seem to care too much for the truth: Look at the picture he posts for this post: "Rule 2: Pretend that mocking god disproves god".
ReplyDeleteUh, where does he get that from? If anything, atheists mock god because we don't believe he exists...mockery itself can't "prove" anything. At best it can instill shame in some people who believe stupid shit, but it doesn't in itself prove anything, and I don't know of anyone who says that it does.
Kazeite,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your example:
http://www.onestopenglish.com/community/your-english/word-grammar/your-english-word-grammar-though/156597.article
This fits the grammatical context of the sentence better than any other examples so far in my opinion.
"Another use of though as a conjunction is to introduce a statement that makes what you have just said less true or less likely, as in ‘I really enjoyed your lecture, though there were some parts I didn’t understand’ and ‘It was an interesting film, though a bit too long for my liking'. Here too, though can be replaced by although."
Consider Dawkins' sentence:
The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding...
The second statement is "less true or less likely" is that a negation of the previous statement? No.
Dawkins' "pretty confident" may be reduced to "less confident" or "somewhat open towards" or even "not against."
Thanks for pointing this out. It is the most appropriate example that has been offered.
Havok's example - "in spite of" - is used in a different context, when there is an obstacle to overcome:
Though it was raining, we went hiking.
(Despite the fact) it was raining, we went hiking.
This is clearly not the most appropriate use. Your example fits better, Kazeite.
Thanks, I will adjust the text of the article to clarify this more exacting meaning.
As usual Rick, you're twisting things to suit what you just know to be true. You're picking specific instances where "though" may be used to contrast in the way you would like to have Dawkins doing, and then forcing them into his statement without regard to whether they actually fit or not.
DeleteYou didn't care that an expansion of Dawkins statement, to add back the redundancy he elided, showed you to be wrong.
You don't care that you have relied all this time upon a grammar quiz.
You don't care that the majority of sources undermine your claim.
You don't care that Dawkins previous writings do not demonstrate this "cautiously optimistic" view towards eugenics and selective breeding.
It all gets sacrificed on the alter of your twisted beliefs.
You're a liar and worse Rick!
"My" example? It's Havoks example, featured in the comment here.
DeleteMr. Warden, you should really apologize to Havok and me. Your dishonesty is unbecoming of Christian, rendering your entire attempt at proselytism moot.
You should also accept that you are wrong and that definitions of 'though' disagree with your interpretation.
Kazeite,
DeleteHavok tends to be a time waster. I saw Havok's actual quote from the Merriam Webster's dictionary and a note that said "a Google search shows this" and various lines such as look at this "link" and that one. Though you have been at this blog maybe a few days, you don't know Havok's tendency to write links to dead-end articles that have only served as time wasters.
After realizing this, I've warned him several times that I won't go chasing after his links without a decent quote first.
Here's a typical Havok approach:
'Here's a linked article that disproves you...'
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html?showComment=1318290103167#c4417693152562389282
My answer:
"Prove it. Show it. Quote it. How many time do you need to be asked to do your own homework. Link posting isn't evidence."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html?showComment=1323262082929#c1176028924901761823
End result: No actual viable evidence is produced by Havok - waste of time.
No matter how many times I may write, "Post a quote first" - He will write, "This link, this link, and this link all prove you wrong..."
This is still his practice.
Therefore, there is no need for me to apologize for not checking all his link here regarding this subject.
If you find it terribly offensive that I thought you had initiated the link, I apologize to you for this. I don't need to apologize to Havok because I've stated many times I won't continue searching through his links unless he has an actual stated quote before hand.
And the long and short of this subject is this: even if the phrase "despite the fact" is inserted, it still doesn't change the meaning from positive to negative. It changes the meaning from "pretty confident" to "NOT pretty confident." To be unconfident about something is NOT to be AGAINST it.
In a typical thesaurus, unconfident is synonymous with unsure and unconvined.
http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=unconfident
In both cases, the door remains open to being convinced and being made sure. This is the essence of being open to having one's opinion changed.
Let's flesh out Havok's example:
(in spite of the fact that I am unsure about the moral or political desirability)
(in spite of the fact that I am unconvined about the moral or political desirability)
In both cases, the door is clearly open to being made sure and being convinced.
Because you still don't seem to have gotten the point, there are perhaps others like you and I should probably devote more text in my article to fleshing it out as thoroughly as possible.
Therefore, there is no need for me to apologize for not checking all his link here regarding this subject.
ReplyDeleteThat is not the point, Mr. Warden. The point is you have claimed that Havok has offered only one quoted definition for one word, "and that's all he offered", when he clearly hasn't done so.
Nevertheless, I do accept your apology. Please try your best not to repeat this blunder in the future.
And the long and short of this subject is this: even if the phrase "despite the fact" is inserted, it still doesn't change the meaning from positive to negative.
This is Prof. Dawkins quote:
The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding...
He's confident about practical feasibility of selective breeding.
He's not confident about the moral or political desirability of selective breeding.
Where does he say that he's "cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics"?
Even your own expansion of the quote states clearly that "[He's still] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics])."
He's not confident about the moral or political desirability of eugenics. He's still not not confident about that.
I think you'll agree that Prof. Dawkins has held those beliefs for many years now, Mr. Warden. And yet he "still" is not confident about that.
What new informations could possibly change his mind? Your whole article is an example of wishful thinking on your part, Mr. Warden. Just because something is possible, it doesn't mean it's probable.
>That is not the point, Mr. Warden. The point is you have claimed that Havok has offered only one quoted definition for one word, "and that's all he offered", when he clearly hasn't done so.
ReplyDelete- As I had just explained, posting a link does not necessary make any point. And, as I demonstrated, Havok has a history of posting links that are pointless.
If it is a great big deal to you, I confess, I did not state or acknowledge that Havok posted more than one link in a recent post in answer to a point. May I never commit such an act again. It may be a much more immoral act than I had realized. Or, maybe it's not. In any event, I have made my official confession for you.
>Where does he say that he's "cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics"?
You seem to be missing the point. His attitude is implied by the language. That's what all the following comparisons show.
>Even your own expansion of the quote states clearly that "[He's still] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics])."
This "still" is not in the final draft for the article:
As Dawkins weighs in on this subject there appears to be no condemnation of scientific racism, civil rights abuses or genocide. On the contrary, Dawkins' comments imply that he retains a cautiously open-minded moral opinion. Dawkins' moral opinion is subtly implied in his parenthetical phrase, (though not the moral or political desirability). There are a few aspects that help to inform the meaning.
First, the definition of the word "though" has variants. For one, it can be used to show a decrease in value: "Another use of though as a conjunction is to introduce a statement that makes what you have just said less true or less likely..."[26] Dawkins' "pretty confident" may be reduced to "less confident" or "not confident." In this case, the construct could be, (though I am not confident about the moral or political desirability). The meaning implies an open-ended uncertainty, not opposition towards the idea.
Another case of the word "though" may possibly involve a substitute "in spite of the fact" in the phrase. For example, (in spite of the fact that I am unconfident about the moral or political desirability). Again, this does not imply moral opposition, but moral uncertainty and an open-ended conclusion. This can be fleshed out by adding some alternative synonyms for the word unconfident. In a typical thesaurus, unconfident is synonymous with unsure and unconvinced. Consider the results: (in spite of the fact that I am unsure about the moral or political desirability) and (in spite of the fact that I am unconvined about the moral or political desirability). In both cases there is a sense of open-ended moral uncertainty. When we fill in the necessary parts to form a complete thought, we have this, (though [I'm] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]). As these points imply, it is logical to assume that Dawkins is not explicitly opposed to eugenics, but is apparently morally undecided.
- As I had just explained, posting a link does not necessary make any point. And, as I demonstrated, Havok has a history of posting links that are pointless.
DeleteAnd yet, Mr. Warden, you've had no problem whatsoever with clicking links provided by me (when you didn't realize they were originaly provided by Havok) and perusing the contents.
It seems to me that you merely dislike the fact that Havok keeps pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and thus has resorted to any excuse you can think of to avoid dealing with him.
You seem to be missing the point. His attitude is implied by the language.
I understand just fine that this is what you want that quote to imply. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't really imply that.
As Dawkins weighs in on this subject there appears to be no condemnation of scientific racism, (...)
Let me just stop there. "Scientific racism"? Are you still implying that evolution leads to racism? Even though this argument has been conclusively shown to be false?
First, the definition of the word "though" has variants. For one, it can be used to show a decrease in value:
The phrase "I am not confident about the moral or political desirability (of of selective breeding)" does not imply open-ended uncertainity. It implies that the person speaking is not confident about the subject. So is the phrase "in spite of the fact that I am unconfident about the moral or political desirability".
Any additional meaning is a wishful thinking on your part. And you seem to realize that, Mr. Warden, judging from expressions such as "in both cases there is a sense of open-ended moral uncertainty". Such phrases have nothing to do with logical analysis, Mr. Warden.
Try telling the science teachers you don't believe evolution is adequately supported with evidence and see what grade you will automatically receive, despite whatever evidence or logic you may present.
ReplyDeleteThat is the falsest (if such word were possible) accusation I have ever read. If I were told this by any of my students I would ask them to support such a claim. But regardless of whether they can support such a claim, I mark them on their understanding of evolution, not in their buying into it. Not a single test question about evolution I have read by any of my colleagues or otherwise asks students to give a statement of faith that they believe evolution to be factually and undeniably The Truth and nothing but The Truth so help us The Devil. Not one. Oh I so detest this bullshit. Creationists talking with such authoritative tone about things they know absolutely nothing about. What next? We yell at them for their disbelief and call them idiots in front of the class? Do we nail them to sticks and hand them at the playground as examples? Do we insert nails in their fingers until they swear that evolution is real and that their preferred god(s) don't exist?
Yes, I have no manners. Do you have the intellectual capacity to read beyond my "nastiness" at your incredibly arrogant, nonsensical, and ignorant assertion?
>If I were told this by any of my students I would ask them to support such a claim.
Delete- Technically, according to the decision of the Dover case, you would be out of bounds in allowing any kind of deep and serious open discussion on the merits of Intelligent Design in your public school class. Colleges have similar rules.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/dec/21/evolution.schoolsworldwide
Biology Teacher Fired for Mentioning Intelligent Design?
http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2010/09/biology-teacher-fired-for-mentioning.html
>I mark them on their understanding of evolution, not in their buying into it.
- So, if a student does not "buy into" evolution and the student honestly expresses this opinion in the tests and home reports, is there any possibility of receiving an A, no matter how thorough the research and no matter how well written the reports are?
Is your class really about exploring truth or is it about regurgitating politically correct answers?
I believe there are very few, if any, biology classes in US public schools where evolution is taught truly objectively based on critical thinking and free inquiry. This would technically be illegal and the teacher could easily get fired for giving out decent grades to students who support Intelligent Design. If the teacher supports students who support Intelligent Design, then it could be claimed the teacher supports Intelligent Design. Oh, no. We can't have that.
Rick: Technically, according to the decision of the Dover case, you would be out of bounds in allowing any kind of deep and serious open discussion on the merits of Intelligent Design in your public school class. Colleges have similar rules.
DeleteRick, if ID had demonstrated any scientific merit, then there would be no reason to not discuss it in science class. As it stands ID has shown itself to be an impotent as far as scientific research goes. In the 15 years since the DI folk began touting their claims ID has produced basically nothing in the way of successful scientific argument an evidence in it's favour.
What the Dover trial demonstrated was that rather than being scientific in nature, the Intelligent Design movement, like the creationist movements before it, is religious in nature. The US constitution disallows the state from sanctioning sectarian beliefs such as those of ID, and therefore the teaching of ID in public schools is not allowed by the constitution.
This is a manual Havok Spam-filter Reply,
DeleteIn the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence". However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics)
Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.
So you're still posting this childish response instead of actually addressing valid criticisms of your points - I thought perhaps you'd graduated to simply ignoring me :-)
DeleteYou realise that you're now doing exactly what I've justifiably accused you of doing in the past - ignoring and not adequately addressing critiques of your points.
Rick, you're becoming even more ridiculous :-)
- So, if a student does not "buy into" evolution and the student honestly expresses this opinion in the tests and home reports, is there any possibility of receiving an A, no matter how thorough the research and no matter how well written the reports are?
DeleteAs long as the student demonstrates correct understanding of evolution and whatever other scientific discipline she tries to use in favour of whatever B.S. she wants to support, yes, the student could get an top mark.
As for discussing in class. I have no problem with it as long as it is a reasonable discussion, and as long as the discussion won't take too much time out of learning what's on the program. I welcome students to my office, or to a coffee and chat if so they want. Actually, when I explain evolution I clearly tell all the class that they don't have to believe it, but they definitely have to understand it.
But you avoided the main issue here: you spoke out of ignorance. Through many years of experience: not a single question in any test is for making sure that they bought into it. Please avoid making such false statements. Most importantly if you don't know what you are talking about (actually, a high proportion of science teachers are creationists, which makes your statement even more absurd). They make you and your religion look dishonesty-and-ignorance-based.
>...the student could get an top mark.
Delete- Thanks for sharing your opinion.
The following article might help you to understand why both atheist and Christian parents increasingly prefer home schooling over public schools:
Top Atheist and Christian Reasons to Home School Children
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/top-atheist-and-christian-reasons-to.html
This is a Havok Spam Reply,
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address valid critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence". However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics)
Havok now claims that I am rejecting valid arguments because I will not engage him. If a third person, a civilized person, believes that Havok has offered a valid argument, I would be willing to entertain it. Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.
- Technically, according to the decision of the Dover case, you would be out of bounds in allowing any kind of deep and serious open discussion on the merits of Intelligent Design in your public school class.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm missing something here, but what does Intelligent Design have to do with validity of evolution?
Also, I do believe that Havok has offered a valid argument, more than once. Do I count as civilized person?
Kazeite,
Delete>I do believe that Havok has offered a valid argument, more than once. Do I count as civilized person?
- You seem to be civilized person, Kazeite, though sometimes I wonder about your comments. Take this one, for example:
what does Intelligent Design have to do with validity of evolution?
Most people understand and immediately recognize that there is an underlying explanatory conflict between these two ideas.
If you don't recognize that evolution and Intelligent Design have foundational conflicting explanations, Kazeite, I cannot put very much faith in your opinion of other people's ideas, such as Havoks.
Actually Rick...
ReplyDelete- Technically, according to the decision of the Dover case, you would be out of bounds in allowing any kind of deep and serious open discussion on the merits of Intelligent Design in your public school class.
According to the Dover case, there is no merits in Intelligent Design.
The ID people had their chance. All their arguments got shot down. Behe's getting cross-examined really helped in that regard (the "blood-clotting cascade" and the "immune system") were both proposed as examples of "design" that evolutionary science can't explain, when it turned out that explanations were already on the books.
As an amusing aside, it's pointed out tha Dembski who wanted to get "darwinists" in a "vice" and interrogate them where they couldn't get away (in a court of law) himself chickened out when the actual opportunity came up)
Besides being on opposite sides, there was another big difference between us: I showed up for my deposition. Dembski “escaped critical scrutiny by not having to undergo cross-examination” when he withdrew from the case on June 106.
What's up to all, how is everything, I think every one is getting more from this web page, and your views are good in support of new viewers.
ReplyDeletemy webpage: seo india
Wow! This blog looks exactly like my old one!
ReplyDeleteIt's on a entirely different subject but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Excellent choice of colors!
Also visit my web-site hot products
I've been exploring for a little for any high-quality articles or blog posts on this kind of house . Exploring in Yahoo I at last stumbled upon this website. Reading this information So i am happy to exhibit that I have a very excellent uncanny feeling I came upon exactly what I needed. I most surely will make certain to don?t overlook this website and provides it a look on a continuing basis.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my blog ; plumbing repair cary