Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Hans Blaster]

A common canard. Are you denying that the cohort "atheists" within academia do not tend to share common metaphysical commitments? There's a thing called "context" that informs semantics that makes it abundantly clear I was speaking of "atheist" in a narrow sense, not the broadest sense of the word.

For starters, academics do not identify themselves as "atheists" in their publications. The only place where that appellation is displayed for me in any fashion is on this site which insists that every display their "religion".

If you mean "secular" as in "not related to religion" then say it instead of misusing a different term.

 

[Fervent]

For starters, academics do not identify themselves as "atheists" in their publications. The only place where that appellation is displayed for me in any fashion is on this site which insists that every display their "religion".

If you mean "secular" as in "not related to religion" then say it instead of misusing a different term.

I don't mean secular, I mean atheistic. While it is common for atheists to hide behind dubious semantics, your position is religious position in nature if we use a broad definition of religion. Ultimately religious claims are about what governs the universe, and a position that the universe is not governed by a god is an atheistic metaphysic.

 

[Bradskii]

Scripture isn't science it is truth.

Science is man's efforts to make sense of what he sees. To figure why things happen the way they do.

Both deserve their own class.

Then I won't deny what scripture appears to be telling us and you won't deny basic scientific facts. How does that sound?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course a lot of the sloppy understanding of science comes from a sloppy ability to engage logically, and there is a strong thread of anti-intellectualism because there is a corolation between ability to think analytically and lack of religosity.

I looked back for ~10 pages of this thread and the only thing resembling science in your posts was some really bad attempt to deny the uniformity of physics that displayed a gross ignorance at the work done by hundreds of physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists to repeatedly test just that proposition. I think maybe you should cool it when talking about "sloppy understanding of science".

 

[Fervent]

I looked back for ~10 pages of this thread and the only thing resembling science in your posts was some really bad attempt to deny the uniformity of physics that displayed a gross ignorance at the work done by hundreds of physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists to repeatedly test just that proposition. I think maybe you should cool it when talking about "sloppy understanding of science".

I suggest you read Karl Popper so you will understand why your attempt to assert positive results as definitive proof is faulty. There's a reason "falsifiability" is such a concern in science.

 

[coffee4u]

Tell me, how do you test the Bible? How do you determine if it is true or not? Faith is not a proper pathway. You need more than that.

It is God's breathed word to us.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Scripture makes some big claims. It's either all true or non is true. None of this cherry picking, well this bit is true but the rest isn't nonsense.

I know it is true because God is true. I trust God and God would not place his name on a book full of half truths.
I am talking about the Hebrew and Greek here. Translations are good and we need them but they always miss something somewhere, even if it is just that an English word like 'death' doesn't explain that means creatures with a soul.

 

[coffee4u]

Other religions have similar nonsense. How do you tell if one belief is true? Simply claiming that you are right and others is wrong is not good enough. If evolution is false it would fail on its own merit. And again you are merely relying on stories in the Bible. When people look into the stories that you keep talking about they are found not to be true.

Other religions exists because the spiritual realm is real. If it wasn't real mankind would not have dozens of religions which span all through the ages from 'primitive' to 'cultured' people. People look for the spiritual in all kinds of places, whether in a church or in tarot card readers. Your position of there being no spiritual realm at all is a small minority.

Evolution won't fail as such, it is one of the signs and wonders. It is a strong delusion.
2 Thessalonians 2:11



11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't mean secular, I mean atheistic. While it is common for atheists to hide behind dubious semantics, your position is religious position in nature if we use a broad definition of religion. Ultimately religious claims are about what governs the universe, and a position that the universe is not governed by a god is an atheistic metaphysic.

There is nothing else to "atheism" than not believing in a god or believing they are all false. There is nothing from that which you could build a metaphysics. You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I suggest you read Karl Popper so you will understand why your attempt to assert positive results as definitive proof is faulty. There's a reason "falsifiability" is such a concern in science.

I am aware of falisifiability. I started reading Popper (or was it Kuhn) and got bored of it quickly. I know there basic arguments and I have practical experience. I made no claims of definite "proof". (Proof is for philosophers, courts, and mathematicians, not scientists.)

 

[coffee4u]

Then I won't deny what scripture appears to be telling us and you won't deny basic scientific facts. How does that sound?

When science goes against the plain word of God I will completely deny it.

 

[Fervent]

I am aware of falisifiability. I started reading Popper (or was it Kuhn) and got bored of it quickly. I know there basic arguments and I have practical experience. I made no claims of definite "proof". (Proof is for philosophers, courts, and mathematicians, not scientists.)

Then why are you trying to tell me that "all swans are white" because you've taken a million samples and all of them were white?

 

[Bradskii]

Scripture makes some big claims. It's either all true or non is true.

Scripture obviously uses metaphorical language to make some of it's claims. Do you believe that trees can talk? If not, then your claim is incorrect.

On the other hand, if you really do think that trees were able to hold a conversation then there's not a lot of common ground here on which to base a reasonable discussion.

 

[Bradskii]

When science goes against the plain word of God I will completely deny it.

If you'd have said 'your interpretation of the word of God' then it would have made a lot more sense to me. Maybe you do believe in talking trees...

 

[Bradskii]

Then why are you trying to tell me that "all swans are white" because you've taken a million samples and all of them were white?

I think it's more the case that you are claiming that one swan must have been bright purple at some time. With absolutely zero evidence and for no other reason than the fact that the million white swans contradicts your personal interpretation of specific passages in Christian scripture.

In which case your claim is summarily dismissed. And rightly so.

 

[Hans Blaster]

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

I never understood why you guys think quoting sentence fragments makes a good argument.

 

[Fervent]

I think it's more the case that you are claiming that one swan must have been bright purple at some time. With absolutely zero evidence and for no other reason than the fact that the million white swans contradicts your personal interpretation of specific passages in Christian scripture.

In which case your claim is summarily dismissed. And rightly so.

Not at all, because the main thing I have done is question the assumption that physical laws are uniformly distributed, which is an absolute claim. Absolute claims require absolute proof. How much of the universe do all of those tests amount to? 1x10-27%? Yet that is foisted upon me as sufficient justification for simply questioning the *assumption* as if that sliver of tests somehow amounts to confirmation. All I am asking is that you justify your claims, but of course skepticism only applies to the things you deem worthy of being skeptical of.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not at all, because the main thing I have done is question the assumption that physical laws are uniformly distributed, which is an absolute claim. Absolute claims require absolute proof. How much of the universe do all of those tests amount to? 1x10-27%? Yet that is foisted upon me as sufficient justification for simply questioning the *assumption* as if that sliver of tests somehow amounts to confirmation. All I am asking is that you justify your claims, but of course skepticism only applies to the things you deem worthy of being skeptical of.

Not "uniformly distributed", uniform.

Then you make up numbers, and by that I mean you create whole new numbers: "1x10-27". Presumably this is supposed to represent something, but what is not clear. (Nor is the source of what ever it is.)

When the physical laws and constants have been tested, throughout the universe, they are always the same.

I suggest you read up on induction. (It's the primary mode of reasoning in science. since we don't work from proscribed laws that we could deduce from.)

 

[Fervent]

Not "uniformly distributed", uniform.

Then you make up numbers, and by that I mean you create whole new numbers: "1x10-27". Presumably this is supposed to represent something, but what is not clear. (Nor is the source of what ever it is.)

When the physical laws and constants have been tested, throughout the universe, they are always the same.

I suggest you read up on induction. (It's the primary mode of reasoning in science. since we don't work from proscribed laws that we could deduce from.)

Nice note of my typo, but again context makes clear I meant 1x10^-27 and simply missed the exponent and that the number was illustrative. Now, taking your claim has there never been a scientific test that failed? No chemistry student ever conducted an experiment and miffed the results? How do we know that test was a result of their error and not a failure of the laws? And again, you are attempting to justify an absolute claim "This is true for all places, in all times" with fractional evidence. No matter how many times it comes up true, it only justifies an absolute claim if it is tested in every instance. If I say "all sheep are white" and test a million sheep I can't conclude that is true unless 1 million is the total number of sheep, I can't even say it is the majority of sheep unless I know what the total number of sheep is.

 

[coffee4u]

Scripture obviously uses metaphorical language to make some of it's claims. Do you believe that trees can talk? If not, then your claim is incorrect.

On the other hand, if you really do think that trees were able to hold a conversation then there's not a lot of common ground here on which to base a reasonable discussion.

That is Psalms- Psalms is poetry- poetry takes poetic license with the words it uses. Hopefully everyone knows that.

 

[coffee4u]

If you'd have said 'your interpretation of the word of God' then it would have made a lot more sense to me. Maybe you do believe in talking trees...

No, but I do believe in talking donkeys.