Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[coffee4u]

Fundamentally, I don't consider your source material to be of any value.

Of course you don't, your an atheist, did you imagine that we think you do?
You choose to post on a christian board, so we can choose to keep showing it.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure that you understand how science works. There are no absolute claims. There is no absolute proof. If we examine a million swans and they're all white then a general statement about swans would be 'All swans are white'. It might even be stated as such in a scientific sense. But there is always a coda to the scientific statement which is implicit even if not explicity noted. Which states '...as far as the current evidence would suggest'. So if a black swan is discovered then the scientific statement would be 'The vast majority of Swans are white...as far as the current evidence would suggest'.

Until such time as a black swan is found then the statement 'All swans are white...as far as the current evidence would suggest' is entirely justified. And the number of swans examined would lend weight to the statement.

So if certain scientific constants are shown to be constant wherever and whenever we can examine them and there are literally zero counter examples, then the statement 'X happens at a constant rate...as far as the current evidence would suggest' is entirely justified.

So what has happened is that using the fact that all swans are white it has been determined that, for example, a rock is a million years old. That's the conclusion. You, on the other hand, have started with the conclusion - the rock is only a few thousand years old, and that not based on any scientific evidence whatsover but only on a personal interpretation of scripture, and then decided that the scientific facts proving otherwise must be wrong. It couldn't be further from the scientific method if you tried. It is completely, utterly and undeniably backwards.

And not only that, but apart from denying the scientific facts, you introduce a scientific claim yourself which you say will lead to the right answer but derive it from the conclusion.

Case dismissed. And if there were any costs involved I'd award against you.

So you don't claim that there are fundamental laws that are true in all places, for all times?

 

[Bradskii]

No, but I do believe in talking donkeys.

Then there's no basis for a sensible conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read through the discussion. I recognize empiricism is reliable for mechanical questions, but questions on the nature of reality are not mechanical questions. Questions of history are only partially mechanical questions, but require other fields. Your claims rest upon metaphysical assumptions, which I am skeptical of. You deride my skepticism and refuse to justify your claims except through appealing to the very thing in question. Why should I be skeptical of God, but credulous of irrational universal laws? Why shouldn't I be skeptical of everything until it has been sufficiently justified?

So a special pleading fallacy. I am sorry, but one does not get to pick and choose when it comes to the sciences. If you accept some but reject others you take on an enormous burden of proof.

And yes, there are other areas of study, all with their own rules and own values. I never claimed that everything has to follow the scientific method. But there are areas where science is the authority to go to.

Now as to your own beliefs how would you test them to make sure that they are true? As you should know others have supposedly had personal communication with God and their beliefs are quite different from yours. How do you determine which one is right?

 

[Bradskii]

So you don't claim that there are fundamental laws that are true in all places, for all times?

It's not possible to claim that. There may be a portion of the unobservable universe where things are different. Who knows? But what we do know is that the constants that are being used to date material are like the million white swans. 'All swans are white'. And don't forget the coda if you want to co sider that a scientific statement.

Now, if you want to challenge that, then saying 'Well, gee - it might not to true everywhere and whenever' doesn't cut the mustard. Especially when you have a personal religious belief that demands it cannot be true everywhere and whenever. And especially when you propose a change to the constants that exactly match the conclusion you want to reach.

Please don't waste my time with such claims.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Somehow my questioning of science is anti-intellectual, but your derision for every other field of human inquiry isn't.

Now your exaggerating. I expressed disdain for philosophy, especially "metaphysics", and theology.

Frankly, I wasn't that familiar with theology (beyond the ordinary theology of regular religious practice), until quite recently. (Nor was I interested in it.) When I did finally encounter the sophisticated sort of academic theology, I was, to understate things, unimpressed.

If you recommend a novel, and I don't care for it does it mean I oppose or reject all literature? Hardly? or that I am "anti-literary"? Nope.

 

[Fervent]

So a special pleading fallacy. I am sorry, but one does not get to pick and choose when it comes to the sciences. If you accept some but reject others you take on an enormous burden of proof.

And yes, there are other areas of study, all with their own rules and own values. I never claimed that everything has to follow the scientific method. But there are areas where science is the authority to go to.

Now as to your own beliefs how would you test them to make sure that they are true? As you should know others have supposedly had personal communication with God and their beliefs are quite different from yours. How do you determine which one is right?

Science is provisional upon its assumptions, it is not a monolithic system that must be taken as a whole. I question all of its conclusions in accordance with my rejection of its underlying premises. It is quite possible to reject the metaphysical presumptions, while accepting it pragmatically. Science does not reveal truth, and I have given reasons both from logic and what has been observed to hold such. The burden of proof always lies on the claimant, not the skeptic. So if you want to hold that what science reveals is actual truth it is up to you to justify that claim, not me to disprove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is provisional upon its assumptions, it is not a monolithic system that must be taken as a whole. I question all of its conclusions in accordance with my rejection of its underlying premises. It is quite possible to reject the metaphysical presumptions, while accepting it pragmatically. Science does not reveal truth, and I have given reasons both from logic and what has been observed to hold such. The burden of proof always lies on the claimant, not the skeptic. So if you want to hold that what science reveals is actual truth it is up to you to justify that claim, not me to disprove it.

No, you do not get to pick and choose without a good reason. Your excessively long answer to a simple error tells us that you are grasping as straws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now your exaggerating. I expressed disdain for philosophy, especially "metaphysics", and theology.

Frankly, I wasn't that familiar with theology (beyond the ordinary theology of regular religious practice), until quite recently. (Nor was I interested in it.) When I did finally encounter the sophisticated sort of academic theology, I was, to understate things, unimpressed.

If you recommend a novel, and I don't care for it does it mean I oppose or reject all literature? Hardly? or that I am "anti-literary"? Nope.

Far too often philosophy is abused. It can be useful for setting up basic rules, but anyone that goes with nihilism can simply rewrite the rules to one's own perverse pleasure.

 

[Bradskii]

Science is provisional upon its assumptions, it is not a monolithic system that must be taken as a whole. I question all of its conclusions in accordance with my rejection of its underlying premises. It is quite possible to reject the metaphysical presumptions, while accepting it pragmatically. Science does not reveal truth, and I have given reasons both from logic and what has been observed to hold such. The burden of proof always lies on the claimant, not the skeptic. So if you want to hold that what science reveals is actual truth it is up to you to justify that claim, not me to disprove it.

It's not true that you reject all science's underlying premises and therefore question it's conclusions. You constantly use that which science has provided to you every waking moment without question. How are you reading this? Was it delivered by pigeon?

And to be honest, I don't think many people are too concerned if you believe, or even if you understand science. But if you post claims that deny basic scientific facts then you'll get some light hearted push back.

Nobody is claiming that the world is a few billion years old. It would be as odd as claiming that water is wet. It's a given. It's you that's claiming it's not. Without any evidence. Hence the claim is rejected. Your purple swan doesn't exist.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Read through the discussion. I recognize empiricism is reliable for mechanical questions, but questions on the nature of reality are not mechanical questions. Questions of history are only partially mechanical questions, but require other fields. Your claims rest upon metaphysical assumptions, which I am skeptical of. You deride my skepticism and refuse to justify your claims except through appealing to the very thing in question. Why should I be skeptical of God, but credulous of irrational universal laws? Why shouldn't I be skeptical of everything until it has been sufficiently justified?

The properties of the Universe itself are just mechanical. We can measure distance, expansion, etc., with regularity and in multiple directions. We can measure the fundamental forces in laboratories and in deep space.

If it is based on physics, it *is* a "mechanical" question. Chemistry is an approximation to physics to simplify details that are not needed to answer the questions pursued by chemistry. The mechanisms of the cell are understood through complex chemical interactions. The behavior of tissues, organs, and organisms are the complex interactions of cells (including chemical signaling between cells). Etc., etc. These things are *well* known.

No serious chemist would claim that the chemical properties and bonds aren't fundamentally based on the physics of quantum mechanics. The same is true with biologists and the relation of organisms to chemistry. Other fields like geology and meteorology are tied to chemistry and physics as well. The uniformity of physics is the only reason these fields are coherent.

 

[Fervent]

It's not possible to claim that. There may be a portion of the unobservable universe where things are different. Who knows? But what we do know is that the constants that are being used to date material are like the million white swans. 'All swans are white'. And don't forget the coda if you want to co sider that a scientific statement.

Now, if you want to challenge that, then saying 'Well, gee - it might not to true everywhere and whenever' doesn't cut the mustard. Especially when you have a personal religious belief that demands it cannot be true everywhere and whenever. And especially when you propose a change to the constants that exactly match the conclusion you want to reach.

Please don't waste my time with such claims.

You assume my theology precedes my skepticism, but as I stated earlier the origin of my skepticism is in the question "How does my intention become my action?" But even that, if you don't take that as an assumption on what basis do you deny miracles?

 

[Fervent]

The properties of the Universe itself are just mechanical. We can measure distance, expansion, etc., with regularity and in multiple directions. We can measure the fundamental forces in laboratories and in deep space.

If it is based on physics, it *is* a "mechanical" question. Chemistry is an approximation to physics to simplify details that are not needed to answer the questions pursued by chemistry. The mechanisms of the cell are understood through complex chemical interactions. The behavior of tissues, organs, and organisms are the complex interactions of cells (including chemical signaling between cells). Etc., etc. These things are *well* known.

No serious chemist would claim that the chemical properties and bonds aren't fundamentally based on the physics of quantum mechanics. The same is true with biologists and the relation of organisms to chemistry. Other fields like geology and meteorology are tied to chemistry and physics as well. The uniformity of physics is the only reason these fields are coherent.

All of those are claims, requiring justification. Are you going to give me more than turtles?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's not true that you reject all science's underlying premises and therefore question it's conclusions. You constantly use that which science has provided to you every waking moment without question. How are you reading this? Was it delivered by pigeon?

This is how I got into this mess of a conversation, noting that we all operate largely on naturalistic assumptions all the time. (and that frankly, if we didn't have that naturalistic instinct we would die)

Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

Perhaps I didn't state it elegantly enough...

 

[Fervent]

It's not true that you reject all science's underlying premises and therefore question it's conclusions. You constantly use that which science has provided to you every waking moment without question. How are you reading this? Was it delivered by pigeon?

And to be honest, I don't think many people are too concerned if you believe, or even if you understand science. But if you post claims that deny basic scientific facts then you'll get some light hearted push back.

Nobody is claiming that the world is a few billion years old. It would be as odd as claiming that water is wet. It's a given. It's you that's claiming it's not. Without any evidence. Hence the claim is rejected. Your purple swan doesn't exist.

Using technology does not require I accept the theoretical explanations for why it works. Technology comes down to pure questions of ordinary proceedure, so it is simply a matter of pragmatism to accept that the same superintendence that allows us to have an orderly life are at play. Trusting God, I trust that there will remain the appearance of such laws even if they don't exist in fact. You keep claiming "evidence" but seem to be conflating the idea with facts, as "evidence" is a fact+explanation not simply a fact. We haven't gotten past you begging the question, so how can we discover what evidence there is and what it implies?

 

[Hans Blaster]

All of those are claims, requiring justification. Are you going to give me more than turtles?

There is no point reciting the basics of chemistry and biology in this thread. These are frankly things that should have been learned in even the most rudimentary of science educations. (Seriously, Jr. High level.)

 

[Fervent]

There is no point reciting the basics of chemistry and biology in this thread. These are frankly things that should have been learned in even the most rudimentary of science educations. (Seriously, Jr. High level.)

That's not what I'm speaking to. You said "The properties of the Universe itself are just mechanical." which is a claim requiring justification(and proceeding to science immediately is the *exact* same error as if I started quoting Bible quotes at you)

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's not what I'm speaking to. You said "The properties of the Universe itself are just mechanical." which is a claim requiring justification(and proceeding to science immediately is the *exact* same error as if I started quoting Bible quotes at you)

What exactly are these non-mechanical properties of the Universe and how have they been demonstrated?

 

[Bradskii]

You assume my theology precedes my skepticism, but as I stated earlier the origin of my skepticism is in the question "How does my intention become my action?" But even that, if you don't take that as an assumption on what basis do you deny miracles?

Not really interested in discussing them in this thread. And your skepticism is prompted by your personal interpretation of scripture. Let's not beat around the bush here.

 

[Fervent]

Far too often philosophy is abused. It can be useful for setting up basic rules, but anyone that goes with nihilism can simply rewrite the rules to one's own perverse pleasure.

This is special pleading, you're carving out a special exemption for your claim(let's just begin with the assumption it's reliable and proceed from there! No, no questions!) that you are denying to any other claim. Why should we give your claim special consideration?

 

[Fervent]

Not really interested in discussing them in this thread. And your skepticism is prompted by your personal interpretation of scripture. Let's not beat around the bush here.

No, I was skeptical before I agreed with the interpretation. It increased my skepticism, but the fact that metaphysical naturalists deride philosophy except when it supports their truth claims and when I began questioning refused to answer my questions and only ever tried to turn it around to talk about claims that weren't under consideration fueled my skepticism.