Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Sometimes they reduce to pointless arguments about whether reality exists or if A=A. I don't know philosophy well enough to tell if we are veering into that territory.

 

[Bradskii]

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?

If you keep looking for swans and they're always white then the statement 'all swans are white (don't forget the coda)' is valid. Agreed? Good. So it is a fact that all swans we have ever checked anywhere and all all times are white. And that it is a fact that different methods of obtaining said information correlates with other facts. Agreed? Good.

So we can use that fact to make statements about matters that are based on that fact.

To say that there might be a swan which isn't white is superfluous. It's not needed. It was in the coda, remember? So we'll go with the facts that we have.

Now if you have some evidence of a purple swan, then let's hear it. If you want to say that there might be a purple swan, I'm not interested. Because you forgot the coda again.

Stick with theology. Forget the science. You don't know enough about it to argue against it. And that's a fact as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Nope. You need to work on your logical fallacies.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes they reduce to pointless arguments about whether reality exists or if A=A. I don't know philosophy well enough to tell if we are veering into that territory.

He is close to it.

I have often said that when the one time that violence should be allowed in a debate is when arguing against a nihilist. A simple slap to the face should be more than sufficient. If they react to it they lose. If necessary a second application of logic may be needed.

 

[VirOptimus]

He is close to it.

I have often said that when the one time that violence should be allowed in a debate is when arguing against a nihilist. A simple slap to the face should be more than sufficient. If they react to it they lose. If necessary a second application of logic may be needed.

There are many different sorts of nihilists, please dont slap me!

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

So you dont understand science, theology and philosophy. Very anti-intellectual.

 

[VirOptimus]

Because of the laugh? or the facepalm?

Because of the post.

 

[VirOptimus]

Either that, or creationism is assent to the historical account of how God created the universe as documented in the Bible.

No, its religion by definition.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

In this swan example, it would probably reported as something like: "given that no non-white swans were detected, the incidence rate of non-white swans is lower than 1 in 300,000 (95% C.L.), with the data being also consistent with all swans being white."

 

[Fervent]

So you dont understand science, theology and philosophy. Very anti-intellectual.

Skepticism is now anti-intellectual?

 

[VirOptimus]

Skepticism is now anti-intellectual?

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Fervent]

Thanks for the QED.

Ah, sorry I took that as an argument rather than characterization. No, I don't remain a skeptic because I place my faith in God as the foundation of what proceeds. I, in myself, can produce no knowledge nor access anything trustworthy. Knowledge must come from external to me, and that comes through special revelation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ah, sorry I took that as an argument rather than characterization. No, I don't remain a skeptic because I place my faith in God as the foundation of what proceeds. I, in myself, can produce no knowledge nor access anything trustworthy. Knowledge must come from external to me, and that comes through special revelation.

As I said, you dont understand science, philosophy or theology. Anti-intellectual.

 

[Fervent]

As I said, you dont understand science, philosophy or theology. Anti-intellectual.

If you say so, though I'm open to being enlightened where you think my error lays. Theology and philosophy both agree, if we build on a foundation other than God we are building a house on a foundation of sand.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah, sorry I took that as an argument rather than characterization. No, I don't remain a skeptic because I place my faith in God as the foundation of what proceeds. I, in myself, can produce no knowledge nor access anything trustworthy. Knowledge must come from external to me, and that comes through special revelation.

Whoa...we can't let that slide by.

Did you not go to school? Maybe to college? Read a book? Watched a documentary? Go to work and had the job explained to you? Was given no information by your parents? Read a paper? Do you possess no knowledge whatsoever except that which has been given to you 'through special revelation'?

 

[VirOptimus]

If you say so, though I'm open to being enlightened where you think my error lays. Theology and philosophy both agree, if we build on a foundation other than God we are building a house on a foundation of sand.

I’m not responsible for your education.

And (the majority of) philosophy do not rely on any god(s).

 

[Fervent]

Whoa...we can't let that slide by.

Did you not go to school? Maybe to college? Read a book? Watched a documentary? Go to work and had the job explained to you? Was given no information by your parents? Read a paper? Do you possess no knowledge whatsoever except that which has been given to you 'through special revelation'?

Special revelation is the foundation of my knowledge, I know that I can trust the things that I read and experience(though not everything I read or experience, of course) because God has revealed to me His character

 

[VirOptimus]

Special revelation is the foundation of my knowledge, I know that I can trust the things that I read and experience(though not everything I read or experience, of course) because God has revealed to me His character

That is a very irrational stance.

 

[Fervent]

That is a very irrational stance.

Is there a completely rational stance? Atheists routinely try to convince me that I should pretend that my decisions aren't really my decisions(Free will is an illusion! Science tells us that!), but building on the rock of Christ is irrational?

 

[Bradskii]

Special revelation is the foundation of my knowledge, I know that I can trust the things that I read and experience(though not everything I read or experience, of course) because God has revealed to me His character

How do you know the difference between what is true and what is not? If you read a science text book, is it apparent what you should trust and what you shouldn't? Because it certainly seems like that you have certain views and you don't want to accept any science that contradicts it.

So it doesn't seem the case that you are told what is true. It seems that you will post hoc reject anything that turns out to contradict your beliefs. You seem to judge everything only on that basis.