Science Doesn't Work

[variant]

I sure would like to get to your final exam. Too bad it was given with such disdain and I'm not getting any younger...

(Yep, this means I sure have no response at all. None. Oh, my poor, poor theist non-soul.)

Yes, the fault lies with the attitude of questioner rather than the one who refuses to answer clearly (who supposedly has answers).

Maybe if we're really nice next time you will pontificate some wisdom to us.

Typical religious cop out.

Gee I wonder why people might give up on how valuable theology is after enough of this.

 

[Received]

Yes, the fault lies with the attitude of questioner rather than the one who refuses to answer clearly (who supposedly has answers).

Maybe if we're really nice next time you will pontificate some wisdom to us.

Typical religious cop out.

Gee I wonder why people might give up on how valuable theology is after enough of this.

Religious cop out. Yep, because only religious people would respond in a similar way.

This, mon cher, is a typical variant religious gag reflex.

 

[variant]

Religious cop out. Yep, because only religious people would respond in a similar way.

I didn't say only religious people cop out like that, just that yours is a typical one of the religious.

This, mon cher, is a typical variant religious gag reflex.

If you typify what is wrong with religion by brazenly asserting things then cop out when people question you, yeah I react badly.

Even more interesting, you brazenly cop out and then put it all on your audience (yet again).

 

[Received]

I didn't say only religious people cop out like that, just that yours is a typical one of the religious.

You said "typical religious copout." Big difference, but I'll give you the benefit of the grammatical doubt.

If you typify what is wrong with religion by brazenly asserting things then cop out when people question you, yeah I react badly.

The problem, variant, is that when I've consistently responded reasonably, you respond badly half of the time by stamping "copout" on a statement that doesn't deserve it.

Even more interesting, you brazenly cop out and then put it all on your audience (yet again).

See?

 

[variant]

You said "typical religious copout." Big difference, but I'll give you the benefit of the grammatical doubt.

Yes, It's a cop out typical of the religious.

Horses typically run fast vs. only horses run fast.

Difference.

The problem, variant, is that when I've consistently responded reasonably, you respond badly half of the time by stamping "copout" on a statement that doesn't deserve it.

I'm saying you are coping out because you ended discussion of the basic premise of your point when it came under scrutiny.

See?

I don't. All I see is evasiveness when tasked to defend your points and projecting blame on the people who would question you.

If I seem irritated it's because this irritates me.

 

[Received]

All I'm basically saying is saying "copout" is 1) irrelevant to the argument, therefore fallacious (name calling, poisoning the well, etc.), and 2) only has weight if you assume your point has validity in calling my behavior copoutish (which begs the question).

 

[variant]

All I'm basically saying is saying "copout" is 1) irrelevant to the argument, therefore fallacious (name calling, poisoning the well, etc.), and 2) only has weight if you assume your point has validity in calling my behavior copoutish (which begs the question).

Any more logical fallacies you would like to throw out there?

So basically "naw awww" with a little "no you are" I would expect someone who fancies themselves a philosopher with a psychology background to be a bit better than playground logic.

Of course my descriptions are subjective, well inter-subjective really as others can see what I see.

I'm describing your behavior as a cop out because you refuse to discuss key points that (many) others see in what you assert and blame your lack of response on the people questioning you.

That you are willing to flesh out an argument in defense of you not coping out but not willing to flesh out a proper defense of what you mean by "work" when it is in the thread title is telling.

I asked for an example (a single example would have been sufficient) of what the heck you are talking about and you decided to cop out on me.

Eight Foot Manchild asked for a similar defense of how refined religious epistemology is and you responded by saying we basically weren't nice enough to deserve such a response.

Which is, in my opinion, a big fat religious cop out.

 

[Paradoxum]

Coming to a conclusion is within the sphere of rationality, and I would agree this doesn't mean being biased. But I'm talking about choosing, which is transrational or arational; you have rationality and you have volition, which has the possibility of being rational, and oftentimes can't help but be arational given that rationality doesn't always apply to choices (and God help us if it always did, given that we'd be much more machinelike than we are on our worst days).

You mean things like choosing chocolate or vanilla ice cream? I suppose you could say you are biased towards which ever you choose... I'm not if the word 'bias' is normally used like that. ie: Does it only apply when there is a possible right choice?

Philosophy itself is by definition a jumping above or beyond evidence (if you mean this in a scientific sense), so there's nothing anti-Kierkegaardian here.

I meant to including reason in that too.

Never read PF, but I have read Fear and Trembling. His argument is that the teleological suspension of the ethical means that religious callings are incommensurate with the ethical. So this means that Abraham isn't a murderer, given that his calling suspends what would otherwise be a conclusion of his being unethical, a murderer. Of course, K chose this as the most extreme example of the life of faith. Remember that the Biblical story involved a "test", and God saved the situation at the last second. And yes, it's a hell of a test, and the twist of it all is that the moment you say Abraham is unethical, you're missing the point of the teleological suspension of the ethical. The only qualm I have with that book (which I adore) is it says pretty much nothing of the life of faith in less extreme examples (that's best left to his other works, probably best with Sickness Unto Death and the Edifying Discourses), and runs the risk of equating faith with extremist Abrahamic actions.

I'd deny that there is any suspension of the ethical. It's just an excuse to allow evil. Valuing faith over being a good and decent person.

But I'm not going to rattle off a list like a didactic person. What I'll say, though, is you need to question your philosophical presuppositions which are contradictory with theism in order for the real good stuff to take root. I'd recommend Moreland and Craig's (the latter is actually a great philosopher, just gets critiqued a lot for a few lukewarm arguments) Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, and/or Kreeft and Tacelli's Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Once you have a good idea of how theism's metaphysics are fine and dandy, then go for Willard's Divine Conspiracy and Divine Conspiracy Continued, also possibly his Knowing Christ Today (on religious knowledge as a serious subject). For K I'd add Sickness Unto Death (a monstrously hard but incredibly rewarding read) and Either/Or. The Brothers Karamazov is the best fictionalized read for Christianity and its problems. Here's my crem de la crem bookshelf on goodreads for other general reads if you're interested: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1865006?shelf=crem-de-la-crem.

Looks like I flaked out on my promise not to rattle off a book list.

By 'Craig' do you mean W.L.Craig?

I probably wont be reading any of these any time soon, as it doesn't seem worth my time to read up on something that seems fictional to me. That said, I have read the Zombie Survival Guide.

I do find it interesting to talk to people about it though, and if they have an interesting idea I might look it up.

Sounded like you were saying there can't be cosmic toast (mmmmm) because you can't understand the cosmic toaster. That's different than this statement.

I'm saying that is God isn't acting in a way I suspect he would, maybe he isn't there.

Only on its face. That's the problem of "divine hiddenness", and I think Paul K. Moser has some interesting writings on the subject.

I don't doubt there are arguments which can sound good at first glance.

 

[Received]

You mean things like choosing chocolate or vanilla ice cream? I suppose you could say you are biased towards which ever you choose... I'm not if the word 'bias' is normally used like that. ie: Does it only apply when there is a possible right choice?

I mean things like choosing, like anytime, anywhere. To choose means to cut off all other possibilities, which is biased against them.

I'd deny that there is any suspension of the ethical. It's just an excuse to allow evil. Valuing faith over being a good and decent person.

That's just the thing, and stay with me here: the teleological suspension of the ethical reveals that the ethical and the religious are (but not always by far) "incommensurable" (K's word) with one another. So to say that the religious is "evil" from the ethical perspective is question begging. And again, we have to remember that this is a "test", not an actuality.

By 'Craig' do you mean W.L.Craig?

Yup. Don't hate because he's beautiful.

I probably wont be reading any of these any time soon, as it doesn't seem worth my time to read up on something that seems fictional to me. That said, I have read the Zombie Survival Guide.

I do find it interesting to talk to people about it though, and if they have an interesting idea I might look it up.

Now this is an example of rational bias.

Seriously, why aren't you reading at least one book on theism per year? I read plenty of atheist dudes. What's keeping you from bias here? I know you're brilliant, Para, but you ain't found a key argument proving God doesn't exist, just like the other dudes haven't proven the opposite.

I'm saying that is God isn't acting in a way I suspect he would, maybe he isn't there.

And if God created time and space, it stands to reason that he's smarter than our suspecting intellect, so I wouldn't put much weight on your argument given that it presupposes the opposite.

 

[Received]

Any more logical fallacies you would like to throw out there?

So basically "naw awww" with a little "no you are" I would expect someone who fancies themselves a philosopher with a psychology background to be a bit better than playground logic.

Of course my descriptions are subjective, well inter-subjective really as others can see what I see.

I'm describing your behavior as a cop out because you refuse to discuss key points that (many) others see in what you assert and blame your lack of response on the people questioning you.

That you are willing to flesh out an argument in defense of you not coping out but not willing to flesh out a proper defense of what you mean by "work" when it is in the thread title is telling.

I asked for an example (a single example would have been sufficient) of what the heck you are talking about and you decided to cop out on me.

Eight Foot Manchild asked for a similar defense of how refined religious epistemology is and you responded by saying we basically weren't nice enough to deserve such a response.

Which is, in my opinion, a big fat religious cop out.

From now on when you make rhetorical appeals like this, I'm going to just post this giant terrible Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan film:

 

[variant]

From now on when you make rhetorical appeals like this, I'm going to just post this giant terrible Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan film

At least you've got your sense of humor still.

I can see that you still haven't given me a single example or the sound epistemological analogy between science and religion the other fellow asked for.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

A pity. I often enjoy our conversations when you hold up your end.

 

[Paradoxum]

I mean things like choosing, like anytime, anywhere. To choose means to cut off all other possibilities, which is biased against them.

I'm not sure that's what the word 'biased' means.

That's just the thing, and stay with me here: the teleological suspension of the ethical reveals that the ethical and the religious are (but not always by far) "incommensurable" (K's word) with one another. So to say that the religious is "evil" from the ethical perspective is question begging.

I don't see how that's any better than saying it's okay to put people in gas chambers because in the political sphere of the dictator. The political and ethical are incommensurable.

It isn't question begging to say that the religious is evil. 'Evil' is an ethical word, so ethical people can use it regardless of any other spheres. You can say that you don't care about being moral, but that no different from a sociopath, only following the ethical when it suits them. Nevertheless, you'd still be rightfully condemned by the ethical people of the world.

And again, we have to remember that this is a "test", not an actuality.

Being willing to do it is still bad. We'd be right to fear those who are willing to do what they know is wrong, because a voice in their head told them to. Maybe God even said it, but you can't know that, and even if you could know what, you should say 'Sorry, I can't do it, it is wrong'.

Yup. Don't hate because he's beautiful.

Ha. I used to like some of his arguments, but I don't find the main ones he uses for God's existence to be convincing now.

Now this is an example of rational bias.

I'm not sure it is. You wouldn't ask people to read a book a year on whether fairies are real. I'm not meaning to be insulting... I just mean that I don't believe in God, and I don't see a reason to care about that much either.

Seriously, why aren't you reading at least one book on theism per year? I read plenty of atheist dudes. What's keeping you from bias here? I know you're brilliant, Para, but you ain't found a key argument proving God doesn't exist, just like the other dudes haven't proven the opposite.

Aw, aw, thanks. You warmed my heart... keep talking.

I probably will read a theist book at some point.

And if God created time and space, it stands to reason that he's smarter than our suspecting intellect, so I wouldn't put much weight on your argument given that it presupposes the opposite.

But I'm not disagreeing with God, I'm disagreeing with people who say there's a God and that it all makes sense.

I don't even know if it makes sense to say there's a timeless, spaceless mind.

 

[Received]

At least you've got your sense of humor still.

I can see that you still haven't given me a single example or the sound epistemological analogy between science and religion the other fellow asked for.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

A pity. I often enjoy our conversations when you hold up your end.

The really interesting psychological question is why you've kept holding your breath so long.

Methinks you're not holding your breath to breathe, but to mock, good sir.

Oh, and me not answering means I'm a poor, poor theist with not a good reason out there in that there universe o' randomness we call teh homez.

 

[Received]

I'm not sure that's what the word 'biased' means.

Yeah, I say we just drop it.

I don't see how that's any better than saying it's okay to put people in gas chambers because in the political sphere of the dictator. The political and ethical are incommensurable.

It isn't question begging to say that the religious is evil. 'Evil' is an ethical word, so ethical people can use it regardless of any other spheres. You can say that you don't care about being moral, but that no different from a sociopath, only following the ethical when it suits them. Nevertheless, you'd still be rightfully condemned by the ethical people of the world.

A political dictator ain't God. If we think of God as anything like a mean dictator, we don't know what God means given that we don't know what "good" means as applied to him (and I'm assuming for the sake of argument, and certainly for my own personal faith, that "good" is an intrinsic element of God).

And evil arguably has ethical *and* religious definitions. Just like size has a 2d and a 3d definition. So I think question begging still applies. Trust me, you as an atheist aren't the only one really twisted by this incommensurability. But that doesn't mean there isn't a rationality for each system, including the incommensurability between these systems.

Being willing to do it is still bad. We'd be right to fear those who are willing to do what they know is wrong, because a voice in their head told them to. Maybe God even said it, but you can't know that, and even if you could know what, you should say 'Sorry, I can't do it, it is wrong'.

I don't know about that. Testing someone implies that they're able to grow beyond a point they could if they weren't tested; hence testing has a real capacity for goodness beyond not testing. Now, if the test were an actuality, I'd be right there in pointing out that this is God at his Old Testament worst, and although I think the Abraham story is good and well, there are certainly other stories where God is being just downright douchey, therefore not God at all (see the goodness element above).

Ha. I used to like some of his arguments, but I don't find the main ones he uses for God's existence to be convincing now.

I do, not so much in proving God as making room for God. His article Philosophical and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo is one of the best and most packaged arguments in all of philosophy of religion I've read.

I'm not sure it is. You wouldn't ask people to read a book a year on whether fairies are real. I'm not meaning to be insulting... I just mean that I don't believe in God, and I don't see a reason to care about that much either.

Yeah, but fairies as an example implies knowing the thing you're comparing fairies to isn't real, which is question begging. A more fair example with the God debate would be: given that we can't know if God does or doesn't exist, but have fuzzy arguments for him, it's better to compare him to UFOs, which do have some interesting arguments in their favor, albeit constrained by certain limitations. Unlike fairies, nobody created UFOs (that's why we call the former fairy tales), so using something that's intentionally created isn't fair given that to assume God is created is to beg the question.

Aw, aw, thanks. You warmed my heart... keep talking.

I probably will read a theist book at some point.

You should. Just like I read mythology.

But I'm not disagreeing with God, I'm disagreeing with people who say there's a God and that it all makes sense.

I don't even know if it makes sense to say there's a timeless, spaceless mind.

I'm sure you have arguments against God that outweigh arguments for him. But that doesn't mean, given the sheer practical importance of things if God exists, that you should sponge God off the plate. People don't win against the house with a 5.26% house edge generally, but that doesn't prevent the clever gamblers from betting in clever ways given the ways in which they could get rich if they played their cards right.

For timeless and spaceless, see numbers.

 

[variant]

The really interesting psychological question is why you've kept holding your breath so long.

Methinks you're not holding your breath to breathe, but to mock, good sir.

Oh, and me not answering means I'm a poor, poor theist with not a good reason out there in that there universe o' randomness we call teh homez.

To get an answer out of you of course, or to get you to admit you don't have one that you think will stand up to scrutiny.

Either way it makes your point look bad, which is probably because it is a bad point.

Of course I am mocking you, I think your point is bad and you are being evasive to try and not feel you have to defend it.

There is no shame in mocking that kind of farce. The emperor has no clothes!

 

[Received]

To get an answer out of you of course, or to get you to admit you don't have one that you think will stand up to scrutiny.

Either way it makes your point look bad, which is probably because it is a bad point.

Of course I am mocking you, I think your point is bad and you are being evasive to try and not feel you have to defend it.

There is no shame in mocking that kind of farce. The emperor has no clothes!

variant, get this idea very simply: I care about you as much as two longterm debate partners could realistically care for one another, but I don't care at all what you think of me. Especially when you're the one who admitted by yourself that the fallacies were in your eyes, not mine. Especially when this is with regard to absolutely nothing of substance to any argument at all.

Ever read Krishnamurti? You know the images we have of other people aren't what the other people actually are. Thank goodness for that, or I might actually feel threatened by your incessant copout calls.

So please, keep going or don't keep going. It matters not to me. So little in fact I'll let you get the last word.

 

[poolerboy0077]

An experiment will always produce results. When it's not the result you expected, that also makes you learn something...

Theology... Is not geared towards results. It's rather geared to make reality "fit" with pre conceived beliefs.

This.

I think the OP has never heard of the phrase "failed to reject the null hypothesis." It might not be worthy of publishing in the eyes of some academic journals, but it still technically counts as getting a result. What result can one get, in principle if not in practice, from just believing that something is true? Wouldn't that by definition always convince you that the belief in question is true?

 

[variant]

variant, get this idea very simply: I care about you as much as two longterm debate partners could realistically care for one another, but I don't care at all what you think of me. Especially when you're the one who admitted by yourself that the fallacies were in your eyes, not mine. Especially when this is with regard to absolutely nothing of substance to any argument at all.

I haven't admitted anything of the sort.

And yes, I do believe the questions you are dodging are substantiative.

Ever read Krishnamurti? You know the images we have of other people aren't what the other people actually are. Thank goodness for that, or I might actually feel threatened by your incessant copout calls.

Well other people can read too is the thing.

So please, keep going or don't keep going. It matters not to me. So little in fact I'll let you get the last word.

Right you aren't going to provide an example or answer the question.

Just add layers and layers of reasons of why you don't feel the need.

You know how I feel about that but, again, it's just a pity , nothing more.

 

[Received]

This.

I think the OP has never heard of the phrase "failed to reject the null hypothesis." It might not be worthy of publishing in the eyes of some academic journals, but it still technically counts as getting a result. What result can one get, in principle if not in practice, from just believing that something is true? Wouldn't that by definition always convince you that the belief in question is true?

I think the OP readers have never heard the phrase, "it's just a comparison for the sake of argument."

And once again, this is a methodology problem, even if you're intent on taking things literally instead (not my intention), and methodology problems tell you nothing about the results and everything about your own incompetence as a scientist.

 

[Received]

Well other people can read too is the thing.

Okay, can't help myself. This is an important point.

Other people can read. First I'd ask if you think your perspective is the right one just because you have it. And notice that me going off the deep end by defending myself is completely irrelevant to the argument, and also presupposes an ad hominem by you.

But more importantly, even if everyone saw like you did and your view was unambiguously correct, I say: so what? My point is that, regardless of whether you see me correctly or not in a certain way, using labels for me only negates who I am. Hence Kierkegaard could say, "if you label me, you negate me." Even if your labels are "correct", they don't come close to summarizing me; quite the opposite, they're much more likely to poison the well.