Everybody needs a hobby.

orogenicman Wrote:Wrong again. The point is well-made about all creationism, since there is nothing rational about it, period.

Arcanus[/quote Wrote:This is going to be fun

.

Indeed.

Arcanus Wrote:Given that 'rational' is about conforming to the logical principles of validity and consistency and 'creationism' is about the universe being a creation of God, please explain how "there is nothing rational about [creationism], period."

It is not rational because the entire premise of creationism is "God did it", and whether you subscribe to old Earth creationism or young Earth creationism, the only evidence for either is a set of texts in a book of questionable provenance, and questionable authorship by a people who for the most part never ventured more that 20 miles from their place of birth during their entire lifetimes. It is equivalent to Werner's theory of neptunism, which was based entirely on what he saw in the rocks exposed in the province where he was born, and extrapolated to the entire planet. In order for creationists to make their claims work, they have to set aside 500 years of hard-won science. Sorry, there is nothing rational in such behavior, certainly not in the 21st century.

orogenicman Wrote:The thread absolutely IS about science.

Arcanus Wrote:It is not, however, about "whether or not any creationism is properly scientific," I said. As you somewhat recognized, it is about Statler and his views, which consist of a highly specified young-earth creationism based more on Scripture than anything else—not creationism in a general sense.

Perhaps you need a refresher course on science history, assuming you ever studied science history, that is. Creationism has been around for hundreds of years. It is not some new fangled theory that religious scientists of the modern era conjured up. The Middle ages saw the rise of a new paradigm, one that has been called "natural theology". It was the domain of those truths that could be found through the use of reason alone, without the Revelation of the Bible.
It was the dominant paradigm as recently as the mid-1800s.

From this "natural theology" arose the scientific revolution. The phrase "scientific revolution" was coined by French mathematician Jean Lerond d' Alembert in 1759 (who was decidedly anti-cleric). Reason was the key to a correct method (the scientific method), and the model of reason was mathematics. The scientific revolution moved the paradigm away from creationism, which, until the scientific revolution began, was the dominant thinking throughout much of Europe. Newton was a devout Christian. His writings are full of attempts to rationize his discoveries in the light of his Christian faith. Many other natural philosophers of the day were like minded. Nearly all of those religious rationalizations were swept away in the course of the next 200 years by others who saw the utter futility in such efforts. What was left was the God of the gaps, a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge. And the problem with the God of the gaps, of course, is that science keeps explaining away those gaps. And that is where creationsim is today, trying to shoehorn God into those gaps that science currently cannot explain. Now, whether you subscribe to a young Earth creationism or an old Earth creationism, you are still working on the premise that "God did it", and can be found "somwehere" in those gaps. And that simply is not rational, nor well reasoned. It is a circular argument. There is no more controversy for the vast majority of the world's scientists today, my friend. The scopes trial is over.

Arcanus Wrote:And his views are being roundly criticized—rightly so—for their irrationality, never mind their lack of scientific integrity and merit, and my point was to distance creationism generally from his distinct young-earth subset thereof. While people might consider his ilk as "fucking fools" (e.g., Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Russell Humphreys, etc.), they do not necessarily think that of all creationists—for example, Ronald Fisher, Theodore Dobzhansky, Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Randall Isaac, etc. (evolutionary creationism) or Russel Mixter, Fazale Rana, Jeffrey Zweerink, David Rogstad, etc. (progressive creationism) are not characterized with such invective.

From Wikipedia:

In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, (Francis) Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.

And I can almost guarantee you that none of his peer reviewed work involves invoking deities, Biologos, or whatever else he may be calling it these days.

Quote:Not all creationists are as scientifically incoherent or illiterate as the young-earth subset tends to be. Let Statler regale us with his account of dinosaurs (but don't hold your breath); however, as some of the names above should indicate (e.g., Dobzhansky), there is no shortage of creationists whose account of dinosaurs would probably mirror yours very closely, if not identically, and who are at least as passionate about science as you are and would not recognize your accusation that creationism is opposed to established science. While I understand the disparaging invective against young-earth creationists, those "radical evangelicals" who feel "that the findings of science ... [are] contrary to their religious dogma," I want to ensure that people are not broad-brushing all creationists generally; there are many creationists that rational people do not think are fucking fools.

There certainly are religious people doing sound science. No one questions this. They do sound science because they know full well to leave their religious beliefs outside of the laboratory.

orogenicman Wrote:Sorry, diversion ain't gonna work. You don't have to take what I said on faith. All you have to do is get a real science education, and actually understand what they are teaching you. My post also fully addressed your response. Try addressing my point.

Arcanus Wrote:Except that both "ipse dixit" and "non-sequitur" were not diversions, but logical critiques; namely, it was this skeptic's way of saying, "Your response was rationally bankrupt, such that naked assertions and orphaned conclusions are without logical merit. Please try again." Incidentally, groundless personal attacks on my level of education also lack logical merit. You are not doing yourself any favours here.

Well, isn't that special - hock:

orogenicman Wrote:Not really. Godwin's law also states that invoking ole Adolf usually spells the end of a thread. Looks like it's still going to me.

Arcanus Wrote:Uh, no. That is a corollary to Godwin's law, not the law itself; the specific corollary here being, "If someone brings up Nazis [or Hitler] in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult, the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating." I noted that your comment proved Godwin's law, nothing more. You can explore its corollaries if you like or dig your heels in further about whatever point you're trying to make here, but it will have to be with someone else because it all goes beyond my point and I have no interest in it.

If you have no interest in it, why bring it up in the first place?

orogenicman Wrote:Revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's revelation over another. Anecdotal evidence is not accepted science. ... Science is empircal in nature, using inductive reasoning. Religion is not. Creationism is a sham promoted by people who believe The Flintstones is a documentary. [snip rest]

Arcanus Wrote:None of which has anything to do with what I said. The definition of faith I defended in that thread had nothing to do with converting someone, the nature of science and religion, or creationism. I find it curious that you have demonstrated such a propensity for red herrings in so brief an exchange.

It has everything to do with your response. You don't get to pick and choose your own taloured definitions. Faith IS a belief in something for which there is no proof. Otherwise, it isn't faith. That is the definiton. Deal with it.

(November 18, 2010 at 10:00 am)The Skeptic Wrote: In astronomy we were having a lecture on the asteroid that caused extinction and gave rise to the age of the mammals via evolution, and some guy in the class said, "Then why are there reptiles today?"

A very strange question for him to have asked, as the 'dawn of the age of mammals' does not equate to 'extinction of all reptiles'. So there are reptiles today because, obviously, numerous species in that class survived the Cretaceous extinctions (e.g., crocodiles), as did those of other classes. What an odd question.

(November 18, 2010 at 10:00 am)The Skeptic Wrote: I quipped that, through natural selection, the colder blooded life forms died out, leaving those with warm blood or a feather covering like raptors to stay warm enough to survive.

I doubt the extinctions had much to do with thermoregulation so much as cascading disruptions in the food chain; i.e., from asteroid impact to catastrophic volcanism to sea level regression, the extinctions in plants and organisms would have repercussions up the food chain to herbivores and predators. The extinctions took place over several hundred millennia, not a singular occurrence from one event; there is a difference between the deaths of countless animals and real species extinction.

Arcanus Wrote:I doubt the extinctions had much to do with thermoregulation so much as cascading disruptions in the food chain; i.e., from asteroid impact to catastrophic volcanism to sea level regression, the extinctions in plants and organisms would have repercussions up the food chain to herbivores and predators. The extinctions took place over several hundred millennia, not a singular occurrence from one event; there is a difference between the deaths of countless animals and real species extinction.

Except that the extinction of species usually does involve the deaths of countless animals, though not necessarily all at the same time.

(November 18, 2010 at 1:57 pm)rjh4 Wrote: [Do you believe] that a position based more on Scripture than anything else is irrational?

No, of course not. By definition a position is "rational" if it conforms to the logical principles of sound reason; i.e., the predicate of rationality is logical validity and consistency. What I find irrational is the "highly specified young-earth creationism" advanced by the likes of Statler, and for three reasons: (1) it reasons invalidly in places, (2) it is widely inconsistent both internally and externally, and (3) its interpretation of Scripture is at times incongruent, eisegetic, or altogether absent. The fact that it is "based more on Scripture than anything else" is not what makes it irrational, but rather that it is defended with dubious hermeneutics and impaired logic.

rjh4 Wrote:Given the fact that some of your colleagues over at The Aristophrenium clearly take a young-earth creationist position, do you think such disparaging invective as [found] here is appropriately directed at such as them? Or when you say you "understand" such invective being applied, do you merely mean you understand the point of view of the person who provides such invective but you do not agree with it personally?

The latter, since disparaging invective is just rhetorical censure that is contrary to reasoned discourse, which I find puerile and useless. While certain atheists understandably find it entertaining and enjoyable to engage in, myself and others prefer the intellectual currency of reasoned discourse (like Adrian, which is why I have such respect for him). Moreover, there are Christians who are young-earth creationists ultimately because they are told it's the only truly biblical view from people they trust (parents, friends, pastors, scholars); due to their love for God and his word, they haven't explored competing views without the filter of young-earth literature. Consequently, my respect for their devotion and vulnerable fidelity is further reason for my refusal to hit them with gratuitous invective; in other words, it's not only contrary to reasoned discourse but also insensitive to their authentic concerns. Simply put, disparaging invective has no intelligent place.

rjh4 Wrote:I tried to pin you down, in a short email exchange a few months ago, as to what your position is and the reasoning that led you to it, but you failed to email me an answer to my last questions.

Since I get a lot of emails every week, could you refresh my memory as to who you are (name or email address)? I do my best to stay on top of my email discussions and answer every question, but some can and do get missed. I'm pretty sure I've answered all the creationism emails I've been receiving, but it's possible I've dropped yours somehow. Both Marc Kay and Andrew Kulikovski have become preoccupied with real life concerns so I do have inbox space available again.

rjh4 Wrote:You did say that Scripture was ultimately authoritative ... but you failed to take a position, other than to say you lean toward old-earth creationism. ... You seem to be really good at tearing down the arguments of others and do so on a regular basis. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it might be nice if you also opened up your actual position on some of these issues to the scrutiny of others, instead of just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots at everyone else's position.

That is primarily because I am still in the process of developing my view. For years after my conversion to Christianity, I was also a young-earth creationist. But after developing a passion for science (thanks in large part to Carl Sagan), I found that view untenable, unable to reconcile what my church taught me with what science taught me. Then roughly five years ago someone gave me a book by Hugh Ross and I ended up exploring progressive creationism, which was said to be consistent with both Scripture and science. But as my knowledge of Scripture increased, I soon found that view untenable, as its explanation of Genesis 1 just didn't seem to square with the text. Consequently, until this year, I was neither a young-earth creationist nor an old-earth creationist (although I was convinced the earth was very old). It was a weird place to be, but I could not in good conscience settle on either view; one conflicted with science, the other conflicted with Genesis 1.

Then in spring of this year I discovered a book by John Walton called The Lost World of Genesis 1: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, published by InterVarsity Press (from the Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore), in which he provided an interpretation of Genesis 1 that was so thorough and sound that it was impossible to deny, an historico-grammatical exegesis that all young-earth literature was missing which also proved that the conflict with science was pointless—because, as he shows, Genesis 1 is not about material creation in the first place. That is, although we know from Scripture that God is the creator of the material cosmos, Genesis 1 itself is not that story. Both young-earth and old-earth creationists mistakenly view the text as being about material creation because their ontology is brought to the text (eisegesis), not derived from it (exegesis). As Walton shows, the Israelites of the ancient Near East did not view ontology in material terms; they had a 'functional' ontology and Genesis 1 describes creation in those terms, of God creating functions and functionaries in a literal seven-day cosmic temple inauguration (literal week consisting of 24-hour days). In our thinking, causing something to exist (i.e., to create) is about giving it material properties, whereas for the ancient world causing something to exist was about giving it a function and a role. Thus the narrative of Genesis 1 starts with no functions—not with no matter—and assigns functions and functionaries by separating and naming.

It is a groundbreaking, detailed, and scholarly exegesis that unlocks the message of Genesis 1 like no other literature on the subject ever has, whose temple motif reflects Old Testament theology and God's ongoing role in the world as its sovereign. As such, I am therefore accepting this view in tentative and provisional steps as I cross-check and research his ample footnotes and references from both historical and biblical scholars, in addition to auditing his debates with emerging critics (e.g., Vern Poythress). As you can tell from The Aristophrenium, I have no reservations about presenting and defending my positions, but only those which I am properly informed and convinced of and clearly understand. My current view of Genesis and creation is still too fresh and developing, so my commentary on these issues is reserved to critiques of views that don't work and why.

One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to intepret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

Arcanus, wouldn't it be simplier to bypass all these attempts at sorting through all the conflicting arguments and go straight to the scientific argument (where those conflicting arguments have already been so thoroughly meeted out over the course of the last 200 years)? Occam's razor.

Look at it this way. Pretend you are on a jury for a murder trial. You are sequestered in a room with your fellow jurists, trying to come to a verdict. Time after time again, a vote is made, and each time you are the only hold out, explaining that if there is even the remotest possibility that the person is innocent, you cannot find him guilty; despite the fact that 50,000 people in the stadium saw him murder the victim, despite the 20 cameras that recorded the event, you hold out the possibility that somewhere they may be evidence that his is innocent.

The idea here is that in the face of overwhelming evidence, you hold out that the man is innocent on the remotest of chances and base on no real evidence. Similarly, the probability of the universe being created by a God, particularly the God described in the Bible, is so remote as to be infintesimally small. And yet Judeo-Chistians cling to it despite all REASON, and all evidence to the contrary. How can you honestly say that this rational behavior? If you went to a doctor and he told you that you had cancer but the only treatment was a coffee enema, would you take his word for it, or would you seek a second opinion? Of course, you would seek a second, and maybe a third opinion. So why are religious people so reasonable, and thoughtful about such ordinary things in life as buying a dress or a hammer, and yet cannot be bothered to take the time to question what they've been led to believe about their own faith?

Here is a passage from the memoirs of my undergraduate Paleontology professor's memoirs that I think succinctly argues the point:

Quote:In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is
conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from
grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's
expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man
alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become
a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an
intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain
paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a
concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's
science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such,
man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his
hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he
conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has
been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality
has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily,
what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through
time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's
consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of
subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person
to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.

Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of
mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding,
past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient
misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the
earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this
can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large.
Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost
insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost
insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe
(be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not
subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time
and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain
knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God;
submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and
the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after
world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it
is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs
to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual
revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the
highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men
have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very
often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not
conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic
customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been
attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an
introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy
in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that
of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon
himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of
man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from
indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic
background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite,
revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it
not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature
had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there
would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and
of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos.
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

(November 19, 2010 at 8:15 am)orogenicman Wrote: One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to intepret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

^^ this

(November 19, 2010 at 8:15 am)orogenicman Wrote: One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to intepret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

See the comedy video your sig came from.

"You called YOUR book NEW and said OUR book was OLD! And yet...every Sunday...there's a preacher...interpreting my book..."

Not even in the conservative temples I went to did anyone bullshit themselves into a literal interpretation of the bible.

(November 19, 2010 at 10:00 am)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(November 19, 2010 at 8:15 am)orogenicman Wrote: One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to intepret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

"You called YOUR book NEW and said OUR book was OLD! And yet...every Sunday...there's a preacher...interpreting my book..."

Ah, I love Lewis Black. I must say I never understood the Christian mindset on this either. Whenever I had questions about the "Old Testament" (and they were plentiful), my first instinct was to research what Jewish scholars had to say on the subject. The Christians I knew seemed to be more bumbling and confused about the Old Testament than I was.

Quote:One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to intepret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

Frankly, I love it when xtians try to tell jews how to be jews. I think the word "chutzpah" was invented just for them!