Death Threats After Supporting Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

A single axiom is all that is required, and it may very well be wrong, but would still be a useful approximation were that the case (interestingly this same axiom must also be leveraged in the case of religion, or any human endeavor). You're attempting equivocation. Stop.

The particulars of the world around us can be known. Nothing else is required. Even this can be modified without impact. Compare that the laundry list of bullshit which must be swallowed in the case of religious belief (all the while including this in the list - of course).

[CliveStaples]

That has to be the biggest "if" in history. I'm pretty sure that my dad had read the bible and knew that it held no accurate, scientific claims, but I can't say that for certain. My parents are very tight-lipped about their religious beliefs, so I'm guessing he has read the bible simply because of the fact that my dad reads everything that interests him.

No, it's not flawed.
I'm guessing his dad has actually read the bible and what it says about the world versus what modern science says. Without reading it, you may have a good idea of which would be right, considering the bible's static information from thousands of years ago written by men who understood very little of our world or the universe, or modern science. Really, your question is quite pointless. It's like saying, "'I liked ___'s speech.' 'You did? Well, what if he was dead? Then you wouldn't have liked it.'"

Of course the Bible would have been right, although we would have not thought that. But the Bible doesn't say that.

You've both missed my point.

I'm distinguishing between "science and the Bible conflict" and "our current understanding of science and the Bible conflict".

If our current understanding of science (call this "S") conflicts with a Biblical claim (call this "B"), then there's basically four cases:

1) S is true, B is false; our current understanding of science is accurate, and the Bible's claim is wrong. For example, if B = "The Earth is flat" and S = "The Earth is round".

2) S is true, B is true; this is a contradiction, since S contradicts B.

3) S is false, B is false; the Bible's claim is false, but our current understanding of science is also false. For example, if B = "The world will end in 2011 in a divine apocalypse", S = "The world will end in 2011 because of Aether confluxion" (where Aether confluxion is some currently-widely-held (but false) scientific view of physics).

4) S is false, B is true; the Bible's claim is true, but our current understanding of science is wrong. E.g., if B = "The laws of quantum physics hold," S = "The laws of Newtonian mechanics hold".

---

A single axiom is all that is required, and it may very well be wrong, but would still be a useful approximation were that the case (interestingly this same axiom must also be leveraged in the case of religion, or any human endeavor). You're attempting equivocation. Stop.

Are you addressing me? I'm not sure what term you're saying that I have equivocated on.

The particulars of the world around us can be known. Nothing else is required. Even this can be modified without impact. Compare that the laundry list of bullshit which must be swallowed in the case of religious belief (all the while including this in the list - of course).

Is that an axiom? Or can you prove it?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's an axiom Clive. I can give you plenty of evidence that suggests that such is the case (those that first proposed it had none...quite the leap for them btw), and I could also allow that it may be in error and yet still of practical use, but I would never claim that it could be proven. Good thing science isn't in the business of proving things eh?

[CliveStaples]

It's an axiom Clive. I can give you plenty of evidence that suggests that such is the case (those that first proposed it had none...quite the leap for them btw), but I would never claim that it could be proven. Good thing science isn't in the business of proving things eh?

I'm not sure I follow. What evidence is there? It seems to me that if you gave me what you considered "evidence", I'd only consider it "evidence" too if I already shared your axiom.

What reasons are there to hold to your axiom--reasons which do not themselves rely on that very axiom?


Regarding science, are you suggesting that you don't believe science leads to truth? Isn't the whole point that you think a belief is justified precisely when there is scientific evidence for it (or, if you prefer, scientific evidence against its negation)?

And if science isn't in the business of proving things, why bother doing experiments? Why bother building the LHC, if not to seek proof for the existence of the Higgs boson (or something like it)?




On a related note regarding axioms, what do you make of the Munchausen trilemma? I'm okay with a system having axioms, but it seems like it would pose a problem for evidentialists or anyone in general who insists that something must be proved before it can be believed.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, lets propose that you feel that the particulars of the world around us can be known...but I do not.

I would be at a loss to explain how we have arrived at such useful knowledge as to allow us to so much as fire an arrow from a bow and hit a target. Both of us could clearly see the arrow fly and hit the target, and there's our evidence even though we do not share confidence in the axiom.

You, on the other hand, would be able to explain to me the particulars of aerodynamics, kinetic energy, and momentum.

Therein lies my reason for subscribing to this axiom in practice, even though (if you've read many of my posts) I can't completely sign on-board with the axiom in principle. Proposing that the world can be known, and then going to look for what we can infer from this has an effect -for whatever reason- (there's some really good criticism of this from the likes of Popper). Proposing that the world cannot be known leads to jack shit.

No, I don't think that science leads to truth (a slippery word btw), I think science leads to evidence, evidence to explanations. I wasn't aware that scientists were supposed to be searching for truth in the first place. I don't think beliefs are justified at all Clive, what gave you the impression that I did?

I suppose that would a be a problem if I believed that the particulars of the world could be known, wouldn't it? But since I don't, it's not much of an issue for me. It's a useful axiom, and certainly our history with regards to science and discovery lends it a great deal of weight, but ultimately, just an axiom.

[System of Solace]

You've both missed my point.

I'm distinguishing between "science and the Bible conflict" and "our current understanding of science and the Bible conflict".

If our current understanding of science (call this "S") conflicts with a Biblical claim (call this "B"), then there's basically four cases:

1) S is true, B is false; our current understanding of science is accurate, and the Bible's claim is wrong. For example, if B = "The Earth is flat" and S = "The Earth is round".

2) S is true, B is true; this is a contradiction, since S contradicts B.

3) S is false, B is false; the Bible's claim is false, but our current understanding of science is also false. For example, if B = "The world will end in 2011 in a divine apocalypse", S = "The world will end in 2011 because of Aether confluxion" (where Aether confluxion is some currently-widely-held (but false) scientific view of physics).

4) S is false, B is true; the Bible's claim is true, but our current understanding of science is wrong. E.g., if B = "The laws of quantum physics hold," S = "The laws of Newtonian mechanics hold".

MY point was that you're saying the bible says things that it doesn't. Even if our current understanding of the universe is not completely accurate, it is at least partially. A scientific view of the universe has the ability to change; a religious view does not have the freedom to do so.

[Zen Badger]

Science relies on certain assumptions (or axioms). Articles of faith are essentially assumptions.

You apparently don't understand how science actually works do you...

It might start with assumptions but then experiments to see if those assumptions hold true.

Whereas religion will start with assumptions and hold unto them regardless of what the evidence might say.

What if the Bible claimed that, say, the laws of quantum physics hold. In the 1700s, the Newtonian view of the universe would have disagreed with this view. So would the Bible have been wrong then?

Well it didn't, so your point is utterly irrelevent.

[Ace Otana]

It amazes me the lengths people will go through to block out reality.

People find reality scary and inconvenient. So they try to block it out. Reality won't change, not for anyone. So all they can do is keep that blind fold on and try to silence anyone who dares remind them that they are just tiny little insignificant specks with no importance in a big scary and dangerous world.

They want (and believe in) a reality that's made specifically for them, a reality where they get what they want, where every dream comes true. They need a serious wake up CALL!

[pocaracas]

they are just tiny little insignificant specks with no importance in a big scary and dangerous world.

How appropriate....


I once got a great image out of wikipedia on the subject of us being insignificant... but can't find the original... ah here it is, under "solar system"!! It's a big sucker, use right click and "view image" and then CTRL++ and CTRL+- to adjust the size to your screen.

Now, the image:

---

---

[Red Celt]

This is, by far, my favourite representation of the insignificance of us, representing a scale of the universe... from the very small to the very big.