The Case for Theism

[ManMachine]

Science will never be used chiefly to persue truth,or to improve human life.

I think the computer you used to type this, an instantaneous communication tool to anywhere in the world, and medical science that has doubled the human lifespan, beg to differ.

It's interesting that not only have you cherry picked some technologies to demonstrate a point but you have been selective about how you presented them.

By way of a response, I can think of any number of behaviours that computers are used to perpetuate, that do not necessarily mean 'instantaneous' communication is a positive thing.

Doubling the human lifespan has led to overpopulation in many areas of the world, we are an incredibly rapacious species.

In the tiny micro-world of one individual it may seem everything in the garden is rosey, and I'm sure it suits some people to think that their PC pops out of some shiny factory in the West and not that it is assembled from component sweat-shops in the third world and that it is only used to create 'instantaneous' communication and it is not a tool of oppression in many countries or enables anti-social behaviour and terrorism.

Equally I'm sure some find the benefits of modern medicine a boon to their existence but then perhaps they are not living in a country that is so overpopulated they need a licence to have children or getting over environmental catastrophe that washed away their entire island community.

I'm not suggesting that these things are all bad at all, but they are certainly not the 'advances' we are led to believe them to be. There is little excuse for the particular brand of liberal humanist claptrap that props up the smug western belief that science is a disinterested pursuit of the truth that advances our species.

Nonsense, I say.



MM

[Esquilax]

It's interesting that not only have you cherry picked some technologies to demonstrate a point but you have been selective about how you presented them.

By way of a response, I can think of any number of behaviours that computers are used to perpetuate, that do not necessarily mean 'instantaneous' communication is a positive thing.

Doubling the human lifespan has led to overpopulation in many areas of the world, we are an incredibly rapacious species.

If you read carefully, I think you'll find you haven't responded to me at all.

You point out the downsides to having these tools... so what? Does that mean that the science behind it was developed solely with those downsides in mind? Absolutely not: especially with medical science, the technologies were developed to improve human life. No scientist thought to themselves "I'm doing this to cause overpopulation."

There are going to be downsides to everything, some of them will be unpredictable at the time a technology is invented. That doesn't alter the motivations for doing so, or the purpose of the scientific method that aided in that, which is what you were arguing.

In the tiny micro-world of one individual it may seem everything in the garden is rosey, and I'm sure it suits some people to think that their PC pops out of some shiny factory in the West and not that it is assembled from component sweat-shops in the third world and that it is only used to create 'instantaneous' communication and it is not a tool of oppression in many countries or enables anti-social behaviour and terrorism.

You might notice that the "science" parts of the equation stops at invention. You have a problem with manufacturing and usage, not discovery.

I'm not suggesting that these things are all bad at all, but they are certainly not the 'advances' we are led to believe them to be. There is little excuse for the particular brand of liberal humanist claptrap that props up the smug western belief that science is a disinterested pursuit of the truth that advances our species.

So be negative for no reason. You're arguing a non point.

[ManMachine]

It's interesting that not only have you cherry picked some technologies to demonstrate a point but you have been selective about how you presented them.

By way of a response, I can think of any number of behaviours that computers are used to perpetuate, that do not necessarily mean 'instantaneous' communication is a positive thing.

Doubling the human lifespan has led to overpopulation in many areas of the world, we are an incredibly rapacious species.

If you read carefully, I think you'll find you haven't responded to me at all.

You point out the downsides to having these tools... so what? Does that mean that the science behind it was developed solely with those downsides in mind? Absolutely not: especially with medical science, the technologies were developed to improve human life. No scientist thought to themselves "I'm doing this to cause overpopulation."

There are going to be downsides to everything, some of them will be unpredictable at the time a technology is invented. That doesn't alter the motivations for doing so, or the purpose of the scientific method that aided in that, which is what you were arguing.

In the tiny micro-world of one individual it may seem everything in the garden is rosey, and I'm sure it suits some people to think that their PC pops out of some shiny factory in the West and not that it is assembled from component sweat-shops in the third world and that it is only used to create 'instantaneous' communication and it is not a tool of oppression in many countries or enables anti-social behaviour and terrorism.

You might notice that the "science" parts of the equation stops at invention. You have a problem with manufacturing and usage, not discovery.

I'm not suggesting that these things are all bad at all, but they are certainly not the 'advances' we are led to believe them to be. There is little excuse for the particular brand of liberal humanist claptrap that props up the smug western belief that science is a disinterested pursuit of the truth that advances our species.

So be negative for no reason. You're arguing a non point.

You seem not have taken account of the context in which this comment was made.


MM

---

You seem to be confusing the use of the term "science advances", meant in the sense that the body of scientific knowledge increases as new discoveries and tools are made, with the sense of "science advances society", which I certainly did not say.

Neither did I. You need to re-read it.

If the latter is what you mean, then that would indeed depend on how such knowledge is used. The discovery of atomic reactions was used both for peaceful and politico-military purposes, which carry the potential for making the world more prosperous and less stable respectively. Far from being "a cacophonic hymn from the church of delusional humanists", the term as I employed it could more correctly be called a truism if anything. Maybe you can think of an area of science in which we know less than we did previously, because I'm buggered if I can.

"Science will never be used chiefly to persue truth,or to improve human life"? Tell that to the millions of people who annually survive medical conditions and traumas which only too recently in history would have been fatal; including my own mither, who around twenty years ago endured, and survived through emergency medical intervention, a brain haemorrhage. Hell, remember it next time you or someone you know and love develops an infection, or needs dental work.

'The latter' is not what I meant, but seeing as you brought it up you are making my point for me very well, how those tools or knowledge is used is entirely the point, and as far as I am aware human nature has been around longer than scientific method. it's very short sighted and one could argue disingenuous to adopt an altruistic view of scientific endeavour when we all know very well what human nature is like. Sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling 'la... la... la...' very loudly is not an appropriate response to tens of thousands of years of human behaviour.

It's naive at best and at worst arrogant to suggest that science can in any way be a disinterested endeavour that will 'improve' our lives. I assume this has to be the point of scientific endeavour otherwise what is?

Oh, and when you make cultural references, please be sure to get them right. Bear in mind that as an Englishman I am not unfamiliar with King Canute (or Cnut, as he's now rather dyslexically known). The legend has him defying the tide of the River Lavant, not as an Ozymandias-style exercising of his power over nature, but as a clear demonstration that no-one, not even a King, has that sort of power. In other words, he knew ahead of time what was going to happen and proved it to anyone who thought otherwise.

I'm always slightly amused when someone begins a paragraph with , 'Oh'. It tends to signify a certain kind of individual... still let's deal with your point.

I very clearly said 'Folklore has grown up...' not this is an historical fact. The original 'tale' was recorded in the 12th Century by Henry of Huntingdon and, rightly or wrongly, it was set on the coast because (guess what)no one knows!

I'm fully aware the tale has been misinterpreted but it is this common misinterpretation I was using to illustrate my point. I'm not presenting an historical fact which would be pointless as the original 12th century account is not believed to be factual anyway.

The fact you ended with this utter nonsense sums up your debate.


MM

[Drew_2013]

Genkaus

So far, I've refuted two lines of evidence and I'd refute the third one, but really, there isn't any new argument here. If you are going to use the same old combination of false dichotomy and argument from incredulity, then you might as well consider all your future arguments refuted.

I understand and appreciate that your a legend in your own mind. I understand that just because you think you have refuted an argument or line of evidence that it therefore stands refuted. It's not refuted just because you say so or because you think your logic and reasoning is so superior to anyone else. Isn't it self serving and silly for you to give an opininion about the veracity of your own counter arguments? Its up to other impartial people who are neither commited theists or committed atheists to judge the merits of our respective arguments. You are not just an advocate of atheism you are an apologist for it. You can't be opposing counsel in this case, as well as judge and jury.

Just curious...is it a irrefutable fact in your mind that no God exists or are you willing to say its an opinion of yours?

Oh and by the way I have refuted all your counter arguments they are null and void as well as any future arguments you might make. Thanks for participating but you lose.

[downbeatplumb]

Folklore has grown up around an old English King, Canute. It is said he once stood against the waves to demonstrate his power, and as expected the waves carried on and he dissapeared under the water as the tide came in. We can hold science up, Canute-like, against irrational human behaviour but, like ancient Kings, we too will be washed away.

Cnut the great may have done this for the exact opposite reason you suggested.
He was surrounded by sycophantic toadies who insisted he was all powerful. He disagreed and ordered the sea to stop coming in knowing that it wouldn't to prove his point.

there may be a "basis of fact, in a planned act of piety"[54] behind this story, and Henry of Huntingdon cites it as an example of the king's "nobleness and greatness of mind."[95] Later historians repeated the story, most of them adjusting it to have Cnut more clearly aware that the tides would not obey him, and staging the scene to rebuke the flattery of his courtiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

---

Oh, and when you make cultural references, please be sure to get them right. Bear in mind that as an Englishman I am not unfamiliar with King Canute (or Cnut, as he's now rather dyslexically known). The legend has him defying the tide of the River Lavant, not as an Ozymandias-style exercising of his power over nature, but as a clear demonstration that no-one, not even a King, has that sort of power. In other words, he knew ahead of time what was going to happen and proved it to anyone who thought otherwise.

Bugger, you beat me to it

---

Oh and by the way I have refuted all your counter arguments they are null and void as well as any future arguments you might make. Thanks for participating but you lose.

As an observer all I have seen from you is you re-stating the same rather feeble point over and over again in slightly different ways.

I am afraid that you lost a long time ago.

[ManMachine]

Folklore has grown up around an old English King, Canute. It is said he once stood against the waves to demonstrate his power, and as expected the waves carried on and he dissapeared under the water as the tide came in. We can hold science up, Canute-like, against irrational human behaviour but, like ancient Kings, we too will be washed away.

Cnut the great may have done this for the exact opposite reason you suggested.
He was surrounded by sycophantic toadies who insisted he was all powerful. He disagreed and ordered the sea to stop coming in knowing that it wouldn't to prove his point.

Yes, as I've said I am aware of this. However, as we all know the folklore surrounding this was grossly simplified (as folklore tends to do) and the interpretation you just mentioned was a little too sophisticated for most people (the afore mentioned 'folk' who perpetuated the 'lore'). It's a well known misinterpretation (even Sting used the misinterpretation in one of his videos) that I employed to illustrate a point. Oddly enough I was not making a reference to the historical accuracy (or otherwise) of a 12th Century story about a 10th Century Anglo-Saxon King, for the same reason I might employ any other theme from folkish tales without direct reference to the source material (which is probably highly debateable to begin with), because its historical accuracy has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

(I am also aware that St. George didn't really kill a dragon and King Arthur didn't wear full plate armour and sit at the round table now wedged in a wall somewhere in Winchester but I won't be employing them in any conversations in this thread, just in case you were looking out for them).


MM

[TromboneAtheist]

ManMachine, ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences? I believe I was taught it somewhere between 5th and 7th grade...

[Cyberman]

Historical accuracy has nothing to do with it. Neither DBP nor I even tried to insist that the story is anything other than folklore nor that you were wrong in making reference to it, merely in the accuracy of your interpretation of it. Namely, that the point of the story is one hundred and eighty degrees about face to what you were claiming it was. Does that invalidate your point? No, but these things are just as easy to get right as wrong and I for one felt that needed pointing out.

[Angrboda]

I'm not going to elaborate on this any, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, there's another alternative which needs to be mentioned. (Thanks to Min for the idea.) If one wishes to demonstrate that the universe is finely tuned for the existence of life on this planet, then one has to exclude the possibility that life on this planet originated elsewhere. (This hypothesis is known as .) It does little to demonstrate the uniqueness of conditions here on earth if you can't even demonstrate that the life in question came from here. Without that premise, one is calculating the fine tuning of a planet whose fine tuning may not even be relevant to the question. (It gets worse, if you can believe it. Perhaps life on this planet is uniquely matched to these conditions, not because an intelligent agent designed the universe, but because an intelligent extra-terrestrial race designed this planet's life to be suited to these conditions, or chose these conditions to match some pre-existing life form or life forms.)


Bon appetit, Drew.

[genkaus]

I understand and appreciate that your a legend in your own mind.

Nope. Just a regular smart guy.

I understand that just because you think you have refuted an argument or line of evidence that it therefore stands refuted.

There being no evidence to the contrary supports this line of thinking.

It's not refuted just because you say so or because you think your logic and reasoning is so superior to anyone else.

Nope. Just you.

Isn't it self serving and silly for you to give an opininion about the veracity of your own counter arguments?

Nope.

Its up to other impartial people who are neither commited theists or committed atheists to judge the merits of our respective arguments.

There have been two such judgments. Both Apo and Mystic - neither of whom is a committed atheist - have judged your arguments to be irrational.

You are not just an advocate of atheism you are an apologist for it.

Nope. There is no doctrine within atheism for me to apologize for.

You can't be opposing counsel in this case, as well as judge and jury.

Why would that stop me from reminding the 'jury' that your arguments are wrong and have been refuted?

Just curious...is it a irrefutable fact in your mind that no God exists or are you willing to say its an opinion of yours?

Neither. Its a justified belief.

Oh and by the way I have refuted all your counter arguments they are null and void as well as any future arguments you might make. Thanks for participating but you lose.

Show me where and you might just have half a point.