The Devil’s Delusion

[PoliticalChic]

I'm sure you have added a great deal of knowledge between '99 and 2011...
...you and the other "we."
So that I might better be able to address you, would you identify yourself as neuroscientist, neurologist, neurosurgeon, or psychiatrist in research, academic, or clinical setting?

brain development research 2000-2011 - Google Scholar

Here you go. Happy reading! Apparently, at the PC household, science stopped in 1999.



Get back to me when you've done a little more research on the subject, because I really don't feel obligated to cover 12 years of research that you haven't done in this format.

ktkxbai.

1. So happy to see that you have a degree in "Google"...would have been fine if it answered the question....

2. Now, if you only had the capacity to understand plain language!
Wow! You'd be a real threat then!

3. The query was the following...
"And, consistent with those insights and added knowledge, could you elucidate the answer to the point that Sir John Maddox made:
"...thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined."

You can explain that, can't you...
...or, are you merely a wind-bag?"

Were there any words in the above with which you are having trouble...'cause I'd be happy to explain them to you...
...your Google-list had nothing to do with the above.

4. Let's review: you dismissed the OP, with
"We actually have a fairly clear understanding of how the mind functions, and we learn more every year."

I've questioned your pompous use of "we" in the above....but you have blithely wandered away from that question. I understand your embarrassment.

Since you are unable to show that Maddox's question- from 1999- has been answered, you now pretend that the Google hodge-podge responds to it....which it doesn't

So, a new question arises: are you dishonest, or simply a dolt?
I think you are honest...which leaves but one choice.

5. "Get back to me when you've done a little more research on the subject, because I really don't feel obligated to cover 12 years of research that you haven't done in this format."
Now, this is the winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor."

And...if I may ask....I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile?


6. Now, another serious question.
Since you clearly found some interest in the OP, in the topic relating science and faith, why did you choose to amble down the snarky path?
You see how that decision has come to bite you where you recline, and certainly didn't make you appear either smart or honest....
...why didn't you simply put forth a cogent view...as I see you were half-heartedly prepared to do?

 

[catzmeow]

1. So happy to see that you have a degree in "Google"...would have been fine if it answered the question....

ONe doesn't need to have a PH.D. to keep abreast of current research. I am required to do so by my job; my credentials as a scholar (or for that matter, yours), have little to do with the subject of "we don't understand how the brain works."

As a point of reference, there has been considerable study and research on the subject of how the brain develops and functions in the past 12 years. If you have time to read Christian apologists, one would certainly think that you'd have the time to research the statements they make for accuracy before posting them.

As a point of fact, the statement made by your so-called expert in the OP was inaccurate and outdated. I've provided you with a link to HUNDREDS of studies in the field of brain development and function, for you to peruse at your leisure.

Have fun with that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. So happy to see that you have a degree in "Google"...would have been fine if it answered the question....

ONe doesn't need to have a PH.D. to keep abreast of current research. I am required to do so by my job; my credentials as a scholar (or for that matter, yours), have little to do with the subject of "we don't understand how the brain works."

As a point of reference, there has been considerable study and research on the subject of how the brain develops and functions in the past 12 years. If you have time to read Christian apologists, one would certainly think that you'd have the time to research the statements they make for accuracy before posting them.

As a point of fact, the statement made by your so-called expert in the OP was inaccurate and outdated. I've provided you with a link to HUNDREDS of studies in the field of brain development and function, for you to peruse at your leisure.

Have fun with that.

Maddox's remarks highlighted the degree of magnitude difference between the human brain and that of the rest of the kingdom. It suggests the kind of difference between mankind and the rest of the kingdom that is memorialized in Genesis 1:28.

Your Google's did not respond to that difference.


I'm guessing that you are bright enough to have realized that that was the essence of the quote.

The question remains, so is neither inaccurate nor outdated.

I appreciate the fact that your have adjusted your tone a notch.

 

[edthecynic]

1. So happy to see that you have a degree in "Google"...would have been fine if it answered the question....

ONe doesn't need to have a PH.D. to keep abreast of current research. I am required to do so by my job; my credentials as a scholar (or for that matter, yours), have little to do with the subject of "we don't understand how the brain works."

As a point of reference, there has been considerable study and research on the subject of how the brain develops and functions in the past 12 years. If you have time to read Christian apologists, one would certainly think that you'd have the time to research the statements they make for accuracy before posting them.

As a point of fact, the statement made by your so-called expert in the OP was inaccurate and outdated. I've provided you with a link to HUNDREDS of studies in the field of brain development and function, for you to peruse at your leisure.

Have fun with that.

Maddox's remarks highlighted the degree of magnitude difference between the human brain and that of the rest of the kingdom. It suggests the kind of difference between mankind and the rest of the kingdom that is memorialized in Genesis 1:28.

Your Google's did not respond to that difference.


I'm guessing that you are bright enough to have realized that that was the essence of the quote.

The question remains, so is neither inaccurate nor outdated.

I appreciate the fact that your have adjusted your tone a notch.

Whale brains are larger than human brains in the higher intelligence regions. It is only the pompous arrogance of the religious zealots that makes them think that God made their brains better than a whale's brain.

News Blog: Are Whales Smarter Than We Are?

 

[PoliticalChic]

ONe doesn't need to have a PH.D. to keep abreast of current research. I am required to do so by my job; my credentials as a scholar (or for that matter, yours), have little to do with the subject of "we don't understand how the brain works."

As a point of reference, there has been considerable study and research on the subject of how the brain develops and functions in the past 12 years. If you have time to read Christian apologists, one would certainly think that you'd have the time to research the statements they make for accuracy before posting them.

As a point of fact, the statement made by your so-called expert in the OP was inaccurate and outdated. I've provided you with a link to HUNDREDS of studies in the field of brain development and function, for you to peruse at your leisure.

Have fun with that.

Maddox's remarks highlighted the degree of magnitude difference between the human brain and that of the rest of the kingdom. It suggests the kind of difference between mankind and the rest of the kingdom that is memorialized in Genesis 1:28.

Your Google's did not respond to that difference.


I'm guessing that you are bright enough to have realized that that was the essence of the quote.

The question remains, so is neither inaccurate nor outdated.

I appreciate the fact that your have adjusted your tone a notch.

Whale brains are larger than human brains in the higher intelligence regions. It is only the pompous arrogance of the religious zealots that makes them think that God made their brains better than a whale's brain.

News Blog: Are Whales Smarter Than We Are?

I hope this is not too subtle for you, Beets, but are we discussing better or bigger?
And, did you note the qualitative difference?


And, while I won't require you to do the experimentation involved, is it your contention that their brains can do what the human brain can?

If your answer is in the negative, your article, albeit interesting, has no bearing here.
What does have bearing is your religious bigotry.

 

[edthecynic]

Maddox's remarks highlighted the degree of magnitude difference between the human brain and that of the rest of the kingdom. It suggests the kind of difference between mankind and the rest of the kingdom that is memorialized in Genesis 1:28.

Your Google's did not respond to that difference.


I'm guessing that you are bright enough to have realized that that was the essence of the quote.

The question remains, so is neither inaccurate nor outdated.

I appreciate the fact that your have adjusted your tone a notch.

Whale brains are larger than human brains in the higher intelligence regions. It is only the pompous arrogance of the religious zealots that makes them think that God made their brains better than a whale's brain.

News Blog: Are Whales Smarter Than We Are?

I hope this is not too subtle for you, Beets, but are we discussing better or bigger?
And, did you note the qualitative difference?


And, while I won't require you to do the experimentation involved, is it your contention that their brains can do what the human brain can?

If your answer is in the negative, your article, albeit interesting, has no bearing here.
What does have bearing is your religious bigotry.

You obviously were too lazy to read the link before you foamed at the mouth, as the link addressed that very question.

It's my contention that what their brains can and cannot do is not something that can be defined. It is only religious ego that sees their brains as inferior.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whale brains are larger than human brains in the higher intelligence regions. It is only the pompous arrogance of the religious zealots that makes them think that God made their brains better than a whale's brain.

News Blog: Are Whales Smarter Than We Are?

I hope this is not too subtle for you, Beets, but are we discussing better or bigger?
And, did you note the qualitative difference?


And, while I won't require you to do the experimentation involved, is it your contention that their brains can do what the human brain can?

If your answer is in the negative, your article, albeit interesting, has no bearing here.
What does have bearing is your religious bigotry.

You obviously were too lazy to read the link before you foamed at the mouth, as the link addressed that very question.

It's my contention that what their brains can and cannot do is not something that can be defined. It is only religious ego that sees their brains as inferior.

1. 'You obviously were too lazy to read the link...' Wrong. I read it; note that I asked you "did you note the qualitative difference..."

2."...before you foamed at the mouth..." Wrong again. As usual, my tone was modulated.

3. "what their brains can and cannot do is not something that can be defined."
Your refusal to admit the superiority of the human brain is just south of sane.

4. "It is only religious ego that sees their brains as inferior."
Blinded by bigotry.
Poor Beets! You have more issues than the Reader’s Digest

But...take heart, BeetsAndSpinach!
I plan to be here next year, directing you on the path to enlightenment.
Until we meet again, you may take the time to think of an appropriate way to
thank me.
Happy New Year.

 

[edthecynic]

3. "what their brains can and cannot do is not something that can be defined."
Your refusal to admit the superiority of the human brain is just south of sane.

Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace.
Albert Schweitzer

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyanpXZ2Krg]CROSBY + NASH : BERKELEY 1975 : WIND ON THE WATER . - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. "what their brains can and cannot do is not something that can be defined."
Your refusal to admit the superiority of the human brain is just south of sane.

Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace.
Albert Schweitzer

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyanpXZ2Krg]CROSBY + NASH : BERKELEY 1975 : WIND ON THE WATER . - YouTube[/ame]

"...compassion to include all living things,..."

Are you aware that the only reason that you’re still alive is that I’m too tired to dig a hole in the woods to bury you?


Oh, yeah....and you have Van Gogh's ear for music!!!!
Yechhhhhhh!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The following is from "The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," by David Berlinski...

1. There are those who argue that science is in opposition to religion, and that science offers sophisticated men and women a coherent vision of the universe.

2. There have been four powerful and profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution was set in motion in the seventeenth century:
a. Newtonian mechanics,
b. Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field,
c. Special and general relativity
d. And quantum mechanics

3. English mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has described the theories as “sometimes phenomenally accurate,” but a “tantalizingly inconsistent scheme of things.” The result, we know better than we did what we do not know, and what we have not grasped: how the universe began, how the mind functions, why we are here, how life emerged, or, with assurance, that it did.

4. No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

a. Prominent figures have hypothesized that we are merely cosmic accidents. Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so…and it is an article of their faith based on the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them in ways the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate.
There is not the slightest reason to think that this is so.

5. While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. It is a system of belief both adequate and more fitting to the complexities of our existence: recompense for suffering, principles beyond selfishness. Reassurance.
While I do not know if any of this is true, I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

As a Physicist, I really hope you religious whackos can get Science declared a religion so, as a High Priest of the Science Religion, I can get the same SPECIAL tax privileges the other lesser religions get.

"Physicist"?

Didn't you mean "as a physic"?

Your time would be far better spent learning something constructive, such as how
to fold a fitted sheet.

 

[edthecynic]

3. "what their brains can and cannot do is not something that can be defined."
Your refusal to admit the superiority of the human brain is just south of sane.

Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace.
Albert Schweitzer

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyanpXZ2Krg"]CROSBY + NASH : BERKELEY 1975 : WIND ON THE WATER . - YouTube[/ame]

"...compassion to include all living things,..."

Are you aware that the only reason that you’re still alive is that I’m too tired to dig a hole in the woods to bury you?


Oh, yeah....and you have Van Gogh's ear for music!!!!
Yechhhhhhh!!!!

Some of us hear music with our soul.

You might like the studio version a little better, I posted that version for the introduction story. Live dangerously and give it a second chance while you put the lipstick on your lips and the shadow on your eyes.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoek1e8t2K4&feature=fvst]DAVID CROSBY AND GRAHAM NASH - To The Last Whale - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace.
Albert Schweitzer

CROSBY + NASH : BERKELEY 1975 : WIND ON THE WATER . - YouTube

"...compassion to include all living things,..."

Are you aware that the only reason that you’re still alive is that I’m too tired to dig a hole in the woods to bury you?


Oh, yeah....and you have Van Gogh's ear for music!!!!
Yechhhhhhh!!!!

Some of us hear music with our soul.

You might like the studio version a little better, I posted that version for the introduction story. Live dangerously and give it a second chance while you put the lipstick on your lips and the shadow on your eyes.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoek1e8t2K4&feature=fvst]DAVID CROSBY AND GRAHAM NASH - To The Last Whale - YouTube[/ame]

"...put the lipstick on your lips and the shadow on your eyes."

(sigh)...I'm gonna have to remember to close the shades....


OK, OK....I know what you're waitin' for...

...here ya' go:




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCkJ16gbrgg&feature=related]The Pretenders- My City Was Gone - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LOki]

1. "No scientist is compelled to accept this hypotheses. upon what valid basis do you support your claim that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept this hypothesis?"

I'm not the one responsible for the quote...a geneticist is. Did you miss this?

"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote"

I did not miss it, nor did I miss that you submitted it and the quote in question, nor did I miss you submitted submitted it and the quote in question to make your point.

Strange you should deny that you're responsible for ANY of that.

Next time, if you don't want to be held at all responsible for what you post ... don't post.

a. Quote-mining?
Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology such as gel electrophoresis to questions of genetic variation and evolution.In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics, Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution.
Richard Lewontin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't have to search far for a major scientist admitting, as a scientist, that "one must accept absurdities."

Yes. Quote-mining. Lewontins actual explanation for accepting "absurdities":

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.(emphasis added)

It's not so indicting when you realize Lewontin was just rejecting "wishing on a star", sorcery, other wishful magical thinking in favor a disciplined and validly principled method for effectiely interacting with reality.

2. "the superstitious are in fact obligated to accept absurdities."
Surely you know that there are aspects of science that are accepted in the scientific community...yet are propositions without a great deal of evidence.

Of course.

I'm just pointing out that "propositions without a great deal of evidence" enjoy some attenuation of absurdity that the absurdities of the superstitious will never enjoy, because superstitons cannot be redeemed from faith's absurd proposition that "earnestly believed inventions of one's imagination" are really "some(objectively real)things" that explain everything.

Accepted, because the offer potential benefits.

Well, no. Accepted, because these "propositions without a great deal of evidence" offer descriptions and explanations more substantive in objective reality than the superstitions that faith invents.

The community of faith accepts propositions....in the area of 'supernatural' because these beliefs offer not potential, but existenteial benefits.

Superstitions offers the community of faith a refuge from the predictably perverse moral consequences preferring their self-congradualtory emotional rationalizing over the rigorous validation of one's rationality against reality. The faithful never need fear of being proven wrong, so long as they can just believe that they are right.

These include considerations of morality, good and evil, right and wrong, subjects which influence life, and about which science has nothing to say.

Superstitious notions of "morality, good and evil, right and wrong, subjects which influence life," are ultimately meaningless in an objective reality; having validity only by the caprices of coincidence.

3. You have weakened your position with the following:
"What kind of absurdities? Consider these as examples:
If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Absurdly retarded superstitions."

I know of no major religion that espouses the above. Do you?

No, but so what?

Do you know of any "major religion" that asserts belief in the existence of a universally supreme being who "when confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process"?

If you do, how is that belief asserted by that "major religion" any less absurd than the following?:

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Does an absurd belief become any less absurd once it's embraced by a "major religion"?

If you're not going to demonstrate any significan differences in the absurdity of those three superstitious assertions, I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion that my position has been weakened in any manner.

 

[rdean]

Does regurgitating other people's thoughts strike you as a meaningful contribution to the board?

If you didn't find it interesting, it seems a less than intelligent investment of your time.

Perhaps you should rethink your investments on the board.

I was trying to read along with an open mind until I got to this part:

While science has nothing of value to say

At that point, I realized I was reading "blather". I've never been very good with foreign language.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does regurgitating other people's thoughts strike you as a meaningful contribution to the board?

If you didn't find it interesting, it seems a less than intelligent investment of your time.

Perhaps you should rethink your investments on the board.

I was trying to read along with an open mind until I got to this part:

While science has nothing of value to say

At that point, I realized I was reading "blather". I've never been very good with foreign language.

There you go, Chubby!
In one short post you summed up the single most important reason for your lack of success in life!

A.D.D.!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "No scientist is compelled to accept this hypotheses. upon what valid basis do you support your claim that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept this hypothesis?"

I'm not the one responsible for the quote...a geneticist is. Did you miss this?

"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote"

I did not miss it, nor did I miss that you submitted it and the quote in question, nor did I miss you submitted submitted it and the quote in question to make your point.

Strange you should deny that you're responsible for ANY of that.

Next time, if you don't want to be held at all responsible for what you post ... don't post.

a. Quote-mining?
Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology such as gel electrophoresis to questions of genetic variation and evolution.In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics, Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution.
Richard Lewontin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't have to search far for a major scientist admitting, as a scientist, that "one must accept absurdities."

Yes. Quote-mining. Lewontins actual explanation for accepting "absurdities":It's not so indicting when you realize Lewontin was just rejecting "wishing on a star", sorcery, other wishful magical thinking in favor a disciplined and validly principled method for effectiely interacting with reality.

Of course.

I'm just pointing out that "propositions without a great deal of evidence" enjoy some attenuation of absurdity that the absurdities of the superstitious will never enjoy, because superstitons cannot be redeemed from faith's absurd proposition that "earnestly believed inventions of one's imagination" are really "some(objectively real)things" that explain everything.

Well, no. Accepted, because these "propositions without a great deal of evidence" offer descriptions and explanations more substantive in objective reality than the superstitions that faith invents.

Superstitions offers the community of faith a refuge from the predictably perverse moral consequences preferring their self-congradualtory emotional rationalizing over the rigorous validation of one's rationality against reality. The faithful never need fear of being proven wrong, so long as they can just believe that they are right.

These include considerations of morality, good and evil, right and wrong, subjects which influence life, and about which science has nothing to say.

Superstitious notions of "morality, good and evil, right and wrong, subjects which influence life," are ultimately meaningless in an objective reality; having validity only by the caprices of coincidence.

3. You have weakened your position with the following:
"What kind of absurdities? Consider these as examples:
If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Absurdly retarded superstitions."

I know of no major religion that espouses the above. Do you?

No, but so what?

Do you know of any "major religion" that asserts belief in the existence of a universally supreme being who "when confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process"?

If you do, how is that belief asserted by that "major religion" any less absurd than the following?:

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Does an absurd belief become any less absurd once it's embraced by a "major religion"?

If you're not going to demonstrate any significan differences in the absurdity of those three superstitious assertions, I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion that my position has been weakened in any manner.

While you have the need to choose some silly children's rhymes as signifying religious views, I've provided the words of an eminent scientist...testifying to the fact that what is called 'science' has the same characteristics that you see as indicting religion.

More scientst testimony:

"Everyone holds to, and reasons from, some assumptions that have either not been proven and/or may never, in space and time, be proven to be true; thus, every worldview contains faith assumptions.

For example, belief in macroevolution contains the belief that the speed of light has always been constant, which is a statement that cannot be proven. Norman Geisler notes, “It has not been proven that the speed of light has never changed. Another example is radioactive dating of which Geisler says, “One must assume at least two things that apparently cannot be proven in order to come to the conclusion that the world is billions of years old. First, it must be assumed that there were no lead deposits at the beginning. Second, it must be assumed that the rate of decay has been unchanged throughout its entire history. This has not been proven.”” Norman Geisler, “Systematic Theology,” Vol. 2, p. 649

a. Philosopher of Science Larry Lauden points out “scientists often make claims before they can explain them by natural law. For example: Galileo and Newton took themselves to have established the existence of gravitational phenomena long before anyone was able to give a causal or explanatory account of gravitation.” Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” p. 132-133

b. Scientists often make claims such as, “the process of evolution is blind, mechanistic, purposeless, goalless, unplanned, and completely natural and material.” John G. West,” Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized,” p.255.
That may or may not be true, but what is absolutely true is that it is a faith assumption because it cannot be proven…. I have continually argued that almost everything is learned by faith."
Ronnie W. Rogers, “Taking every thought captive…” » Blog Archive » Why it is immoral and impossible to exclude one

 

[Dragon]

Everything in religious doctrine falls into one of four categories: mysticism, myth, morality, and make-believe.

Of those, science is incompetent to say anything about the first three. Scientific method is used to answer questions of fact about observable reality. But mysticism concerns itself with reality that cannot be observed in ways appropriate to scientific method, myth consists of metaphor in which claims of fact are irrelevant, and morality makes statements of value, not of fact. Religion that confines itself to these first three categories will, therefore, never run into conflict with science.

Science conflicts with religion only to the extent that religion promotes the last category, make-believe. Make-believe may be the same sort of story that is myth when understood as metaphor; it becomes make-believe when taken literally. Make-believe may also be a statement that does not make mythical sense. In any case, a religion that makes a claim of fact about observable reality is always engaging in make-believe.

The arguments in the OP are valid, but only about mysticism, myth, and morality. They cannot be used to justify make-believe.

 

[LOki]

1. "No scientist is compelled to accept this hypotheses. upon what valid basis do you support your claim that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept this hypothesis?"

I'm not the one responsible for the quote...a geneticist is. Did you miss this?

"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote"

I did not miss it, nor did I miss that you submitted it and the quote in question, nor did I miss you submitted submitted it and the quote in question to make your point.

Strange you should deny that you're responsible for ANY of that.

Next time, if you don't want to be held at all responsible for what you post ... don't post.

Yes. Quote-mining. Lewontins actual explanation for accepting "absurdities":It's not so indicting when you realize Lewontin was just rejecting "wishing on a star", sorcery, other wishful magical thinking in favor a disciplined and validly principled method for effectiely interacting with reality.

Of course.

I'm just pointing out that "propositions without a great deal of evidence" enjoy some attenuation of absurdity that the absurdities of the superstitious will never enjoy, because superstitons cannot be redeemed from faith's absurd proposition that "earnestly believed inventions of one's imagination" are really "some(objectively real)things" that explain everything.

Well, no. Accepted, because these "propositions without a great deal of evidence" offer descriptions and explanations more substantive in objective reality than the superstitions that faith invents.

Superstitions offers the community of faith a refuge from the predictably perverse moral consequences preferring their self-congradualtory emotional rationalizing over the rigorous validation of one's rationality against reality. The faithful never need fear of being proven wrong, so long as they can just believe that they are right.

Superstitious notions of "morality, good and evil, right and wrong, subjects which influence life," are ultimately meaningless in an objective reality; having validity only by the caprices of coincidence.

3. You have weakened your position with the following:
"What kind of absurdities? Consider these as examples:
If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Absurdly retarded superstitions."

I know of no major religion that espouses the above. Do you?

No, but so what?

Do you know of any "major religion" that asserts belief in the existence of a universally supreme being who "when confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process"?

If you do, how is that belief asserted by that "major religion" any less absurd than the following?:

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Does an absurd belief become any less absurd once it's embraced by a "major religion"?

If you're not going to demonstrate any significan differences in the absurdity of those three superstitious assertions, I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion that my position has been weakened in any manner.

While you have the need to choose some silly children's rhymes as signifying religious views, I've provided the words of an eminent scientist...testifying to the fact that what is called 'science' has the same characteristics that you see as indicting religion.

More scientst testimony:

"Everyone holds to, and reasons from, some assumptions that have either not been proven and/or may never, in space and time, be proven to be true; thus, every worldview contains faith assumptions.

For example, belief in macroevolution contains the belief that the speed of light has always been constant, which is a statement that cannot be proven. Norman Geisler notes, “It has not been proven that the speed of light has never changed. Another example is radioactive dating of which Geisler says, “One must assume at least two things that apparently cannot be proven in order to come to the conclusion that the world is billions of years old. First, it must be assumed that there were no lead deposits at the beginning. Second, it must be assumed that the rate of decay has been unchanged throughout its entire history. This has not been proven.”” Norman Geisler, “Systematic Theology,” Vol. 2, p. 649

a. Philosopher of Science Larry Lauden points out “scientists often make claims before they can explain them by natural law. For example: Galileo and Newton took themselves to have established the existence of gravitational phenomena long before anyone was able to give a causal or explanatory account of gravitation.” Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” p. 132-133

b. Scientists often make claims such as, “the process of evolution is blind, mechanistic, purposeless, goalless, unplanned, and completely natural and material.” John G. West,” Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized,” p.255.
That may or may not be true, but what is absolutely true is that it is a faith assumption because it cannot be proven…. I have continually argued that almost everything is learned by faith."
Ronnie W. Rogers, “Taking every thought captive…” » Blog Archive » Why it is immoral and impossible to exclude one

You are entirely wrong. Science has none of the characteristics that I see as indicting religion. NONE.

And I say ENTIRELY WRONG, because you seem to think (based upon the support you provide; which you are responsible for BTW, because you're using it to advance your point) that evidence is the exact same thing as absolute proof, and that beliefs without a basis in absolute proof are beliefs without basis in evidence.

You are going to continue to be entirely wrong a long as you are going to demand that the unproven assertions of science are assertions baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; hence assertions of faith.

The reality here is, that the following assertions of faith are all equally superstitious absurdities, and it is entirely irrelevant that some are kindergarten rhymes and others are not.

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
• When confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process.

In other words they are objectively of equal moral and intellectual value. A point so strong BTW, that you have failed to refute it in your attempt to simply dismiss it.

If you're not going to demonstrate any significan differences in the absurdity of those three superstitious assertions, I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion that my position has been weakened in any manner.

 

[FurthurBB]

Science concerns itself about observations and evidence concerning natural phenomona. It has nothing to say about the 'supernatural', is such actually exists.

As for the 'Great aching questions of Life' that is mosty emotional philosophic claptrap. We live and die, do the best we can for ourselves and those around us. Trying to find some Great Meaning in it All is about the same as a dog or cat trying to understand what we are doing when we are on the computer.

Enjoy life for what it is, note the beauty around you, live the day you are given, for tomorrow days may not be yours.

Interesting post, Rocks.
What I like about it is how it highlights the dif in points of view. I don't mind you having this point of view, but it seems that lots of folks on your side are put out by those of us who have faith, who look for meaning in life, and of life.

Now, Berlinski comments on those scientists who beleive as you do, or who the WSJ has referred to as 'militant atheists,' and he has an interesting suggestion as to why this view has gained prominence today...

Now, get this: Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even a pusillanimous one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?

An attempt to push back against this particular iteration of a religious viewpoint without being open to the very real possibility of physical attack?

Take on Christianity...which is open to attack, yet will not cut one's head off.

Militant atheism is just a byproduct of runaway political correctness.

40 years ago some of the legal claims would result in the claimant being run out of town.

I don't agree with running someone out of town simply because of their beliefs, but I do get tired of some of the ridiculous hypocrisy on display by those who feel that Christians lack tolerance.

I have never met a militant atheist that worries about being politically correct. They are actually some of the biggest opponents to being politically correct of anyone I know. Though, when you do not understand the basic concepts you are speaking of, I guess they can seem different than they really are.

 

[FurthurBB]

1. So happy to see that you have a degree in "Google"...would have been fine if it answered the question....

ONe doesn't need to have a PH.D. to keep abreast of current research. I am required to do so by my job; my credentials as a scholar (or for that matter, yours), have little to do with the subject of "we don't understand how the brain works."

As a point of reference, there has been considerable study and research on the subject of how the brain develops and functions in the past 12 years. If you have time to read Christian apologists, one would certainly think that you'd have the time to research the statements they make for accuracy before posting them.

As a point of fact, the statement made by your so-called expert in the OP was inaccurate and outdated. I've provided you with a link to HUNDREDS of studies in the field of brain development and function, for you to peruse at your leisure.

Have fun with that.

Maddox's remarks highlighted the degree of magnitude difference between the human brain and that of the rest of the kingdom. It suggests the kind of difference between mankind and the rest of the kingdom that is memorialized in Genesis 1:28.

Your Google's did not respond to that difference.


I'm guessing that you are bright enough to have realized that that was the essence of the quote.

The question remains, so is neither inaccurate nor outdated.

I appreciate the fact that your have adjusted your tone a notch.

Humans fill a niche that requires an abundance of intelligence to survive in. No other animal could survive in a niche so overflowing with humans, and apparently no other niches require that level of intelligence for success. Our brain is very different from other brains in the animal kingdom, but there are many species that have features just as unique to them because of whatever was needed to help them survive in their niche. Looking at things from such a distance will never get you to the right answers. It might look like something special, until you really understand how things work.