³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

How about these two stories:



and

Here's a story from last week:

I thought this was an interesting take on the reality TV phenomenon

Hi Will,

Your link above on the gay marriage case in California actually points to


did you mean to point to

I was pleasantly surprised to read this was happening in Northern Ireland!

The official approval of a has met with the ire of the British Humanist Association. So much for the secular principle of freedom of speech!

And we also learn that . Funny, I thought we were supposed to be nasty, violent religious people constantly at war with one another. Perhaps not, if this is to be believed?

I note that the only MP in the current House of Commons to have been a practising scientist thinks that his fellow - and he wasn't apparently even thinking particularly of NI! Anybody whispering DCAL under their breath?

LSV (#6)

Would you complain against a museum that attempted to deny the holocaust that received offical recognition?

Yes, thought so.

Having a zoo attempt to claim that the scientifically proven and universally accepted theory of evolution isn't true is of the same class. If it wants to portray itself as a religion establishment, fair enough. But to wrap up creationism, claim it as science and then receive offical recognition is abhorrant.

Natman, old chap, don't you think it's rather ironic to use the example of the holocaust as an attempt to counter my comment about the Christian zoo, given the relationship between Darwinism and the Nazis' racial policies - as has so clearly and cogently explained? (And if I've broken Godwin's silly law by saying that, I really couldn't care less!) In fact, I'm wondering why you people get so het up about moral issues like this anyway, as I have still yet to discover where you get your morality from within your world-view. But I guess that's a discussion for another time.



I also notice that you haven't even bothered to read the article I linked to. The zoo firstly doesn't ram religion down anyone's throat (unlike the Darwinists' insistence that we should all dance to their tune), and secondly, . You claim that 'the theory of evolution' has been scientifically proven (and yes microevolution has been proven), but the extent of macroevolution has not been (dare I mention the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?). And even you admit that abiogenesis has not been proven - see your comment #87 on the Agnostics thread.



So what is *abhorrent* is not the freedom of speech enjoyed by the Christian zoo, and thankfully endorsed by the government, but the seedy attempts by the humanists to pass off as proven fact that which they know is mere speculation.



"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time" as Abe Lincoln so perspicaciously observed.

LSV (#9)

I get so sick of saying the following so I'll make them nice and clear:

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAZIS

The Nazis may have had a warped sense of justification from a eugentical point of view, but Christianity is used more by far to justify heinous and evil acts. Drop it.

TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS EXIST

Archaeopteryx anyone? The trouble with transitional fossils is that as soon as we find one, creationists suddenly claim there are now -two- gaps with no transitionals in, instead of the one gap that appeared before and is now partly filled. The fossil record is incomplete, yes, but there is enough continuity to justify its existance (unlike the presence of an intelligence in guiding it).

Okay, so abiogensis has not been conclusively proven, even if the evidence for it is strong. However is has evidence to the nth degree over the existance of god. So in the evidence stakes; put up, or shut up.

Does freedom of speech cover lies? Could I create a zoo that told kids in an educational setting that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe and I then expected them to believe it as fact, or at least as plausible as the established theory? Science is not about popular thinking, or being 'fair' to alternative ideas with no equally robust evidence to support them. Science is about free speech only in the sense that if you want equal considerationg then you need equal proof.

As for my morality.

I am proud to say that my morality is established by a careful consideration of the morals of others, my own conscience and ethics and is self-justified. Unlike those of religious types, who claim their morality is imposed upon them by an unknown and unprovable invisible being and doesn't require any self-justification on their own part. Unlike religious types, I give the human race credit for inventing their own morals and ethics. We didn't need something to hold our hand for us.

I'm not clogging up this thread with this debate anymore, especially when you're throwing out tired old arguments that are wildly discredited by minds far better than mine but you have not taken the time to look it up yourself.

Natman (@ 10) -

"THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAZIS"

Well, thank you, Natman, for making that nice and clear for me (although, in fact, you are wrong, as the idea of 'natural selection / survival of the fittest' most certainly was used as a 'moral' justification for racism, eugenics and genocide).

But, since (I trust) you believe in logic, permit me also to make a very clear statement:

IF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAZIS, THEN, BY THAT SAME LOGIC, BELIEF IN GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTIONS OF MURDEROUS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS etc.

You have had a tantrum about my comment concerning the logical moral implications of the ideas of Darwinism, but you are quite happy to make the following statement (#8, 'Summer Books' thread):

"Instead of reading a book about the twisted moral implications of a scientific theory, try reading about the history of the world and seeing just how religion has perverted more good intentions and resulted in far more crimes than Darwin's idea ever did or could."

So are we agreed that since it is wrong for me blame evolution for Nazism, will you also do the decent thing and retract your statements about the evils of religion - such as the statement I have quoted above? If you refuse to do that, then don't start accusing me of committing logical fallacies etc.

If Richard Dawkins can produce an 'evangelistic' tract showing the twin towers in New York superimposed with the wording 'Imagine No Religion', then can we please produce a Christian tract of Auschwitz superimposed with the wording 'Imagine No Darwinism'? Because if Dawkins' publication is justified, then logically so is the other! You cannot have it both ways!!

Concerning the fossil record, this is a matter of interpretation. You seem to think that any empirical evidence that can be made to fit into a naturalistic theory must be seen as supporting that theory, even if that evidence can be interpreted differently. This is why I have been going on and on about philosophical presuppositions - and then investigating the validity of those presuppositions. But, oh no, this is too much for people like you to understand. And then when I make this perfectly logical point, you rant and rave and then storm off in a huff.

Sorry, mate, that is just childish behaviour and intellectual cowardice, and it certainly doesn't deter me one iota from continuing steadfastly to put my point of view. I will not be silenced by you or anyone else. So get used to it.

You say that the theory of an 'intelligent first cause' (which I assume you are referring to by your childish and ill-informed comment about 'a flying spaghetti monster') is a lie. Prove that it is a lie. Prove that life can arise without the need for the directing input of information (i.e. intelligence). If you cannot do that, then you are promoting nothing other than bigotry by refusing to respect the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience of the proprietors of the Christian zoo, who, by the way, are doing nothing unscientific.

The refusal to subscribe to your pet philosophy of metaphysical naturalism is not a rejection of 'science', but only a rejection of a particular biased way of interpreting empirical data. If you had a proper understanding of the limits of the scientific method, you would understand that statement. In fact, your reference to 'repeatable' evidence on the Agnostics thread suggests that you do understand the limits of the scientific method, and therefore you will have to acknowledge that speculative events from the past cannot be known 'scientifically' since a past event, by definition, cannot be repeated! All you can do is conduct experiments that may produce results that suggest certain things may have happened in the past, but you cannot prove that they did. As far as abiogenesis is concerned you haven't even got as far as the repeatable experimental evidence. The only logical alternative to abiogenesis is intelligent design, and therefore ID is a perfectly sound theory, on the basis of what we know empirically. Therefore it is illogical and unscientific to condemn that theory.

Prove that life can arise without the need for the directing input of information (i.e. intelligence).

Actually, the ball is in your court there. Unless you can provide evidence that such intelligence exists, I can't disprove it.

Evolution is not a philosophical belief, it's not a way of thinking or plan by which to live your life. It's not open to personal interpretation or a distortion to fit your carefully crafted perceptions. People have attempted to make it one, but that is neither its intention, nor its purpose. It doesn't care if you believe in it, or just accept it as the way things are, it's a long held, often refined but never disproven scientific theory that's considered by all but a fringe minority of biologists to be a well proven fact. I'd be highly impressed if you in your unqualified position (as I guess you are from your misconception that evolution means survival of the fittest) have somehow stumbled on evidence against it that untold thousands of biologist have missed.

LSV, you are dissembling. The problem is not that it was a Christian zoo, but a creationist zoo.

Natman (@ 12) -

"Evolution is not a philosophical belief, it's not a way of thinking or plan by which to live your life. It's not open to personal interpretation or a distortion to fit your carefully crafted perceptions. People have attempted to make it one, but that is neither its intention, nor its purpose."

You really are very good at bluff and bluster aren't you? Do you honestly think I am going to be intimidated by those comments (which are simply not true anyway)?

The theory of macroevolution - along with the idea of abiogenesis - is an attempt to interpret nature - and, by extension, all aspects of reality - in accordance with a naturalistic / materialistic philosophy. Therefore this philosophy - and the epistemology of empiricism that undergirds it - is open to intellectual scrutiny and investigation.

The theory of evolution is applied not only to biology, but also every other area of life, including psychology, sociology, anthropology and even theology (as well as, of course, the other sciences). The phenomenon of religion is even understood in terms of the theory of evolution, . So to suggest that this is not a philosophical position is just crackers, I'm afraid. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I have referred to this before, but is a perfect example of the philosophical nature of the theory of evolution, which is at the heart of the materialistic world-view to which the author of the article subscribes. This theory has a direct bearing on how we understand the nature of humanity, and there are obvious moral implications to that, as you can clearly see when you read it. So your statement that "it's not a way of thinking or plan by which to live your life" is just totally wrong.

As for proof, I have presented epistemological evidence to falsify the claim that the philosophy of materialism is true (through the argument concerning the self-refutation of empiricism). This argument does not prove Christianity, but, since it falsifies the claims of materialism, by default it affirms the validity of non-materialistic theories. This evidence will not tell you what God is like, but it does demolish the arrogant claim that "there is definitely no God". It is a starting point, and I suppose you could say that I am affirming some form of agnosticism by this argument, in which a variety of world-views should be respectfully considered. I have no problem with the humble and respectful agnostic, but, as you have probably discerned by now, I find the bigoted atheist obnoxious in the extreme - mainly because his view is so utterly illogical and without epistemological foundation. To see this blindness and bigotry directed at that Christian zoo is just appalling, and I cannot but take an unequivocal stand against it.

Finally, talking about qualifications - I have studied philosophy to university standard, so you can 'put a sock in it' as far as that issue is concerned.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

LSV,

Philosophy has it's place but when science sorts out the answer then philosophy needs to move on to the next unsolved problem. Helio is right, this is a creationist museum, discredited by most educational establishments and governments. A creationist ideal is not a philosophical position it is a stubborn Luddite one.

Just because you have studied philosophy to university level does not make you any good at it, it just means you know lots of big words, it's just a pity you have used them to be so offensive.

Dave (@ 15) -

"...it's just a pity you have used them to be so offensive."

I think you are directing your comments at the wrong person. If my comments are offensive then what about Natman's? :

...flying spaghetti monster...

...the Grand Poobah...

...a magical invisible sky fairy...

...invisible dragons, unicorns, teapots...

...magic dragons and fairies...

and so on, ad nauseam (and I haven't got on to what some of the others say).

Apparently atheists are so weak and sensitive that they cry at any criticism of their pet philosophy (philosophy being the correct word), but it is perfectly fine for them to heap puerile unrestrained scorn on those who don't share their benighted and deluded view of reality. (In fact I wonder what they would say if there was no moderation. I have actually read comments by atheists on non-moderated blogs, and some of the comments verge on criminality. "Nero was right" was one of the milder responses of 'intellectual analysis' I once read in response to a perfectly civil point I made about abiogenesis!) So don't you dare start accusing me of being offensive!!

For as long as atheists refuse to show maturity and respect to other beliefs, and persist in their delusion that their philosophy has been proven (when, by its very nature, it can never be), then I will continue to make my so called 'offensive' comments.

Now I think that is fair!

LSV, that was pure melodrama. Bravo! Bravo! Maybe this panto season you can be the dame instead of the back end of the horse.

Your epistemic assault on naturalism is juvenile and your blather attacks on evolution ill-informed and self-defeating. I presume your philosophy qualification was from an accredited university? I suggest that if you want to tackle science, you get yourself a science degree.

@LSV

I'm intrigued. Do you really find the Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn(May Her Holy Hooves Never be Shod) et al offensive? As someone who prides himself on his use of cold, hard logic, why is the thought of comparing fictional entities to god in order to examine the unperpinning philosophy inimical to you?

Helio (@ 17) -

Your epistemic assault on naturalism is juvenile and your blather attacks on evolution ill-informed and self-defeating. I presume your philosophy qualification was from an accredited university? I suggest that if you want to tackle science, you get yourself a science degree.

Oh, thank you, kind sir, for your polite and gentle - and utterly respectful - words towards me. How can I ever thank you enough? I mean some people think that you atheists are offensive, but I think those critics of yours are just bitter and deluded. I mean they must be, mustn't they? Everybody with any sense knows that everything you say is just soooooooo logical, coherent, incontrovertibly proven, self-evident, mature, polite and civil. It must be, because you are part of that 'special' little happy breed of smiley people called 'atheists' who can never be questioned, never contradicted and never open to any investigation, because your view of life is soooooooo obvious, isn't it?! [Note to myself: sarcasm monitor off now, please]

"Accredited university?" No, certainly not! It was just some ramshackle shed down the end of my garden called the University of London.

"Science degree?" What is science? A very good philosophical question. Let's start with empiricism, shall we....? Ah, *sigh*, back we go to chapter one in the textbook (dearie me, this class is thick - we're not getting far at this rate, are we?!)

LSV, *I* don't think you're offensive, just that you're going to need to buck up your game a little.

For instance, I might point out that if you think your trite and simplistic argument undermines methodological naturalism in science, it undermines YOUR basis for any of YOUR claims even more. So it is difficult to see how you can survive this.

Yet, as science illustrates daily, the reliance on methodological naturalism seems to have massive pay-offs - the consilience of all these threads would be spectacularly surprising if MN was not a reasonable assumption to make, which rather makes a mockery of your assertions that your criticisms in any way undermine the confidence with which we can hold scientific results.

We've had this discussion many times before; the aim of science is to find out HOW the world works. That it works at all is an observation, a *result*. We do not have to assume this ahead of time. There is no need to build up an epistemology from the very bottom in order to do science (though it is often helpful to do so in order to check our working). We start from where we ARE, and we work outwards.

The reason I recommended you look into doing some *science* is precisely that - as a cod philosopher, you need to get your hands dirty. You need to sully yourself with some proper data, formulate some hypotheses, and test them against the real world. Philosophy is fun to try to get your head around these things, but you're like someone who learns the Highway Code and thinks they know all there is to know about driving a car. You're all theory and no practice. Naive. Inexperienced. Unblooded. And, I am afraid I have to say, somewhat *joyless*. You can't see the sheer joy in *finding stuff out*. That is a bit sad. I do hope the future can hold a happier prospect for you.

Helio (@ 21) -

Wonderful stuff, Helio. I'm all for practice and not mere theory. Tremendous.

But... what the heck has this got to do with atheism v. theism??!!!!

Sorry, if this seems a bit theoretical for your liking, but do you understand the difference between "either...or" and "both...and"? I believe in BOTH God AND science. A belief in God does not suddenly prevent someone from engaging in practical science (as you should know, if you have ever studied the history of modern science). Unless you are blind, you will have seen that I have not been arguing against practical science (so-called 'methodological materialism') at all. I have been arguing against 'philosophical materialism', which is an entirely different thing, but which you seem to think is implied by methodological materialism.

I have just put two comments on the "Agnostics" thread relating to this topic. As at the time of writing this, the first one was blocked (I think I quoted too much from an article), but hopefully the second one will get through. It relates to an article by Eugenie Scott (a humanist, Darwinist and non-theist). If you refuse to accept her words, then, frankly, there's no hope for you understanding this simple issue.

No, I accept Eugenie Scott's words; I reject your interpretation of them, and have explained precisely why. Sort it out.