The Miss USA Beauty Pageant was held this past weekend (celebrating 60 years no less) and the big question everyone wanted to know wasn’t what these young ladies were going to wear in the swimsuit competition. We were all sitting on the edge of our seats interested to know their thoughts on the question “Should evolution be taught in school?” See the full video at the link for the fascinating answers.
Link
Want to have a rational discussion? Let's start with epistemology, why do you think empiricism is more important than rationalism? Why do you think that scientific explanations rooted in relativity and empiricism negate rationalist explanations grounded in subjectivity? Everything you experience empirically is filtered through you as subject, rendering all your empirical observations subjective. Just because everyone has the same faculty of perception and thus the same perceptual tunnel and share the same empirical reality, does not mean that there isn't some transcendent truth that supervenes on empirical reality, does not mean there isn't some trascendent order governing the laws of nature and what scientists discover.
The Bible and texts like generally try to break down the boundaries of finitiude, of empiricism, and reveal the interoperation of all finite things subsumed under the heading of an all-pervasive and infinite transcendent order. This is not the focus of "science" because "science" studies the "works of God" and is confined to experimentation with finitude and the shared manifold of human perception, which is beset by an error producing mechanism known as the human ego. The ego is central to pretty much all religion and perhaps a necessary realization, the first rung of Jacob's ladder leading up to heaven. The ego is something relatively unspoken of in physical sciences, with minor exceptions for the fields of psychology and neuroscience. During the behaviorist era we were lead to believe that all psychological content is irrelevant and human behavior can be explained by stimulus and response, cause and effect explanations. This would be accurate if it didn't negate the causative continuity the mind shares with its physical body. The ego is an integral part of a aggregated world-view consisting of finite objects and consequently for the study of those objects. Some of the subjective and error-prone properties of egoism, however, are taken into consideration which provides the basis for "control" methods, but ego as an abstract entity is not recognized apart from some fringe researchers.
That the ego exists and plays a causative role in our lives could hardly be denied, but for the behaviorists and many of the scientists following in their foot-steps, phenomenal (mental) reality just does not exist. These people call themselves "Eliminative Materialists" and attempt to reduce all psychological content (e.g. beliefs, feelings, emotions, etc..) to physical matter. This may seem wise, but in the thick of it, one must invariably invoke concepts which cannot be reduced as such, and all reduction of a concept into more discrete concepts only begs the question, what happens if we reduce these concepts? Religion and philosophy teaches us that conceptualization is merely one faculty and perception another, but religions generally include a third function not recognized by institutionalized science, that function is a redoubling of consciousness directed at consciousness. It is an awareness of being aware, which makes the metacognitive dynamics of conscious awareness something explicit.
Granted there are both theologians and scientists who are shallow-minded bigots.
Argumentum ad verecundiam - that science is 'established' and has a wide following, and appeals to the rational mind in some measure, and is accompanied by all kinds of badges and recognition of "goodness" toward the enterprise, provides the basis for egotistical distortion of the facts. That religion has the same problems cannot be neglected either.
There is something known as the "Decline Effect" in science which happens subsequent to a significant result. A paper might be published in a prestigious journal like Nature Neuroscience and meet all the control criteria for the specifications of the experiment. By all appearances it looks solid and unbreakable, but occasionally there is a decline effect that consistently erodes the findings over several decades to the point of eliminating the results completely and undermining the original paper.
"Science" has it's own superstitious fools; I could name a few; Parnia, Morse, Doidge, Dawkins and Gazzaniga. These people either believe in an after-life, an independent homonuculus (ego) and/or free-will.
Why is it verbal diarrhea when I challenge pervading opinions, but when someone uses infantile banter you don't bat an eye?
horned_one24 says "It really shows how freakin stupid the majority of people are."
Well that is a pretty shallow way of saying the same thing I'm saying, the difference is I back it up. You can safely ignore horned_one24 by assuming you aren't one of his "majority". But I will say things that makes it clear that you are part of my "majority".
Furthermore, r, made a statement that begged my response "speaks volumes about where this country is headed. absolutely zero evidence and fairy tales peddled by iron age goat herders that didnt know shit is the favored choice over mountains of evidence and the true reality of the world as proven repeatedly via numerous branches of modern science with empirical and testable results."
You don't have a problem with his vulgarity or flippant attitude towards theology. Did you ever consider maybe you are biased in favor of your own cherished opinions. You can speak vulgarity in the face of sculpted art, and using colorful language to criticize that which has no ability to defend itself. What I am doing here is no different, I'm just examining and criticizing things that actually matter. Things that most wouldn't criticize for fear of disapproval from the "Majority" of people who are "idiots".
I don't care; get over it.
HayZeus cries a little everytime a scroll wheel wears out.
Evolution should be taught in biology, there should be no discussion of any other non-scienced based theory in the class.
Since much of the drug industry is based off of evolution should people that don't believe in it take the drugs?
In the end, this is not a scientific theory and it should not be taught. It has never gone thru any of the validation or peer review that evolution or any of the other scientific theories have gone thru. When someone puts together their data and presentation and does the millions and millions of scientific work that evolution has behind it and that gets thru peer review then maybe creationism can be taught. I highly doubt this will ever happen though because I have yet to see one piece of scientific data that supports creationism.
Your use of big words doesn't help your case any more. You're only confusing yourself.
Creationism, intelligent design, whateverthehellyouwanttocallit, has absolutely ZERO place in a SCIENCE classroom. It can be taught in a religious course, but NOT in a science course.
Evolution is a fact. Plain & simple. There is no "debate." There is no "controversy." There is no "other side."
The fact that we're even asking this question is embarrassing.
"Creationism, intelligent design, whateverthehellyouwanttocallit, has absolutely ZERO place in a SCIENCE classroom. It can be taught in a religious course, but NOT in a science course.
Evolution is a fact. Plain & simple. There is no "debate." There is no "controversy." There is no "other side."
The fact that we're even asking this question is embarrassing."
***
Quoted for truth.
Its an absurd question and one that belongs in dark ages England where ignorance was the only thing that kept you from being burnt at the stake or worse.
Theology has nothing to do with it. Ignorance has everything to do with it.
I think the big words are confusing you, not me. I never once said "Creationism" should be taught in a science course. I clearly distinguished between the scientific method and transcendental idealism, making trascendent ideals of a different sort than science, and therefor not a good supporting argument for teaching religion in the classroom, not at all.
What should be taught in the science class is that epistemological foundations and limitations of the scientific method and the scope of science which leaves the realm of transcendental idealism untainted by the slavish adherence to reductive materialism.
Big words, I know, but those are the words commonly acceptable by philosophers. If you want me to call "Transcendental idealism" or "Reductive Materialism" something else, fine, let me know, if you want an explanation of what they are, great, I can do that. But I'm not going to withhold my opinion because you can't understand it.
"Evolution is a fact. Plain & simple"
No it's not "Plain and Simple" this is from someone who has no epistemological foundations to speak of. Without that, you are knee-deep in muck. But you can certainly feel like you belong with all the other people stuck in the mud with you. I happen to be a big fan of science, the scientific method, the scientific community and to some extent reductive and eliminative materialism. Two authors I appreciate very much are Pat and Paul Churchland, both Neurophilosophers, originators of the term "Eliminativism", and professors at UCSD. I have "The Engine of Reason; The Seat of the Soul" and "Brain-Wise" on my bookshelf at home and I have studied them thoroughly along with their predecessors' work "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul" by Francis Crick (Nobel prize winner and co-founder of the double-helix strucutre of DNA) and "The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach" by Christoph Koch. To name a few of their sympathizers, I also have "Descartes' Error" by Antonio Domasio, "Being No One" and "The Ego Tunnel" by Neurophilosopher Thomas Metzinger and "Consciousness: An Introduction" by converted Psi-researcher and born-again reductionist Susan Blackmore. That covers about a fifth of the top shelf of my book shelf. Know that you aren't talking to someone who is ignorant. I can tell you step-by-step the evolution of the human eye from a simple photosensitive cell containing either melanopsin or rhodopsin to the pin-hole eye of the Squid and up to the compound eye of the fruit-fly and the human eye. I can tell you many of these eyes share a HOX gene known as PAX6 that is also responsible for the shape of the cranial vault. I can explain how the excitation of the retinal ganglion cells transmit information through the lateral geniculate nucleus in the thalamus on their way to the occipital lobe where discrete visual processing occurs and I can tell you that absolutely none of it fits Crick and Koch's criteria for the Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC).
It's simple? Maybe if you have relatively simple concepts and little actual, firmly-planted knowledge.
Oh, I see you have... nice. Love your comments on yourself.
From what I have gathered:
Ryan S
-Male
-30 some thing
-Canadian
-Psych Major
-Drives a Geo
-might suffer from PTSD
-has 2 cats
-a girlfriend???
-has never had a wet dream???
-was bitten by a Vancouver Police dog
-Mom had issues (sorry)
-spends hours posting comments to strangers, arugueing (sp)? with his screen and linking crap that I hope he only uses to troll the internet.
Please go outside, maybe have a drink. Anyways, relax
You have a cognitive structure which by all appearances seems real. If you perceive a distinct dichotomy between religion and science then you will have the tendency to conform your perception of others into that dualistic conceptualization. If that is the case, I guess it might seem like I am arguing for "creationism in science class" but if you were a theists, you'd think I was arguing the exact opposite. The range of comments on my youtube channel are from "You have a good heart and God's love will come streaming though you at any moment" to "amazing neurophilosophical videos? keep it up" to "Thank you for your advice on my essay on Metzinger! Your channel is great, and even though you don't consider yourself an academic philosopher, your intellect and? insight is astounding." and "Great videos brother, keep em' coming ... the more enlightened voices on? here the better for all of us!!" and conversely there is "Gay", "You suck" and a bunch like that too. None of it really means anything to me, I'm just sharing it show you how much of it is in the conceptual architecture of the people I'm talking with.
Jesus Christ man, does any of that really matter to you? Whether I am 29 or 30 or 3 doesn't matter if what I'm saying is true or false. I keep trying to transcend egotistical identification and valuation and move the discussion toward truth valuation, but I can't do it alone.
You guys eat up comments that are sympathetic to your own attitudes, even if those comments are shallow and vulgar. Yet if someone tries to raise the conversation above the lowest of human thought you get upset. At this rate we will never get to talking about the really controversial and hard-to-stomach subjects like paraphilia. Nor will we be able to talk about the unification of subject and object in a reciprocating system of differentiation as reflected by the Yin-Yang symbol, the Ouroborous, Möbius Strip and John Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (Cosmology) or what even the Weak-AP generally indicates. We will be forever busy taking a stand against each other, waving our banners, stomping our feet and repeating the phrase from Kipling's Jungle Book "We are right because we all say so."
That's not even close to what I was saying. What I was saying is probably more elusive that most of the opinions you've heard. Give it some time and thought, maybe it will come to you.
That so many of these girls know that pandering to the right will get them further in the competition is frightening.
The issue is really a lot simpler than what you write about. There is nothing to sink in. Evolution = Fact.
It is a valid question. Just because I think it is relatively simple to resolve doesn't mean it's not a good question. Paritucularly of interest for theology is whether or not evolution tends toward a teleological end and that is debatable within science with the vast majority being reductionists tending toward explanations that deny teleology, nevertheless, evolution does tend to evolve sympathetically to its environment and not solely as the result of random mutations but also due to epigenetic factors. Methyl and Acetyl groups become attached to the Genome which up- or down-regulate the expression of the gene. This process is triggered by environmental factors which provides an avenue for environmental factors to inform the genetic adaptation of the organism which could be related to teleology. For example; the Flamingo is not genetically pink, it is white, but due to epigenetic factors and the consumption of large quantities of betacarotene the flamingo is generally pink. The same epigenetic adaptation occurs in humans who consume excess betacarotene and the condition is known as Carotenemia which has as it's primary symptom orange skin similar to that of Jaundice.
This is a key point of contention when it comes to evolutionary theory which could drastically alter the way "evolution" is assimilated into the over-all perspective of people who accept it as fact. There is a similar debate surrounding the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology. Whether or not the universe tends toward an environment suitable for and containing self-conscious beings. If so, then this it is tending toward a teleological end, which theologically could be taken as "God's Plan". This depth of inquiry isn't generally what people mean when they assert that "Evolution is fact" rather they think that the standard interpretation of the facts which is also called "Evolution" but which tends to no teleological end is the "Fact" of evolution, when it is a metaphysical assumptions supervening on the theory of evolution.
My honest opinion would be that the educational system needs a complete overhaul such that it can honor these distinctions and inform our children correctly instead of from the ideological base of eliminativists. But, the public inquiry can't get beyond simple forms and naive concepts of "Fact", "Theory" and so forth.
No it's not simpler. You only think it is because you are that simple.
Nice job, your last resort is insults. Point proven, when theists run out of options they start yelling and try to hide facts. P.S. Evolution is driven by the environment. Its pretty simple, the organism with the advantage that lets it reproduce when others cant passes its genes on. The only contention is among theists that don't believe in evolution. None of your argument makes sense, its rambling with no logical connections. How do you think you can persuade someone with this?
It's not meant as an insult stickben. It's meant as a truthful proposition. You say "none of your argument makes sense" as a matter of fact it makes a lot of sense to people who are more educated than you.
I didn't make this stuff up, I will not claim any originality on any of this. It is the result of years of private study of humanities most revered thinkers.
Having that behind me it is obvious to me that your inability to make sense out of my comments is the consequence not of my not making sense, but your inability to make sense of them. I.e. ignorance.
It's as if I went in depth into the arcitecture of neural networks in the human brain - presumably a subject you know nothing about - and then you said "none of that makes sense". True, if only you tacked on "to me."
Lol
But, the same can be applied to so-called "Facts". At one time it would have been said "That pluto is a planet is an undeniable fact". What a "Planet" is, is an arbitrary definition that changes over-time, and as a result, Pluto is no longer a planet, in fact.
No Ryan, I can clearly see your tactic. Your just pissed that its so transparent and that someone called you out on it. You have no idea what my education is. Just because you can spout aristotle all day does not mean you know even the basics about science. Having a degree in science, from a school that is actually respected for science and engineering I should know. You try again and again to camouflage your argument with vague references to genetics and philosophy and a few insults, sorry dosnt work. You still prove nothing, and you dont have the maturity to support the argument. End of discussion.
I think my point has been proven.
*takes a bow*
However, if you want an answer, you post reams and reams of useless claptrap, unnecessary verbiage, and words for the sake of words. Hardly anyone reads your long comments, and those who do quickly come to the conclusion that you are simply commenting for the sake of reading your own words.
You claim to challenge pervading opinions, but your arguments are straw men. I don't bother commenting about others who may be offensive, not because I agree with any opinion, but because they at least put something up that is of interest, and not merely bafflegab. I believe you are trying to conduct some private social experiment, or you are crying out desperately for attention.
I don't believe you espouse the ideas you put forth, and as others have found, you simply argue for the sake of arguing. You concede nothing, because the topic is immaterial to you. To you, "the play's the thing" (Shakespeare).
Try to shorten your debates, and you may become acceptable. To be completely frank, I don't bother with your long posts, and I barely read the one you just addressed to me.
Your shorter comments have actually been way more effective, like the first one about the Victorian hotties - but then you couldn't stop.
Like the old Proverb says, "Whatever you do, do it in moderation".
Oh, I should probably say something about the topic. Um, you can hardly call it a debate when they're just saying whatever makes them sound the most open-minded to the judges, without actually committing to much. Pretty painful to watch.
Keep it relevant and concise or join a philosophy forum.
...um, carry on.
And frankly, I'm surprised no one pulled an Ebert and made reference to the Ryan Dunn's death as evolution in action. Isn't the internet supposed to be about shallow, fairly obvious observations? Or was that stand up comedy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
(That said, I'd bet that Descartes would have loved Heisenberg.)
Would you prefer I posted the entire wikipedia article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
It's a whole hell of a lot longer, but says the same things roughly.
First up is Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (ebook): http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4280
Secondly, David Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (ebook): http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9662
Science and Metaphysics part III: Scientific Epistemology?
http://www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2003/may03/article02.pdf
"The major factor that limits application of science in epistemology is identified as the blindness of science to the mind side of humans. The argument is developed through three issues: Knowledge v. Belief; Rationalism v. Empiricism and Skepticism v. Certainty, which form the three major arguments of epistemology."
It should be the other way around; to argue philosophy with science is to understand neither. Science is predicated on philosophy. In-fact, you can take a course called "Philosophy of Science" (http://www.philscience.uwo.ca/) or subscribe to a journal dedicated to that end (http://journal.philsci.org/).
It certainly seems necessary at times. But primarily I do it because I was lead to believe that if I related myself to others I would have greater success because it would give something for their egos to identify with. As a matter of fact, they just use it for ammo. But that is the main reason I began relating my own experiences. In this case in particular I was attempting to show how much of my presumed arrogance or genuine superiority was in the eye of the beholder. It would be awfully hard to demonstrate that without evidence, especially among such empirically minded people. I'll quote myself to try to direct you back to my meaning which you evidently missed:
"You have a cognitive structure which by all appearances seems real. If you perceive a distinct dichotomy between religion and science then you will have the tendency to conform your perception of others into that dualistic conceptualization. If that is the case, I guess it might seem like I am arguing for "creationism in science class" but if you were a theists, you'd think I was arguing the exact opposite. The range of comments on my youtube..."
I wouldn't have ruined it if anyone was able to address my points. Then there would have actually been a meaningful debate. But the only thing neatoramanauts are apparently capable of is vulgar banter, ad hominems and righteous indignation.
This is what I am showing you in a sense. All theories that attempt to account for our existence by an appeal to concepts formed from the perspective of our existence are inherently flawed.
"Ryle's theory is that intelligent acts cannot be a property of an inner being or mind, if such a thing were to exist"
This is an enormous problem because all empiricism is from the perspective of a homunculus. Within the "mind" that "intelligent acts cannot be a property of", physical reality is itself a representation relative to the idea of an independent self. The whole web of physical appearances centers around the notion of being an embodied observer. You look at the world, and you see something. In philosophy of mind this is erroneous because you don't exist as such, you are part of the world. The separation between you and the world is an illusion which Metzinger attributes to "phenomenal transparency". This is the direction of theorizing of various scientists and philosophers working on neuroscience and the philosophy of neuroscience, what they have called Neurophilosophy, and which are made up of the people I already mentioned.
Our shared perspective of physical reality is true insofar as it relates to an ego, but the ego is false, which means physical reality is false too. It is an illusion. The mind separates the infinite into discrete objects relating to a central self, but the self as such does not exist outside of the mind. By in-finite I mean not-finite, not being defined or bounded as if it were one thing discrete from other things. What appears in discrete form as "Brain" does the job of dissecting the infinite. Science studies the relationship of empirical, definite objects, with the observer (ego) constantly in the control position. Whereas religion seeks, by various concepts to liberate the mind from this illusion, and has been doing it for a very long time. Now, science is running into the same conclusions, which it must inevitably do in all of its pursuits. For neuroscientists it is identifying how 100 billion nerve cells could be generalized to a sense of self. The transcendent reality, which "transcends" the ego-bound dissection, will always remain elusive to those who try to make it another finite concept and ignore what is actually being said about it.
The fact that Pope John Paul II of the Catholic Church says evolution is not incompatible with Christianity should mean something even to atheists. Perhaps what you thought Christianity is about is not true at all. If the frikkin' Pope is saying it I don't know what more you need. Instead you attack infantile concepts of "fundies" and claim that is the whole deal. Do you not see how your own attitude and attachment to reductionism colors your perception of other people and their belief systems? While they are discussing transcendent order and infinitude you are busy trying to reduce them to finitude because it's the only manner in which you can think. You are not awake to any alternatives, you are in a state commonly designated "worldly" or "asleep" in spiritual traditions. That this order is transcendent is only really visible to one who first knows it. It is very hard to explain because all explanations are confined to relativity. However, if an explanation has as its base transcendentalism its relative architecture will be based on the transcendent instead of the false self and may provide a useful pointer to the transcendent. The exact nature of the relative concepts is somewhat irrelevant, in-fact the simpler the better because they can be shared with anyone. Of particular use are parables because they relate directly to the human condition. That, I suspect is the rationale behind the use of parables in religion, and fables in raising children. Religion tends to treat people like simple-minded children, and introduces them to the transcendent by use of various riddles. Science has the empirical world as it's riddle. The conclusions are ultimately exactly the same though. So stop fighting, and start paying attention to what your teachers are teaching you.
"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies."
- B. F. Skinner
"In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to infinity."
- Baruch Spinoza
There are in the human mind a group of faculties and in the brain groups of convolutions, and the facts assembled by science so far allow to state, as I said before, that the great regions of the mind correspond to the great regions of the brain.
- Paul Broca
My hand moves because certain forces----electric, magnetic, or whatever 'nerve-force' may prove to be----are impressed on it by my brain. This nerve-force, stored in the brain, would probably be traceable, if Science were complete, to chemical forces supplied to the brain by the blood, and ultimately derived from the food I eat and the air I breathe.
- Lewis Caroll (Anglican deacon)
In the study of brain functions we rely upon a biased, poorly understood, and frequently unpredictable organ in order to study the properties of another such organ; we have to use a brain to study a brain.
- William C. Corning
It is essential to understand our brains in some detail if we are to assess correctly our place in this vast and complicated universe we see all around us.
- Francis Crick
There is no scientific study more vital to man than the study of his own brain. Our entire view of the universe depends on it.
- Francis Crick
Just because my strategy is ineffective doesn't mean I haven't made any points. I've written material certain seekers would drool over. But if you are looking for me to "prove" something "to" you. Then you are very likely to skim-over and ignore 99% of what I've said or distort my meaning. I'm not a fool or an incompetent and I assure you there is a very profound point I am trying to make. I beseech you to stop thinking you can easily grasp my meaning and start trying to earnestly figure it out. Otherwise, it may very well remain elusive to you and I may very well remain incoherent, to you.
I am not making an argument from ignorance (L. argumentum ad ignoratiam). So your whole point is irrelevant. If you pay attention to what I said as if there was some actual meaning behind it besides what assumptions you make you may actually see that I am pointing toward a psychological illusion of separation. Which is a positive claim, not a negative one, though it negates much popular thought and can certainly seem to be an argument from ignorance. The positive claim I am making is that Philosophy, Religion and Science are not entirely distinct or exclusive. The argument from ignorance was used against my position many times if you can see it. Essentially claiming that my position was debased because my language was incomprehensible to unsophisticated minds.
tl;dr-Ryan at large. Do you have a generator for those texts? (I didn't actually read them.)
I never implied you were a fool, and I never gave any indication as to how well I did or did not grasp your meaning, so do not presume to make assumptions either way. My point remains that your method of communication is inefficient. You cannot tell me that you could not possibly have made your point effectively without the use of 7 quotes within one comment. However seeing as you like quotes so much, here are some for you:
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson
"He who trains his tongue to quote the learned sages, will be known far and wide as a smart ass." - Howard Kandel
Well, one image and one comment to summarize:
http://media.fukung.net/images/37960/f1c54dd05df9a38f041b5f98882d35b5.jpg
Change "Best miracle" by "simplicity of the explanation".
A the beginning, the explanation was basically "it's like this, because we don't understand it at all".
Then "we include some evidences in a nice complex narrative"
Now "We play with advanced scientific concepts we don't understand to try to push some rather vague but definitely religious ideal"
Do you realize you are juggling with some advanced concepts in neurology, genetics, psychology...all discovered and conceptualized through scientific method, only to try to salvage your broken beliefs ?
Seriously, stop it now.
"As a matter of case; Jessss just used the argument from ignorance in a manner by stating that she did not see my point, and that if I had no point to make I should basically shut up."
By the way, thanks for the straw man but I never said I didn't see your point. My point (which you clearly missed) was that your points are too convoluted and inefficient to be effective, assuming your aim is to actually get through to others. Rather than wanting you to "shut up", I am attempting to encourage you to consider making your points less convoluted and more concise so that you don't waste so much time and effort typing comments many people won't end up reading.
You are clearly a thoughtful and intelligent person, but if you can't learn to communicate more effectively your time here is wasted.
How your reason is employed is a matter of determinism (Rom 9), whether or not you are selected has nothing to do with you. The truth of religion or ultimately science works out to be very profound indeed. "Evolution" is rather trivial in this sense because it has nothing to do with religion per se, or with metaphysics. Evolution as a more generalized term relating to the flux and dynamism of relativity is one thing, but that ideological reductionism and materialism is truth because of biology is completely dogmatic. Scientific theories are at various times and by various "religions" accepted as alternative views of the same truth. But the problem with evolution and big bang cosmology is that they are used by ideological materialists to push materialism. The human mind is already prone to error and the transcendent is something that was given to us by a select few, we need to continue the tradition of teaching our children to interpret physical phenomena in light of the transcendent. That is not the current environment and there is a large undertaking to eliminate any knowledge of the transcendent because the people who oppose it are basically ignorant and believe in fantasy. They believe the transcendent is fantasy.
Okay, I will take you up on your offer because this is very important to me. If you understand my meaning and I am not a causative agent as such but a manifestation of the causative order and that my reason is a reflection that order that to varying degrees is distorted and to varying degrees clear. If I am then privy to that understanding and become logos made flesh, what am I to do? The use of relatively few words is insufficient for the sake of clarity and the position I'm in does not grant any face-saving reservations. What needs to be said needs to be said, someone has to say it. Or do they? Perhaps if I could it go I would let the world continue with its insanity, but then would I really be selfless and love the world? I don't want to see it burn, so I'm attempting to put out the fire, because I might be able to do something even if I fail. Wouldn't it be selfish to hide? Because what you are asking me to do is to conform my statements to the comfort of my observers, which means to lose all meaning. I could easily say "Row, Row, Row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream!" and it wouldn't be effective either. It doesn't seem to matter how many times it is repeated. "Don't judge a book by its cover" how many people judge me based solely on the length of my posts? I set the tone as "anti-evolution" at the beginning when I didn't jump on the "anti-religion" bandwagon. I was caught up in the dualistic insanity of pop culture. From that point on I was just another theist and I was accused of using all the usual tactics, none of which are actually present in my statements. This is common because both atheists and theists misinterpret profound statements like Anselm's Ontological Proof. It doesn't prove the kind of God-concept they have, the fantasy they have, it proves a transcendence beyond relative conceptualization. It doesn't seem to matter how many times it is repeated by one of them. So what am I to do when I know that it's all insanity and simply falling in line won't help?
Right, because the problem we have is ego. Because people do not like to be demoted, they like to be puffed up where they feel secure and comfortable. The "sages" also want to feel secure and comfortable so they puff people up and keep quiet.
"What should be taught in the science class is that epistemological foundations and limitations of the scientific method and the scope of science which leaves the realm of transcendental idealism untainted by the slavish adherence to reductive materialism."
Oh please...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0
I used to argue alongside atheists that's mainly when I learned about evolution, the scientific method and such. But at some point I realized we were all just hypocrites. We spent the time to study certain things, but not everything.
At the top of this thread I asked some questions that go to the bottom of the issue: "Want to have a rational discussion? Let's start with epistemology, why do you think empiricism is more important than rationalism? Why do you think that scientific explanations rooted in relativity and empiricism negate rationalist explanations grounded in subjectivity?"
Nobody answered these questions at all. Call me a troll, use whatever literary references you want to insult me and try to tarnish my character, but don't answer my questions. That's a good little hypocrite!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40LHISJRbh0
You're not impressing anyone by trying to pose abstruse questions or present tons and tons of verbiage. But you don't care about that, do you? You've got attention, which is what you wanted. I've known, and pitied, people like you. You're lonely, insecure, and crying out for any sort of attention. Maybe it's due to the lack of inherent meaning in your life.
That's not an ad hominem attack. You might be a nice person, behind that wall of words. Learn to find your self-worth in other avenues.
Sure, whatever ted. Don't read my comments but perform pscyhoanalysis on me anyway. That's very virtuous of you. I'm going to stop defending myself because that is where a lot of the problems arise. It goes something like this:
You say some asinine shit about religion and theists
I try to correct you
You attack my ego
I defend my ego
You use my defense as more ammo to continue attacking my ego.
When I say; I am not here for attention, because if I wanted attention I would satisfy my friends and family, but I am garnering negative attention by sticking my neck out for truth.
You spin this around to; I am looking for negative attention.
You aren't listening to what I have been saying, but that doesn't mean others haven't. Most of the time people who are interested in what I have to say aren't loud-mouthed bigots, they are quiet thinkers who only occasionally express their gratitude. Like I have said multiple times, they don't have to express any gratitude, and you don't have to express any disapproval, nor does it matter one way or the other because I'm not doing this for either. I am doing it because I love truth and can't tolerate lies and falsehoods, in me or in anyone. Part of sticking my neck out is just so I can be decapitated when I am wrong. But insults and pseudo-pscyhoanalysis from someone who doesn't bother to read what I wrote is not going to provide me with the motive to stop. I know that to be purified I need to stand in the light of truth where I can be judged. Your judgement is one, but not everything. When I implied that I didn't think there was excess nutrients in waste, Splint Chesthair corrected me, I accept such correction, that is part of it. But first I need to be shown with reason and evidence or at least persuaded by something more than insult and armchair psychology. I need truth, and no other.
Read what I last wrote to Jessss.
A: Theory in science has a different meaning from its colloquial usage.
B: Who says?
A: Well, I'm saying it, but it is the opinion of the entire scientific establishment.
B: You must be some specially selected genius to be able to speak for the scientific establishment!
A: Well, no, I've just read a lot of material on scientific terminology.
B: I haven't read any such material, I think you are making it up.
A: I'm not making it up, look here is a list of resources I used : [Insert paper], [Insert book], etc...
B: What is the point in telling me about the books you've read? You don't think I read books too?
A: I am telling you about those books to make my point.
B: What that you are special?
A: No, that the scientific use of "theory" is different from it's colloquial usage.
B: Why are you using such large words? Are you trying to be impressive with words like "Colloquial".
A: No, I'm just using the words that the people in those books used.
B: So what, you fancy yourself some kind of expert?
A: No, not really, but can you please pay attention to my points and stop attacking me.
B: Now you are getting upset, see that's what you always do.
Etc..
North Carolina looks like Topanga.
And I choose to believe that 2+2=5. That's just part of my belief system.
Clearly evolution needs to be taught in the relevant science classes. It shouldn't even be up for debate, and it's a little disturbing and disheartening (but hardly beyond prediction sadly) to see nearly all these contestants casting their vote for superstition over science. Whether they believe it, or if they just believe the judges believe it is a secondary debate of lesser importance I think.
Anyway, if we are really going to make a case for "teaching the controversy" in favor of the superstition of creationism, then surely one can make just as strong a case for every silly thing that the Bible can seem to apply. As is often asked, should we teach flat earth theory because a Biblical case can be made for it? And the rest of the hilariously primitive cosmology in the various religious traditions of the world? I think most people would say "that's silly, of course not, we know [the earth is round-ish] [we're not riding on the back of a turtle] [it's not turtles all the way down] [etc]"... but... how is this any different than evolution?
Oh yeah, science disproved flat earth theory and so on... The only difference is that "globe theory" is to no small degree related to the fact that it's easier for people to wrap their head around the science of the "theory" that the earth is not flat so it's harder to propagandize against. That said there is a quite hilarious video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbizzLzcpnM -- in which Sherri Shephard, co-host of THE VIEW waffles on that very subject. On that note, it would have been much more amazing if the girls in this video would have been quoted scripture showing that the Bible says the Earth is flat (which it makes a more compelling case for than, say, homophobia:http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1flat90.html is a good start) and then asked whether they thought flat earth theory should be taught in school. Now THAT'S something I'd actually watch.
I know I am stumbling into "tl;dr" territory (or more accurately, ran deep into it along side Ryan S... I hope I'm not just as much of a bore), but I must finish up by pointing at this timely and brilliant series of shirts: http://controversy.wearscience.com/
"Do you realize you are juggling with some advanced concepts in neurology, genetics, psychology...all discovered and conceptualized through scientific method, only to try to salvage your broken beliefs ?"
You know what, that might have been true if I ever had any beliefs to be broken. But I've been "atheist" pretty much ever since I can remember. I attended a Faith Lutheran church when I was a kid, but I honestly can't remember very much about it, I remember I got an organge stuck in my copy of the Bible and basically threw it out and quit going to church. That's how much I cared about it. I was doing it to make my parents and my community happy, but I didn't care for it at all.
When I started to take an interest in these subjects around age 21 I was a hardline atheist. Pat and Paul Churchland were my idols and on my facebook page under "Religion" I wrote "Eliminativist". I had plenty of arguments with "Theists" over about a 5 year period before changing my own mind.
So, if any of my beliefs have been broken, it is actually my belief in Eliminativism, not God. But things changed and there was a while there I didn't talk to anyone because I actually didn't know anything myself. I used to know, or thought I did, but I changed. It was primarily my study of Epistemology followed up by a reading of David Quinn's Wisdom of the Infinite that caused the changes to occur and to gain an appreciation for Religion, though Quinn and his compatriots Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway who make up the Menoftheinfinite youtube channel do not like religion very much at all. One of the things that attracted me to them was their "atheism" and anti-religious monologues. Their videos "The Importance of Atheism" and "What does Atheism indicate?" as well as "Religious Depravity" and "Certainty vs Certitude" all appealed to my hate for religion. Depsite their attitudes and my revelling in them, I learned from Quinn something else and I began debating the matter with them on their forum.
The Wisdom of the Infinite
by
David Quinn
A guide to intellectually comprehending the nature of Reality
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Wisdom/WisdomContents.htm
"In order to properly understand the totality, the student has to learn how to think non-dualistically. By this, I do not mean he has to cease using dualistic concepts altogether and enter a kind of non-dualistic realm, which is impossible for the human mind to do in any case. Rather, he has to learn how to stop seeking the Truth within a dualistic framework and instead skilfully manipulate dualistic concepts in a manner that generates a proper understanding of non-duality.
In my experience, this is a very rare skill indeed. The main problem is that most people have a strong vested interest in a particular dualistic belief. An obvious example is the Christian concept of God. Christians generally conceive of God as "other" - that is, as something separate from their own selves. They like to create this duality because (a) it enables them to preserve the illusion of their own egos, and (b) it enables them to think of God in an emotional manner; they can conceive of him as a kind of comfortable and secure presence in which their egos can find refuge. Any attempt to think non-dualistically would only undermine this dynamic. In effect, the Christian would have to dismantle his entire world-view, which is unlikely to happen, especially if he has spent many years establishing a lifestyle and an identity around it.
Christians are not the only ones at fault. Nearly all religious people are culpable, as too are most atheists and agnostics. The average atheist/agnostic is often just as rigid and content in his worldview as the Christian is, and fundamentally just as insane. Instead of worshipping God, he worships something just as unreal - scientific truth. The leading scientists have become his high priests, the scientific journals and books have become his bible, scientific materialism has become his religion.
Like a devoted disciple, he regurgitates the words of the high priests and chants the mantras of scientific materialism ("Ultimate Truth is unknowable", "everything is uncertain", "scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge there is", "matter is the final reality", etc) as though they were the gospel truth. He himself has no idea whether these things are actually true; he simply takes them on blind faith. They have become the tenets of his new religion. And yet, just to compound the madness, he loves nothing better than to turn around and laugh at the Christians for being mindless sheep!
For the average atheist/agnostic, it is enough to reject the irrationality of supernatural religion. That is all that really matters to him. It is the extent of his drive towards truth. As long as he can contrast himself with the religious lunatics he sees around him and pretend that he is a rational human being, he is content. To push reason any further than this would be, for him, a sign of madness. Thus, he shrinks away from the realm of higher reasoning in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian shrinks away from the theories of science.
I will explore this issue in more detail later in the book, but for now I simply want to stress that in order to understand the wisdom of the Infinite, the student needs to learn how to go beyond both the religious and atheistic/agnostic mindsets. Both mindsets are locked within a limited branch of duality and need to be transcended. The belief in God and the belief in scientific materialism spring from the same well of egotism, and although the theist and the atheist love to castigate each other for their foolishness, in reality they are both as foolish as each other. "
As-Salamu Alaykum
I have not been vociferous in my objections to you, nor have I demonstrated any sort of bigotry towards you.
You demonstrate by the excessively long posts after your response exactly the sort of behaviour which just about everybody here has objected to. I have nothing further to say on the topic.
Trolls come in many different forms. I'll leave you to stroke your ego on your own.
In the same way Socrates was led to his death and Jesus was cruficied. Giordano Bruno was immolated when he dared to speak words of offense.
"In the beginning the patriot is a SCARCE man, feared, hated and scorn, but in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him for then it costs NOTHING to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
You can't affect change while conforming to group norms. The group will destroy your opinion and bury it beneath a pile of egotistical ramblings. Generally they will not grasp the meaning because they are too busy comparing themselves and taking offense. It is only when the fact-undeniable, gains acceptance among a majority of intellectuals that the leity jumps on the bandwagon. That time is coming, and I know I won't reap any of the rewards. I don't want to say it is or isn't about ego, because, since egotism carries such an air of disapproval, to claim to not be an egotist would for all appearances mean not being an egotist. At least from the perspective of egotists. So it's quite futile.
At this point, I concede victory to you and the mob. That is what tickles our fancy, isn't it? Winning. Success. Pride. Belonging.
You know, New York City's crime and internal strife went way down after 9/11. Give the people an external threat that they can rally against and you unite the people. Because people want an "Us vs Them" battle. That is the only way to assure themselves of their own goodness. In time they will go back to fighting among themselves. I've tried to bring a message of peace to put an end to this, but the people didn't want it to end. Instead, they made an enemy out of me. But the seed has been planted and the harvest is near.
Anway, I said I'm going, and I will go. You can have your precious space where the lot of you can pat each others backs and talk about how good we are as our species destroys itself. Or argue about what kind of material a bust is sculpted from, maybe another million spins around the sun debating trivialities is what we need.
I'm out, you can find a way to contact me if you want what I can give you. Otherwise, good frikkin' luck!
So who's the hottest contestant, in your humble opinion? Please keep your response to 10 words or less. Thanks.
To the point... Everybody should look up Bobby Henderson's letter to the Kansas State Board of Education. In a somewhat humorous fashion, he gave a great reason why creationist stories should be left out of science class. Due to language in the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution, public schools may not favor any religion over another. Because every religion has a slightly different creation story/interpretation, creationism must be left out of science classes in public schools. It would be impossible to give each one equal time greater than zero.
People may "believe" in evolution as if it were a religion, but the theory of evolution is not the product of a recognized religious group. Therefore, by law, it may be given as much class time as the school is willing. Because of this and the fact that evolution is our best explanation as to where biodiversity comes from, it is the only viable topic for today’s biology lessons. Of course, creation stories don’t have to be “expelled” from schools altogether. Schools have mythology and theology classes that can accommodate them.
Oh yeah, don’t forget that evolution does not remove possibility of the existence of one or more Gods. Nor does it explain (a)biogenesis. This is only a debate because people get butthurt when something contradicts a fable in the Old Testament; the same fable that contradicts itself in the first few pages of... itself.
P.S. Miss Minnesota is the most attractive!