I keep having to remind myself that science is self-correcting …

_{Denyse O'Leary
May 20, 2009

Ethics

2}_{Categories
Ethics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have often been wearied by legends in their own lunchroom huffing that science differs from other endeavours because it is “self-correcting.”

To which I reply: Aw come off it, fellas. Any system that does not go extinct is self-correcting – after it collapses on its hind end. This is true of governments, businesses, churches, and not-for-profit organizations. I’ve seen enough of life to know.

Here’s a classic: At The Scientist’s NewsBlog, Bob Grant reveals (May 7, 2009) that

Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.

Elsevier is conducting an “internal review” of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “journal” was corporate sponsored

[ … ]

The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck’s products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal — which bore the imprint of Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica — neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck’s sponsorship of the publication.

The linked related stories and comments are most illuminating, and bear out my critique of “peer review” here. Let’s just say that peer review started out as a good idea, but …

(Note: There is no paywall, but you may need to register to view the story, .)

Also, today at Colliding Universes

Neutrinos: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory does the sun’s bookkeeping

Origin of life: The live cat vs. the dead cat

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking … he appeared in Star Trek

Universe: Arguments against flatness (plus exposing sloppy science writing)

Origin of life: Latest scenario gives RNA world a boost

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe.

Comments

beelzebub, Because the negation, that you should not hold all beliefs provisionally, means that you hold a belief firmly. In the same way, the belief that you should hold all beliefs provisionally, is also held firmly. It is a guiding belief, that is held firmly, that tells you that you should hold all other beliefs provisionally, except that belief. In both instances you're holding a belief firmly. I don't know why you can't see this.Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Clive writes:
The belief that you should hold all beliefs provisionally cannot be, itself, held provisionally.
Sure it can. To hold a belief provisionally just means that it is subject to revision in light of new evidence. Where's the contradiction in that?beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, I don't know how else I can get you to see the contradiction. The belief that you should hold all beliefs provisionally cannot be, itself, held provisionally. This is a matter of common sense in general. I'm not in the least embarrassed. It would be embarrassing if I were the only who couldn't see something this obvious.Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, Lets hear your definitions and criteria for being memes, if you have any.Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Oh I have plenty, but I won’t chase phantoms that only exist in your mind. Once the terms are defined, then the argument can begin.
The terms are defined in the books I recommended. Let's hear your arguments, if you have any.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Clive writes:
You’re absolutely certain that as an imperfect human you can never be absolutely certain. Nice.
Clive, You would save yourself some embarrassment if you read the thread first. I hold that belief provisionally.
You don’t hold that belief provisionally.
Yes, I do. Read the thread.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, ------"When you have an actual argument regarding memes, present it (on the Tragic Tale of Memes thread, where it belongs) and I will respond." Oh I have plenty, but I won't chase phantoms that only exist in your mind. Once the terms are defined, then the argument can begin.Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Clive, See this and this. When you have an actual argument regarding memes, present it (on the Tragic Tale of Memes thread, where it belongs) and I will respond. Questions do not constitute an argument.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, ------"As an imperfect human, you can never be absolutely certain that a particular belief is true." You're absolutely certain that as an imperfect human you can never be absolutely certain. Nice. ------"All beliefs should be held provisionally." You don't hold that belief provisionally. Wonderful again. Did your memes get a hold of you again and provide these contradictory and self-referentially incoherent beliefs?Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes:
I am just as open to a reasoned argument as the next man. You must understand, though, that ID critics do not come here to argue for anything, they come here to argue against what others are arguing.
As if an argument against someone's position couldn't be a "reasoned argument."
Atheists and anti-ID partisans stay on offense and avoid defense like the plague.
Arguing against theism is the same thing as arguing for atheism, Stephen. And if you haven't noticed, there's as much discussion of evolution here as there is of ID.
It must be because they have no arguments and must, therefore, spend all their time demanding accountability from others while exempting themselves from that same accountability.
If you truly think that we have no arguments, then your capacity for self-deception is vaster than I ever imagined. Try reading the thread again, dispassionately, and you will see how absurd that is.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, What you don't seem to understand is that memes are fiction regardless of what literature they appear in, just as fairies are. I could give you a long list of books that discuss fairies if you'd like. I'm asking for an explanation of what memes are, and you simply won't give it. This means either that you don't know, or you know that their definition is ludicrous, and can be knocked down like the rest of your arguments. This business will end at some point, but I will not budge until you have answered my questions. So you can stop stalling at any time, give me answers to your figments, and we can then progress in the discussion. Like I said, I have read parts from Blackmore, Dennett, and Dawkins. You're evasive maneuver isn't working, I know what these folks say, but I'm not talking to those folks. If you really grasp what memes are, then answer my questions. You're not educating me as you like to claim ad nauseum, but rather for the purpose of demonstrating your own understanding of this fiction, which will also have the added benefit of exposing memes as indeed fictitious. Your efforts at condescension don't bother me, they're really obvious evasive techniques to avoid the obvious conclusion that you cannot, or will not, answer my questions. And it doesn't matter if you cannot or will not answer my questions, for both refusals lead me to the same conclusion, and that is, that memes are pure fiction, in which actual definitions cannot be given. It's okay that you cannot or will not answer my questions. It really is. I would feel badly, and I cannot in good conscience press you too hard to define and defend such nonsense as memes. The whole exercise is to help you, enlighten you to the nonsense, which can only begin once the nonsense has been defined, which starts with answering my questions.Clive Hayden_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

tribune7 writes:
beelzebub, there was a consensus 300 years ago as to the age of the earth and why the sun shined. It changed. And the consensus accepted the existence of atoms 300 years ago (and long before) albeit the consensus also was that they couldn’t be split.
Yes, science is self-correcting. That's my point. I'm glad you see it.
With regard to today’s scientific consensus you will find scientifically accomplished and credentialed people who believe in a young Earth.
Only a tiny number, and you will invariably find that they came to their scientific beliefs for religious reasons, not the other way around.
And if you believe in a multi-verse, you believe in a perpetual motion machine.
Only if you define "perpetual motion machine" rather loosely. The ones I'm talking about violate the laws of physics and are therefore impossible.
Are you saying we must never embrace dogma or do you accept that it is appropriate to do so at times?
Here's what I wrote to StephenB on the subject:
No, I’m not dogmatic about not accepting dogmatic statements. If the neutrino flux of the universe should ever shift so that all dogmatic statements become perfectly true and reliable from that point forward, then I will amend my stance.
You ask:
What if your belief is true? Should it continue to be provisional?
As an imperfect human, you can never be absolutely certain that a particular belief is true. All beliefs should therefore be held provisionally.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

---Hazel: “I think I remember Stephen offering arguments based on over 400 fulfilled prophecies from the Bible, and those are arguments that I know are not convincing to me as well as many others, including many Christians. That’s like seeing camels in the clouds, or astrology: people are demonstrably prone to seeing meaning after the fact and/or in ambiguous situations.” Right you are, Hazel. What does seeing camels in the clouds after the fact have to do with predicting 400 events before the fact? Shall I tell you? Nothing. -----“I also know there are arguments concerning witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection. There was a thread on this recently and someone (someone taylor, perhaps) did a good job, in my opinion, in discussing why that argument is not compelling.” All Taylor did was question the Christian, Jewish, and Roman historians and their account of what went on. He simply dismissed their report. That doesn’t take too much intellectual exertion. In any case, I don’t think that you would find any argument “compelling.” You have made up your mind firmly against all evidence and all arguments supporting ID, morality, or God. You have never once hesitated for any reason, yet you say that I am the one who is certain of MY position. The difference is that I bring arguments to the table and you bring skepticism to the table. Which approach do you suspect is more intellectually demanding? How much effort does it take to say, “I’m not convinced?” None. ----“But the bigger issue is the one that beezlebub and I have both mentioned: there is no method for people reaching consensus on religious beliefs. People from every religion are convinced that their religion is right, and there is no methodology by which to test the correctness of anyone’s belief.” Yes, there is. That method is called reason. Unfortunately, most religions reject the compatibility of faith and reason, so there is no way to sustain a meaningful and deep dialogue with them. ----“Secondly, I am interested in how his view utterly precludes constructive discussion with someone of differing views - discussion that might lead to even a small meeting of the minds.” It is not my purpose to offend. On the other hand, I am well aware that most here are not the least bit interested in the rational arguments being presented. Most people, after hearing that the Old Testament contained 459 prophecies about Jesus Christ, all of which became manifest in time/space/history, would be flabbergasted by the mere improbability of it all. They would demand that I offer a few examples, and, once satisfied that they were legitimate, would be impressed by that astounding fact. Your response, on the other hand, was to shrug it off without another thought or to mischaracterize it as you did as an “after the fact” event---as if Scripture writers had taken New Testament events and redacted them back into the Old Testament records, which is impossible. Such a response can only be the result of a firm and enduring disdain for the truth and a resolve to resist it at all costs. ----“When it comes to religious belief all we can do is offer our ideas for others to consider, and perhaps both by what we have to say and the way we approach the discussion broaden each other’s perspective and open the door to growth.” The kind of dialogue you hope for would be a beautiful thing indeed. I would love to engage an atheist, or an atheist sympathizer, who really is open to the idea that ID is valid, that God exists, that morality is objective, and that faith and reason are compatible. But alas, all who come here have made up their mind to the contrary as is evident from the almost comical dodges that they use to evade, obfuscate, and deflect reasoned arguments. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps, they have been so brainwashed in post-modernism that they cannot even conceive of the idea that truth is something that we discover rather than something we “create in context.” Perhaps they just don’t want God to exist so that they can be a law unto themselves. One thing I am sure about is this: If an effect can occur without a cause, or if a thing can be true and false at the same time, there is no rationality. ----“But if one is certain that one is right, and thus others are wrong, then that type of discussion can’t happen, and so people are just stuck - divided and at odds. Under the circumstances, then, there is no wonder that we have radically different religious beliefs in the world.” I am just as open to a reasoned argument as the next man. You must understand, though, that ID critics do not come here to argue for anything, they come here to argue against what others are arguing. To your credit, you did, once or twice, try to explain your own views. Still, for the most part, you challenge what everyone says without putting up any real arguments for an alternative position. Atheists and anti-ID partisans stay on offense and avoid defense like the plague. Why is that? It must be because they have no arguments and must, therefore, spend all their time demanding accountability from others while exempting themselves from that same accountability. That is not my idea of dialogue.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Beelzebub-- 2. Embracing the dogma that we should not embrace dogmas. I don’t. See my previous comment. Are you saying we must never embrace dogma or do you accept that it is appropriate to do so at times? 4. Holding that truth can or should be “provisional.” No. Beliefs should be provisional. What if your belief is true? Should it continue to be provisional?tribune7_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, there was a consensus 300 years ago as to the age of the earth and why the sun shined. It changed. And the consensus accepted the existence of atoms 300 years ago (and long before) albeit the consensus also was that they couldn't be split. With regard to today's scientific consensus you will find scientifically accomplished and credentialed people who believe in a young Earth. And if you believe in a multi-verse, you believe in a perpetual motion machine.tribune7_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

StephenB [with the numbering corrected]:
Are you asking for a list? Here are a few that you can chew on. 1. Arguing that the Church should follow the example of science. In fact, theology and philosophy illuminate science, not the other way around. Science, which is a lower science, gets its ethics and its first principles from a higher science.
The question isn't whether theology "illuminates" science (though I think you're wrong about that). The question is whether the Church should follow science's lead in treating its beliefs provisionally. I have explained why it should.
2. Embracing the dogma that we should not embrace dogmas.
I don't. See my previous comment.
3. Believing that church Dogma, which cannot change, is comparable to science’s findings, which are always changing.
No. They're not comparable. That's the whole point. Science is self-correcting. Dogmatic religions are not.
4. Holding that truth can or should be “provisional.”
No. Beliefs should be provisional. See my previous comment.
5. Arguing that a man can logically base his behavior on an ever-changing philosophy of life.
Sure, if the changes themselves are logical. What would be illogical would be to commit oneself prematurely to a philosophy that might turn out to need modification or replacement.
6. Arguing that we should question everything, but then refusing to apply that same standard to your own beliefs.
Nope. See my previous comment. You're 0 for 6. Want to try again?beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

tribune7 writes:
But consider this from post 3:
So in 300 years, science has gone from complete disagreement to a consensus.
There is no bais for that. It is pure wishful (i.e. emotion-based) thinking. You imagine a time when there wasn’t a “scientific consensus”. There is always a scientific consensus.
Fascinating. You've quote-mined me in exactly the way that Clive did, and on the same thread! See my response to him here.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes:
Truth can never be “provisional.” If it is provisional, it isn’t truth; if it is truth, it isn’t provisional.
Stephen, That's why I put scarequotes around "truths" in my statement:
That’s why the Church would be wise to follow science’s lead and regard all of its “truths” as provisional.
Truth is not provisional, but beliefs are. Beliefs (including statements of dogma) are never guaranteed to be true, so a wise person will hold her beliefs provisionally.
One can lead only if one has the truth.
That makes no sense.
Science, which deals only with observation and measurement, cannot speak on matters of ultimate truth...
Nor can religion. Science at least approximates the truth. Religion is all over the map.
I have just said that IF the Church changed a teaching, there would be no way of knowing which teaching was true.
If so, then you have no way of knowing that the Church's current teachings are true.
That is why the Church doesn’t change teachings. If truth can change, it isn’t truth.
Yes, but it doesn't follow that a belief is true simply because it doesn't change.
The point is we would not be able to know a “revealed” truth, if the revealer, or whoevere was speaking for the revealer, kept changing his mind on the matter.
Nor can we know for sure that a revealed "truth" is true even if the revealer or his mouthpiece doesn't change his mind. The problem here has nothing to do with the fact that someone's mind is changing. I wrote:
The problem with dogma is that if you get it wrong, it’s wrong forever.
You replied:
That’s right. That is why we want our dogmas coming from God and not from men. Get the dogma wrong, and you have everything wrong.
Okay. Then please explain to us how you know, with 100.0% certainty, that the dogmas of the Catholic Church come from God and not from men, with no possibility of error. I wrote:
Lots of religions and churches presume to speak for God. In doing so, they contradict each other. Therefore, at least some of them are mistaken. If they foolishly enshrine their mistakes as dogma, then they are locked into error. And according to you, we have no way of knowing which (if any) are right.
You responded:
You were referring to the Catholic Church, which has never changed a dogma. So, that problem does not exist for Catholics, at least for those who have a clue about what they are doing.
As I explained already, the truth may be unchanging, but that does not mean that every unchanging belief is true. How do you know, with absolute certainty, that Catholic dogma is true? I wrote:
That’s why it is so important to question everything, including our religious beliefs.
You asked:
Do you question your current the anti-religious beliefs?
Yes. And not only that, I put them to the test by posting them in this den of theists, where they are examined by a group of, shall we say, highly motivated critics.
It is only the dogma that tells you which actions are mistakes. The trick is to choose the right dogma.
How do you, using your imperfect mind, choose a dogma that is guaranteed to be completely true, with no possibility of error -- especially when there are so many false dogmas out there?
How, for example, do you know that your anti-religious posture is not a mistake?
I don't know that with absolute certainty. Like I said, that's why I question my beliefs and test them by presenting them to hostile audiences such as this one.
You base that conviction on another dogma, namely, that no one should ever accept a dogma. Think about it. You cling to the dogma that no one should hold a dogma.
No, I'm not dogmatic about not accepting dogmatic statements. If the neutrino flux of the universe should ever shift so that all dogmatic statements become perfectly true and reliable from that point forward, then I will amend my stance.
I am eminently familiar with determinism and all of its offshoots, combinations, permutations, rationalizations, and trendy reformulations.
If so, then you're missing something very fundamental about it.
To persuade in an environment in which persuasion has no practical effect is not to persuade.
Persuasion does have a practical effect. When successful, it changes minds. It makes no difference whether this occurs in a deterministic or nondeterministic environment.
True persuasion implies the possibility of a changed life, that is, a change from that which determinism had in store for it.
No, true persuasion just means that a mind is changed because of the persuasion. If the persuasion hadn't happened, the mind would not have changed in that way.
Your original claim was that Christians cannot get together on a reasoned defense of their faith...
No, my original claim was that science is self-correcting in a way that dogmatic religion is not. My subsidiary claim was that Christians have not succeeded in convincing the world of the existence of their God in the way that mathematicians have persuaded the world that the Pythagorean theorem is true.
Not one “sophisticated person” in ten has heard anything resembling those [Christian apologetic] arguments, maybe not even one in a hundred. So, they are hardly in a position to reject that to which they have never been exposed.
Have you heard all of the best arguments for Zeus, Ahura Mazda and Atutahi? No? Then by your own logic you are hardly in a position to reject them. To the stake, infidel!beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

----beelzebub to tribune 7: "In which case it should be possible for you to point out the many logical errors in my emotion-riddled arguments. Why isn’t that happening?" Are you asking for a list? Here are a few that you can chew on. 1. Arguing that the Church should follow the example of science. In fact, theology and philosophy illuminate science, not the other way around. Science, which is a lower science, gets its ethics and its first principles from a higher science. 2. Embracing the dogma that we should not embrace dogmas. 3. Believing that church Dogma, which cannot change, is comparable to science’s findings, which are always changing. 6. Holding that truth can or should be “provisional.” 5. Arguing that a man can logically base his behavior on an ever-changing philosophy of life. 7. Arguing that we should question everything, but then refusing to apply that same standard to your own beliefs.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Re 69: When I wrote, “It a fact, as bz says, that “they [Christian apologists] haven’t even come close to reaching a consensus among intelligent people across the globe, nor among those who are religiously trained or theologically inclined” about the existence of the Christian God,” Stephen replied,
But beelzebub is wrong as you are wrong. That neither of you understand or can replicate the argument for Christianity is evidence of that fact. My quess is that neither of you are even remotely familiar with it. ... What sense of certainly are you talking about. Have I presented the arguments for Christianity in your presence. I think you are confusing the arguments for the existence of God in general with the arguments for Christianity in particular.
Given what I know about Stephen’s sense of certainty about other issues we have discussed, I am certain :) that he would offer the arguments for Christianity in the same vein. Also, I have read some remarks in other threads on which I lurked without participating. I think I remember Stephen offering arguments based on over 400 fulfilled prophecies from the Bible, and those are arguments that I know are not convincing to me as well as many others, including many Christians. That’s like seeing camels in the clouds, or astrology: people are demonstrably prone to seeing meaning after the fact and/or in ambiguous situations. I also know there are arguments concerning witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection. There was a thread on this recently and someone (someone taylor, perhaps) did a good job, in my opinion, in discussing why that argument is not compelling. But the bigger issue is the one that beezlebub and I have both mentioned: there is no method for people reaching consensus on religious beliefs. People from every religion are convinced that their religion is right, and there is no methodology by which to test the correctness of anyone’s belief. I had written, “The fact that there is not a consensus, and no agreed upon method among mankind for working towards a consensus, is evidence that Stephen’s sense of certainty, while interesting as a psychological phenomena, does not translate to truly having convincing arguments. If they were convincing, more people would be convinced.” Stephen responded,
Attacking someone’s psychological orientation, as you are trying to attack mine, is not a counter argument.... Your proclivity, indeed your obssession, over others’ “psychological certainly” is based either on an attempt to argue on the basis of an ad-hominem attacks or on a prior committment to relativism which rules out absolute truth in principle, or both.
I look at religious belief, and belief in general, from an anthropological perspective. The need to build, and the mechanisms for building, belief systems are part of our nature. However, we are extremely pliable in this regard, so people’s belief systems, and indeed major fundamental parts of our cognitive functioning, are learned in the context of the culture we grow up and live in. Of course through education and personal experience we grow to be more aware of that context, embracing much of it more consciously but also altering or even rejecting some of what we originally took for granted. So I am interested in what kinds of beliefs people have, how they interact with people with differing beliefs, and how, if at all, they change from such interactions. I mention my psychological interest in Stephen’s sense of certainty, which I don’t see as an attack or an obsession, as coming from two places. The first is that, indeed, I don’t believe in the kind of truth he thinks exists and I am interested in defending my own view. Secondly, I am interested in how his view utterly precludes constructive discussion with someone of differing views - discussion that might lead to even a small meeting of the minds. So here we have a little microcosm of exactly the problem that bz and I are highlighting: there is no method for people to test their religious beliefs that is analogous to the way that science has led to so much consensus about the nature of the material world. When it comes to religious belief all we can do is offer our ideas for others to consider, and perhaps both by what we have to say and the way we approach the discussion broaden each other’s perspective and open the door to growth. But if one is certain that one is right, and thus others are wrong, then that type of discussion can’t happen, and so people are just stuck - divided and at odds. Under the circumstances, then, there is no wonder that we have radically different religious beliefs in the world.hazel_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Beelzebub It’s becoming more and more clear that the rejection of God is going be based on will guided by emotion rather than reason. In which case it should be possible for you to point out the many logical errors in my emotion-riddled arguments. Why isn’t that happening? Others have been but you seem rather impervious to assault by reason. But consider this from post 3:
So in 300 years, science has gone from complete disagreement to a consensus.
There is no bais for that. It is pure wishful (i.e. emotion-based) thinking. You imagine a time when there wasn't a "scientific consensus". There is always a scientific consensus. It just is inevitably shown to be wrong and those who show why become the heroes in the history books.tribune7_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB, to hazel:
On the one hand, you regard my conviction that truth exists as a kind of pathology, even though that view harmonizes with what almost all people at all times have believed. On the other hand, you interpret your equally firm conviction that truth doesn’t exist, a minority position, as a normal human reaction.
Stephen, I wasn't aware that hazel held this opinion. She certainly hasn't expressed it in this thread. Please link to the comment or comments that have led you to that conclusion.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

tribune7 writes:
It’s becoming more and more clear that the rejection of God is going be based on will guided by emotion rather than reason.
In which case it should be possible for you to point out the many logical errors in my emotion-riddled arguments. Why isn't that happening?beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Earlier I distilled KF's long post down to four points that I will now address.
1. Fixed beliefs don’t necessarily indicate error or closed-mindedness. Beliefs may be fixed because they are true and in no further need of modification.
True, but how do we know when we have reached the truth and that no further modification is necessary? We're never absolutely sure, which is why we should always continue to question our beliefs, even the most fundamental ones. We can convince almost any intelligent, educated person of the truth of the Pythagorean theorem. Not so of the existence of the Christian God. The Pythagorean theorem is unlikely to require further modification. The concept of the Christian God does (or, at the very least, the arguments in its favor do). Some beliefs are fixed because they are universally recognized as true. Others are fixed because they have been fossilized as dogma.
2. Truth and consensus don’t necessarily coincide.
Correct. That means that mere consensus is not a foolproof indicator of truth. However, we ultimately depend on our own imperfect minds to decide what is true and what is false. Because our minds are imperfect, we can be convinced of things that are false. Suppose that you believe something, you find that it matches your observations, you can find nothing wrong with arguments in its favor, and you notice that intelligent, educated people from every demographic (including experts in the field) agree on its truth. Wouldn't you agree that it's more likely to be true in that case than if every intelligent, educated person you're aware of disagrees with you? In the latter case, the odds are that you are mistaken, and you had better figure out why nobody agrees with you. Even if you remain convinced that you are correct, there is certainly progress left to be made in coming up with arguments that are capable of persuading intelligent people of the truth of your position. As I wrote earlier regarding Mapou and Gil Dodgen:
Reading through his website, you get a feel for why he sees IDers as kindred spirits. Mapou thinks that every physicist who accepts the reality of time is a “crackpot”, hopelessly and stupidly deluded, failing to see something that is right in front of him and obvious. Gil Dodgen has pretty much the same opinion regarding evolutionary biologists. It apparently never occurs to either of them that the problem might be with them and not with the 99.9 percent of scientists who disagree with them.
Perhaps they're right and everyone else is wrong. It's at least possible. But don't you think it would be wise for them to take a long, hard look at why others (including experts in the relevant fields) see things differently?
3. We shouldn’t apply standards of evidence and reason selectively.
True, which means that we should examine religious questions with the same critical scrutiny that we would apply to scientific questions or questions in any other area of life. Religion doesn't get a pass.
4. Talk Origins is bad. Bad, bad, bad.
KF is notorious for his bias on this subject. Interested readers can visit the site and judge for themselves.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

----tribune 7: "It’s becoming more and more clear that the rejection of God is going be based on will guided by emotion rather than reason." Very clear.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

---beelzebub: "Yes, I do, [understand Christian apologeticss] but stating it would be utterly beside the point, because the bottom line is this: Millions of intelligent, educated, religiously sophisticated people reject the arguments for the Christian God." Not one "sophisticated person" in ten has heard anything resembling those arguments, maybe not even one in a hundred. So, they are hardly in a position to reject that to which they have never been exposed. In any case, you have moved the goalposts. Your original argument was that Christians are unduly varied in their rational defense of Christianity. Now you are arguing that sophisticated people reject those arguments. My point was that you seem to think that the arguments are unduly varied from rational Christian to rational Christian. They aren't. That error leads me to believe that you don't know the arguments. Also, you informed me on another thread that you have spent a good portion of your life examining this proposition. I would think that you could do it in your sleep. I'm sorry, but I am persuaded that, in spite of your earlier affiliation, you were never given the rational explanation.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

----beelzebub: “Exactly! That’s why the Church would be wise to follow science’s lead and regard all of its “truths” as provisional.” I am afraid you are missing my point. Truth can never be “provisional.” If it is provisional, it isn’t truth; if it is truth, it isn’t provisional. One can lead only if one has the truth. Science, which deals only with observation and measurement, cannot speak on matters of ultimate truth, and therefore, cannot lead. If must follow truth. If, on the other hand, it arrogates to itself its own moral principles, it has become corrupt. ----“You’ve just admitted that the Church has no basis for its claims.” I have just said that IF the Church changed a teaching, there would be no way of knowing which teaching was true. That is why the Church doesn’t change teachings. If truth can change, it isn’t truth. ----How can you “speak for God” if, as you’ve admitted, you have no way of knowing which statements are truthful? Please, don’t take up extra space to emphasize the same error. I did not just admit that we cannot know truth. The point is we would not be able to know a "revealed" truth, if the revealer, or whoevere was speaking for the revealer, kept changing his mind on the matter. ----“The problem with dogma is that if you get it wrong, it’s wrong forever.” That’s right. That is why we want our dogmas coming from God and not from men. Get the dogma wrong, and you have everything wrong. The dogmas of materialism and “Sharia Law,” for example, have caused untold harm. Both violate the inherent dignity of the human person. That, by the way, is one of those “unchanging truths.” ----Lots of religions and churches presume to speak for God. In doing so, they contradict each other. Therefore, at least some of them are mistaken. If they foolishly enshrine their mistakes as dogma, then they are locked into error. And according to you, we have no way of knowing which (if any) are right. Again, I said that we would not know which one was right if the teaching was changed. If a presumed dogma is changed, then one can say that its earlier version was wrong or else the current version is wrong. In either case, we wouldn’t know which one was true. You were referring to the Catholic Church, which has never changed a dogma. So, that problem does not exist for Catholics, at least for those who have a clue about what they are doing. It was you who introduced the Pope, so I was responding to that context. ----Dogma would make sense only if we could be absolutely, 100.0% certain of our tenets. That kind of certainty is not possible for humans. Science recognizes this and leaves the door open for future corrections. Dogmatic religions slam the door shut, lock it, and throw away the key. They are stuck forever with their beliefs, even if they turn out to be false. That you think that religious dogma and science have anything at all to do with each other demonstrates the fact that you have yet to probe this matter in any depth at all. Science is ALWAYS provisional; truth is NEVER provisional. Indeed, Darwinists actually try to make naturalistic evolution a dogma, violating the very principle that we both agree on, namely that science is provisional. They should not be doing that, which is why this blog exists. Are we in agreement that Darwinism is provisional and that ID ought to be given a fair hearing? . -----“The smart ones shape their behavior according to a philosophy of life, but they revise their philosophy as they become older and wiser. They apply their unchanging principles to changing circumstances, adapting them to the current situation without changing the core truth. If the principle is changeable, it is worthless.” Consider once again the “inherent dignity of the human person.” Do you believe in that principle? ----“That’s why it is so important to question everything, including our religious beliefs.” Do you question your current the anti-religious beliefs? ----“And since the mind is imperfect, it is crucial that we recognize this and provide ourselves a way of detecting and reversing our mistakes. Dogma closes off this possibility.” It is only the dogma that tells you which actions are mistakes. The trick is to choose the right dogma. How, for example, do you know that your anti-religious posture is not a mistake? You base that conviction on another dogma, namely, that no one should ever accept a dogma. Think about it. You cling to the dogma that no one should hold a dogma. ----I see you’re still laboring under the misconception that determinism precludes the possibility of persuasion. I am eminently familiar with determinism and all of its offshoots, combinations, permutations, rationalizations, and trendy reformulations. To persuade in an environment in which persuasion has no practical effect is not to persuade. True persuasion implies the possibility of a changed life, that is, a change from that which determinism had in store for it. Rather than defend Catholicism, which I am prepared to do any time and any place (except as an exercise in self-indulgence on a non-denominational UD blog), I would rather return to your claim that Christian apologetics is not unified. You have not yet persuaded me that you are familiar with the arguments and you are getting a bit far afield. Your original claim was that Christians cannot get together on a reasoned defense of their faith and I was hoping to disabuse you of that notion. Catholics and non-Catholics pretty much agree on the basics of reasoned Christianity. They are not, as you suggest, all over the map. That you think otherwise confirms my suspicion that you are not acquainted with Christian apologetics at all.StephenB_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

I wrote:
Contrast that with a religious question as basic as this: does the Christian God exist? Christian apologists have attempted to justify their answer to this question, but they haven’t even come close to reaching a consensus among intelligent people across the globe, nor among those who are religiously trained or theologically inclined.
StephenB asks:
Where did you ever get an idea like that?
Um, by looking around. Do you doubt that there are huge numbers of intelligent, educated people in the world who aren't persuaded by the arguments for the Christian God? If so, you need to get out of your cloister more often.
Do you understand the argument in favor or Christianity? If so, state it briefly... I can do it in about five paragraphs, and my version will be consistent with what all knowledgeable Christian apologists argue, regardless of sectarian affilition.
Yes, I do, but stating it would be utterly beside the point, because the bottom line is this: Millions of intelligent, educated, religiously sophisticated people reject the arguments for the Christian God. You won't find millions of intelligent, educated, mathematically sophisticated people rejecting the Pythagorean theorem. Geometry is justified in a way that Christianity can only envy. Speaking of sectarian affiliation, how many sects of Euclidean geometry are there? Which has progressed more over the last few millennia, religion or geometry?beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Clive, The problem is not that I won't answer your questions, it's that you refuse to educate yourself on the subject of memes. That is the reason we have nothing to discuss. I can point you to the source material, but I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you. Try these: 1. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene 2. Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea 3. Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine The following books are also about memes, though I haven't read them and can't vouch for their clarity or accuracy: 4. Richard Brodie, Virus of the Mind 5. Aaron Lynch, Thought Contagion 6. Robert Aunger, The Electric Meme 7. Robert Aunger, Darwinizing Culture When you've read enough to understand the concept, come back and present an argument. Then we can have an actual discussion rather than a one-sided tutorial.beelzebub_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

bz writes, "The problem with dogma is that if you get it wrong, it’s wrong forever." Good line, and true.hazel_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply