Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uncommon Descent: Contest Question 7: Foul anonymous Darwinist blogger exposed. Why so foul?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The guy had successfully hidden his identity for about five years, while posting all kinds of sexually charged abuse to the Internet about many people, including me. But now we know.

But Wendy Sullivan, the Girl on the Right, has officially found out who the mysterious Canadian Cynic is. Here is stuff he has said about me. He is Robert PJ Day. Small business owner. Computer genius. Well-read book nerd. Anti-creationist debater

A Linux genius, apparently. [Foul language warning re his posts and any reports on them. ]

Here is part of what Sullivan said, once she traced him:

Outing bloggers isn’t usually my thing. I don’t see a point to it. But when you repeatedly abuse and demean people because they do not march in lockstep with you, I’m sorry but you deserve it. I am not a cunt, Robert. Nor a douchebag. Neither is Kathy Shaidle, Kate, Connie Fournier, Sandy Crux, Suzanne Fortin or anyone else on the web you don’t like.

I am not above strong language and hyperbole, Robert, but I am not beneath you. You are not special. I do not dispute that you are extremely smart and well-versed in your subjects of choice. But referring to to those you feel superior to as “cunts”, “wankers”, “douchebags”, “assholes” and more doesn’t make you sound brilliant at all. It makes you sound sad and lonely. It also makes you seem very cowardly, because I know you would never call me a cunt to my face. You would never wander into downtown Toronto and meet with half the people you have insulted – on a one-to-one or at a party – and insult them the way you do behind your chosen alias.

Perhaps not. The thing I know from covering the intelligent design controversy is that a number of people like Cynic give themselves the right to pour obscene contempt and abuse at the public. Obviously, those people are frightened of something.

What would your mother say, Robert, if she knew that you referred to a woman older than she probably is as a douchebag? ( I assume that your mother is still with us. If not, I apologize, one orphan to the next. ) Is that how she raised you?

He had decided to raise the abuse level last night for me, presumably in response to being outed. The Centre for Inquiry is sponsoring it. Did those people really sit there and listen?

Can you be good without God? I’d never necessarily maintained that, but now I am beginning to wonder.

Apparently, Day proclaimed himself to be “coming out in public” at that venue. But only because bloggers outed him first.

Sullivan tells me his recent posts have featured greatly toned down language. It figures.

Some people have morality. Others rely on avoiding exposure.

Okay, now the Contest Question: Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?

The winner will receive a free copy of Expelled Here are the contest rules.

Note: Entries that merely claim it isn’t happening will not be judged. Too many people here know otherwise.

Comments
Jerry: A shortie. Actually, Lewontin documents the big enchilada: Institutionalised worldview level question-begging and resulting materialism-driven censorship of science, (in a context that brims over with ad hominem laced dismissal of those irrational believers in "demons"). All of which I discussed here, as is linked in every post I make. GEM of TKI PS: Nakashima-San, you need to examine the just linked, and let us know why my remarks -- which include showing how the US NAS and NSTA used the same reasoning in Kansas in what looks like a very intimidatory fashion -- fail to make their point, or you are indulging in a mere dismissal. PPS: New World Encyclopedia has some sobering words on propaganda and associated agitprop techniques here.kairosfocus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, I apologize. I was not attacking GEM of TKI, or his ideas, only poking gentle fun at his style of obsessively posting and reposting the same material. For someone with an 'always linked', it is quite odd to copy so much content instead of linking to it. Indeed, you linkrd to it rather than copying it!Nakashima
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
"You forgot to quote Lewontin." So by using an ad hominem you are essentially agreeing with kairosfocus that essentially all the anti ID people really have are ad hominem arguments. To make everyone feel more comfortable, I will quote Lewontin's "divine foot in the door" which is one essence of the debates that people have here. Link here http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm But you failed to read kairosfocus and to see that he did quote Lewontin. And I will continute to sprinkle this link in various posts in the future to remind everyone just what the debate is all about using the words of a big time anti ID advocate. Also to use and ad hominem against an argument about the use of ad hominems, is a new twist. Is it the ad hominem squared fallacy?jerry
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Sparc: Tell you what buddy, Just go in your lab and produce a laminin, or any other "random protein molecule" for that matter, from scratch, and thus conclusively prove that an ID inference of any sort is indeed a "strawman". the limit to man's ability to form a single synthetic amino acid chain (a protein), using all his intelligence and lab equipment, is currently severely constrained to about 70-100 amino acids: Peptide synthesis "typically peptides and proteins in the range of 70~100 amino acids are pushing the limits of synthetic accessibility. Synthetic difficulty also is sequence dependent; typically amyloid peptides and proteins are difficult to make." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_synthesis And even if you could string amino acids at random, your chance of actually finding a functional protein domain is essentially nil. Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: excerpt of abstract: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. (of note: the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Axe Diagram for finding a functional protein domain out of all sequence space: http://www.evolutionnews.org/axediagram.jpg Thus once again pleading incredulity of design on your part is no substitute for actual evidence!bornagain77
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Mr KF, You forgot to quote Lewontin.Nakashima
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
PS: In case someone wants to take me up on the one-sidedness issue, I invite such a one to first examine here and here. Any culturally significant movement of any significant duration will have its fair share of sins, but a consistent one-sided litany against Christendom (while refusing to acknowledge for instance fairly easily substantiated contributions to the rise of modern science and modern liberty) is a case of ad hominem writ large; or, if you wish, "poisoning the well." (Which is how ad hominem abusive works: making one disinclined to drink from that well for fear that it is poisoned -- and if intense enough, such a mind-poisoned person will be unwilling to be corrected almost regardless of contrary evidence.)kairosfocus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
Upright (et al): I thought it wise overnight to revisit this thread, mostly to see what answer if any EL ha shad for without warrant accusing me and others of willfully misleading others on the technically-based side of ID. (It seems that EL does not have any arguments that he can present here where he would have to answer on the merits. That is consistent with the rhetoric of distraction, distortion, demonisation and dismissal that is so routinely resorted to by Darwinists; and indeed with the context of 65 above, where he evidently thought I would not learn of what he had done, and would leave his rhetoric unchallenged.) While I see no remarks from him, I did see a quote -- I assume from PT or somewhere like that -- on the ad hominem. I therefore think that it would be useful to use good old materialism-leaning "prof wiki" to correct the further ad hominem of trying to create the impression that I do not know what I am talking about: _______________ >> An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. . . . . Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer [NB: cf here: you say that because you are religious . . . but of course atheists who advocate evoltuionary marteirlaism and seek to redefine science as applied materialism, are doing so because they are "real scientists" -- the hint on he "No true Scotsman" fallacy is intentional . . . ]; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against. [Thus, too, the frequent use of turnabout false accusations that project unto us the rhetorical pattern that is being discussed, instead of facing the fact that it is design thinkers who are here consistently trying to argue on the merits not personalities (including the most obscene insults and vulgarities) and other distractions . . . and BTW, once the evolutionary materialism advocates have been exposed as routinely using such destructive and unjust rhetorical tactics, it does go to the want of substance of their case, and raises serious questions on their character -- thus, the attempt at trying to drag us down into immoral equivalence.] Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence. [All of which should sound VERY familiar from the recent months on this blog, when we see the patterns of argument consistently used by Darwinist advocates. And, BTW, that is why I have ensured that EVERY post I have ever made at UD links to a step by step discussion on the merits, starting from the relevant context of basic information theory and stepping through the OOL case [the Darwinian tree of life has no credible tap root . . . ], body plan level macroevolution [there is no credible account for the 10's - 100's of mega bits of bio-information to account for novel body plans], cosmic finetuning [which seems to be a particular case of irreducible complexity, whereby unless a significant number of key physical parameters hold to a particular cluster of values, our observed universe would be radically unfriendly to life as we experience it], and going on to the attempt to redefine science materialistically and the issues tied to that, then adding a clutch of technical appendices, starting with the thermodynamics and associated information theory. Similarly, it is why three of the pro-ID commenters here took several weeks of effort to update the weak argument correctives and glossary of key ID-related terms that are accessible from every page at UD. Observe how EL's dismissal argument at 65 above failst o come to grips with what is said in those relevant on the merits presentations, and instead directly implies that I am a liar etc etc. Similarly, others have tried to argue that the undersigned, a humble applied physicist who has thereby had to study and work with the thermodynamics and information theory, is not "qualified" to comment as I have done. I would think that my former students and employers and current clients would beg to differ. For shame!] Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority of the source asserting it. [Judge Jones (etc) said it and that's good enough for me . . . ] Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument. [Tha tis when an ad hominem is remotely relevant: on matters of expertise, it is reasonable to challenge the qualifications. But, I am not posing on expertise but have instead made my case, point by point, on the merits; linking it in every post I have ever made here at uD. Thus, I invite examination on the merits. At the first, this was usually passed over in a rhetorically strategic silence [apart from attempts to dismiss on length or style -- but responsible arguments on technical matters will be long and technical, and notes make no pretense at being literary . . . ], but now that I and others have taken up the cluster of commonly held weak arguments, there has been a concerted effort by Anti Evo and its habituees to try to "out" and discredit me, including misrepresenting what I have said on one particular issue: Weasel 1986.] An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion. >> [Emphases, link and remarks in square brackets added] ________________ Thus, we see laid out what seems to be the "standard" Darwinist rhetorical playbook (as was used by EL as I showed above yesterday): 1] Distract: red herrings, led out to strawmen, pulling attention away from the issues on the merits along the track of truth (that old, straight and narrow way . . . ). 2] Distort: Set up a convenient misrepresentation of the actual case being made on the merits. (Here, cf. how often what ID is and how its reasoning works are consistently distorted to make it out to be an improper injection of "religion" into the domain of "science"; cf. the weak argument correctives above.) 3] Demonise: Soak the strawman arguments in attacks to the man, e.g already there is the implication of subversion of science, and of deception in the implication or insinuation of smuggling into the halls of science what does not belong there, with the long one-sided litany of real and imagined sins of Christendom hovering in the background to make it out that these "religious fanatics" are a threat to liberty. [BTW, this is also why there is such a strong resistance to documenting from Mr Lewontin and the US national Academy of Sciences actions in recent years that the actual smuggling in that has been done in the institutions of science: materialism. indeed, science -- in defiance of its actual history and the balance of the relevant philosophical issues on the merits, is being redefined as in effect applied materialism.) At this point, a rhetorical torch has been set to the ad hominem soaked strawman, so that it may burst into oily flame, clouding, confusing, choking and polarising the atmosphere, poisoning the context of civility that is a practical condition of actually deliberating a matter successfully. 4] Dismiss: Having driven a wedge across the culture, and having polarised and alienated, one can then act as if the real issue on the merits has been adequately answered and simply dismiss -- and freely insult -- the "discredited" challengers to the evolutionary materialist agenda. In short, it should be clear that my usage of the term "ad hominem" is appropriate and unfortunately all too relevant. Indeed, behind its use lurks the Dawkinsian assertion and attitude that hose who object tot he evolutionary materialist view are one or more of: "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." I contend, witht he ghost of Socrates moaning out his agreement, that such tactics are utterly destructive to justice, to the ability to hear and respond appropriately to important truth [which in a Plato's Cave situation may well be spoken by unpopular spokesmen: those who refuse to tickle itching ears with what they want to hear and believe, but insist on "saying of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not . . . "], GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
Davem, It stands for After The Bar Closes, which is part of Panda's Thumb, which is part of ridiculous and absurdity.Clive Hayden
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Can someone tell me what AtBC is? Thanks.Davem
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
Why are so many white, middle class kids getting addicted to heroin?Davem
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
vjtorley,
Thank you for being fair-minded enough to cite the last sentence of my previous post (#120):
I leave it to you to decide which approach is fairer.
As you can see, I was contrasting approaches, not people. The fact that a professed Christian, who calls herself “Girl on the Right,” displays behavior at odds with her faith, in no way lessens the value of her faith. It simply means that this individual should conform her life to her faith.
Let me emphasize that I do agree with everything you have said, if there is some doubt in your mind.herb
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
I also can fairly well ascertain from first principles of science that the designer of the universe, and of all the life in it, is the Logos of John 1:1. The only question for me when it comes to a molecule like laminin, which has such a uncanny resemblance to such a powerful symbol of God’s connection to earth, is is their some deeper connection to the universe through it.
If laminin had been described as strawman shaped would you then argue that He created a strawman? It must have been Him because by your definition evolution theory is unable to produce strawmen.sparc
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
do you think someone can be condemned to death for saying something? Look at Salman Rushdie.Davem
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
JTaylor, ------"The point still remains that Ms O’Leary has made an assertion, and based on essentially one person’s bad behavior has extrapolated that to many or most Darwinists." Take a look at AtBC and I think you'll have your answer. When there's no oversight, civil discourse will be gone from Darwinists, at least, from those folks, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The only reason they begrudgingly maintain any modicum of civility here (in various ridiculous sock puppetry masks) is because they want to posit their Darwinism, and they know they must if they want to stay around. But just take a look when the mask comes off at how they really act and what they really think on their own site; it's vile, it's not even argument, it's mockery, and there is no comparison to be made with the civility of this site to the absurdity of that site. I'll leave you to speculate why this is the case. And secondly, at AtBC, I do find it odd that there is a discussion board dedicated to discussing another discussion board. We discuss ideas and science here, they discuss us there.Clive Hayden
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
herb (#122) Thank you for being fair-minded enough to cite the last sentence of my previous post (#120):
I leave it to you to decide which approach is fairer.
As you can see, I was contrasting approaches, not people. The fact that a professed Christian, who calls herself "Girl on the Right," displays behavior at odds with her faith, in no way lessens the value of her faith. It simply means that this individual should conform her life to her faith. JTaylor (#121) You wrote:
Besides, how do you even go about deciding who's in the group "Darwinists"? I certainly don't classify my self as such...
In my proposal (#118) above, I didn't use the term "Darwinists," precisely because I know that most evolutionists don't care much for it. I used the term "pro-evolution," in the interests of fairness. Also, I would think most people who visit this site would know what the top Web sites are, on all sides of the "origins" issue. It is perfectly true, as you wrote, that most scientists don't have time to visit such sites, let alone contribute to them. However, I am not interested in surveying the bahvior of scientists as such, but rather that of people who subscribe to three different "schools of thought" (Biblical creationism, ID and unguided evolution) regarding the issue of origins. Why? Because I am curious about how beliefs concerning life's "Big Questions" impact upon ordinary people's behavior. However, if we merely look at individuals, we always can find some in each camp who are highly courteous, as well as others who are extremely discourteous. That's why it's better to look at aggregate behavior. Hence my proposal for examining the archives from the leading "origins-related" Web sites for a randomly selected month. That's about as fair a procedure as I can imagine. But if anyone has a better one, then I am all ears.vjtorley
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
Sorry Iconofid, I missed your response until now. I would be most honored and happy to respond... Iconnofid writes: "Why doesn’t your implied death sentence for those who call people names qualify as mindless? Can you not perceive that all sane people in this world would see it as being so?" How do you define sane? Are you eluding to some ad populum coneventional wisdom? Just because you were raised in a certain culture and ethos, you think that those standards and morals are objectively true? Obviously, those above are rehtorical questions not necessarily meant to impune you but remind you of your own skepticism applied to your own worldview. My real point lies below... Is a murderer more worthy of condemnation? I would like to show what Jesus had to say on this issue of name calling. We (in the current culture and ethos) temd to think them harmless and forget where they lead. That is unless someone engages in 'gay bashing' or some other equally hateful speech and thought. Then suddenly, speech is equal to hate. The fat is... speech is equal to hate and murder. The act simply comes after the emotion. This is not only logical, but proven by your experience and mine. It is strange to me that you are so willing to whitewash speech that is made against a particular group of people, when you would never do so consistently for all groups. And that is because you know that the kind of pressure it brings to the market, and the power it has to influence a culture will lead to further erosion of acceptability down the line. If allowed to fester, it regularly leads to violence. And if that is not bad enough, it regularly (throughout history and over long periods) leads to justifications for ethnic cleansing. Let's apply these truths consistently. Matthew 5:21-26 21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Fascinating how Jesus cut right to the heart of the issue, and tells us that the real issue is not the physical manifestation (violence) but the real core of anger, hatred, and violence; the heart. He reminds us that man is not a sinner because he sins, but sins because he is first a sinner on the inside. His 'in our face' diagnosis is an immediate offense to the self righteous. Iconofid writes:"Tell me, do you think someone can be condemned to death for saying something, however rude or unjustified it may be?" Not only do I think they can, they have and will be. Are you not aware that your own intense disagreement with the condemnation revealed in scripture contains at its core, a violent and repulsive condemnation of it's own? I confess that it is implicit and not explicit, But you had better fully appriciate what your own judgements actually mean. If the words of Christ are incorrect then they are not just 'a problem', they are evil and in need of extermination. This extension of logic, I have no doubt you, are utterly at a loss to understand even though you would use the reasoning yourself when it serves your purposes. Do you not understand how desperately wicked your heart and mine are? Do you not see how insidious and deep your own self-interest goes? Do you think God was kidding about that part? Without God to guide us through the murkey waters of our own souls (whatever a soul is), there is no hope for you and I. Perhaps you are under the impression (cultural programming) that acknowledging ones own depravity is some kind of sick self mutilation in a rituallistic show of piety. If so, that is gravely incorrect. If not, then feel free and obligated to share with your brother the truth regarding the reality of all this.Lock
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
vjtorley,
Contrast this with the traditional religious approach used by missionaries for the past 2,000 years: any group of individuals who are capable of hearing and accepting the Good News are our brothers and sisters. There’s no need for an IQ test here. Instead, the vital question is simply: can they turn to God? I leave it to you to decide which approach is fairer.
Agreed, of course. I did a little more checking on the Girl on the Right blog, and I am relieved to find that she is indeed a Christian.herb
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
vjtorley: "That should settle the matter, I think, for anyone who wants to settle it." As vjtorley has shown, it is not easily settled. The point still remains that Ms O'Leary has made an assertion, and based on essentially one person's bad behavior has extrapolated that to many or most Darwinists. This would be the equivalent of me saying that all Christians are utterly intolerant homophobic bigots based on the writings and sermons of Rev. Fred Phelps. Clearly that would an incorrect statement, as I know that many Christians are as appalled at the hatred and venom spewed by Phelps as are non-Christians. I know too that there are many gradations of belief and tolerance within the Christian community. Besides, how do you even go about deciding who's in the group "Darwinists"? I certainly don't classify my self as such (in the same way I don't call myself a "Newtonian") - and I suspect a lot of others are the same. And of those professional scientists who may classify themselves as "Darwinists", how many even bother blogging or writing comments on blogs? I know of at least a few who are too busy with their own work to follow sites like this (and if they did come here, they'd certainly want to see more science rather than the prevalent philosophical-type discussions that now characterize UD). Ms O'Leary is welcome to make as many assertions as she likes -it is after all her stomping ground, but I encourage both sides to look at these assertions with a more critical eye and not just take her word for it, as many seem apt to do here.JTaylor
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
djmullen, herb: I find it very sad that the person who outed the foul-mouthed individual that had been hurling abuse at Denyse O'Leary and other individuals for several years, was herself guilty of targeting a whole group of people (Native Americans) with vitriolic bile. But I would ask you to consider this: if you were trying to inculcate an unshakeable belief in racial equality (and human equality in general) into a group of children in your care, could you think of a better way to do it than by telling them that everyone is equal because everyone has a soul, made in the image and likeness of God? You could then tell these children that accidental differences in people's IQ, EQ, wealth, health, physical fitness and so on, have no bearing on how important they are, because they do not pertain to who they are. On the contrary, each of us would remain the same person and continue to possess the same intrinsic value if any of these attributes were altered. It wouldn't matter how great the alteration of any of these attributes was for any given person, so long as that person was still alive. Because the question of who we are is defined in immaterial terms for religious believers, it is possible to instil a belief in human equality in societies with strong religious beliefs. History is littered with the corpses of hypocrites. We are all familiar with the atrocities committed by the conquistadors and the slave-traders. Nevertheless, if one asks the historical question, "At that time, which individuals were trying to put a stop to the wickedness of these cruel oppressors?", the answer that leaps out is: people motivated by a strong religious belief that members of oppressed races have human souls, made in God's image and likeness, and are therefore our brothers and sisters. These were the people who campaigned to make slavery illegal. As long as people like that were around in large numbers, I'd be reasonably sure that racism would not make a comeback in our society. I'd be far less sure about a society where everyone believed in unguided evolution. To illustrate my point, I'd like to cite an excerpt from an essay by the late, great Stephen Jay Gould:
This essay can be summarized in a single phrase, a motto if you will: Human equality is a contingent fact of history. Equality is not true by definition; it is neither an ethical principle (though equal treatment may be) nor a statement about norms of social action. It just worked out that way. A hundred different and plausible scenarios for human history would have yielded other results (and moral dilemmas of enormous magnitude). They didn't happen. ("Human Equality Is a Contingent Fact of History", in The Flamingo's Smile, Harmony Books hardcover edition, 1985, p. 186.)
Gould was about as egalitarian as they get, in terms of his personal values. But there was an underlying tension in his thought: he could imagine scenarios where groups of people would not be equal, by his lights. In an age where genetic engineering is just around the corner, Aldous Huxley's society of alphas, beta, gammas, deltas and epsilons is not difficult to envisage. Parents-to-be who can pay more will obviously be able to order "smarter, healthier" embryos. And what will happen to our belief in human equality, if belief in an immaterial soul is allowed to wither? It will seem quaint, just as it did in the society depicted in Brave New World. Contrast this with the traditional religious approach used by missionaries for the past 2,000 years: any group of individuals who are capable of hearing and accepting the Good News are our brothers and sisters. There's no need for an IQ test here. Instead, the vital question is simply: can they turn to God? I leave it to you to decide which approach is fairer.vjtorley
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
iconofid, There is no bartering to be done here from your end, I'll keep you in moderation until you apologize. And if you don't apologize, well, it's likely your following comments won't see the light of day.Clive Hayden
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
JTaylor You wrote:
Although this is an interesting thread, I do hope everybody recognizes that all Ms O'Leary has provided is an assertion which so far she has failed to back-up with any actual data... It is still possible her assertion may be correct, but needs to be substantiated before it can be taken seriously.
Here's my proposal for anyone who wants to test the assertion. (I haven't the inclination to do so, but if anyone wishes to, this would be one way to do it.) 1. Construct a scale of personal insults, ranking them numerically from 1 to 10, by averaging the ratings given to them by a randomly selected group of 100 people. (For anyone who may be wondering why I didn't write 0 to 10 instead of 1 to 10: if the ranking for a phrase were 0, obviously it wouldn't be an insult!) To keep the survey more focused, I think it would be wise to initially limit its scope to insults directed at particular individuals, rather than generic insults that are intended to offend groups of people. (Other surveys could explore more general categories of insults later on.) 2. Identify the top 10 ID Web sites, the top 10 Creationist Web sites and the top 10 pro-evolution Web sites. (A Google search might help here.) 3. Copy all the archive material from these Web sites for a given time interval (e.g. May 2008, just off the top of my head) into a large file, and run a computer program to count the number of insults at each level in the scale. Divide that by the total number of words, to get the relative frequency of personal insults at each level. 4. Give each personal insult level a numeric weighting. This is the hard part. By default, this could be simply the ranking (e.g. level 6 insults would have a weighting of 6). However, I would suspect that most people would regard the most venomous personal insults (level 10) as many more than 10 times worse than the mildest (level 1). Alternatively, the weighting could be defined as: the monetary value of the gift that an offending party would have to buy you, to make you forget the insult. But that might be difficult for a mortal insult, which one may not wish to forgive. And for many people, the monetary value of the gift would not matter much anyway - the way in which it was given would count for much more. Probably the best way of calculating the severity of a level-N insult, relative to the level immediately below it (N - 1), would be to ask people how many level (N - 1) insults they think would inflict an equal level of pain on a person receiving them, as one level-N insult. If people still found this hard to quantify, one could then ask them to imagine a personal feud between two individuals, and then ask how many retaliatory level (N - 1) insults by A would suffice to make the score "even" with B, who has hurled a level-N insult at A. I should stress that while the above methods of calculating the severity of an insult appeal to ways of thinking which are thoroughly un-Christian -Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive and forget, even if wronged 77 times - most of us (myself included) have enough residual selfishness within them to imagine how they'd feel and what kind of compensation or retaliation they'd want to exact, in the hypothetical situations described above. Having assigned a numeric index, one could calculate an overall "poison pen" personal insult index for each set of Web sites. That should settle the matter, I think, for anyone who wants to settle it.vjtorley
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Mr Seversky, Not being a Christian, I can't even begin to answer your last question. But it seems to me that much of the Hebrew Bible does not conceive of God as constrained by human categories.Nakashima
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Nakashima @ 67
Mr Seversky, Since Abraham can take God to task with “Shall not the God of Justice act justly?” it would seem that writer of Genesis is coming down on the side of law. If not law as the ultimate power, at least law as a constraint on how God interacts with the world. He can pick wings off of virtual flies in some other universe, but not here.
Can a just God act unjustly? Can a compassionate God act callously? Most importantly, can a necessary being like the Christian God is believed to be create a contingent Universe such as we find ourselves within?Seversky
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Clive: "Who would “us” be?" That's a good question. While we are answering that we might wish to ask who "most of the Darwinists" are that are apparently using such foul language. Ms O'Leary only provides one example; and that example appears to be a lay person, not a professional scientist. I don't think a data set of one constitutes much of a case. From a critical thinking perspective this is inadequate. Although this is an interesting thread, I do hope everybody recognizes that all Ms O'Leary has provided is an assertion which so far she has failed to back-up with any actual data. Her piece, despite its popular appeal, completely lacks any basis in critical thinking. It is still possible her assertion may be correct, but needs to be substantiated before it can be taken seriously.JTaylor
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
blurt, Who would "us" be?Clive Hayden
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
And then maybe O'Leary can apologize to us and retract her linking to a racist website. You'd think a group endorsing the Haeckel to Hitler argument would be a safe place.blurt
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
iconofid, I asked you a question. "You think that’s funny?" Either you answer me, and apologize to O'Leary if you do think it's funny and retract it, or you retract it and apologize to O'Leary if you don't.Clive Hayden
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Upright Biped, ------"“An ad hominem is…a response that is directed at a person in order to undermine that person’s argument.” “I hope kairosfocus sees this, as he misuses the term “ad hominem” on almost a daily basis.” Haha, I laughed for a good minute on this one. Well done.Clive Hayden
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
"An ad hominem is...a response that is directed at a person in order to undermine that person’s argument." "I hope kairosfocus sees this, as he misuses the term “ad hominem” on almost a daily basis."Upright BiPed
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Have you ever happened upon a birds nest with eggs inside? You will soon see mother bird faking a broken wing to lead you away from her treasure. When atheists see their worldview assaulted, they will do whatever they can to distract attention away from their treasure.bevets
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 7

Leave a Reply