cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-14-2007, 04:00 AM   #21
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
The problem, however, is when people use the inevitable tendency of scientific knowledge to change as a rationalization for failure of religious fundamentalism to find any support in empiricism or reason, or worse, as tooblue seems to do, as a basis for arguing that there is no such thing as objectively verifiable truth. Is it really so hard to appreciate that endless testing and reassessment of received truths is part and parcel of empiricism? Can the same thing be said of religion? On the contrary. Is it so hard to appreciate that incremental accumulation of objectively verifiable truth is (perhaps paradoxically) as well part and parcel of empiricism, and what saves us from ignorance? I wish I understood better what tooblue's point was. He keeps stating the obvious but conclusions he draws from such unsurprising developments in scientific fields seem bizarre, if I get them, and I'm not sure I do.
So does is this only a problem for religious fundamentalists or was that just to help me realize you meant me, tooblue and other believers? Also, you are doing the same thing woot and NS are doing; accusing Tooblue of something he hasn't said. While he may very well mean what you say, he certainly didn't' say it here. I can't speak for Tooblue, but I can say that this thread smacks of the sort of gang mentality that so many here complain about enduring on CB. Let the guy speak, disagree if you want, but can we do so based on what he says as opposed to what you think he means?

Look, empiricism has many answers, ultimately it might have all the answers, but not yet. Faith exists and, IMO, it is independent from empirical probing. The lack of empirical proof is not an insurmountable problem for me, or many others, even though we don't ignore the truths that we find are well supported as result of empirical truth. At the same time, assuming the inviolability of certain scientific precepts as the basis for criticism of religious belief, even of a fundamentalist strain, is no wiser in some instances than the problem you describe. This may be tooblue's point.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:02 AM   #22
woot
Senior Member
 
woot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
woot is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
So does is this only a problem for religious fundamentalists or was that just to help me realize you meant me, tooblue and other believers? Also, you are doing the same thing woot and NS are doing; accusing Tooblue of something he hasn't said. While he may very well mean what you say, he certainly didn't' say it here. I can't speak for Tooblue, but I can say that this thread smacks of the sort of gang mentality that so many here complain about enduring on CB. Let the guy speak, disagree if you want, but can we do so based on what he says as opposed to what you think he means?

Look, empiricism has many answers, ultimately it might have all the answers, but not yet. Faith exists and, IMO, it is independent from empirical probing. The lack of empirical proof is not an insurmountable problem for me, or many others, even though we don't ignore the truths that we find are well supported as result of empirical truth. At the same time, assuming the inviolability of certain scientific precepts as the basis for criticism of religious belief, even of a fundamentalist strain, is no wiser in some instances than the problem you describe. This may be tooblue's point.
I'd hate to accuse him of trolling, but it really does seem like he cast 4 or 5 hooks (science articles) at the same time, and then took off. I'd love to hear his actual views on these matters.
woot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:04 AM   #23
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
At least with science there is a method. Perhaps what the scientists should do is pray about the age of the earth, and then when they get a peaceful feeling they can declare that they've had a spiritual witness and that they can then unequivocally state the true age of the earth.
Very amusing, but what is your point? DO you think the scientists that 'knew' the age of the fossils weren't incorrect? You deflect from the point without answering it.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:07 AM   #24
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woot View Post
I'd hate to accuse him of trolling, but it really does seem like he cast 4 or 5 hooks (science articles) at the same time, and then took off. I'd love to hear his actual views on these matters.
He'll be back and is usually happy to defend himself. HE certainly doesn't need me to do it. I don't think he is trolling. I just think you guys need to relax a little when dealing with him and this topic. You are among friends here, no need to bite.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:08 AM   #25
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woot View Post
That's good stuff. I often wonder if that really is what they'd prefer.


'They' who?
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:17 AM   #26
woot
Senior Member
 
woot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
woot is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
Very amusing, but what is your point? DO you think the scientists that 'knew' the age of the fossils weren't incorrect? You deflect from the point without answering it.
Honestly, "knowledge" isn't really a concept that I find in journals or the class room. If you'd prefer to consider scientific theory as "working assumptions," I don't have a problem with that.

The problems arrive when religionists abuse this uncertainty by insisting that since science isn't a concrete discipline (similar to every other discipline in the world excepting perhaps mathematics), that religion is just as valid a method of discovering truth, or even that religion should be taught in science class, which is one of the major causes of the large backlash going on right now.

That's one of the reasons why I hate creationism and intelligent design so much. They're utterly vacuous, and yet they occasionally cause certain rational thinkers to want to be more sure of things than they actually are in order to counter the absolute surety of the religious. That's a problem. I haven't seen it creep into any of the actual literature, doubt it will, and assume it would be shot down with extreme prejudice if it is ever found, but in the public sphere, I see all sorts of instances of it.

Case in point: Al Gore is a laughing stock. He exaggerates constantly. This has turned a vast number of people off of the concept of global warming entirely, and I fear that his influence has been a net negative as far as science awareness goes. This is a shame. Not that creationism had anything to do with any of that, I just fear that similar situations could develop due to this religious influence.
woot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:18 AM   #27
woot
Senior Member
 
woot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
woot is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
'They' who?
The anti-science, pro-religion crowd, of course.
woot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:28 AM   #28
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woot View Post
Honestly, "knowledge" isn't really a concept that I find in journals or the class room. If you'd prefer to consider scientific theory as "working assumptions," I don't have a problem with that.

The problems arrive when religionists abuse this uncertainty by insisting that since science isn't a concrete discipline (similar to every other discipline in the world excepting perhaps mathematics), that religion is just as valid a method of discovering truth, or even that religion should be taught in science class, which is one of the major causes of the large backlash going on right now.

That's one of the reasons why I hate creationism and intelligent design so much. They're utterly vacuous, and yet they occasionally cause certain rational thinkers to want to be more sure of things than they actually are in order to counter the absolute surety of the religious. That's a problem. I haven't seen it creep into any of the actual literature, doubt it will, and assume it would be shot down with extreme prejudice if it is ever found, but in the public sphere, I see all sorts of instances of it.

Case in point: Al Gore is a laughing stock. He exaggerates constantly. This has turned a vast number of people off of the concept of global warming entirely, and I fear that his influence has been a net negative as far as science awareness goes. This is a shame. Not that creationism had anything to do with any of that, I just fear that similar situations could develop due to this religious influence.
Gore is an idiot. HE may have been counterproductive. But you are asking too much for the average schmuck like me to be able to figure this out for all topics.

Why do you hate creationists? I find it hard to understand that. I suppose if you want to make sure this sort of bad thinking doesn't leak into policy, I can understand that, but I think we face more problems from simple pork barrel politics (when it comes to skewing policy in non-scientific directions) than we do from creationists.

Btw, 'working assumption' is OK for me. You are the one that first said scientists 'know' something. Look at your first post.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:31 AM   #29
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woot View Post
The anti-science, pro-religion crowd, of course.


This is a little exasperating. The thread starts with Tooblue's posts, which we sort of discussed, but you and NS keep dragging it out there to some other larger issue, which I certainly do not see myself as being part of. DO you think I am defending this "anti-science pro-religion" POV?
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 04:40 AM   #30
non sequitur
Senior Member
 
non sequitur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
non sequitur is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
I just think you guys need to relax a little when dealing with him and this topic. You are among friends here, no need to bite.
If I'm coming off as mean-spirited, I apologize. That's not my intent. I'm mostly just being a smart-ass. I like TooBlue. I don't agree with him all the time, but I like him.
__________________
...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan
non sequitur is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.