Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:19 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 3:21 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:02 am

I don't think it's that Science and Faith are opposite, it seems to be that many atheists think they mutually exclude each other, that if you believe in God then you don't have a scientifc bone in your body.
Some atiheist friends of mine seem to have that opinion, and yet when we go to quiz nights I tend to have the anwers to some of the science questions, they on the other hand have never read a science book in their lives! (it seems the less educated atheists that mutually exclude one from the other!)

There has NEVER been a rule in the US that Christians can't go to universities to study the sciences. Devout Christians weren't doing it...

Actually they were: but the prevailing Materialist orthodoxies and the attached penalties meant that to do so, they had to keep their faith a private matter, in some cases. That's not unusual in the scientific "community," as Polanyi, Livingston, Hart and Kuhn all so sagely pointed out.

In fact, when Galileo was persecuted, it was not actually at the initiating of the Catholic clergy so much as of the Aristotelian scientific community. But you can check that out for yourself. There are lots of good histories of those events.

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and at its BEST.

These people, back then, REALLY did SEE, ONLY 'that', that they WANTED to SEE.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:19 am

No one was "indoctrinating" them in colleges to adopt evolution.

The indoctrinators didn't wait that long. They were already fully active in public and high schools. By the time anybody got to university, Evolutionism was an orthodoxy nobody was allowed to question.

And what, EXACTLY, would 'you' like to QUESTION or CHALLENGE in regards to 'evolution', itself, "Immanuel can"?

OBVIOUSLY, 'you' will NOT ASK ANY QUESTIONS NOR PROVIDE ANY CHALLENGES here BECAUSE 'you' do NOT like having 'your' BELIEFS being SHOWN UP AS BEING PROVED Wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:19 am Just look at how much trouble even an Atheist like Nagel got into for doing it. It simply was not to be interrogated: period.

BUT 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO 'interrogate' ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' here

But, AGAIN, 'you' will NOT do 'this' because 'you' are too SCARED that 'you' will be SHOWN AS BEING Wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:19 am

No one was forcing anyone to believe anything.

Actually, they were: and rather vigorously, too. But since you personally probably never tried to question Evolutionism or to operate on an alternate theory, I don't wonder that you were blithely unaware of that. How would you know, if you'd never tried? Nobody would bother you about it.

Speaking from EXPERIENCE hey 'immanuel can", one could POINT OUT or ASK 'you' here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:01 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:48 am I ACTUALLY WITNESSED people who DID JUST THAT in some of my classes and they were not failed just for that reason. They participated in the discussion too, the few that did bother going to a college back then when "scientific creationism" was all the rage among evangelicals. But I'll defer to your expert opinion on the education system I experienced. Proceed to take the floor IC.

If that was your experience, then don't think it was typical. There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you were in a particularly reasonable corner of things...or perhaps it is as I suggested, that you never really had reason to know what was going on, since you were not the target of any ill-treatment yourself. Either way, there's no doubt there's a great deal of antipathy to treating any alternate theory to Evolutionism with anything more than a dismissive attitude, if not also outright hostility.

There is no "ACCEPTANCE" of "alternative theories". There is debate and at the time, Evolutionary biology was doing very well and academics were swayed by it and mostly in agreement. The primal building blocks of biological life were recreated in a lab using chemicals and compounds that were thought to be available in the early atmosphere and surface of Earth. To the best of anyone's reckoning evolution was filling out very nicely.

I'm sorry they didn't pay more scholarships to Christians but the best the Christians had at that time was "Scientific Creationism" and most of the theories used in SC were very ill-formed and were easily debunked by geological evidence and things of that nature. But if you think it was "propaganda" from "atheists" that we were learning, then I'm not up to date enough on science, so I can't verify one way or the other. And if it was just propaganda on the part of scientists that I learned, then I see little reason to think anything different toward "evidence" that verifies the Christian account. If it's all deliberately produced "propaganda" (global warming, evolution, etc.) then public trust is completely undermined. It's like insisting that the voting machines at the election were rigged against the masses. No "official" can prove to the masses what the masses can't prove themselves. You've destroyed objectivity. Welcome the dark age of factionalism and the inability to coordinate ANYTHING among people. Nice job!

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:01 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:48 am I ACTUALLY WITNESSED people who DID JUST THAT in some of my classes and they were not failed just for that reason. They participated in the discussion too, the few that did bother going to a college back then when "scientific creationism" was all the rage among evangelicals. But I'll defer to your expert opinion on the education system I experienced. Proceed to take the floor IC.

If that was your experience, then don't think it was typical. There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you were in a particularly reasonable corner of things...or perhaps it is as I suggested, that you never really had reason to know what was going on, since you were not the target of any ill-treatment yourself. Either way, there's no doubt there's a great deal of antipathy to treating any alternate theory to Evolutionism with anything more than a dismissive attitude, if not also outright hostility.

There is no "ACCEPTANCE" of "alternative theories". There is debate and at the time, Evolutionary biology was doing very well and academics were swayed by it and mostly in agreement. The primal building blocks of biological life were recreated in a lab using chemicals and compounds that were thought to be available in the early atmosphere and surface of Earth. To the best of anyone's reckoning evolution was filling out very nicely.

Evolution is fine Gazza until it comes to the existence of me, The life of Brian. Clearly I am intelligently designed and am perfect...as everyone on the forum would attest (unless a carton of Guinness is fucking with my logic and empathy for those less well designed ).

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:01 am
If that was your experience, then don't think it was typical. There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you were in a particularly reasonable corner of things...or perhaps it is as I suggested, that you never really had reason to know what was going on, since you were not the target of any ill-treatment yourself. Either way, there's no doubt there's a great deal of antipathy to treating any alternate theory to Evolutionism with anything more than a dismissive attitude, if not also outright hostility.

There is no "ACCEPTANCE" of "alternative theories". There is debate and at the time, Evolutionary biology was doing very well and academics were swayed by it and mostly in agreement. The primal building blocks of biological life were recreated in a lab using chemicals and compounds that were thought to be available in the early atmosphere and surface of Earth. To the best of anyone's reckoning evolution was filling out very nicely.

Evolution is fine Gazza until it comes to the existence of me, The life of Brian. Clearly I am intelligently designed and am perfect...as everyone on the forum would attest (unless a carton of Guinness is fucking with my logic and empathy for those less well designed ).

I love you, Atto. In a Platonic way of course. Don't worry, I've made more mistakes in my studies than anyone can shake a stick at. But I feel oddly like I'm honing in on something I need to be honing in on. Hopefully, it will save the world!

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:03 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:23 am

There is no "ACCEPTANCE" of "alternative theories". There is debate and at the time, Evolutionary biology was doing very well and academics were swayed by it and mostly in agreement. The primal building blocks of biological life were recreated in a lab using chemicals and compounds that were thought to be available in the early atmosphere and surface of Earth. To the best of anyone's reckoning evolution was filling out very nicely.

Evolution is fine Gazza until it comes to the existence of me, The life of Brian. Clearly I am intelligently designed and am perfect...as everyone on the forum would attest (unless a carton of Guinness is fucking with my logic and empathy for those less well designed ).

I love you, Atto. In a Platonic way of course. Don't worry, I've made more mistakes in my studies than anyone can shake a stick at. But I feel oddly like I'm honing in on something I need to be honing in on. Hopefully, it will save the world!

I love you too Gazza and I had no idea Plato was homosexual. I suppose I could swing both ways.

However, jokes aside, I wish you'd ....listen to the advice I gave ya. (..and there is no warship required).

Just kidding about the save the world part. I suspect nothing can save this world. Can we boot Yahweh out of the equation somehow? You know, before he causes another flood that kills everyone or sends the people of Babel into confusion instead of letting them build that tower. The Wizard of Oz was a much better movie than Moses or Ben Hur. Is it too late?

Wizard of Oz was much better than the Matrix too. Ah, the good ole days, before the Nazis.

..but I'm the Life of Brian && The Wizard of Oz!!

Now, the world is....fake, an illusion of suffering *that gets sorted out when souls are taken prior to great suffering. Such is life, such is God.

God - "He's" a bit of a bastard but not toooooo bad.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:14 am ..but I'm the Life of Brian && The Wizard of Oz!!

Now, the world is....fake, an illusion of suffering *that gets sorted out when souls are taken prior to great suffering. Such is life, such is God.

God - "He's" a bit of a bastard but not toooooo bad.

Yes! It's the veil of Maya creating samsara for us all! My question is, who is Sam Sara? Where does he live? I need to find him to warn him of the coming flood so he can lower the tower of Babble ahead of God's wrath!!

[I guess all those comparative religion classes I took were of some use. I thought using the notebooks for toilet paper was going to be it! What a wonderful gift my edumacation was!]

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:24 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:14 am ..but I'm the Life of Brian && The Wizard of Oz!!

Now, the world is....fake, an illusion of suffering *that gets sorted out when souls are taken prior to great suffering. Such is life, such is God.

God - "He's" a bit of a bastard but not toooooo bad.

Yes! It's the veil of Maya creating samsara for us all! My question is, who is Sam Sara? Where does he live? I need to find him to warn him of the coming flood so he can lower the tower of Babble ahead of God's wrath!!

[I guess all those comparative religion classes I took were of some use. I thought using the notebooks for toilet paper was going to be it! What a wonderful gift my edumacation was!]

Seriously man, you need to focus on the near picture, not the big one. What you are stating is as good as my invention of brown toilet paper (for the blind of course).

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:27 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:24 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:14 am ..but I'm the Life of Brian && The Wizard of Oz!!

Now, the world is....fake, an illusion of suffering *that gets sorted out when souls are taken prior to great suffering. Such is life, such is God.

God - "He's" a bit of a bastard but not toooooo bad.

Yes! It's the veil of Maya creating samsara for us all! My question is, who is Sam Sara? Where does he live? I need to find him to warn him of the coming flood so he can lower the tower of Babble ahead of God's wrath!!

[I guess all those comparative religion classes I took were of some use. I thought using the notebooks for toilet paper was going to be it! What a wonderful gift my edumacation was!]

Seriously man, you need to focus on the near picture, not the big one. What you are stating is as good as my invention of brown toilet paper (for the blind of course).

But I'm far-sighted. Where can I get the beerfoggles to make me more near-sighted, especially with the cute blonde in the corner. Looks a lot like Carol Chomsky. Rarrr! Shall we meet at the pub to work on the problem? After that, we'll tackle Russell's barber paradox.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:09 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 3:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:14 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrIvwPConv0

Did you watch the video? The above summary suggests maybe not.

Yes, I have. Three times in fact...

So...watched it three times, but didn't understand it?

Your "summaries" just don't stand the test of comparison with what he actually says, the arguments he actually adduces. But hey, if that's all you got out of it, I guess that's all you got.

I'll believe you.

What he says is plain enough, nothing profound or original; logic itself being nonessential to any argument he makes. It's the same crap theists spout over and over again...nothing new; same old, same old!

The universe operates by laws therefore there had to be a LAWGIVER. Nice! That kind of simplicity only serves the theistic mentality where a cause must always precede an effect. If the Cause doesn't exist, invent one to create the Effect desired. Problem solved!

The only thing difficult to understand about Lennox is how anybody in his age could be so simple-minded but then one can't exclude the prospect of being well paid in the affirmation of a biblical god so many devoutly still wish would exist to balance the ledger between good and evil in some final judgement.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:01 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:48 am I ACTUALLY WITNESSED people who DID JUST THAT in some of my classes and they were not failed just for that reason. They participated in the discussion too, the few that did bother going to a college back then when "scientific creationism" was all the rage among evangelicals. But I'll defer to your expert opinion on the education system I experienced. Proceed to take the floor IC.

If that was your experience, then don't think it was typical. There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you were in a particularly reasonable corner of things...or perhaps it is as I suggested, that you never really had reason to know what was going on, since you were not the target of any ill-treatment yourself. Either way, there's no doubt there's a great deal of antipathy to treating any alternate theory to Evolutionism with anything more than a dismissive attitude, if not also outright hostility.

There is no "ACCEPTANCE" of "alternative theories".

There you go. That's what I was pointing out to you.

...at the time, Evolutionary biology was doing very well and academics were swayed by it and mostly in agreement.

Yes. Which now tells you just how far you can trust the academy. They're just as susceptible to political persuasion as anybody else, but just capitulate to it in more ostentatious language than most. But there's a kind of "soft tyranny" in place that can turn what is a debatable theory into a hard orthodoxy really easily.

If you want an example, just look at how widespread, popular and "scientifically" celebrated something like the infamous monkey-to-man chart became. Now we know it was all bunk; but then, it was just taken as a truthful depiction of how human beings "evolved." And the lie was never formally retracted, either; it was just allowed to die quietly, in a corner, with no apology made for the inquisitorial techniques that had been applied in the interests of defending the monkey-to-man chart previously.

...most of the theories used in SC were very ill-formed and were easily debunked by geological evidence...

That's what you were told: just like you were told the fossil record was straightforward proof of evolution, and that men came from monkeys.

If it's all deliberately produced "propaganda" (global warming, evolution, etc.) then public trust is completely undermined.

It should have been, actually. We should know better by now.

However it's turned out to be amazing how much the public will swallow in order to retain its comfortable illusion that some benign body of experts is infallibly and trustworthily watching out for the public good. Just look at how we all behaved during COVID -- we all know, and can see now, that most of the instructions given us...about masks, vaccines, the necessity of social distancing...the numbers of potential casualities...the origin of the virus...all of that, were lies or gross errors by those in charge. We know that for sure, because now they've had to reverse themselves: where now are the masks, the vaccines, the social distancing, the piles of corpses, etc? Yet most of the public seems to have slid silently back into the soothing belief that the powers-that-be have things under control, and are trying to do good for us. It's a faith they do not easily give up, even when the evidence against it proves conclusive.

We humans do seem to love our delusions. So "public trust" definitely isn't always a good thing.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:35 am What he says is plain enough, nothing profound or original; logic itself being nonessential to any argument he makes. It's the same crap theists spout over and over again...nothing new; same old, same old!

Didn't really understand it, then. Yup.

A couple of notes on our own Christian Super-Jew’s interchanges with the faltering Israeli post-Jew.

Note that IC is doing all possible to reestablish the proper, the durable, bona fides of genuine belief. Sort of like a child who confronts deviation from an established view in his parent. “Get back in line!” he seems to say.

Curiously, a great deal hinges on the maintenance of the identity-posture. Without it, what then?

Once the traditional identity-tale (the absurd idea of Hebrew “chosenness” by a God creator-owner and director can no longer be believed, there is a road or path of descent in those in which the notion of it is still there, but takes a *ghostly* appearance. Allegory. Allusion. Belief goes underground and sublimates onto another level.

But the real idea, as it were the historical idea, can only really be maintained through hardcore or absolutist belief.

The punctured or diminishing belief could be compared to the ghost of Hamlet the King who appears, demanding recognition, but only through the fogs of the night.

In daylight ghostliness can’t hold up.

This is the Larger Situation in which all elaborate belief systems — universalized, grand, metaphysical diagrams — all become ghostly.