1. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67315 by Dimitar on September 3, 2007 at 3:41 am

A Minor point for Steveroot,
The Parthenon was a Bank (ok, a treasury, but it sounds better). Its inspiration was primarily money, and the defeat of the Persians. Presumably Yasmin Whatsherface did not mention this structure because it stemmed from a 'dehumanising materialist' motive?

PS Did Dawkins really say religion was worse than paedophilia? I thought he said it was a form of child abuse. I've read this twice now in separate articles but with no supporting quotes. I assume there'll be a retraction; otherwise, if it were me, I'd sue.

2. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29524 by Dimitar on April 3, 2007 at 8:53 am

September,
Rather than resorting to invective, just answer the point.

I don't know much about PM, but I can see why the quotes in the above article are twaddle. Therefore if this is not representative of PM, as you suggest, I will need a definition (or examples?) that highlights why you are correct. Otherwise your 'argument' is rendered pointless. So far you have just said that Dawkins et al are wrong, but have not really explained why. I really do not see why this is too much to ask? If they are wrong then explain why they are wrong. To merely state it through the clenched teeth of your diatribe is not enough.

Besides, it is obvious that you won't define it because you can't; not through any inability on your part, but because it is a nebulous concept without any grounding in reality.

PS - you said: "However, with postmodernism, as well as modernism, and the new movement we are in, i know a bit of something, and find dawkins statements unscientific, unacademic, irresponsible, unresearched, and dogmatic. should i give my defintion of postmodernim? theres a reason im not a teacher anymore. should i show my "aces"? some of us arent here to win, nor playing cards"

So what are you here for then? Just to rant about nothing in particular? To disagree but not to explain exactly why you disagree? To share with us the tedious history of your varying sexual identity? It would be good to know, because reading your posts gives no clue whatsoever.

Maybe your posts are actually ironic (or just post modern)? No, that would hint at an intelligence your evident inarticulacy precludes.

3. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29492 by Dimitar on April 3, 2007 at 5:10 am

September,

I am finding it hard to appreciate your refusal define postmodernism while criticising Dawkins, and others who comment here, of not fully understanding it. How are we to know he is wrong in his judgement, if you don't bother to highlight exactly how he is wrong? As someone who is uneducated in PM (and other areas of philosophy) I would like to know what the basis of your criticism is. To do this you must provide a definition of PM, and highlight exactly how this is misunderstood. Preferably in clear English.

Your refusal to do this is unlikely to render your comments as anything other than a source of mirth.

4. The Only One in Step

Comment #25602 by Dimitar on March 14, 2007 at 9:28 am

GBG,
"I asserted that evolution wasn't the same as the hard-headed science involved in sending rockets into space etc ie repeatable, verifiable, testable science. You implicitly acknowledged this when you stated that the wikipedia quote refers to chmistry and physics."

I never said that evolution was the same as rocket science (or physics). I just said that that they are BOTH science. The Wikipedian definition is too narrow. That was my point. You just fail to acknowledge that. You define repeatability, verifiability and testability only as that which applies to physics. The scientific community does not agree with you. Some parts of the religious community do, however. Hence my request for evidence of scientists (who are not religiously influenced) who agree with you that science is defined as narrowly as you do. You have not answered this point, you have ignored it.


"lewontin is talking about "materialist explanations" not material phenomena. PAY ATTENTION!!!"

I am; I don't see a distinction. Science looks for material explanations of material phenomena. If you want to make non-materialist (ie supernatural) explanations it CEASES TO BE SCIENCE. That is the point Lewontin is making. There is no evidence for non-material explanations. All you have is an absence of a material explanations in some cases that you wish to insert God into. This is not science. Never has been.
Newton never worked like this, Faraday never worked like this, and obviously Darwin never worked like this. That is why they are called scientists, not priests.

You seem to want a redefinition that no one else agrees with. Can I suggest the same applies to religion? I resent that fact that religion has an 'a priori' assumption that there is NO material explanation for the world. Perhaps religion should ditch the assumption that God definitely exists and start entertaining the possibility that he does not. Until you do this then science has no need to change in its assumption.

This is not to suggest parity between these two approaches because, as BaronOchs points out, science is useful. It makes predictions that can be tested against future observations. What is the use of religious views in this regard? What predictions does your creation 'science' make? None.


"You should be a Buddhist, mate. Arguing that the material eg "fossils" are their own material "explanation" is akin to the buddhist scholar Dr Rahula's belief that 'the thought itself is what thinks'[?????]."

Do you actually read what I write? Given there is no evidence of a non-material (or supernatural?) world why should I maintain an assumption that such a thing exists? The material world however is choc full of evidence for its existence. Not only that our 'materialist' explanations are useful in predicting future observations in the material world. This is something you just ignore with respect to evolution. Thankfully most others do not.

Your mind is in no way open. It is fixed.

5. The Only One in Step

Comment #24010 by Dimitar on March 4, 2007 at 6:45 am

GBG,
I have decided on reflection, to do your homework for you. Here is a quote from Popper BEFORE his 'recantation':

"And yet, the theory [Natural Selection] is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that."

So it seems that even though he had doubts that it was properly scientific, he did not think it without value in a scientific sense. This is interesting when you compare his view on theism as an explanation of adaptation which he said "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached".


So even when Popper doubted evolution (although actually it was just Natural Selection he doubted not the whole theory) he still thought it had immense practical use as a theory that was far in excess of theism. Theism, on the other hand he dismissed outright. It is interesting then that you should use him as 'evidence' for the 'unscientific' nature of evolution when he would have poured even more scorn on your creationist 'science'.

So if you are to use Popper to cast doubt on evolution you should also use him to doubt the value of theism as an explanatory theory. It is interesting that you ignored this. The usual cherry-picking Creationist out-of-context quote mining.


Regarding his recantation, Popper said:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation... The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising." (Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," _Dialectica_ 32(1978):339-355; quotations are from pp. 344-346)




"It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested." (Popper, Letter to _New Scientist_, 87(1981):611)

You may not agree with him, but I see no evidence of 'peer pressure' here. You just don't have the evidence to support your views GBG. This is why I called you foolish (and I am not alone in this judgement, it seems); you seem to ignore the facts in pursuit of supporting your own preconceptions. Presumably this is a consequence of having a mind that is fixed in some areas?

6. The Only One in Step

Comment #23963 by Dimitar on March 3, 2007 at 7:15 pm

GBG,
You seem to have your wires crossed.

I asked you whether anyone in the world of science (by secular I did not mean atheist, just not religiously influenced, like you) agreed with your definition of science. Your response was to paste in Wikipedia and then say that evolution does not agree with it and by implication it is not science. I responded that a) wikipedia is a shit source b) this shit source also included a crucial caveat that you ignored and therefore is not even representative of ALL science. You have not really answered this point. The fact is that only religiously inspired creationists think of science like you do. Scientists do not agree. It is a bit like an atheist telling a priest what religion really should be like, "Forget faith, Father. Use evidence!"

You accuse science of being materialist and having materialist assumptions. This is not denied; it is because science has ALWAYS been about the material world. Living things are part of the material world and evolution is a brilliant 'materialist' description of the 'material' evidence. Fossils are real, rocks are real, and genes are real. They exist, and therefore fall under 'materialist' explanations. I should mention that the term 'materialist' is meaningless to me as I consider EVERYTHING to be 'material'. So I don't really see what your point about Lewontin is. What would science be if it did not have this 'a priori' assumption that you Creationists hate? It would be a religion.

You can't have an open mind with 'fixed views on some things'. It is oxymoronic. If you can't even see this contradiction then you are probably just moronic.

RE: Popper – it was YOU that said he relented possibly due to 'peer pressure' (rather than reason). Why should I do the homework to research a claim that YOU made? If you make a claim, then support it with evidence. Otherwise don't say anything at all.
Regards,
Dimitar

7. The Only One in Step

Comment #23731 by Dimitar on March 2, 2007 at 9:22 am

GBG,
You typed a lot, but said very little:

"Thats my point EVOLUTION IS NOT EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE AND THEREFORE ACCUSATIONS THAT CREATIONIST REJECTION OF EVOLUTION MEANS THEY REJECT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS MISPLACED."

Er…no. Your point was "that evolutionary claims do not meet the [Wikipedian] criteria for science" (GBG, Comment #23403). I pointed out that Wikipedia acknowledged that the definition is narrow and does not include all scientists' work, as well as it being a poor source in the first place. You then ignored all of this to make a spurious remark using excessive capitals. You said that evolution was not scientific; it is. That is the point I was making. I couldn't care less whether you reject the scientific method or not, but you definitely do not understand it.




"In regard to Popper he was a leading philosopher of science and therefore his views had to be taken seriously. Since we know he made a case against Darwinism as science which he subsequently retracted WITH NO DEMONSTRATED GOOD REASON we are entitled to belabour the point."

What is your evidence that he 'demonstrated no good reason'? I've asked for this three times, please answer.




"I too change my views and am not closed minded though I have come to fixed views on some things."

Let me get this straight. Your mind is not closed, but you have fixed views on some things? Am I alone in seeing a contradiction here?




"I do admit that I'm not at all convinced by evolution and thats because (1) it contradicts scripture (as Billy admits) and (2)I've read Dawkins, Gould, Mayr PLUS the creationists ReMine, Spetner, and Sarfati PLUS the ID'ers Johnson, Behe PLUS the sceptical Michael Denton AND I THINK EVOLUTION IS CACK."

Thanks for this reasoned response: you've read some stuff, evolution contradicts scripture and it is cack. Great, that is very insightful.



RE: Lewontin,

""we are forced by our a priori adherence to materialism to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations no matter how counterintuitive no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door"
NOTE: Lewontin says that secular scientists CREATE a METHOD that PRODUCES THE RESULTS THEY WANT TO FIND namely MATERIAL EXPLANATIONS."

Where does he mention that he creates a method to "produce results he WANTS to find"? He actually says that an adherence to materialist method produces materialist results; much in the same way that a theological approach (e.g. ID) produces theological results.

Newton may have been religious, but he was a NATURAL philosopher, not a supernatural one. He got 'materialist' results too (although I prefer the term NATURAL). It amazes me that Creationists keep using the Lewontin quote as 'evidence' for something that even devout Christian scientists like Newton have always acknowledged: Science has ALWAYS been naturalistic.

Lewontin is not saying that methods are massaged to get desired results; he is saying that science, BY DEFINITION, is not concerned with the supernatural, just the natural. Put it like this: there is a material world out there and we want to know how it works. If we want to know how the supernatural world works, how do we go about it? You Creationists often criticise science for being 'materialist', but never seem to outline what a spiritual (?) or supernatural (?) science would 'look like'. Why not? Is it because such a concept is, to use your terminology, cack?


"So no I don't think I will be recanting before I get to heaven"

You are right here, you are not a sinful liar, just a deluded, ignorant fool.

8. The Only One in Step

Comment #23529 by Dimitar on March 1, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Indeed, it is very silly. We are defining science by Wikipedia now, are we? Really GBG, surely you can do better than that?

You neglected to mention that Wikipedia goes on to say: "These activities do not describe all that scientists do but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry)."

So, not only do you use Wikipedia to define scientific method (something no credible person would ever do) but you neglect to quote the part that says that its own definition is limited. Indeed by your definition, even Astronomy is not a science, as it does not allow experimentation and can only describe the past. Just because one cannot repeat a supernova doesn't make it an unscientific observation. Your definition of science is immature, narrow and a little stupid.

Also your hyperlink does not seem to mention Popper's U-turn; why is that? Why does it labour a point that has since been recanted by the person who made it? Is this not a little economical with the truth? I thought that Christians considered that lying is a sin? What a shameful, propagandist link.

I can see now that Popper did once doubt evolution (See, GBG, how I changed my view in the light of new evidence, can you?). But he changed his mind so we can safely cast his original doubts to the dustbin; caused as they were by his misconceptions regarding the nature of evolutionary theory. Unless you can find evidence that it really was down to "peer pressure"?

Interestingly, you ignore that fact that even 'real' science (by your definition, of course) has provided evidence of an old earth. After all, the equations of quantum mechanics are incredibly predictive about radioactive decay. Richard Feynman likened their accuracy to being able to measure the size of the USA with an error margin of a hairs breadth. The SAME theoretical framework gives us an estimate of the age of the earth in the billions of years, not thousands. So even the scientific method you support does not provide evidence to correlate with your 'theory'.

You also said: "Richard Lewontin admitted that secular scientists create a methodology of scientific research that enables them to produce the results they want to find because they "cannot allow a Divine foot in the door"."

This is a shameful out-of-context quotation. "Enables them to produce the results they want to find"??? These are YOUR words, not his. Another example of a Creationist being less than truthful. Presumably you'll recant this sin before getting into heaven?

9. The Only One in Step

Comment #22932 by Dimitar on February 24, 2007 at 5:25 pm

GBG,
I have some questions for you:

1. Do you know of any secular scientists (i.e. most of them) that agree with you on this definition?

Only you, and other creationists, seem to define science like this. It is not for the religious to define science, it is for scientists. Yours is a religiously inspired definition.

2. If science cannot work in the way you say, why do Creationist websites publish papers that attempt to mimic the scientific model?

You say science cannot work on the past and yet you also claim there is a 'scientific' case for 6,000 year old creation; sounds a little hypocritical to me.

3. What evidence do you have for Popper's doubts about evolution?

4. What evidence do you have for the fact that he changed his mind due to 'peer pressure'?

Amongst what I know of Popper was that he was of a strong mind, and he if believed something then no amount of 'peer pressure' would change that; only a sound argument for the alternative. The mere notion of this is laughable. If he did change his mind he did it because he realised he was wrong. Assuming he thought evolution was unscientific in the first place, something of which I am yet to be convinced.