Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

[LittleSoldier]

Actually, I believe the correct words are:

Anything you can do I can do better.
I can do anything better than you.
Yes I can. No you can’t. Yes I can. No you can’t…

BTW, can you bake a pie?

Thanks Mom for teaching me this song!

Sorry Mom, I think I got it wrong.

I believe the correct words are:

Anything you can do I can do better.
I can do anything better than you.
No you can’t. Yes I can. No you can’t. Yes I can…

There is a line about baking a pie:

Can you bake a pie? Nope.
Neither can I.

Now returning to the thread…

 

[reggieM]

The only person in my entire life that I have heard (or seen) make the following statement: “We are bags of chemicals that spontaneously gained the power to move and speak” is you. No credible biologist or other scientist would say something so utterly ridiculous.

They would delete the words “bags of”.

 

[LittleSoldier]

They would delete the words “bags of”.

Shhhhh…that’s supposed to be a secret…

 

[Gallowglasser]

I get the impression you believe the ends justify the means. Freedom of speech is a good thing. Removing it would be bad. And the Church teaches that bad means cannot be used, even to achieve a good end.

What is the Church’s teaching on freedom of speech, is it imperative that the state must provide freedom of speech in order for that state to be considered good? If the Church says this, i will back down.

Would banning freedom of speech be for the common good, or the greater good?

 

[wanstronian]

I was hardly triumphantly gushing! I don’t care about Antony Flew and his views per se. He is just a good case study from which someone like yourself could learn to tone down your condescending rhetoric about the evident idiocy of ID to anyone who is not already convinced on other grounds that God exists.

Obviously Antony Flew rejecting atheism doesn’t mean atheism is wrong!

All I said was that ID is not scientific. IDers claim it is, but it clearly isn’t, and I’ve shown why. That’s hardly condescending. I never said ID was ‘evidently idiotic,’ although I believe that it is a disingenuous ploy to get a flavour of Creationism accepted as science.

 

[wanstronian]

The idea that evolution is “unguided” is also an unscientific, religiously-based notion.

So, all this - the most widespread and accepted version of Evolutionary theory can be is a strategy to get disguised atheism taught in schools worldwide. It is a political and legal strategy to avoid laws on the separation of church and state. It is not, as currently constituted, science.

There is no way to scientifically prove that evolution is “unguided”. There is no way to scientifically prove that mutations occur by a “blind” process either.

Neither is there ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that it is guided, or ‘non-blind.’ So in the interests of parsimony, it makes sense to not assume an unnecessary and potentially supernatural addition to the process. Otherwise one might as well pad the theory out with all sorts of hypothetical nonsense that just happens to be un-disprovable. Where would that get us?

The notion that evolution is ‘unguided’ isn’t religious, it’s sensible in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. This sounds suspiciously like it’s veering towards the “atheism is also a faith” pseudo-argument, which is another nonsense.

 

[wanstronian]

It is a valid science, that doesn’t mean it is correct.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I can’t see arbitrary guesswork based on a 2D projection of 3D stellar and planetary motion, coupled with someone’s date of birth, as science. Particularly when numerous experiments have shown that a standard horoscope given to lots of people of different star signs appears to them to be completely accurate and individual. People pattern-match, and horoscopes are sufficiently vague that people can pick out and interpret a subset of the statements as appearing to be valid.

It’s psychological sleight-of-hand.

we have come a long way, though i view it as the degeneration of thought rather then improvement. A narrowing of humanity’s means of perceiving existence.

It’s the rejection of impractical, irrational thought. The discarding of useless superstition. It you’re superstitious (gullible), you probably see that as a narrowing of perception. I think it would be more accurate to call it a focussing - ignoring stuff that doesn’t work and provides no benefit.

 

[wanstronian]

Please. You have the freedom to reject or accept whatever evidence is presented. You have the freedom to decide if the evidence fits your definition or doesn’t fit your definition.

I have simply given you the opportunity to exercise that freedom. Oh, please enjoy it.

I do have that freedom, but I guess I’m just predisposed towards only accepting evidence that is robust enough to satisfy the claim being made. That seems to me to be a sensible approach.

So what you have ‘given’ me is the opportunity to discard critical analysis and just believe in something for its own sake. I choose not to be so irrational, thanks.

 

[wanstronian]

Technically speaking, God is not ‘included’ in ID, but is rather the CONCLUSION, after the examination of the empirical evidence.

An example would be being on newly discovered island. You see a pot shaped stone, inside are pieces of cooked meat and burnt logs and coals surrond the pot.

One can create two hypothesis.

1. That the pot shape was a natural formation that developed by action of wind\wave. The meat came from droppings from a carnivorious animals meal. At some point after the piece of meat was dropped in the pot, a fire arose from some sort of spark.
2. There is a person on this island who shaped the pot, and cooked the meat over a fire.

So the ‘intellegence’ is actually a conclusion based on empirical examination of the evidence. It was not introduced AS evidence.

This example highlights the fundamental problem with ID: that something that obviously has a purpose looks designed, therefore anything that looks designed has a purpose, therefore an intelligence was involved. This is a logical fallacy, as I pointed out upthread with the CSI hypothesis.

It boils down to circular reasoning, as you make your conclusion part of your initial premise.

 

[wanstronian]

PZ Myers is a professional propagandist. I’ve been to his web site. Something is bothering him to the point where he felt the need to post a youtube video where he takes a Host, puts a rusty nail through it and then throws it in the trash. Pure anti-God theatrics.

His persona is not the issue here. His response to Bierle is scientifically robust. ID is not scientific.

 

[wanstronian]

Wait, “reason” and “religious faith” are 'mutually exclusive?

You must have very, very different definitions for all of those. Wherever did you get the idea that reason and faith are exclusive? One cannot reason accurately and completely without faith, and one cannot have a full complete faith without reason. Heavens above, I simply can’t understand how an intelligent and articulate adult could be so misguided as to swallow some soundbyte rhetoric and be fooled into thinking that faith and reason were some sort of mutually exclusive (and thus antithetic) entities. My word.

It’s very simple. Religious faith cannot be arrived at through reason. One must suspend one’s reason in order to believe that an invisible, intangible superman created the universe and can hear all our thoughts, knows what we’re going to do and when, and can do anything it pleases… in the absence of any evidence.

Conversely, a religious belief is utterly superfluous to the consistent and robust application of reason.

 

[wanstronian]

?

 

[wanstronian]

It is worse that that:

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kx9yh5SOyO1qz4vjio1_500.jpg

Thanks Buffalo, that’s one of the most outstanding examples of scientific misrepresentation and Argument from Ignorance I’ve yet seen.

You truly are a spokesman for your kind.

 

[wanstronian]

I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY POSTS WHERE RESPONSES ARE INSERTED INTO MY QUOTE.

Why not?

 

[Gallowglasser]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I can’t see arbitrary guesswork based on a 2D projection of 3D stellar and planetary motion, coupled with someone’s date of birth, as science. Particularly when numerous experiments have shown that a standard horoscope given to lots of people of different star signs appears to them to be completely accurate and individual. People pattern-match, and horoscopes are sufficiently vague that people can pick out and interpret a subset of the statements as appearing to be valid.

It’s psychological sleight-of-hand.

It’s the rejection of impractical, irrational thought. The discarding of useless superstition. It you’re superstitious (gullible), you probably see that as a narrowing of perception. I think it would be more accurate to call it a focussing - ignoring stuff that doesn’t work and provides no benefit.

You’re right about astrology, of course.

But in saying faith provides no benefit you’re simply demonstrating how narrow your viewpoint is. Faith (in the religious context) has practical applications in maintaining a stable society and inspiring virtue, and of course, it is the undeniable base of reason.

 

[Brendan]

This example highlights the fundamental problem with ID: that something that obviously has a purpose looks designed, therefore anything that looks designed has a purpose, therefore an intelligence was involved. This is a logical fallacy, as I pointed out upthread with the CSI hypothesis.

It boils down to circular reasoning, as you make your conclusion part of your initial premise.

So your claim would be that hypothsis 2 of my my example would always be logical fallacy?

Is that correct?

 

[wanstronian]

You’re right about astrology, of course.

But in saying faith provides no benefit you’re simply demonstrating how narrow your viewpoint is. Faith (in the religious context) has practical applications in maintaining a stable society and inspiring virtue,

I disagree, these are just unsubstantiated claims made by theists.

and of course, it is the undeniable base of reason.

Oh? How so?

 

[Gallowglasser]

I disagree, these are just unsubstantiated claims made by theists.

Oh? How so?

Not really, i mean it’s obvious. The authority for an atheist moral system comes from man alone, and quite honestly, humanity ain’t much by itself, it has some good points, but it also has quite a few bad. The authority from a theistic moral system is dependent on God, and God’s law, being perfect (or presented as such) is much easier to bow your head to.
Quite frankly, if you could get away with breaking the law of man, you’d do it, because there is no reason outside of being caught that you should obey it. There is no escape from God though.
Also, if you tell a man, “obey me in life, and you shall receive happiness in death” he might say, “sure, good deal”. If you say to a man, “obey me” he’d probably just flip you the finger and continue on with his business.

Now faith is the undeniable base of reason because to say something is fact requires faith in the five senses, in the reliability of the human mind, and of course, that other people are actually telling the truth. For example, how verifiable is that the big bang happened, you can’t personally prove it, and the system that proves it is obviously constructed so it can prove the big bang theory, one must have faith that such an occurence happened.

Adequate?

 

[wanstronian]

So your claim would be that hypothsis 2 of my my example would always be logical fallacy?

Is that correct?

With your specific example, the problem is that it is not analagous to the real phenomena that ID pretends to address. The same way that Paley’s watch and Mount Rushmore are poor, though common, examples that IDers use to support their hypothesis, a pot of cooked meat also fails as an analogy. Why? Because it’s clear that all these things have a purpose, and that purpose is clear. But what is the purpose of a human? A tree? etc.

The fallacy of ID is the fallacy of Commutation of Conditionals:

If p then q.
Therefore, if q then p.

If it’s raining, the ground is wet.
Therefore, if the ground is wet it’s raining.

In ID’s case:

If design, then appearance of design.
Therefore: if appearance of design, then design.

It’s also the Argument from Ignorance:

I can’t understand how this could have happened naturally.
Therefore, it couldn’t have happened naturally.

So, to summarise:

1. ID doesn’t meet the criteria for ‘science’
2. The logic used to defend ID is fallacious
3. The evidence presented by ID as unexplainable (as if this would prove anything anyway) is invariably explained by existing scientific theories.

As someone commented upthread, ID is just a way to give Creationism scientific credibility. But ultimately it still relies on the intervention of an unknown, all-powerful entity that we might as well call God, despite the protests of the IDers.

 

[wanstronian]

Not really, i mean it’s obvious. The authority for an atheist moral system comes from man alone, and quite honestly, humanity ain’t much by itself, it has some good points, but it also has quite a few bad. The authority from a theistic moral system is dependent on God, and God’s law, being perfect (or presented as such) is much easier to bow your head to.
Quite frankly, if you could get away with breaking the law of man, you’d do it, because there is no reason outside of being caught that you should obey it. There is no escape from God though.
Also, if you tell a man, “obey me in life, and you shall receive happiness in death” he might say, “sure, good deal”. If you say to a man, “obey me” he’d probably just flip you the finger and continue on with his business.

It’s just more assertion. You seem to be implying though, that theists are good because they believe in God, and that if God were somehow disproved they’d all run riot, raping, killing, stealing etc. God is the only thing that keeps them in check.

Atheists, on the other hand, behave morally because that’s what people do. No god required.

So now I have to ask - who’s actually more moral? The people who need God to be good, or the people who don’t? I can’t imagine having to be bribed to act morally - what a pitiful existence that must be!

Anyway, I got involved with a thread on morality recently, it got to the point where a single response was taking 5 posts, I’ve had enough of that for now. None of your arguments are new, and none of them are supported by evidence.

Now faith is the undeniable base of reason because to say something is fact requires faith in the five senses, in the reliability of the human mind, and of course, that other people are actually telling the truth. For example, how verifiable is that the big bang happened, you can’t personally prove it, and the system that proves it is obviously constructed so it can prove the big bang theory, one must have faith that such an occurence happened.

Faith in one’s senses is hardly the same thing as faith in a supreme being. For one thing, this ‘faith’ in one’s senses is being constantly confirmed.Unless you are an extreme solipsist then this is good enough to call ‘fact’ for practical purposes.

So yes, one needs ‘faith’ (more accurately, ‘confidence’) in one’s faculties, in order to believe the accumulated raw data for reasoning. But such confidence is easily gained through repetition and validation.

But we were talking about religious faith. You said:

Faith (in the religious context)…is the undeniable base of reason.

But religious faith has no place in the process of reasoning and rational thought. This is obvious, by the fact that scientific discovery is not the exclusive domain of theists.