tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post1429470057277595490..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: In the bolshevik cabaret - John GrayRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-26242024851840120592009-11-28T07:12:36.739+11:002009-11-28T07:12:36.739+11:00Just returning your nonsense, David. How does it f...Just returning <b>your</b> nonsense, David. How does it feel? You must be so proud of your obfuscations.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8332377430810020712009-11-28T07:06:59.532+11:002009-11-28T07:06:59.532+11:00Thanks NEB. That was sho' nuff a substantive r...Thanks NEB. That was sho' nuff a substantive response.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-65151201154791689262009-11-28T05:28:12.458+11:002009-11-28T05:28:12.458+11:00David, your logic is so immature. By your 'log...David, your logic is so immature. By your 'logic' then religion and science is incompatible because if one asks 100 fundagelicals whether they are compatible then they will probably all say no.<br /><br />You obviously do not understand what a proper scientific experiment entails. You start out with bias. Either you are ignorant or malicious with your laughable test.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-69073877963119506322009-11-28T05:21:58.421+11:002009-11-28T05:21:58.421+11:00NEB,
It is equivalent to saying marriage and adul...NEB,<br /><br /><b><i>It is equivalent to saying marriage and adultery are compatible.</i></b><br /><br />No I already answered that. (Because unlike Coyne I believe in experimental verification.) So I’ll repeat: You can test whether marriage and adultery are compatible. Find a hundred men committing adultery and reveal the fact to their wives. You can then measure the effect of adultery on marriage. I believe the test will indicate an incompatibility—but that’s just my pre-experiment bias.<br /><br />In a way you are right—both “marriage and adultery are compatible” and “science and religion are incompatible” are alike in the sense that they are either falsifiable by experiment or they are unscientific nonsense.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22599810868968112702009-11-28T05:07:53.516+11:002009-11-28T05:07:53.516+11:00"I provide simple evidence that they are comp..."I provide simple evidence that they are compatible:..."<br /><br />That is just superficial. That proves nothing except that some people can live with a dichotomy in their mind. It is equivalent to saying marriage and adultery are compatible. You can call it mumbo-jumbo all you like but they are still not compatible.<br /><br />You have supplied nothing in evidence except apologetics.<br /><br />Believing in the supernatural with no evidence whatsoever and miracles and god-as-man-as-cracker is completely incompatible with the science process. Using <b>your</b> arguments then fairies are compatible, unicorns are compatible, Santa Clause is compatible, Harvey the rabbit is compatible.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-49581683114533769162009-11-28T04:41:16.437+11:002009-11-28T04:41:16.437+11:00oops,
previous comment was from me--the family co...oops,<br /><br />previous comment was from me--the family computer was logged into my wife's blog profile.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22098124832481964512009-11-28T04:20:20.514+11:002009-11-28T04:20:20.514+11:00JJE,
That is a fair point but ultimately it doesn...JJE,<br /><br />That is a fair point but ultimately it doesn’t withstand scrutiny. I have not stated that people cannot damage science based on religious motivations: they can. The can do all the things you mention.<br /><br />This is a political question, not one at the heart an incompatibility. Religion, at times, has also been a benefactor of science.<br /><br />And, politically speaking, science can thrive or be damaged under any ideology. Mao’s secular state nearly destroyed Chinese science with its cultural revolution. If award-winning atheist Bill Maher became president: watch out. If Sam Harris became president, would he use the NSF to fund some of his pseudo-science crackpot ideas? <br /><br />Suppose PZ became president. How does he feel about big science (say, funding the next giant accelerator or manned space program)? I don’t know if he is for or against it, but he must have a position and it is not obvious that both ends of the spectrum are equally beneficial to science, so the wrong choice, at some level, is harmful at least in the sense that it is sub-optimal.<br /><br /><br />NEB,<br /><br />I provide simple evidence that they are compatible: it happens all the time. Religious people do great science and, here is the important part, <i>cannot be distinguished from the science of unbvelievers.</i> <br /><br />The only refutation of these data is the usual say-nothing-say-all "compartmentalization" mumbo jumbo and the incorrectly applied charge of cognitive dissonance. No measurable evidence is offered.<br /><br />The experiments I suggested for Coyne's thesis can also be applied to the positive claim of compatibility. Those experiments demonstrate that you cannot distinguish the science of a believer from an unbeliever. Therefore they are compatible. QED.<br /><br />By the way you still don't know what <i>ad hominem</i> means. It does not mean mocking ("lidless eye" is mocking) or insulting.Benjamin Button in VAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08132618794387127628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-7861575261666840532009-11-28T01:08:26.761+11:002009-11-28T01:08:26.761+11:00Once again, like every single time, David wants pr...Once again, like every single time, David wants proof of a negative.<br /><br />David needs to supply evidence that religion and science are compatible, but he refuses to do so because he can not. He has no valid argument.<br /><br />David then attempts to make others try to prove a negative and uses ad hominem attacks (lidless-eyed) and disingenuous flawed arguments and dogma by the tonnage.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17294122032290365762009-11-27T20:04:40.441+11:002009-11-27T20:04:40.441+11:00My point is this, please listen: the incompatibili...<i><br />My point is this, please listen: the incompatibility of science and religion is only meaningful if it has a demonstrable effect. Otherwise it is just impotent, pseudo-scientific, gobbledygook. In other words: who gives a rat's ass if you or anyone else thinks they are incompatible, if you cannot demonstrate how it matters.<br /></i><br /><br />Finally, we're getting somewhere. Nobody claimed it had no effect. We all agree that religion (and more generally dogma) doesn't <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/PRECLUDE" rel="nofollow">preclude</a> good science.<br /><br />But it most certainly does have an effect on it. In the U.S., the objections to evolution, cosmology, deep time, cognitive neuroscience, and many other fields have a very strong Christian lobby against them. In Turkey, the most prominent anti-evolution force is motivated by Islam. In Russian genetics (technically Soviet genetics) Lysenko was detrimental to Mendelian genetics. Do we even need to mention Galileo? So, Protestant dogma, Soviet dogma, and Catholic dogma are all very important in influencing science in a negative way.<br /><br />So yes, production of good science can in fact be STRONGLY influenced by the willful maintenance of dogma, though it is emphatically not PRECLUDED by it. That is the argument.J.J. Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005635061756895272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-804421758544688192009-11-27T19:24:53.095+11:002009-11-27T19:24:53.095+11:00JJE
One more time: Incompatibility. Is. Not. Abo...JJE<br /><br /><b><i> One more time: Incompatibility. Is. Not. About. The. People; It. Is. About. The. Ideas.</i></b><br /><br />One more time: If Incompatibility between Religion and Science has no actual effect that can be detected then: It. Is. Just. An. Opinion. It. Is. Just. Psycho. Babble. It. Is. Not. A. Demonstrable. Fact. I. Can. Just. As. Easily. Claim. Coyne. Would. Be. A. Better. Scientist. If. He. Believed. In. God.<br /><br /><b><i> So your blind study isn't testing the right thing. Just like measuring my marital fidelity would say nothing if I were to claim that "adultery is compatible with marital fidelity".</i></b><br /><br />Of course not, because unlike Coyne's incompatibility I can devise an experiment to test the marital infidelity theory. Namely: <i>find 100 men engaged in marital infidelity and reveal the information to their wives.</i> If there is a net negative impact on the marriages, that would indicate an incompatibility. Or maybe there is no impact, indicating a compatibility. In any event, unlike Jerry's voodoo pronouncement, I can do an experiment.<br /><br /><b><i> "Possessing religious faith does not preclude its possessor from conducting science at the highest levels."<br /><br />That's been conceded since day one. And that point is PRECISELY the point made by your blind test. WE AGREE! Full stop. </i></b><br /><br />No, that is not my point and yes, I <i>know</i> you agree. Please, full stop on telling me you agree. My point is this, please listen: <i>the incompatibility of science and religion is only meaningful if it has a demonstrable effect.</i> Otherwise it is just impotent, pseudo-scientific, gobbledygook. In other words: who gives a rat's ass if you or anyone else thinks they are incompatible, if you cannot demonstrate how it matters.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-76618696528496116532009-11-27T18:10:21.149+11:002009-11-27T18:10:21.149+11:00You are making a category error. You are conflatin...You are making a category error. You are conflating ideas with people.<br /><br />Marital fidelity and adultery are not compatible IDEAS by definition. But just because you never cheat, doesn't mean your belief that fidelity and adultery are compatible is correct. Similarly, faith and methodological naturalism are incompatible. Just because a theist scientist never applies faith in science doesn't mean that faith and science aren't incompatible.<br /><br />You are going on again about the "trivial sense" of compatibility that has been <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/eugenie-scott-dissembles-about-accommodationism/" rel="nofollow">addressed before</a>:<br /><br /><i><br />First of all, nobody doubts that science and religion are compatible in the trivial sense that someone can be a scientist and be religious at the same time. That only shows one’s ability to hold two dissimilar approaches to the world simultaneously in one’s own mind. As I’ve said umpteen times before, you could say that being a Christian is compatible with being a murderer because a lot of murderers are Christians.<br /></i><br /><br />One more time: Incompatibility. Is. Not. About. The. People; It. Is. About. The. Ideas.<br /><br />So your blind study isn't testing the right thing. Just like measuring my marital fidelity would say nothing if I were to claim that "adultery is compatible with marital fidelity". I would be wrong EVEN IF I WERE PERFECTLY FAITHFUL.<br /><br />And your argument is even weaker than that. Let's say that I claim that adultery and marital fidelity were compatible. And you only examined my work life. For 50 years as a productive worker in my company, I never once cheated with a co-worker. Therefore I've proven my point! But that says nothing about all the prostitutes I might slept with outside of work. And of course, my behavior still says nothing about the compatibility of adultery and marital fidelity, and just opens up the person that compartmentalizes between work and non-work up to possible hypocrisy.<br /><br />The concession everyone I take you to be addressing in the conversation (e.g. Coyne) has always been willing to make is the following:<br /><br />"Possessing religious faith does not preclude its possessor from conducting science at the highest levels."<br /><br />That's been conceded since day one. And that point is PRECISELY the point made by your blind test. WE AGREE! Full stop.<br /><br />You still haven't addressed the compatibility of the ideas.J.J. Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005635061756895272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-38138766726726069012009-11-27T17:23:19.859+11:002009-11-27T17:23:19.859+11:00JJE,
Coyne is absolutely making a dogmatic claim....JJE,<br /><br />Coyne is absolutely making a dogmatic claim. And an especially disingenuous one, given that he also argues that we know what we know through science.<br /><br />As such, he should be held to requirement of providing a scientific test of his claim "science and religion are incompatible," otherwise it ain't science, it is <i>opinion</i>, and given that he applies it as a test of orthodoxy, lest you receive the mark of faithiest, it is <i>dogma.</i><br /><br />Just to remind you I offered two possible scientific tests.<br /><br />1) To do a blind test where you identify which authors of peer-reviewed scientific papers are believers.<br /><br />2) Describe any experiment that I, as a believer, would perform differently than an unbeliever.<br /><br />I am open to other tests.<br /><br />If Coyne's hypothesis can't pass these tests then it is falsified.<br /><br />Or, if his hypothesis cannot be tested and falsified, then it is not science. Which, given that what we know we know by science suggests the obvious question: how then do we know what he says is true?<br /><br />And given that he can't prove it, and yet uses it to establish his circle of orthodoxy, proves it's dogma.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77560227491925247032009-11-27T17:10:02.363+11:002009-11-27T17:10:02.363+11:00And of course, since you are linking the validity ...And of course, since you are linking the validity of your argument to the personal characteristics of one of Jerry's objects of criticism, you are committing a logical fallacy related to an <i>ad hominem</i> argument.<br /><br />It doesn't matter if Mao, Jesus, Stalin, Santa Claus, Pat Robertson, George Bush, Dennis Kucinich, or even Michael Shermer advocates that position that religion and science are compatible. Their argument and the argument of Jerry stands or falls on its own merits.<br /><br />Your rehashing of Jerry's consistent position in light of the fact that <gasp> a fellow atheist disagrees is irrelevant information and does nothing to advance the interplay of ideas other than give you an opportunity to snark with a silly line you got from watching Yul Brynner one too many times.J.J. Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005635061756895272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-7496042842530546302009-11-27T16:56:37.404+11:002009-11-27T16:56:37.404+11:00Again, I anticipate your fairly predictable argume...Again, I anticipate your fairly predictable arguments. Let me quote myself regarding precisely this point:<br /><br /><i><br />So, basically, Coyne isn't making a dogmatic claim. It is a simple exploration of the consequences of defining science and religion in fairly non-controversial ways.<br /><br />You may certainly object to the definitions, but conditional on those definitions, I don't think you can disagree with Coyne. If Coyne is dogmatic about anything, it might be in asserting that those definitions are the best ones. But the clear consequence of those definitions is that science and religion are in some important and non-trivial sense, incompatible.<br /></i><br /><br />You didn't address this point. Basically, "religion isn't compatible with science" in the sense explained above. That is an argument. You speak as if (quoting myself again):<br /><br /><i><br />people like me can't argue vigorously for a perspective without being dogmatic about it.<br /></i><br /><br />And basically, you equate any vigorous defense of a position in the compatibility/incompatibility discussion as dogmatic. You aren't even engaging on the front lines of discussion.J.J. Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005635061756895272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62917680316571143242009-11-27T16:40:03.161+11:002009-11-27T16:40:03.161+11:00Coyne, the dogmatist, casts his lidless-eyed inqui...Coyne, the dogmatist, casts his lidless-eyed inquisitioner's gaze upon Michael Shermer. <i>Michael Shermer!</i> <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/michael-shermer-theologian/" rel="nofollow">He has been charged with faitheism and accommodationism. Let him be anathema.</a> <br /><br />Coyne speaketh: Let Us remind Shermer, the apostate: "the only kind of religion not at war with science is deism."<br /><br />So let it be written. So let it be done.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-30314663302132175512009-11-27T15:24:05.894+11:002009-11-27T15:24:05.894+11:00[continued from above]
Finally, let me paraphrase...[continued from above]<br /><br />Finally, let me paraphrase my understanding of Coyne's argument:<br /><br />1) science does its best to question everything and to reject dogma when possible. It can and does fail to do so, but it at least holds as a goal these aims;<br />2) religion is many things, and some religions (deism, certain strains of Quakers, Unitarians, etc.) have few if any recognizable dogmas. However, the majority of religion as practiced by self-identified religious people in the world adhere actively to certain dogmas. Some actively adhere to a very small number of dogmas, some to a very large number;<br />3) It is the willful adherence to dogma in #2 and the goal of rejecting dogma in #1 that defines the sense in which Coyne claims incompatibility between science and religion.<br /><br />So, basically, Coyne isn't making a dogmatic claim. It is a simple exploration of the consequences of defining science and religion in fairly non-controversial ways.<br /><br />You may certainly object to the definitions, but conditional on those definitions, I don't think you can disagree with Coyne. If Coyne is dogmatic about anything, it might be in asserting that those definitions are the best ones. But the clear consequence of those definitions is that science and religion are in some important and non-trivial sense, incompatible.J.J. Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005635061756895272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73784670818435312822009-11-27T15:22:43.544+11:002009-11-27T15:22:43.544+11:00No David. It isn't presumptuous or a stretch f...No David. It isn't presumptuous or a stretch for me to say I'm cogent enough and your reading comprehension is sufficient for my argument to impinge on your consciousness if you tried in good faith. But that doesn't mean you actually care to try most of the time. I don't think you even tried to engage <a href="http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2009/11/in-bolshevik-cabaret-john-gray.html?showComment=1259031694887#c7036592497895856670" rel="nofollow">my argument</a>.<br /><br />Your following comment completely ignored my comment:<br /><i>This is the old "no True Atheist™ is bad" because if they are bad then they are in fact religious--Marxists, Stalinists, Maoists, Pol-Potites--they are all religious, because, well, no True Atheist™ could be so bad.</i><br /><br />This is disingenuous. There are entire works written on the nature of totalitarian thinking predating this iteration of arguing theism, and invariably religious comparisons arise (read "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt and "The God that Failed" edited by Arthur Koestler). Your statement only works if atheists use that line of argument in a fallback, <i>ad hoc</i> defense when confronted with an obvious and valid comparison to totalitarian dictators. But no, it has been consistently demonstrated that the totalitarian regimes don't fit at all in same argument as Dawkins & Coyne. Maybe you're not being willfully obtuse, but Dawkins and Coyne et al. define themselves SPECIFICALLY in terms of rational, evidence based skepticism. This definition is in part IN RESPONSE to the hackneyed trotting out of the old "No True Atheist" chestnut. That argument that you have made has already had its impact on the conversation, and your interlocutors have already incorporated that into their thinking and arguments. You're reliving an old battle.<br /><br />Their particular arguments may or may not be valid and that is something to be debated. And in fact, you might even successfully point to dogmas they hold that they claim they do not.<br /><br />HOWEVER, and this is the crucial part, any person even passingly familiar with the arguments by the popular atheists of late (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Coyne in his TNR piece, etc.) would be mistaken if they tried to claim that they aren't making a case that SPECIFICALLY takes into account dogma.<br /><br />If you are arguing with "New Atheists", then you have to have some appreciation for what they represent and how they define themselves. And yes, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are not true "New Atheists" in much the same way that someone who was born and died in Borneo without ever leaving isn't a true Scotsman.<br /><br />That's the restatement and elaboration of my first point. And the crucial difference is because the matter at hand, the salient issue is one of dogma. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and most religions, and plenty of benign organizations (I'm not making a guilt by association argument here) have dogmas. The fall, original sin, the divinity of Christ, the diktats of Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot are true and good, etc. That's all dogma.<br /><br />The "New Atheists" have provided statements of what would change their assessment of the existence of god(s), and as such, their provisional disbelief in god(s) is not dogmatic. And none of them has to my knowledge made the "I'm certain there is no god" argument. In fact, I'm certain that several of them have explicitly made room for the "I can't prove there is no god" exception, included among them Harris, Dawkins, and Coyne, just for starters.<br /><br />[continued]J.J. Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005635061756895272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-69316708716349652762009-11-26T14:35:48.991+11:002009-11-26T14:35:48.991+11:00"...because declaring that it has been demons..."...because declaring that it has been demonstrated that science and religion are incompatible is bullocks."<br /><br />Now there is an argument with logic and evidence that is well thought out and has excellent presence. I am now a believer in woo.<br /><br />Oh wait, no it isn't any of that, it is just dogmatic opinion. Just the usual from that source.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-38569240710034493532009-11-26T14:27:47.172+11:002009-11-26T14:27:47.172+11:00J.J.E,
I have no idea what your "points"...J.J.E,<br /><br />I have no idea what your "points" are that I am supposed to respond to, but if my lack of response allows you to declare victory, then go for it. No need to consider the possibility that you didn't make a substantive or cogent argument that warranted a response.<br /><br />Maybe they are this, looking at your previous comment.<br /><br />Coyne <i>does</i> have the stench of the dogmatist about him, because declaring that it has been demonstrated that science and religion are incompatible is bullocks. And inventing names for the apostate is another sign.<br /><br />Your example is nonsense. "I will vigorously argue that relativity is a better approximation of reality than is classical mechanics" is nothing like "science and religion are incompatible" I mean, duh. I can prove that relativity is a better theory both theoretically (by deriving Newton's Laws in a classical limit) and experimentally (e.g., the precession of Mercury's perihelion).<br /><br />Once claim is science, and you can defend it to the death without being a dogmatist because you can demonstrate it experimentally.<br /><br />The other (Coyne's nonsense) is an opinion, which he is free to have, but which he has now perverted into a simplistic dogma.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77330166092447911752009-11-26T13:03:04.323+11:002009-11-26T13:03:04.323+11:00Silence from David Heddle.
I take it then that he...Silence from David Heddle.<br /><br />I take it then that he agrees that atheism played no causative role in the authoritarian atrocities in the 20th century and further that dogma was more to blame.<br /><br />If David disagrees, he would do well to actually address my points.J.J. Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005635061756895272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40498213598706547952009-11-25T04:21:20.433+11:002009-11-25T04:21:20.433+11:00"None of these "feelings" or "..."None of these "feelings" or "beliefs" are rational."<br /><br />Now there is an argument with facts and evidence. Oh wait - it is just his belief. <br /><br />Some people arrive at their conclusion by feelings. Others do not. I can enumerate several rational reasons. You can not because you are using the argument from ignorance.<br /><br />The value of life is on a sliding scale, dependent on the species and whether it has a nervous system, sentience, etc. It is not absolute.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-7044284063578441762009-11-25T03:08:14.334+11:002009-11-25T03:08:14.334+11:00Gingerbaker,
That has got to be the dumbest comme...Gingerbaker,<br /><br /><b><i>That has got to be the dumbest comment I have seen you make, heddle. </i></b><br /><br />Always a winning argument.<br /><br />No it is the same thing. If you push the debate on animal testing between opposing secular rationalists to its limit, the disagreement will be on different <i>irrational</i> suppositions. One will <i>feel</i> that animal testing is OK, maybe because he <i>believes</i> that human life is more valuable. The other will <i>feel</i> that it is not OK, maybe because he <i>believes</i> that human life is not intrinsically more valueable. <br /><br />None of these "feelings" or "beliefs" are rational. One person cannot, through logic and reason, prove that his feelings or beliefs in this matter are correct. If they could they would, or someone would, and all rational people would be obliged to accept the proof. No, they just hold these feelings or beliefs or <i>values</i> for no discernible, rational reason.<br /><br />Just like a religious belief. I can't prove to you that God exists. You can't prove to me that human life is more valuable or less valuable than other life.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80451605202486122522009-11-25T02:32:36.937+11:002009-11-25T02:32:36.937+11:00"The reason the rational secularists disagree...<i> "The reason the rational secularists disagree, even when presented with the same data, is that ultimately they have different values—and these values (animal testing is good/bad) are as irrational as religious beliefs."</i><br /><br />That has got to be the dumbest comment I have seen you make, heddle. Having a difference of opinion on the merits of animal testing is as irrational as believing only in the 10,000th invisible sky god? <br /><br /> Below you.Gingerbakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211637630936981883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48958424029982214882009-11-25T01:38:28.027+11:002009-11-25T01:38:28.027+11:00Again, it is not faith, but observation. Making up...Again, it is not faith, but observation. Making up nonsense 'what-ifs' is useless. Once again, David, you do not see what is reality.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31157774860885646022009-11-25T01:35:32.441+11:002009-11-25T01:35:32.441+11:00The faith that science is not a fool’s errand is n...The faith that science is not a fool’s errand is not meaningless. Many scientists have commented on the “unreasonable” effectiveness of mathematics. Just imagine if Newton’s laws were nonlinear, with no good linear approximation. We'd still be in the dark ages. We all go into the lab with the assumption that we will continue to move forward. Perhaps in fits and starts, but inexorably and on the timescale of human lives. That is based entirely on history. In reality progress could stop today. We have faith that it will not, or we wouldn’t do what we do. We wouldn’t spend billions and invest lives if not for the faith than the next advancement of science will be comprehensible to our minds, calculable through our mathematics, and attainable through hard work.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.com