tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post3973057910563647612..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: The supposed atheist schism (article coming up in Comment is Free)Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39953909166314621462009-11-08T02:12:28.782+11:002009-11-08T02:12:28.782+11:00You disgusting tactics are typical for people who ...You disgusting tactics are typical for people who have no arguments to stand upon, so you sling lies and crap.<br /><br /><br />Apparently you decided to go with insults instead of argument.<br /><br />But please, feel free to refute my arguments any time using logic and evidence instead of ad hominems and invective.<br /><br />That is, if you can....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-53557349468481663182009-11-07T03:23:43.860+11:002009-11-07T03:23:43.860+11:00Anonymous wrote:
While you can teach the mechanic...Anonymous wrote:<br /><br /><i>While you can teach the mechanics of evolution you cannot teach what you believe to be its implications as if they were fact. at that point you ARE teaching "religion" in the classroom and advocating a set of beliefs.</i><br /><br />And, in fact, no one advocates teaching what some believe are the implications in public school. Why do you go on as if this were in fact what is happening.<br /><br /><i>they are advocating a belief system in the context of a public classroom.</i><br /><br />Where is this context of a public classroom that you speak of? None of the people you mention are public school teachers and none claim that a belief system should be advocated in public school.<br /><br /><i>So if the teachers of evolution make the definitive claim that evolution precludes the existence of God, </i><br /><br />Can you point to a single person who makes the claim that this should be taught in science class?<br /><br /><i>And if atheism and evolution cannot be separated, then evolution cannot be taught in a public classroom...As a follow up, it is not necessary to definitively link evolution and atheism.<br /></i><br /><br />Which shows that your ignorance of the law and the Constitution runs just as deep as Ruse's.tomhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-19682883887113913282009-11-07T03:09:21.327+11:002009-11-07T03:09:21.327+11:00"Wow, are all atheists as intelligent, though..."Wow, are all atheists as intelligent, thoughtful and articulate as you?<br /><br />Don't atheists have enough public relations issues without people like you feeding negative stereotypes?"<br /><br />No, Anonymous, beside all the many, many, many other stupid things you have said here you obviously do not understand the difference in my attacking the inane, stupid things YOU SAY. I did not attack you. You are the one throwing stones and accusing people of doing things that they did not do.<br /><br />You disgusting tactics are typical for people who have no arguments to stand upon, so you sling lies and crap.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-64600055511693113962009-11-07T02:57:26.489+11:002009-11-07T02:57:26.489+11:00"Indeed. "Anonymous" seems to have ..."Indeed. "Anonymous" seems to have little understanding of the philosophy and nature of science."<br /><br />You don't understand that science deals strictly with mechanos, and then only when claims can be tested and/or falsified?<br /><br />Teleos OTOH lies outside the limits of science. Nontestable/ nonfalsifiable belief claims and those dealing with meaning and purpose are non-scientific ("meaningless" in a Popperian sense).<br /><br />Neither atheist nor theistic claims belong in a scientific classroom.<br /><br />Neither atheist nor theistic advocacy belongs in a public classroom.<br /><br />What part of this are you not understanding?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-41667599251446797582009-11-07T02:50:28.714+11:002009-11-07T02:50:28.714+11:00Indeed. "Anonymous" seems to have littl...Indeed. "Anonymous" seems to have little understanding of the philosophy and nature of science.<br /><br />Presumably the "belief system" that the Earth is round should not be taught either.<br /><br />Geology will have to proceed simply presenting the evidence for the spherical nature of our planet, and letting the students draw their own conclusions.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8853648269732084922009-11-07T02:47:58.738+11:002009-11-07T02:47:58.738+11:00"No they are advocating a belief system in th..."No they are advocating a belief system in the context of a public classroom. If theists cannot use the public schools to advocate their belief systems (and rightly so) neither can atheists."<br /><br />Wow, your statements are getting more stupid by the hour. Get lost loser. This garbage is not worth my time. Your delusions should be kept to yourself.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68191534553163935552009-11-07T02:45:01.081+11:002009-11-07T02:45:01.081+11:00That's not the point.
The Catholic Church be...That's not the point. <br /><br />The Catholic Church believes in abandoning science when it suits them.<br /><br />So their position is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not atheism is a reasonable scientific position.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-47690973803808386242009-11-07T02:41:42.138+11:002009-11-07T02:41:42.138+11:00As a follow up, it is not necessary to definitivel...As a follow up, it is not necessary to definitively link evolution and atheism.<br /><br />In fact, the largest Christian denomination readily accepts the Big Bang and has had no trouble accepting Evolution (officially calling it "more than a theory"). <br /><br />They're called Catholics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14941896454769467582009-11-07T02:38:03.374+11:002009-11-07T02:38:03.374+11:00"Theism is the claim that a deity interferes ..."Theism is the claim that a deity interferes with physical reality."<br /><br />Theism is the claim that a deity is the cause, reason for and sustainer of physical reality. The existence of miracles is not necessary for theistic claims. Existence itself is miraculous enough.<br /><br />"Belief systems can't possibly lie outside of science when the beliefs are the result of the workings of neurons in a brain!"<br /><br />So the number pi would not exist unless somebody calculated it? Whether or not we belive that existence has a purpose is a function of our brains. Whether existence actually has a purpose is a separate issue that lies outside of science.<br /><br />"You have to first prove a strange kind of dualism before you can make that claim."<br /><br />You have to embrace solipcism to claim otherwise.<br /><br />"The "wall of separation" is a political construct."<br /><br />The wall is Ruse's whole point. Like it or not, advocating a belief system violates that separation. Neither theism nor atheism can be taught or advocated in the classroom. <br /><br />Your feelings on the issue are irrelevant.<br /><br />So if the teachers of evolution make the definitive claim that evolution precludes the existence of God, they are no longer teaching science. They are advocating a belief system, and not just teaching the mechanics of the evolutionary process. And if atheism and evolution cannot be separated, then evolution cannot be taught in a public classroom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-83452354247904589242009-11-07T02:20:41.751+11:002009-11-07T02:20:41.751+11:00Theism is the claim that the universe exists for a...<i>Theism is the claim that the universe exists for a reason and has an inherent purpose.</i><br /><br />No it isn't. That is deism.<br /><br />Theism is the claim that a deity interferes with physical reality.<br /><br /><i>How we perceive and understand belief systems is a matter of pyschology. To claim that these perceptions say anything about the truth of these beliefs is to commit the Genetic Fallacy. The belief systems themselves lie outside science.</i><br /><br />Nonsense. If you claim you have had a real experience and psychology can show that it was actually a dream, and not real, then this is science providing evidence against the claim.<br /><br />Belief systems can't possibly lie outside of science when the beliefs are the result of the workings of neurons in a brain! <br /><br />You have to first prove a strange kind of dualism before you can make that claim.<br /><br />What science can test is whether or not claims are actually evidence for anything. <br /><br />Science can potentially show, in a particular situation, whether or not a belief in a God actually has any relevance to the existence of a God. If it doesn't, then this is yet more evidence that the belief in God is mistaken.<br /><br /><i>To advocate atheism in the classroom is to advocate a belief system and violate the "wall of separation" a surely as advocating Catholicism in a public school context.</i><br /><br />That's politics. The "wall of separation" is a political construct.<br /><br />I believe that this wall of separation is intellectual nonsense, but politically necessary, unfortunately.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-24336013930556001382009-11-07T02:07:44.120+11:002009-11-07T02:07:44.120+11:00"First, theism implies interventions into phy..."First, theism implies interventions into physical reality. That can be investigated."<br /><br />Theism implies an inhernet meaning and purpose to creation,neither of which are scientific concepts.<br /><br />"Second, belief systems are a matter of psychology. That can be investigated."<br /><br />How we perceive and understand belief systems is a matter of pyschology. To claim that these perceptions say anything about the truth of these beliefs is to commit the Genetic Fallacy. The belief systems themselves lie outside science. <br /><br />"Theism is a testable hypothesis about the physical world: Gods have meddled."<br /><br />Theism is the claim that the universe exists for a reason and has an inherent purpose. Neither claim is scientific, and neither is the nihilism derived from atheism.<br /><br />"It may be politically wise to not mention atheism in science classes (and I agree with this policy), but it is just nonsense to say it is scientifically or philosophically invalid."<br /><br />Political wisdom has nothing to do with it. To advocate atheism in the classroom is to advocate a belief system and violate the "wall of separation" a surely as advocating Catholicism in a public school context.<br /><br />What the law would require is the atheistic equivalent of parochial schools where atheism as a belief system is taught and advocated in a manner no different than catachism classes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-16194482253970366612009-11-07T01:21:27.892+11:002009-11-07T01:21:27.892+11:00Furthermore, neither theism nor atheism are scient...<i>Furthermore, neither theism nor atheism are scientific.</i><br /><br />Yes they are, on two grounds.<br /><br />First, theism implies interventions into physical reality. That can be investigated.<br /><br />Second, belief systems are a matter of psychology. That can be investigated.<br /><br />This "God is beyond science" idea really is utter nonsense, and it is time it was put to rest. <br /><br />Because we have good evidence that the pyramids were build by men, then this is also good evidence that there was no interference by aliens (as some have suggested).<br /><br />Because we have good evidence that the universe works by physical principles, and that life evolved via natural selection, this is also good evidence that there was no interference by Gods.<br /><br />Theism is a testable hypothesis about the physical world: Gods have meddled.<br /><br />Christianity involves scientific statements.<br /><br />If you want to retreat to something beyond science for now, then go for deism, although even that is also philosophically absurd.<br /><br />It may be politically wise to not mention atheism in science classes (and I agree with this policy), but it is just nonsense to say it is scientifically or philosophically invalid.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55507305153043285692009-11-07T01:08:07.565+11:002009-11-07T01:08:07.565+11:00Are they teaching a science class in a public scho...Are they teaching a science class in a public school? <br /><br />No they are advocating a belief system in the context of a public classroom. If theists cannot use the public schools to advocate their belief systems (and rightly so) neither can atheists.<br /><br />Furthermore, neither theism nor atheism are scientific. They both deal with unscientific beliefs (neither theistic or atheistic claims are falsifiable or testable under strict definitions of science).<br /><br />However, both should be free to discuss their beliefs (without advocating those beliefs) in a non-science class such as a class in philosophy or comparative relgion. So should other concepts such as ID. The study of such concepts as "design", "intent", "meaning" and "purpose" (or lack thereof) has no place in a SCIENCE classroom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-78356042932280411382009-11-07T00:08:55.637+11:002009-11-07T00:08:55.637+11:00"Where Dawkins, etal cross the line is their ..."Where Dawkins, etal cross the line is their advocacy of atheism and their direct and deliberate tying of atheism to evolution."<br /><br />How did Dawkins et. al. cross the line? Are they teaching a science class in a public school? Or do you mean they have no rights to talk or write in public?<br /><br />Therefore Ruse and Anonymous have no point to make.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-16129763547701573702009-11-06T22:44:14.931+11:002009-11-06T22:44:14.931+11:00"My point was that even if everyone agreed th..."My point was that even if everyone agreed that evolution implies atheism, there still would not be anything unconstitutional about teaching accepted science in science class, no matter what implications logically follow. Ruse is just pulling specious arguments out of thin air."<br /><br /><br />Not quite, Ruse has a point. While you can teach the mechanics of evolution you cannot teach what you believe to be its implications as if they were fact. at that point you ARE teaching "religion" in the classroom and advocating a set of beliefs. That would be no different than teaching ID as if it were science.<br /><br />What would be allowed is discussing (not advocating, but discussing) of atheism, and ID and other beliefs in the context of a philosophy or comparative religions class. Where Dawkins, etal cross the line is their advocacy of atheism and their direct and deliberate tying of atheism to evolution.<br /><br />However, neither ID nor atheism has any place in a science class since neither is scientific. They are both philosophical beliefs addressing teleos, not observations examining mechanos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-34450848170238911592009-11-06T22:37:17.063+11:002009-11-06T22:37:17.063+11:00This is pure nonsense and laughable.
Why?This is pure nonsense and laughable.<br /><br />Why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60619334337742113122009-11-06T09:18:02.168+11:002009-11-06T09:18:02.168+11:00Thanks tomh. I guess I don't really understand...Thanks tomh. I guess I don't really understand the laws over there in the U.S. then. I thought anything that taught a religious view was out.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71791440276199728212009-11-06T08:35:56.865+11:002009-11-06T08:35:56.865+11:00By implies, I do not mean hints at, or suggest, I ...<i>By implies, I do not mean hints at, or suggest, I mean logically entails.</i><br /><br />Thank you. My point was that even if everyone agreed that evolution implies atheism, there still would not be anything unconstitutional about teaching accepted science in science class, no matter what implications logically follow. Ruse is just pulling specious arguments out of thin air.tomhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91131415745355260902009-11-06T08:35:38.665+11:002009-11-06T08:35:38.665+11:00Anonymous, could you be more elitist?
"Inde...Anonymous, could you be more elitist? <br /><br />"Indeed, the question "Does God Exist" is the wrong question from square one. The real question is "Does existence have an inherent meaning or purpose, a reason for existing?". "<br /><br />This is pure nonsense and laughable.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14750630062073680162009-11-06T08:03:57.823+11:002009-11-06T08:03:57.823+11:00Tomh:
Just using the word "implies", mea...Tomh:<br /><i>Just using the word "implies", means that some will take one view, some another.</i><br /><br /> By implies, I do not mean hints at, or suggest, I mean logically entails.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9487795916273286112009-11-06T07:23:01.416+11:002009-11-06T07:23:01.416+11:00The real question is "Does existence have an ...<i>The real question is "Does existence have an inherent meaning or purpose, a reason for existing?".</i><br /><br />Oh dear. I now know who I am dealing with, and should not have engaged.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-59629980786313886392009-11-06T06:05:10.601+11:002009-11-06T06:05:10.601+11:00NewEnglandBob - could you posibly be more sophomor...NewEnglandBob - could you posibly be more sophomoric?<br /><br />Why don't you read Will Durant's "The Power of Religion" at http://www.willdurant.com/religion.htm<br /><br />and get back to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-10391408519288039612009-11-06T06:01:57.736+11:002009-11-06T06:01:57.736+11:00"Meaning and purpose are words used by a cert..."Meaning and purpose are words used by a certain species of ape as a result of their brain activity."<br /><br />How we perceive meaning and purpose is subject to scientific inquiry. However, the concepts themselves are not scientific.<br /><br />Indeed, the question "Does God Exist" is the wrong question from square one. The real question is "Does existence have an inherent meaning or purpose, a reason for existing?".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-88574998786730623342009-11-06T05:56:40.904+11:002009-11-06T05:56:40.904+11:00Anonymous:
Religion, of course, has no province ot...Anonymous:<br />Religion, of course, has no province other than fantasies, excuses for bad behavior and attempting to control others for selfish purposes. Some philosophers seems to think that philosophy has the province of thinking it is above all else.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-79084712909218421192009-11-06T05:39:50.084+11:002009-11-06T05:39:50.084+11:00Sorry.. in the previous comment: "should"...Sorry.. in the previous comment: "should" should be "should not".Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com