1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #250891 by fizhburn on September 20, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Comment #249906 by gogglebrains

Welcome to the site! I hope your post is the beginning of a constructive dialogue and not an example of drive-by passive-aggressive nonsense :)

What ever, specifically, makes you think RD is "afraid"?

2. 'Rare' mammoth skull discovered

Comment #242148 by fizhburn on September 3, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #241602 by AfraidToDie

If it was like 5, 13, 17, 25, 29, 197, 205, etc., how many more would it take for ID'ers to actually accept the obvious fact that this series can easily be defined as 4n minus 3?

They don't see this as a search for underlying principle, is the thing, nor as confirmation that the principle (thought to hold of the relevant series for antecedent reasons) holds of the facts. They are looking for a whole 'nother animal, something much more like a continuum of transition (which, given finite generations, is strange by itself).

3. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235678 by fizhburn on August 23, 2008 at 11:34 am

Here I was, enjoying a nice quiet hangover, and some fool on the internet has to go and ruin it with unusually hyperbolic cluelessness.

JoMo: stop ctrl-c/ctrl-vomiting nutjob windbaggery and just make your arguments yourself.

Thanks in advance,
Allah

4. No credit for creationism

Comment #235029 by fizhburn on August 22, 2008 at 11:20 am

If we're employing a principle of charity, then what might be the best formulation of ID?

Basically it's asserting that there is at least one evolutionary event (on Earth) that cannot be explained by intention-less processes. That is, excluding human meddling with various genomes.

This claim is weaker than the claim that YHWH or whoever reached into germ cells and cocked things up, but even so weakened there is nothing to say in favor of it. Given the history of science in filling in gaps in our knowledge, that proposed irreducibly complex systems have so far turned out not to be so irreducible (thus that an adequate criterion for IC has not been formulated), and that nothing like evidence for design has ever been found (since appearance can't count as evidence unless some correct argument by analogy holds, which it doesn't), by induction we shouldn't take ID seriously.

But it can be formulated as a "falsifiable" hypothesis. Since its confirmation requires us to embark upon an exhaustive cataloging of the evolution of every biological system in existence, it can safely be put on a shelf indefinitely. Certainly it doesn't give any additional impetus to a research program that was going to be carried out anyway.

As MPhil pointed out, the stronger hypothesis that a nonphysical entity performed some intervention is a non-starter, assuming you agree that (i) non-physical entities cannot generate physical causes [what would that even be like?], and (ii) "science" deals only with physical facts.

5. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234535 by fizhburn on August 21, 2008 at 2:14 pm

If there were reason to believe that being an atheist actually motivated promoting a secularist agenda, it would in fact be a defeasible reason to vote for the candidate. Grayling is giving some reasons to prefer atheists to theists in general; but whether Miliband promotes secularism is where the real test lies. Perhaps those of you on the island can tell us?

6. A flea we missed?

Comment #232151 by fizhburn on August 17, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Bye Apathy. Keep it disinterested and uninvolved.

7. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231975 by fizhburn on August 17, 2008 at 11:33 am

8. Comment #231921 by Sargeist,

Thought I'd have a go at the quantum-freedom idea (contra Ex~). This is, essentially, the claim that because at the quantum level we have only a probabilistic framework for what happens, it is possible there is some reason why, for any particular event, A rather than B happens. That could be free will. Suppose this is correct. Then instead of event A ``just happening'', something chooses, resulting in A. But why was A chosen rather than B? If the will ``just chose'', this is no better than A just happening, and so Ockham's Razor allows us to cut out free will. If the will didn't just choose, there must be something that produced the choice. But this must be either something that just happened, again allowing us to cut the extra theoretical machinery away, or was itself determined by something. The idea that there is a reason for A rather than B to happen (in the form of a ``will'') then is either redundant or leads to a regress of ``causes'' (=determining factors, whatever those might be).

(John Locke gave us the archetype for such arguments.)

8. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #231956 by fizhburn on August 17, 2008 at 11:09 am

If different doctors have different ideas about what harms the patient and what does not, at least some of the doctors will be violating the hippocratic oath. What's needed is a standardization of what does and what does not harm patients. If particular people cannot because of religious convictions perform or refrain from performing certain actions that help or harm the patient, they should not be in a position to do so. So for example Catholic doctors should stay out of general practice or family medicine where they might harm patients because of their incorrect beliefs about what reproductive health measures are or aren't harmful to their patients. The oath says to first do no harm, not to do no ``harm'' as defined according to one's mythological text.

9. Unintelligent Design

Comment #231946 by fizhburn on August 17, 2008 at 10:58 am

Quine,

You took the words out of my mouth.

If only there were some way to get the folk -- or rather, that segment of the population that is not active ID obfuscators but thinks ID is a viable alternative to evolution -- to actually read such articles. Readers at HuffPo are a self-selected sample. Maybe if we could get it featured on Little Green Footballs?

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #231941 by fizhburn on August 17, 2008 at 10:48 am

txpiper,

I am interested in your response to this post, when you get a chance. TIA.

11. A flea we missed?

Comment #231669 by fizhburn on August 16, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Okay, so I'll concede this much in coretemprising's direction:

Sometimes we get a bit rough.

Question: so what?

Well, I suppose it will turn off readers who don't find forums with established members' banter in them appealing; and it will turn off those who have virgin ears, whatever those might be---and those who think that the language actual adults use in everyday conversation is not appropriate for Internet.

It might even get in the way of an honest exchange of ideas. Maybe. If one of the parties involved wasn't honestly exchanging (and I think readers here can recognize such people for the most part), there's no point in moderating one's tone.

I note that on FCOS, for instance, the handing of asses to asses by rationalists goes off without a hitch despite the higher tone. But that's an antirationalist site with "everybody be nicey-nice because Oh My Gosh Being Offended Is Much Worse Than Being Wrong I'm Crying I Swear You Are Such Awful Winners Where Is My Morals Police When I Need It Aha The Webmaster Compells Thee To Get Out" rules.

If you can't find your way through the insults to the arguments, chances are you won't understand the arguments; if you presented a decent argument, people would take you seriously and insult you less.

So, in conclusion, fuck it, and if you don't like it feel free to fuck off.

12. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #231610 by fizhburn on August 16, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Comment #231428 by Fanusi Khiyal,

You don't have to believe in the divinity of Jesus to be christian; I for instance was confirmed assenting only that he was my "savior", and the confirmation class was explicitly told that the divinity issue was a matter of personal belief. Similarly, I don't see why there can't be muslims who do not think the Qur'an is both literally true and inerrant.

/nitpick

13. A flea we missed?

Comment #231421 by fizhburn on August 16, 2008 at 10:28 am

twp,

Oh, so he's kind of like a pathetic Beetlejuice. That would explain the profound weirdness of his posts.

14. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230938 by fizhburn on August 15, 2008 at 12:48 pm

The logical possibility of a deistic creator-being doesn't undermine the probabilistic conclusion that there is almost certainly no god. So unless you gerrymander the meaning of agnosticism, buying the sorts of arguments RD puts forward should lead you to atheism.

15. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230919 by fizhburn on August 15, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Durant,

I've had a moment to respond to your earlier post:

Dawkins ignores the historical complexities involved in the relationship between science and religion, invoking the oft-discredited notion that they're "at war"

Discredited by whom? Given the militaristic way English speakers tend to characterize disagreements, `at war' is a fairly straightforward manner of describing a conflict in which at least one side is willing to commit violence to forward its cause (see e.g. recent threats on PZ Myers' life due to throwing away a cracker).

makes disingenuous assertions (e.g. nobody has ever killed in the name of atheism,)

With respect to what claim or argument is this disingenuous? It seems more likely from my recollection of Dawkins' writings to be false than to be disingenuous. But: it is possible that Marxist regimes have from time to time killed in the name of anti-religious doctrine, but even that isn't killing in the name of atheism.

cherry picks the worst of religious fanaticism and props it up as a case against religion in general

What's the claim here? If moderate religious belief provides an ideological space in which fanaticism festers, and we don't want fanaticism, that's a general argument against moderate religious belief.

makes no sociological distinction between moderates and fundamentalists, saying instead that moderates only serve to help the fundamentalists

A misrepresentation; it's not the case that Dawkins claims that moderates (generally) want, foster, or assist fundamentalists to advance fundamentalism. If they did, they'd be fundamentalists or politically motivated manipulators.

has declined to participate in unscripted, candid debates with serious theistic philosophers

I notice you don't say he's never debated ``serious theistic philosophers'' nor included a refutation of the reasoning behind his disinclination to engage in such debates, namely that refutations carried out in published works can only be undermined by debate, since debate audiences will presume that the opposing parties have equal standing. But theism has no credible standing, so it's undermining the general project of forwarding right belief to give theists equal time.

dismisses responses to his propagandistic TGD as 'fleas' rather than replying to the objections

Point out a new objection to Dawkins, one that's not an old objection with a new coat of paint, and a response seems likely. But the fleas don't do new.

makes profoundly controversial assertions all the time and presents no supporting arguments for them (e.g. "there is no right or wrong")

Where did that supposed quote come from? What other controversial assertions do you refer to? I should mention that just because a remark is controversial because, for example, many refuse to believe it, does not make it any less true. In addition we do not normally require a rehash of all complete arguments for a position when a person of credible authority speaks; surely Dawkins, if anyone, is a credible authority on evolution, and for my money does well enough as an expert on anti-theistic argumentation.

absolutely will notpresent [sic] his opponents' views in an intellectually honest fashion, but responds instead to caricatures and straw men

We've heard this before, but the stronger arguments haven't been forthcoming (new coats of paint on busted-down jaloppies notwithstanding). If theism has only weak arguments, that's all RD can argue against.

spreads ambiguities (or perhaps downright lies) about scholars with whom he disagrees (e.g. "Swinburne tries to justify the holocaust")

Inflammatory but undersupported. Where is the quote from? Do you have more than one example to support your generalization?

employs monstrous fallacies throughout his work (e.g. the following question-begging: "Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)"

What question is begged?

uses ridicule, insults, and ad homs rather than logical argumentation

To which we can all shout tu quoque in the general direction of fleas like Alister McGrath. Ad hominem is an effective argument if used correctly, i.e. to impugn the credibility of a purported authority, not to assasinate character. The others fall in amongst good argumentation, so we can chalk it up to rhetoric and move on. (I mean, a lot of the stuff theists spread about would be risible if it didn't stink so badly.)

He is a charlatan and an ignoramus, as educated theists, agnostics, and nontheists from a variety backgrounds have agreed upon.

Ignoring the theists, who agrees to this (besides you)? Links to statements by prominent intellectuals would be a start.

(With apologies to Decius if I stole his thunder.)
[lightly edited for clarity]

16. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230349 by fizhburn on August 14, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Durant,

Welcome to the site. Would you care to elaborate, with evidence, on your impugning of RD's rationality and character? (And by extension, of us others who agree with his stances on reason and science.)

17. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #229279 by fizhburn on August 13, 2008 at 10:15 am

There are SEVEN bodily excretions tears, nose mucus, mouth phlegm, urine, feces, perspiration, sperm

Ear wax.

18. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #228934 by fizhburn on August 12, 2008 at 9:08 pm

twp,

Small problem with your hypothesis: nw hasn't called anyone a muppet yet. Or a bum.

The cut-'n'-pastes are a worrying sign though...

19. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #228926 by fizhburn on August 12, 2008 at 8:51 pm

nightwatchman said

I never said the bible was fiction, I said it was MYTHOLOGY

Clearly someone missed a day at school.

You say it's not literally true, yes? Then, mythology or not, it's false. So, it's fiction. Just like mythology.

Now perhaps you have some other, non-literal type of truth in mind. Please explain this to me, I don't understand. I really like truth, and would appreciate your help.

20. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228868 by fizhburn on August 12, 2008 at 4:28 pm

*cheeses it with style, amazon.com box*





Edit: I'm with Steve Zara, this result tying energy dissipation gradients to structural complexity in biology is extra cool. (Said fizhburn, having forgot everything he ever learnt about system dynamics.)

Edit edit: original article here.

Edit edit edit: Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics.

21. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228860 by fizhburn on August 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm

curses, lots of posts have gone invisible again....

The site is disintegrating as entropy increases, run!

22. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227730 by fizhburn on August 10, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Comment #227702 by decius

Lennox is a "fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science"? I'd have thought he would be able to spot total bullshittery, even if it's his own. I'll give him this, though: he's no Alvin Plantinga.

23. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227724 by fizhburn on August 10, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Steve,

Part of my incredulity toward such reactions may be that I contrast the States. Since I come from a nation characterized by a pattern of absorbing various immigrant populations, I view a new influx of whoever with equanimity. Sure, some have economic and racist reasons for wanting to boot "illegal immigrants", but the idea that such a population will not be assimilated within a few generations is far-fetched to me. It is perhaps a result of the lack of a cultural history of absorbing migrating populations that makes muslim population expansion in Britain or Deutchland or wherever appear as threatening as it does.

The trick is (apparently, and drawing on the history of the USA, again) to give the relevant population some sort of reason to buy into the host culture, like menial jobs with slightly better benefits than can be had in the country of origin, or systematic discrimination that encourages abandonment of outward signs of "foreign" identity. (Not that I'm endorsing discrimination, just noting that it has assimilation-promoting effects.) Maybe getting the children to think being more "British" (whatever that might be) is cool?

24. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227715 by fizhburn on August 10, 2008 at 1:52 pm

I've got to say, the hyperbolic reactions posted on this site to various demographic trends in parts of Europe, such as the idea that deportation on grounds of ideological non-conformity is an acceptable policy for a liberal democracy, are disturbing.

25. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227687 by fizhburn on August 10, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Did anyone listen to the whole conversation? I had to quit halfway through due to ramblin' special pleading and inability to notice own goals on the nature of "historical" evidence.

26. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #225937 by fizhburn on August 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm

ps - how do you quote on this page?

This and many more useful bits of information are contained under the "[Comment Posting Guidelines]" link above the comment box.

Use [blockquote] and [/blockquote] except using <, > instead of [, ].

27. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #225162 by fizhburn on August 6, 2008 at 9:53 am

Thank you for posting off-topic drivel, Joe-Mo. Glad to see you can switch from projectile-vomiting other peoples' work to oozing chauvanistic sludge and back at will.

But still pathetic. *yawn*

28. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #225157 by fizhburn on August 6, 2008 at 9:45 am

Joe-Mo continues to post cut-n-pasties, I see.

Booooooooooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!

Joe, if you actually expect anyone to even read all the crap you post, you could at least post your own original thoughts.

Thieving, lying weasel.

29. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225132 by fizhburn on August 6, 2008 at 8:57 am

Bonzai,

The problem is that "why" is the wrong question. "How did a universe with such-and-such physical constants appear?" is a tractable question, but the why of it is like asking why a specific virtual particle appears in a vacuum.

30. Brainwashed by a parasite

Comment #225113 by fizhburn on August 6, 2008 at 8:34 am

Chris Davis,

Apparently toxoplasmosis does have effects on our behavior, although the exact mechanism and behavior patterns are not yet established, per Jaroslav Flegr (2007) [.pdf].

31. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223997 by fizhburn on August 3, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Quine,

I share a certain skepticism toward metaphysics as generally practised nowadays. But.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean that "metaphysics cannot be relied upon to tell you what those truths really are". On the one hand, there is the question of producing truths, which pace your parenthetical can be done without those truths being fully explicable. On the other hand, there is explaining truths, which is giving some equivalent, and probably longer, formulation of the same ideas. In the latter regard, we can't guarantee beforehand that we won't hit any conceptual walls. We can of course appeal to the Kripkenstein idea that what can't be formulated doesn't exist. I'm comfortable with that. But the possibility of error doesn't undermine the field of inquiry. Do you see some systematic criticism of metaphysics as decisive?

32. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223953 by fizhburn on August 3, 2008 at 7:45 pm

J Mac,

It's been a couple of hundred years since a philosopher has offered an argument for deism that's seen as a serious problem (as in, one to be taken as a major research paradigm).

I suppose the impossibility of a physical explanation for abiogenesis would be an indication that new work is needed. But research in this area seems to be promising, and the physical sciences have a good track record with empirical problems, so there isn't a whole lot of point in speculating about it in particular. More generally, it would be a special problem in the theory of causation (How did something bridge the relevant gap? Would it have to be aliens, or is the concept of "supernatural force" coherent?).

33. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223941 by fizhburn on August 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm

I've got to agree (with epeeist and phil rimmer) that the subject matter of theology can be entirely subsumed under other academic fields. My own U. doesn't have a theology or religious studies degree. Or at least hadn't for a long time---I believe they are lobbying successfully to get one instituted.

Then we have the question whether it should. I'll follow Quine on this one. We know the subject matter of theology seems mostly to be (i) history (of religions, religious ideas), (ii) textual interpretation, (iii) metaphysics, with a smattering of anthropology, psychology, this and that. We also know the subject matter's main theme, supernatural stuff, is imaginary if not outright incoherent. On that ground alone, it deserves to get dissolved into "neighboring" disciplines, probably largely into history and philosophy. [edit]"History" construed as common to many disciplines in the humanities, as well as history of science.[/edit]

Side note: as a sometime metaphysician, I can assure Quine that his namesake probably did more to rescue metaphysics from positivism than anyone, and the subject is---for better or worse---still quite healthy.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223934 by fizhburn on August 3, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Goldy,

Nice link to that Sober article. Turns out several of his papers are available as .pdfs.

txpiper,

I'm still waiting on something resembling a coherent argument (in response to this). Your previous two posts are a bit too Japanese-crowds'-subtitled-cries-upon-entrance-(left)-of-Godzilla. Or perhaps kneejerk flailing would be more apt.

Although your arguments for YEC and against evolution could come apart, you attempt them for the same underlying reason. That's your god fetish, as Diacanu points out.

Tell you what: why not just argue directly with us that god does, in fact, exist? We'll get Brian English in here as your sparring partner. Don't worry, he's got the skill for your first time together. Like all good partners, he'll be gentle, then not so gentle, caring, firm, aggressive, inventive, anticipatory, at first slow, but then faster... I think you can see the advantages.

35. 'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

Comment #223115 by fizhburn on August 1, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I can already hear the engineering students at my U. cracking their knuckles.

If we're lucky, this process will be picked up by the next American administration as a way to supplement massive increases in wind-power infrastructure.

Skyscrapers and factory roofs can be retrofitted with high-efficiency photovoltaic cells; so long as you don't mind not being able to see out the windows, it's just an engineering problem. No doubt some facilities (vary large skyscrapers, aluminium manufacturers) would continue to buy from the grid.

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223108 by fizhburn on August 1, 2008 at 1:25 pm

phil,

Not knowing something isn't possible is plurally bladed. The guys who strapped wings to themselves in the 19th century trying to fly are an example of the downside.

But I do find that knowing I don't know things is (as Schwartz points out) liberating, and humbling. It also puts into sharper relief what one does know and can be confident in asserting.

Philosophical study makes me acutely aware of how little I know, absolutely and also relative to our current body of knowledge. Socrates seems to have noticed something similar, so that's comforting.

37. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223091 by fizhburn on August 1, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Steve,

I'm quixotically hoping we can point out to txpiper exactly what he's claiming.

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223083 by fizhburn on August 1, 2008 at 12:32 pm

You're right, Steve, we are going in circles. In part I'm continuing the dance as a public service to lurkers reading this thread. Apologies to those who are going to tl;dr this.

txpiper,

I've already said why I don't take your arguments---if they can be called that---seriously (comment #217446). I'm not trying to pull a fast one to protect my beliefs from something I don't take seriously. I am however interested in showing you in a way you can understand that you don't know what you think you know.*

You misread my question about your scientific training, apparently because you aren't aware that one can be better or worse at applying scientific methods. Although it doesn't require credentials ("or maybe you are an autodidact?"), credentials indicate training, and training correlates to skill. Your tendency is to evaluate evidence on the basis of whether it seems reasonable to you; that is not an adequate criterion for reliably producing justified beliefs, let alone truths or highly veridical beliefs. (Notice, however, that training and practice can hone one's intuitions or heuristics, so for instance statisticians will (tend to) have better intuitions about stochastic claims, philosophers will have better intuitions about arguments, and detectives will have better intuitions about criminal cases than lay people.) I've noted elsewhere that people aren't very skilled at reasoning by nature, and you've given me no good reason, either by note of training, or by showing skill in your posts, that you're better than the average lay person at evaluating evidence rigorously.

There is a reason people without training in science often make mistakes about it: it's complicated. Contrast the everyman-friendly "God did it [with magic]"; this explains the prevalence of belief that ToE doesn't work, but doesn't make more plausible that it's got some sort of systematic problem.

As an illustration of your abilities with evidence, let's take a look at your demands on the adequacy of ToE. Your demand is that at least one biological system's evolutionary history should be accounted for in every detail from its most ancient origins to its present form. This is far more than is actually needed to accept the synthetic theory of evolution: evidence available in Darwin's time (from, for example, embryology) is enough to establish that natural selection on heritable variability is the mechanism; note that the fact of evolution can be accepted independently from the mechanism of the synthetic theory. The available evidence was in favor of ToE, as opposed to any other option; further demands are unwarranted in the absence of contradictory evidence.

Another example of bad argumentation. Evidence must be something that can be corroborated by independent observation (under a loose definition of observation, since I want to include a priori evidence, if there is any). Religious claims aren't evidence, they are hypotheses, which are shown false by the evidence.** So one can't employ religious claims in scientific debates. People who oppose ToE are almost universally religiously motivated; for instance, you, txpiper. They assume their religious claims are true (e.g. "god created species ex nihilo and keeps them that way"), and ad hoc (e.g. species "suddenly appear"; ancient species have "the same morphology" as modern species) their way to a physical ``theory'' (e.g. molecular biology is bunk and intelligent intervention was required). This "procedure" is evidence-lite, at best.

A third example. These days we have a well-corroborated, abductively powerful Theory. You want to assert IC of some sort, because there are things that ToE can't explain. But you have no evidence that there is anything the ToE paradigm can't explain. So you assert that because something hasn't yet been explained, that it can't be; this is terrible reasoning. All being unexplained indicates is being unexplained, and any good scientist will give you a promissory note for further research. Further research has so far been very good at filling gaps in our knowledge, and we've never found anything in principle inexplicable in the physical world; so it's very bad inductive practice to think IC is even a live option. The evidence indicates that explanations will be forthcoming, not that ToE is teetering on the brink of collapse, as you seem to think. (In the above I've been rehearsing points made in #209008 and #218417.)

The reason (other than that your demand is an unreasonable moving of the goal posts) that I haven't bothered to post the entire evolutionary history of any biological system is that I am not a molecular biologist, and I don't feel like being your gopher and hunting down books like The Eye: A Natural History (Simon Ings (2008)). People who are experts on biological systems publish in places like The Journal of Cell Biology, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Journal of Heredity, Mutagenesis, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, and of course Nature; they use the evidence you seem to think doesn't exist, and their work corroborates ToE. Now you might be thinking I've just used the invalid argument from authority, and you'd be right: good arguments from authority are inductive, and I've just provided evidence indicating that there are people who know what they're talking about, and assert that they agree that synthetic ToE is correct, even if the model is still being refined. For confirmation, ask actual scientists like Steve Zara or Dr. Benway what biological scientists think, or better yet consult surveys of the opinions of biological scientists.

The fact that you think you've identified flaws in the synthetic ToE doesn't mean you have, and it would be reasonable of you to accept that. It would also be reasonable of you to accept that your arguments haven't succeeded in swaying anyone on this board, and the reason for this is that your arguments aren't very good. One reason that they aren't very good is that you cling to incorrect religious beliefs. Note that (I assert) someone without pre-existing belief in the supernatural cannot be convinced on the available evidence that there is a god, whether or not they can be convinced on other grounds. The reason is that there is no good reason to think there is a god. Therefore, we conclude, there is no god. It follows that your Book is false, and your YEC beliefs are also false.*** Of course, I'm sure you have some way to weasel out of this.

If you even halfway succeed, I'll be impressed, and revise my belief that you're poor at argumentation and evaluation of evidence. Answering Quine's question might get you started.

* Sometimes feeling stupid is a good thing. See M. A. Schwartz's article (.pdf) on the topic.

** See for instance The God Delusion for a lay-friendly presentation of this view.

*** But we already knew that due to radiometric dating and for other reasons.

39. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222507 by fizhburn on July 31, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I'd like one of these "other ways of knowing" people to give a clear explanation of what, besides the evidence of the senses (plus whatever a priori stuff we get from brain structure), we have to work with. How does that evidence (supposing it is evidence) provide justification for belief? What in heck is the epistemology of the "supernatural"?

Once again, someone is so sure that something exists or is true they fail to notice the bizarre ad hoc hypotheses employed to support that belief.

40. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222483 by fizhburn on July 31, 2008 at 1:12 pm

They call us to worship at the altar of science

Bollocks.

41. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Thinking about Morality

Comment #221987 by fizhburn on July 30, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Spinoza,

There are a couple of issues here. One is straightforwardly avoiding the naturalistic fallacy. It's not clear how empirical studies of actual moral judgments should inform our thinking about ethics, if at all. Another is deciding whether "deontological" and "utilitarian" judgments are moral judgments, or only one or neither is (that is, whether they are or aren't the right types of process for reaching correct moral conclusions)---a question for metaethics. I would think our interpretation of the empirical facts about folk moral judgments require a pre-existing story about the objective or intersubjective nature of moral rules.

42. Council ban on atheist websites

Comment #221557 by fizhburn on July 29, 2008 at 6:54 pm

twp said

Oh well, what are you guys going to do without me for a month?

Call ex-es and give them presents?

(edits: for punchiness, extra NSFWitude)

43. Breeding for God

Comment #221553 by fizhburn on July 29, 2008 at 6:35 pm

AfraidToDie, cyris8400,

Humans aren't particularly good at reasoning by nature. Most people require a lot of practice and training to get good at it. Our innate system runs on an agential/causal prediction model, which is equivalent to a stochastic engine whose answers are more reliable than not. Our brain is "good enough" to get around in the world and to predict the actions of animals and navigate social situations, mostly.

Michael Oaksford's article "Reasoning" in Cognitive Psychology (Braisby and Gellatly eds. 2005) has a rundown of some numbers and the bibliography will point you to the then-current research. (Sorry I haven't got a web link; you'll have to hit the library.) Apparently three percent of the population denies the validity of modus ponens.

Abstract reasoning is also correlated to IQ (Stanovich and West (2000)), although IQ is something of a fishy way to measure anything but "intelligence".

General reasoning can come apart from skepticism, so its perfectly possible for some intelligent people to hold religious beliefs firm and examine arguments in light of that; or they may have a form of compartmentalization or cognitive dissonance.

Curiosity and good reasoning are a recipe for tossing silly beliefs like religion, however. So it is good to emphasize the teaching of critical thinking skills to older children (from say 12 or 14 at the latest; introductory critical thinking is on about a level with algebra).

44. Atheism FLEAmix

Comment #221535 by fizhburn on July 29, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Yes, but I'd be a little less blatantly violent in my LOGICAL PROOF™ that atheists are big mean dumb-heads.

45. Breeding for God

Comment #221529 by fizhburn on July 29, 2008 at 5:53 pm

cyrus8400,

For all that we talk about how hard it is to deconvert the religious, what is easier?: raising 3-5 kids to be skeptical and open-minded, or convincing 3-5 persons to become skeptical and open-minded?

From an unscientific survey taken by me on this board, the first option is looking more and more inviting.

46. Atheism FLEAmix

Comment #221528 by fizhburn on July 29, 2008 at 5:49 pm

By the looks of things, publishers are tossing advances about like candy at a parade. Well as long as intellectual honesty isn't on the agenda, I'll be happy to pen a screed for the money just to get it featured here for a christian audience.












Okay, for the money.

47. Breeding for God

Comment #221406 by fizhburn on July 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm

So. Free condoms for everyone, then?

48. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220931 by fizhburn on July 29, 2008 at 7:38 am

txpiper,

So you agree that the scientific method gives us reliable information about how the world works. Good, this is at least a prima facie point of agreement between us.

Do you have more than a highschool education in the application of the scientific method? Some college biology or chemistry classes, perhaps---or maybe you are an autodidact? I'm just wondering how qualified you are to claim to know how to properly apply the method, and how much of the accumulated body of scientific knowledge you are familiar with.

The reason that I wonder this is that you must be claiming that you are applying the method in making your anti-ToE/YEC assertions. (If there are other reliable methods, I should like to hear about them.)

Unless you think that "revealed" information is also reliable, in which case I'll ask what grounds there are for choosing between the various mutually incompatible revealed belief systems. In other words, Quine's question.

49. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #220891 by fizhburn on July 29, 2008 at 6:52 am

Epeeist,

Thanks for the link. Good to know the propagandizing of mythology is being documented.

50. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #220418 by fizhburn on July 28, 2008 at 12:18 pm

twp,

Well, since he said he'd be back, I was hoping he'd break his word and never return. You know, like when he says he's leaving and then posts more, but better.