I don’t think I’ve retroactively changed the topic. The topic, as evidence by the title, is creationism versus evolution. That creationism is promulgated by religious organizations makes discussing them relevant, I’d think.
Of course, you’ve missed the obvious point, I think: that by watching and participating in this discussion, I’m finding where the other side makes points which are harder to counter. The ones I’m finding more difficult to argue against are the ones I’m going to fold into the mock debate. I even specifically allowed for this in my OP having noted that I put it here instead of general questions because, well, these things have a habit of turning into what we see now. Not out of hijacking, but because it’s hard to discuss their arguments without discussing their merits, which is the thing I’m actually after.
I’m not finding much merit in what’s being argued about religion and creationism, but that’s because they haven’t any. Nevertheless, this helps me flesh out which claims suck less bad.
My post was specific to a mock debate I’m going to have in a future. There’s no reason that in preparation for that, I have to somehow actually abandon reality. And believe it nor, working like this actually helps me find what strengths your arguments have. Those are the ones I’m going to work from.
You are, of course, wrong. I have said many times over that science doesn’t address the supernatural because it is by definition not a field of scientific inquiry. Science deals with the natural world using naturalistic methodological processes, alas, the supernatural is excluded from being in the natural.
My issue, as I said, isn’t with people believing in a god. That’s perfectly fine. But you ignore that altogether. I’m discussing religion (which creationism is) and science (which religion, creationism thus, and ID are, alas, not).
Of course, you’ve committed a logical fallacy because a religion is neither proof or disproof of a god. A religion is an assertion that a particular view of god is the true version of that god. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a god.
The text you quote says that if religion dies out, then so too does god. This holds because there is no evidence that a god is involved in anything here. I suppose I could have been clearer by saying that when a particular religion dies out, so too does its view of its god. But that wouldn’t affect an actual god, if one exists. It would, however, affect the god asserted by a particular religion. Look at the Greek gods, and the Roman gods. They’re not really around anymore, are they?
:rolleyes: Even at this point you still don’t know what you’re debating. Unbelievable. Try going back and tightening what you propose what the debate between you and your friend will be. Is it Evolution or science? Is it Creationism, religion, or something else. Make up your mind. You know, like a methodical thinker would.
And the more shots you keep taking at religion and religionists, the less of the input you claim you want will you get.
Creationism is advocacy of a religion. Yes, it’s I who doesn’t know what’s going on here. Perhaps if you’d look at things, you’d understand that creationism is a religion, a particularly narrow view, usually held by a subset of christians, which maintains that the bible is a literal account of the world.
And despite your assertion, this thread seems to have them giving me information. So much for that idea.
Yes, of course, King Creon. Whatever you say. But what if there is a God. Doesn’t that make him part of the natural world? Even if he can operate supra-naturally?
Again, think to Logic 101. One is a subset of the other. They are not synonymous. And an argument against one does not necessarily work against the other. If you fail to appreciate that simple fact you are not taking the exercise seriously. And you tempt us to not take you seriously. And you’re doing a really good job of that so far.
What the fuck are you babbling about? That’s the point I made to you!!!
You mistake evidence for reality.
As I said. Thank you.
And you were doing so well. If the god was the true god, they’re dying out would have no effect on his reality. Same if he was not the true god.
Wow, that’s deep: If I “looked at things” (whatever that means) I’d understand that creationism is a subset religion. So, I’d understand the very same thing that I’ve been saying all along?!?!:eek: Brilliant! By the way, delete the word “usually” form the above and it will make more sense.
Why am I not surprised that you’re satisfied to bring a few crumbs to your friend. I wonder if he is doing his work with the same attitude you are.
Usually is apt because not all creationists are christian; just most of the ones I meet. There are other creation myths; so, usually fits.
Well, by some freak accident of nature, he is now a she. And was when I started this thread. I do not know what research she is doing, but I have no doubt that she is trying in earnest as am I.
You fail to give credit to my intent. I will honestly represent the views of creationists in the most favorable light I can given their views. That, however, doesn’t imply that while discussing it for the purpose of some debate in the future, I have to act as though it’s anything more than a myth.
Does this god you propose use magic? If so, then at least part of him is beyond the province of science. Miracles aren’t natural phenomena. Magic isn’t. Even if we assume they exist and are a natural part of the universe; they can’t be tested. How does one test magic? The answer is that we can’t because magic isn’t constrained by physical limits, unlike the rest of the universe.
I thank you for the advice to consider the material I teach in a class similarly named.
Evidence is what we have. The strength of our position depends on the evidence If the evidence is weak, so too is a position argued from it. When the evidence is strong, the argument is strong. Religion doesn’t have that infirmity because you can always say “well, yeah, but god did it.” Scientists, when confronted with a conflict between the evidence and the theory reject the theory. Creation in the same situation rejects the evidence.
If he’s not truly a god, then it matters not if he lives or die as he doesn’t meet the criteria of a god and is thus not an appropriate subject of the predicate.
No, but that’s immaterial. At the time, people believed they were. Turns out that their belief didn’t somehow make those gods extant.
Which makes me think… why debate from the Christian perspective with her? Use the Turkish Islamic fundie method instead.
It’d be an interesting twist… even better would be if you could find some fundamentalist pagans. You can argue the position honestly but pick any of a bunch of equally arbitrary non-scientific religious views on creation and argue that that specific one is the true Creationism.
Evolutionist, **not **Creationist here, but I’m still going to try to advise according to the OP. Remember the OP?
Before I get into it, I think I should say that **kanicbird **did make a point that scientists are human beings whom we trust to give us an accurate view of the situation but do not always succeed in doing so. I trust that the tiny white specks I see in the sky at night at actually huge balls of gas that are very, very far away, and I do so because very knowledgeable people whose experience and education I trust have told me so, and because their teachings coincide with what I understand about the universe and the way things work in terms of physics, chemistry, and so on. Now, if I were enter the field of astronomy and spend years studying stars, I would have the technology and the data necessary for me to verify these claims on my own. I have not chosen to enter this field, so I do put some trust–which I suppose others could cynically call faith–in astronomers that they will not lie to me and risk censure by their peers. We have a reasonable expectation that astronomers will not lie or be completely incorrect, just as they have a reasonable expectation that their doctor will not be totally wrong or dishonest about their physical condition, and that their lawyer will accurately represent the law. Once we form these expectations, we rely on them to such an extent that sometimes we no longer even bother to question. This is the division of labor, and due to time constraints on each individual, it is necessary for civilization. This is what leads some on the other side to say that science is as much faith-based as religion. To the extent that many people do not question the scientific findings they hear or read about but instead digest and repeat them as though as they are absolute, unquestioned “truth,” science does take on an almost religious quality. I’ve known some people who told me they believed in evolution, but after a little bit of questioning it became clear that they weren’t 100% sure what it actually was (i.e., they didn’t realize that evolution is pretty much all about death and breeding, and they thought it was a proactive “force” that would actually enable us to “evolve” new organs and limbs and weird things like that without any change in the environment). In short, those who refuse to question, or don’t realize that they can question, run the risk of turning whatever they don’t question into a belief system. What makes science so great is that it is based on the idea that we should question everything.
That said, the above is just a philosophical point. I don’t think you’ll get far in an actual debate by saying, “Oh well, you know, they could be wrong!” Especially not when it’s in relation to evolution, which makes sense with just a little bit of logic applied and without the need for a great deal of technology.
That said, here’s my advice to the OP:
Since you’re arguing “the other side,” figure out what the other side is. Some folks have already said this, but the best method to use in figuring it out is just calling up your opponent and figuring out what they believe. I assume when you set up the terms of this debate that your opponent thought you would be arguing the “other side” from the previous discussions you’ve had with that person (i.e., their side). If you argue something that’s only tangentially related to the particular side for which you were supposed to be arguing, you’ve already lost the debate by failing to follow instructions.
If the side you’re playing devil’s advocate for is amenable to it, try to work in the idea that evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter about how unscientific and incompatible with reality you believe creationism is. Arguing that creationism and evolution can go hand in hand is a very persuasive way of getting secular folks to at least entertain the idea that you are not entirely wrong.
There was an unintentionally hilarious youtube videoin which creationists argued that commercially-sold peanut butter disproved evolution. It looks and sounds like a parody, but they’re completely serious. Some guy opens a jar of peanut butter and says that because life didn’t spontaneously arise in it, that disproves evolution. Because peanut butter is absolutely germ-free, and there’s no such thing as life you can’t see with the naked eye! It would’ve been great if someone used a trick jar with those “snakes” that jump out.
Anyway, my point is: Don’t argue this. If you’re pulling out a jar of peanut butter in a debate that is not about peanut butter, you’ve probably done something wrong. But do appeal to the “we don’t know how life BEGAN” idea, maybe even going the Deist route of “God created the Big Bang and then shit happened.”
Speaking of that video, there are some “rebuttals” to evolution on youtube. Many of them are unintentionally funny, so in addition to research in both the idea of creationism and the rhetorical aspect of arguing it, you get some entertainment out of it. As Atheism and the Abandonment of Reasonexplains, the problem with atheists is that they insist on *evidence! *Incidentally, it’ll also help you figure out what not to argue if you want to keep your audience engaged.
Think of it as role playing. You’re not a scientist or a teacher! At least, not right now, anyway. In this scene, you’re an uber-religious nutball, but today you’ve decided to dress up in a suit and tie instead of your usual Snuggie and Burger King paper crown. You accidentally wandered into a room full of people listening to someone arguing that we evolved from an ape-like creature many, many moons ago. An audience member chucks a biology textbook at you, narrowly missing. You pick it up and turn to a random page filled with some impressive, scientific sounding words. Here’s your chance to Spread the Word! Go!
Agreed. There are many flavors of creationism, and some make more extreme claims than others. You (the OP, that is) would, for example, have a much easier time arguing “for” Intelligent Design than Young Earth Creationism. ID actually allows for some small-scale evolution to occur, for example, whereas YEC pretty much rules out the entire idea. With ID, you need only confine yourself to arguing that allele changes are insufficient to produce macro-level, organism-wide changes, and that they are insufficient to explain the origins of evolutionary novelties and complex organs (this is the basic argument of Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box), or that information theory (science!) demonstrates that “information” (in the form of complex genes) cannot be created (thus being a restatement of the whole “evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics” argument; this version is popularly espoused by William Dembski*). Whereas with YEC, you’ve got a whole lot of crazy to deal with, starting with trying to define a “kind” as stated in Genesis, and explaining why biogeographical patterns don’t coincide at all with the expected distribution patterns after The Great Flood. And then there are all those fossils… Although, here, you can go with the “dazzle them with bullshit” route, by throwing out a little something from every possible scientific discipline, in hopes that something sticks.
This works best if arguing for some sort of ID, of course. YEC is completely exclusive of evolution, while the various flavors of ID allow for it, and even acknowledge that it occurs, but is insufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
Speaking of Dembski, if you really want to win on rhetoric (which, really, you’d have to, since there aren’t any facts on “your” side), go for the “specified complexity” angle, and break out Dembski’s “explanatory filter”. It’s equally as much bullshit as YEC, but it’s a lot more difficult for a layperson to even interpret, much less counter.
Stalin and Darwin(never thought I’d say “thank you” to Darwin since he died and all), thank you for the insight.
I realize whatever angle I ultimately choose will have an godlode of bullshit in it, and since I consider it all equally worthless I couldn’t really differentiate out which line of shit was less bad, or at least more capable of being argued.
I’ve been watching a lot of videos on youtube (way less boring than reading primary literature I must say) on this, and I’ve read talkorigins front to back. But my problem has always been that almost every claim I’ve seen is trivially disproven, and a good portion of it is completely unrelated to evolutionary biology in the first instance. Like, the whole Earth-Moon system, and gravity and cosmology and on and on. I will definitely see what I can work up from your suggestions though, and I do appreciate it.
Unfortunately, it seems that I am going to have read Behe’s claptrap after all. I was hoping to avoid that on the off chance that some of his bullshit might accidentally find a way into my memory.
With regards to using different creation myths as the thrust of my argument, I’ve decided against that. I don’t think it would be fair to sandbag my colleague that way as it wouldn’t resemble any argument that she would actually make. Not that I’m technically restricted to her version since it’s about “creationism”, which has many different flavors spanning many religions. But it just doesn’t seem sporting since I know she won’t consider that I’d do that. what I think I can do though is make a weak argument by incorporating the reasoning in a form similar to "and even the __ and __ and __ and __ " religions creation “science” matches up. So, ya know, some appeal to popularity even outside of Christianity, as well an appeal to authority.
Anyway, I’m off to check out those links you provided. Thanks a bunch.
When Behe is writing for a rational audience (like in the NY Times) he seems to accept evolution - except for the evolution of certain things he can’t figure out, which he claims proves an intelligent designer. It appears he is either far more creationist in front of his creationist fans, or just avoids contradicting their nonsense, as he did with the textbook mentioned in the court case.
But Behe might be good for the OP to use both for his credentials and as part of a proof by incredulity argument.
Slightly off-topic, but I disagree - I think that framing the debate as evolution vs. creationism explicitly commits you to some form of Christian creation theory, specifically thanks to the creation and presentation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As you will recall, FSMism was presented explicitly as being a different theory from “creationism” - despite the fact that FSMism is in fact a theory of creation-by-diety. This inclusion of ‘option three’ pretty much defined ‘option two’ to the narrower definition, lest it include option three by mistake.
Jesus was a deeply religious person who did what he did with religious motivations. Hence when you said that “all religion is by its nature aggressive” that necessarily included the claim that Jesus was being aggressive. The same would be true for Francis and John and countless others that I could name. But since it’s pretty clear that you’re going to try to wiggle away from your claim that all religion is aggressive rather than defend it, I guess we can drop that topic.
Since you’re the one who’s making a positive claim about what all religions require, why don’t you provide a cite? (Besides the obvious fact that you can’t provide a cite for something that’s utterly untrue, of course. Other than that there’s nothing stopping you.)
You’re factually wrong again. Many people have converted to Christianity only because of the actions of God, sometimes without hearing any witnessing at all.
Again factually untrue; ask any professional scientist and they can name plenty of people who do exactly what you described and suffer no consequences for it. Indeed, there are entire subfields that consist of nothing but eggheads bouncing papers off each other in circular fashion without regard to whether they correspond to any outside reality, string theory being only the first that comes to mind.
You’ve got it backwards.
Let me sort this out.
First you tell me that I need to believe that God loves me or burn in fire.
Then you tell me that science never does any such thing.
Then you include yourself among scientists.
I really think that you ought to put a little more logical thought into your posts.
In any case, ignoring the bit of logical contradiction there, let’s get back to the topic. If as you say science does not threat anyone with burning in hell for not believing in it, then that’s another similarity between Christianity and science, because Christianity also doesn’t threaten anyone with burning in hell for not believing in God, right? (Since we’ve had several recent threads clarifying Christian beliefs about hell, you can’t slither out of this one by claiming that you were merely uninformed.)
Yeah, you missed the point entirely. It is legally possible for anyone to read those journals if they’re willing to travel far enough and spend enough, but it’s hardly easy. Among all published materials, scientific journal articles are among the hardest to access. Many are not available on the web, while others charge ridiculously high prices. (How does $20 an article bite you?) The point I was trying to make is that this contrasts sharply with almost everything else. Many organizations realized right away that making their material available for free on the web was a good idea, but academic journals generally ran the other way.
As for your lame insult about my reading ability, your factual wrong. (Starting to see a pattern here? Notice how everything you say turns out to be wrong?) I’ve written several scientific journal articles and read many.
You’re factual wrong. (Again) Read the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. Read the Summa Theologica. Read Anselm of Canterbury. All very specifically endorse logic and reason. By contrast, if you reading something which says that logical thought is a form of societal oppression, you can be pretty sure that it was written by an atheist. (Foucault, for instance.)
Religion has never moved mankind forward. Religion is antithetical to knowledge.
By what standards does Christianity have a “bad conversion rate”. Can you name any other religion that wins thirty million converts per year.
I entirely agree that saying the truth of something is proportional to the number of people who believe it is stupid, which is what makes me wonder why you said exactly that. Nonetheless, it looks like you’re backtracking on that as well, so we can drop that line of argument.
Among English speakers, the word has always been used to described small movements centered around a single personality and cut off from the rest of society. Hence it’s misleading to use the word to describe Catholicism. As for Protestantism, it doesn’t even come close to meeting the real definition or the one you provided.
You go right on saying that if you like. Someday, however, it may occur to you that if you pour forth pages and pages of blather about how your attachment to science makes you better than everyone else accompanied by pages and pages of untrue statements, you’re not doing science any favors.
Lastly, in response to the actual topic of the OP, try Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.
Yeah, i’m going to have to call bollocks on this one as well. There’s a considerable amount of journals which have electronic copies avaliable online; and when I was doing my degree, I was quite forced to rely upon them and the journals carried at my library, which were stored quite openly in clean, well-lit areas that amusingly enough were actually a couple of stories up, in the case of those journals related to my subject. And they could be taken off the shelves to read via a rather simple arm-and-hand motion. So I suppose the true part of your point here would be that some were, I must fully admit, kept in rooms.
So i’m afraid this point is pretty much mostly false. Might I enquire of you a retraction of this point? I’m finding it odd that for a person who was in part motivated to shed atheism because of poor educational experiences would so easily (and confidently) espouse poor educational experiences the other way as the norm.
Edit;
Purely out of interest (and I assure you, not as a point on which I plan to debate), could I ask what your subject of expertise is?
Technically, having kids and inducting them into the religion is “bringing in new members”. And any religion that utterly fails to bring in any new members, from any source, will inevitably dwindle and disappear as its members grow old and die.
Impossible, without sufficiently contrived overspecific definitions of “witnessing”. Persons who had never had exposure to Christianity would not convert to it, but would instead start their own religion. Persons who convert to Christianity have had at least some interaction with Christianity prior to their conversion, to instill in them the concepts which they can mentally associate with their personal experiences in deciding that “God did it”, rather than “Odin did it” (or the very likely more accurate “my subconscious did it”.)
He didn’t tell you that you need to believe that God loves me or burn in fire. He reported that “religion” tells you that. If I tell you that Obama claims that he is the President of the United States of America, that is different from if I claimed that I was the President of the United States of America.
So, no logical error. Obviously.
Christianity doesn’t threaten anyone with burning in hell for not believing in God? You do realize that if there are different subsections, schisms, and sects of Christianity, which there are, then all of them would have to eschew the concept of hellfire for your statement here to be true?
If those earlier threads gave you the notion that there is a single mass concensus among Christains about all their beliefs, then you should probably go back and reread them.
In exactly the same way that trekkies do when reconciling stardates, yes. Unfortunately, they abandon logic when it comes to actually founding their belief in reality-based premises, - and worse, to the degree they are logical (or were logical, in the case of dead people), they are FAR from the norm in religious theory.
Among english speakers, the word has always been used as a pejorative and therefore has never been accepted by a majority as referring to their own religion. This, not its definition, it what typically restricts its use to describing small religions. Also it is untrue that cults must be isolated from society; Mormonism has been described by a cult (less so since it got biggish) and it is not isolationist. Additionally, it remained a cult when it did get sort-of-isolationist (okay, they left town) under a different leader, so a sole leadership that changes off when, say, the prior one dies (you know, like the pope) would not be disqualified.
In true fact, of course, Christianity itself can quite reasonably be described as a cult, if you are referring to the period back before it got big and popular. As this demonstrates, in english, size is really the only consistent difference between a “religion” and a “cult”. (Though teeny-tiny religions do have a tendency to fall into the cult-of-personality and/or isolationist models, probably because those are effective ways at gaining and keeping converts before you have that hereditary/cultural momentum thing going.)
Conclusion: When you call Catholocism, or Christianity, or FSMism a “cult”, you are calling it small. (Or perhaps “small and wacky/untrue”, as compared with “big and wacky/untrue”.) Thus it is very likely an insult or an attempt to undermine the perspective of grand cultural significance, which you might not like, but it’s specious to claim definitional error, particlarly based on details like isolationism.
