Do you have even the vaguest idea of what a billion years amounts to?
Not necessarily, it could also mean that believers are bolder than scientists. Genesis: 1:27 God created man in his (own) image…
In the ethical dilemma I gave earlier a religious marine would charge up the hill with fellow marines. An empiricist would check data on prior battles and the probability of surviving. He would probably be shot before he decided what to do.
To an atheist and empiricist, in many ways Science has become their God.
Darwin well knew that you can’t argue for evolution by looking at the really good things in living anatomy. Seagull’s wings, shark’s teeth, the human hand, etc.
Darwin understood that the key to understanding evolution is to look at the things that are not “intelligent,” but which keenly show traces of origins in previous living forms. The vestigial hip bones in snakes (and whales.) Or, as Stephen Jay Gould said (and titled a book) Hens’ Teeth and Horses’ Toes.
Really “good design” can be taken as evidence of either evolution or creation – but really BAD design falsifies the “intelligent design” idea. It requires us to postulate a clumsy, inefficient, half-assed, jerry-building, jury-rigging tinkerer of a God – or to discard the idea of intelligence entirely.
(Or is that jerry-rigging and jury-building? I always get those mixed up.)
You’re fighting your own hypothetical. I forget what point this was supposed to prove in the first place, but you haven’t explained why it supports you point of view. You made up a situation and said a religious person would do one thing (without saying why) and an empiricist would do another (same) and that anyway he would get shot first (whatever). This is why people keep advising you to avoid rhetorical devices.
I guess you were bound to trot out this turd sooner or later.
Only if you redefine “bold” to mean “makes up baseless nonsense”. But you do seem fond of redefining words.
So basically a male mammal evolved for life on a terrestrial planet popped out of the void and decided to create humans. That’s never made any sense.
Or a religious Marine would shoot his own side because his god demands it, or run away because he’s not interested in dying, or charge up stark naked because he thinks his god protects him from bullets, or all sorts of other things. And am empiricist isn’t going to do what you suggest because there’d be no time for it.
Hardly. Science works.
It’s not difficult to make the argument that an a real empiricist should be value free.
Values by definition are subjective. Values require an individual’s subjective response.
Empiricists rely on objective observations of a limited number of senses in order to obtain reliable data. Carry it out to the extreme and values disappear. Your left with Science as your God.
Why does God have nipples? And what possible use would he have for a penis?
:dubious: That’s gibberish.
Non sequitur much? Observing data is free of values, no extreme necessary. How that makes science a god is beyond me. And believers have no more senses that the rest of us.
Three problems with this
[ul]
[li]“Empiricist” is not the same as “atheist”. People use empirical analysis as needed, even religious people are part-time empiricists[/li][li]“God”, of some sort, is not requisite. It does not add value to anyone’s life. Non-believers simply lack the need for any god at all, hard as you might find that to accept.[/li][li]Values are an affect of society. Religion adapts to societal values, it does not define them (except maybe in some Muslim countries).[/li][/ul]
Consider, for instance, slavery. It is wrong, we know that. But 200 years ago, it was not wrong, we knew that then, and in both cases, religion can be used to justify either value.
In practical terms it is, since there’s no evidence for any gods. If there was, then the empirical, practical position would be that there are god(s). Atheism probably wouldn’t even exist, since it would be denying a known fact. To paraphrase an exchange from the Discworld series:
“When one of our missionaries preached that there was no god of wine, someone threw a jug of wine at his head!”
“Well, yes. The god was in the crowd.”
Storm - from Tim Minchin
NSFW language.
He uses it to knock up teen aged girls.
Here let me give you example of carrying it out to the extreme.
Why not use empiricism in your personal relationships.
Let’s say you have a couple of guys you hang out with to watch baseball games on the big screen. An empiricist would have a list of criteria to evaluate the relationship and then go with different groups of 2 to watch baseball games until he found the right combination that met his criteria. Loyalty would disappear in favor of objective analysis.
Is it valid for a Jew?
:dubious: You are assuming both that loyalty is something that matters when it comes to watching games, and that loyalty in general is empirically a bad idea.
Empiricism does not require you to maximize value.
The religious person, in your analogy, would still hang out with these guys though they steal his money, insult him to his face, and sometimes hit him for the fun of it. But he has faith.
Assuming you went to law school at Berkeley, did you take any classes from Philip Johnson, noted creationist loon. If so, that would explain a lot. Another famous (maybe former) Berkeley Law School professor is John Yoo, the guy who legally justified torture for Bush.
Clearly there are a lot of non-empiricists post to this thread, otherwise it would have dropped off the first page days ago after two dozen replies.
I understand He has a thing for virgins named “Mary.” Pervert.
Yea Johnson was teaching back then, but I didn’t take a class from him. Glad I already graduated by the time John Yoo got there.
Now you said that “empiricism does not require you to maximize value.” that’s interesting. However, you need to be trying to maximize something, otherwise you wouldn’t bother drawing up a list of criteria and making continuous observations.