If he’s neither deist, theist, or atheist, what is this person? Again, we all know how to deal with such a person, but I’m fascinated that Stan think that atheist-scientists such as myself, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, ad infinitum, do not “understand the actual science.” That last paragraph is complete gibberish.I couldn't resist a reply to assist with his noncomprehension of my statements. We'll see if it makes it through his moderation process and gets posted. If not, I'll draft another reply and post it both there and here.
Essentially, I discussed his Fallacy of Appeal to Authority, especially considering that his authorities (especially Krauss) are just like himself, claiming truth when they have none to claim. This is, of course, because science does not and cannot produce truth; it produces only contingent factoids. And neither inductive nor deductive empirical science can do more than that. So claiming truth for any science outcome is an indicator of not comprehending science and its limits. Or it's purely an ideological position of scientism. There was more, too, but maybe he will publish it, who knows.
Addendum, somewhat later. It doesn't appear that my comments, two of them now, are coming through Coyne's filter. Lot's of really stupid comments are making it through, though, so I assume that mine will not. However, I'll wait until tomorrow to produce a more comprehensive reply to Coyne and a few of his commenters.
9 comments:
Stan, his response should already inform you of his stance and his inevitable response to any of your replies.
Example 1: "..what is this person?" sounds like a question, but it's empty rhetoric, as he doesn't really care. The next sentence, "We all know how to deal with such a person...", makes it clear he's already made up his mind what you are - or he would not be able to say he knows how to deal with you.
Example 2: Instead of admitting that he cannot understand your last paragraph, he states that it is 'complete gibberish'. Which is the result of gibbering; in other words, an attempt to put his incomprehension squarely on your shoulders. It is also a (weak) Ad Hominem attack, slurring you rather than admitting his own lack.
Example 3: he deletes your responses to his slurs and dismissive attitude. Essentially, your words are of no account because HE says so. It's his blog and once he has taken his (weak) shots, he shuts you up by deleting your follow-up posts.
Really, don't you get enough of this over at PZ Meyer's site? Leftists deal with dissent by insult, shouting and deletion of comments. As history has shown, if it is in their power, the AtheoLeft extends this to deletion of the dissenter as well.
This man's site is there to prop up and feed his ego. You cannot engage him in conversation or disagree with him for any length of time, because that is not why his site is there.
You said your piece. But you're either mistaken or (I believe) being charitable when you describe Jerry's position as resulting from incomprehension, Stan. He comprehends it very well, which is why he dismisses it and blocks any attempt on your part to rebut. His is a flat refusal to admit the validity in part or in whole of ANY opinion, supported or otherwise, that opposes what he wills.
He is the Supreme Intellect, just like all the other atheist Leftists. And his blog is an echo chamber. Seriously, you have a thicker skin than I do for such things. I cannot even visit such a place without feeling dirty and a little bit scared.
"If he’s neither deist, theist, or atheist, what is this person?"
Did you answer his question?
Did you read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne? It is the best book about evolution ever written. Everyone should read it. Could you write a book about science? I didn't think so.
Jerry Coyne is a biologist at the University of Chicago which is one of the best universities in the world. They hire only the most brilliant science teachers.
Did you actually say Jerry Coyne "does not understand the actual science”? If you did say that are you going to apologize?
Virtually all of the best scientists in the world are atheists. Did you think they don't understand science?
An atheist is certain magical god beings are not real. If you disagree can you provide strong scientific evidence for your fairy's magic wand? I didn't think so.
"This is, of course, because science does not and cannot produce truth; it produces only contingent factoids."
Our planet orbits the sun. This is true.
We are apes who evolved from ancient apes. This is scientific fact. It's true.
I suggest that you fear science. You obviously know nothing about it. You obviously could never be a scientist which is a career that requires a brain.
Hahaha! Great response, Human Ape!
Or is it? Let's see, cover your idols with plenty of gilding:
1) "It is the best book about evolution ever written." Your opinion, of course. Backed by nothing but hubris.
2) "...one of the best universities in the world. They hire only the most brilliant science teachers." Yes, Human Ape, and we are talking about logic and philosophy here. Jerry's reach has exceeded his grasp, yet neither you nor he can see it. Or care.
3) "Virtually all of the best scientists in the world are atheists." Proof, please? And stop using weasel words like virtually. Let's have some numbers and while you're at it, tell me again: why do you consider a man who is good at science to be automatically a competent logician and philosopher?
Then, having exhausted your gold, you slide right over to contradiction:
1) "If you disagree can you provide strong scientific evidence for your fairy's magic wand?" Now how is anyone going to provide strong scientific evidence of things that are, admittedly, not subject to scientific investigation? Of course, we have only your opinion that God is a fairy (and since we cannot believe in fairies, we cannot believe in Him) and magical (ie; beyond your ability to explain). And your own thoughts are in the same category - they are subject to no scientific test whatever.
Then we dip into unsupported truth claims:
"We are apes who evolved from ancient apes. This is scientific fact."
It is scientific hypotheses at best; at worst, a just-so story supported by sincere believers who want - rather desperately, I think - to chalk up their own and everyone else's existence to random chance and the Law of the Jungle. Of course, classing yourself as an animal means no limits on what you can (and will) do to others. After all, they are only animals.
Then we reach bottom - where many atheists are most comfortable - as the flippancy, the mockery and the outright insult begin.
To wit:
1) "I suggest that you fear science."
2) "You obviously know nothing about it."
3) "You obviously could never be a scientist which is a career that requires a brain."
All of those could apply to you as well, Human Ape. You know nothing about Stan OR me.
But wait! There's more...
4) "You're an evolution denier."
Of course he is. So am I. So are a lot of people. What of it? We disagree with you. Is that so bad? We also don't place any stock in the AGW hullabaloo. I prefer to think of myself as a "common-sense supporter", but YMMV.
5) "Did you know biologists call evolution deniers "flat-earthers"?
Oh no! What will they call us next?
6) "Grow up, educate yourself, and face facts."
Ah, *there's* the problem. We're immature, ignorant and cowardly (hey, that was a three-fer!). Way to sum up people you've never met and don't like - just because they disagree with you.
This just gets better!
7) "Or you could be an idiot the rest of your pathetic worthless life."
And wind up like you, I suppose.
Cue incoherent screech of rage as the final turd is flung. Baring its teeth, this specimen of the common internet troll departs after taking not one, not two, but three separate posts to express its OUTRAGE that anyone should dare to... well, whatever it was screeching about.
I expected all caps in the fourth post, but maybe something shiny wandered across Human Ape's field of vision. In any case, he/she/it is gone.
Does anyone detect a hint of sanity, reason or accountability here? I can't.
Does anyone detect anything credible in the statements this person wrote? I can't.
Those trolls! They pick funny ways to win over us poor, deluded masses and lead us to 'reason' and 'free thought', don't you agree?
Steven:
The "goal" is NOT to "win over us poor, deluded masses"; it is to demonstrate their intellectual and moral superiority over said masses, thereby justifying their absolute rule over said masses - for their own good, of course.
I look forward to the "evolution" of the Human Ape to Human Being. Unfortunately for the Human Ape, it might take a little longer than one lifetime to accomplish. Alas! Another dead maladaptive evolutionary line!
Human Ape gave not one single empirical fact pertinent to any of his claims. This is the status of the maleducated who grasp at the skirts of strident ideologists, yet have nothing of their own to contribute so they spout juvenelia.
For Feser's take on Coyne, go here:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/01/jerry-built-atheism.html#more
And Massimo on Coyne, Here:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/12/jerry-coyne-loses-his-cool-dawkins-his.html
I look forward to the "evolution" of the Human Ape to Human Being"
Ha ha,nice one Robert.
I love Dr. Feser's acerbic wit:
"...the highly self-esteemed Jerry Coyne has been commenting on Hart’s book too, and in the classic Coyne style: First trash the book, then promise someday actually to read it."
"..."
"Now, criticizing what a book says when you haven’t actually read it is no mean feat. After all, you’re lacking some of the basic resources commonly thought to be useful in doing the job, such as knowledge of what the book says. How does Coyne pull it off? MacGyver style. He jerry-builds a critique out of the metaphysical equivalent of rubber bands and paper clips. Unfortunately, Coyne is more of a MacGruber than a MacGyver, so the result is (as it were) an explosion which brings the house down upon Coyne and his combox sidekicks while leaving Hart unscathed."
Somehow, I am reminded of this recent news story:
"Suicide Bomb Trainer in Iraq Accidentally Blows Up His Class"
(Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/middleeast/suicide-bomb-instructor-accidentally-kills-iraqi-pupils.html?_r=0)
Proof positive that Allah has a sense of humor!
Har! Great analogy!
Unfortunately, Coyne is on the Illinois taxpayers' bucks.
Post a Comment