"Of course they start by being awed by Jerry Bergman's NINE DEGREES, as if they indicate some great intelligence. Sorry, guys, you've got it backwards. A graduate program is a training program that culminates in the award of a degree — it is not an accomplishment to require multiple education attempts. Somehow, I think that if I mentioned that I had a bike with training wheels for a month or so when I was six, Jerry Bergman would try to top me by claiming that he kept his training wheels on his bike for 9 years, and is currently getting it fitted with a new set."
PZ Meyers
It appears that PZ agrees with my assessment of degrees and degree envy. Or maybe with him it is degree envy, I don't know.
6 comments:
I think most of us can agree that having a degree only makes one qualified to speak as an expert in that particular field... which makes me wonder: why would you obsess about a guy whose degree is in Biology when you clearly focus on theology?
I think your PZ obsession is counter-productive. I know evolution is perceived as a threat, but religion survived heliocentrism, the discovery of other planets, plate tectonic theory...
I guess what I'm saying is, evolution is not the nail in the coffin for religion. It's not even a sliver of wood on the lid. Science is completely unrelated to religion.
As far as I know, most atheists don't give a damn about PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, or any of those guys. Most don't even read stereotypical classics like Nietzsche or Russell.
In a way, I think you're over-intellectualizing the atheist movement. They aren't as cerebral as some of them claim, and I think you know or at least sense that most are little more than parrots of bumper sticker slogans. Science has not disproven the gods, so why even address science when discussing the existence of the divine?
Ginx,
My focus here is not Theology, it is Atheology, including any and all rationalizations used to support Atheism. There is a small niche that this blog occupies and that is the need to address these most obvious, loudest and most popular supports for arguing Atheism to those who are seeking answers.
As you know, Atheists as a general class espouse the theme that they, alone, are the practioners of rational thought. I myself thought that way until I took it upon myself to find out if that were actually so. It is not so. It is demonstrably false, so far in every aspect of Atheist thought that I have encountered. When subjected to actual logic, Atheism always fails. This seems to annoy Atheists greatly. But you are the first to suggest that I stop doing it because it is not needed.
I fully agree that most Atheists are not intellectually connected to logic, and that their attachment to Atheism is emotional rather than rational (an aspect we could pursue here).
But there is a need for pointing out the Atheist illogic, and also a need for providing a source for the study of logic, and the use of logic in pursuing validity in thought and in worldview. (The pursuit of truth requires a concept of truth to be pursued).
It would be difficult to convince me that I should just leave Atheists alone because they "aren't as cerebral as they claim". Many of those are highly vocal and evangelic in their claims, and those need to be called out for their non-coherence.
And as for science, you are probably aware by now that I am a great fan of objective science, and a foe of scientism in support of a political/religious agenda. Evolution remains in the scientism column.
I'm not suggesting you leave atheists or atheism alone, merely that science and atheism are far more divorced than most atheists (and apparently some theists) believe.
I don't think evolution has anything to do with politics or religion, at least not any more than any other scientific observation that literally contradicts the Bible. The Bible says God laid out the land and raised the mountains, but plate tectonics does not introduce so much as a shred of doubt to any theist. The same is true of several other natural phenomena.
I also think you're nuts if you think atheism is necessarily emotional. I read and see the sort of arguments that might make one believe atheism is some sort of rebellion, but this is an emotional view made from the pre-supposition of religion.
How would you address someone like myself who merely sits like stone waiting for evidence? I have no emotion on the matter; I have no vested interest in defending anything I hold dear. Quite the contrary, I acknowledge quite frankly how much easier my life would be if I was in the stupor of faith. I simply have not had any sort of personal religious experience, nor has anyone provided me any sort of support for a God-theory.
If your goal is convert people, I think you should focus on trying to prove there is are gods, not focus on science or the scientists or scientific theories you disagree with. Would I be making a compelling argument to you regarding your faith if I merely attacked some prominent Christian thinker/lecturer/writer?
Ginx, you said,
"How would you address someone like myself who merely sits like stone waiting for evidence?"
Evidence is not discovered by sitting like a stone. And evidence of non-material existence is not discovered by examining only material existence (especially if you wait like a stone).
"If your goal is convert people, I think you should focus on trying to prove there is are gods, not focus on science or the scientists or scientific theories you disagree with. Would I be making a compelling argument to you regarding your faith if I merely attacked some prominent Christian thinker/lecturer/writer?"
See, I spelled out my objective, but you did not seem to internalize what I said. Maybe you didn't even read it. Here it is again in a nutshell: The intent of this blog is to display the illogic of Atheist thought. This includes the thoughts of Atheist scientists who promote their science as an antidote to non-material existence. I can see why you would want that to stop.
And I can see why you don't address the issues of logic either. But if you want to assert the truth of something, such as asserting that "there is no God", then the assertion needs to be demonstrably coherent (conforming to standards of logic and valid thought). This is where Atheism departs from rationality and becomes emotion-based.
Evolution leads directly to the concept of non-exceptionalism of humans, so that ethics (considered either a false human construct or an evolved pragmatism) are of no value except as pragmatic decisions concerning only objectives. This ethical philosophy, Consequentialism, has become a large force in our society, politics, and educational system. It means that the "ends" have value but the "means" to arrive at the ends do not: the means are inconsequential. This is a recipe for chaos, where one group uses any and all means against another group which also uses any and all means against the first group. So, Ethics are purely self-derived for the convenience of the self: narcissism (including the false justice of Social Justice which rewards primarily the champion). This is a direct outcome of the evolution hypothesis. And it is state protected as the only acceptable dogma to teach in government schools. This makes it a political issue. And since it is required to be taught dogmatically to those who believe otherwise, it is a religious issue as well.
So evolution produces ethical, political and religious issues.
Ideas have consequences. That's why ideas should be correct in order to be accepted into a worldview, or a culture. Logic is the only means of guaranteeing that an idea is not incorrect.
[T]o display the illogic of Atheist thought is hardly a goal, at least it does not seem so to me. It seems more of a means to a goal. Suppose I said atheism is illogical, that it is totally logical, rational, and reasonable to believe in a god. That does not make it correct, nor does it even have any bearing on truth (which I believe you value, as per your blog discription). I think you are trying to convert people, if not to Christianity than to nothing more specific than simple theism.
I can see why you would want that to stop. Really don't care, which is perhaps why this is the only time I have ever seen anyone comment on your PZ rants. No atheist cares and some of us are atheists because we don't care about these sorts of things.
Evolution does not state any of those things. You have decided it means those things, perhaps because of some big mean atheist (or you yourself in your own past atheist dogmatism, which you should not project on others...).
Logic is as flawed as the human mind, which is why we rely verifiable reality, not individual opinion and anecdotal anomolies (especially ones masquerading as divine revelation).
Telling me that I don't have a certain goal or plan is tantamount to telling the grass that it is not green, because you know better. I know my own objectives far better than you do.
Evolution not only can, but has done the things I state, and more, including Social Darwinism. It's a matter of historical fact. Now you deny that as well as logic?
Logic is an established discipline. So is empiricism, which you espouse over logic. If logic is flawed, then the same flaws are incorporated into empiricism: inductive failures and deductive failures. But those flaws in empiricism can be avoided, logically.
You appear not to have studied either logic, nor the theory and history of science, or so it strongly appears. But you have firm opinions on both, based primarily on your Atheism opinions rather than on the realities of either of the others. But here is how that sorts out: The axioms of empirical science are also the axioms of logic (and math); science and logic emerged together culturally at the Enlightenment. They joined at the hip. But somehow you have developed a post- or anti- Enlightenment worldview that allows science (and reveres it) while denying the value of logic. That is a religious outlook, not a rational, logical, empirical outlook. Or if it is not religious, then it is at least irrational. I doubt there are many, or even any, practicing scientists who deny the value of logic and rational thought. That seems to be just you.
Logic is not, under any circumstance, "as flawed as the human mind, which is why we rely verifiable reality, not individual opinion and anecdotal anomolies" . Confusing logic with opinion and anecdote is a serious misunderstanding of what logical processes are and how they work.
I suggest you get some logic texts and study the discipline so that you actually know what you are denying. I recommend any text by Dr. Copi; I have several of his. There are also other good references that will help you see that logic is a known, accepted process which begins with the support of a set of axioms which also support science and mathematics.
Other material is listed in "Reference Material on Logic", at the bottom of the right column of this blog, labelled "Compendium of Rational Principles".
Or just go to Amazon or any on-line bookstore and search on logic.
Knowledge of logic would help you in your pursuit of Atheism, even if you do not care to pursue basic truth.
Post a Comment