| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pax Cosmos" |
| Date: |
20 May 2005 02:41:12 PM |
| Object: |
If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------
"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the
earth
can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are
resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain
bigotry."
Sounds reasonable to me. Since the evidence is available to everyone,
and since anyone who is open to the evidence should see how it is
overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, then it makes sense that only
those who are ignorant of that evidence, or who are resistant to it,
would doubt evolution.
But what *are* these emotional blocks of which he speaks? And how
exactly *does* "plain bigotry" operate? It seems to me that if we're
upholding scientific knowledge and method by supporting evolution, we
should also do the same when it comes to describing these psychological
impediments to the acceptance of evolution. I don't think we should be
satisfied with simple, easy answers. Especially when we don't seem
able to overcome these psychological obstacles and "make them see
reason" with the methods we are now using.
These words by the evolutionary scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky will
make
all the activist doubters uncomfortable who are trying to defend
their
belief in some kind of god promising them an everlasting life by
discrediting evolution.
I haven't seen much evidence so far that these sorts of words are
making the activist doubters uncomfortable. From what I've seen so
far, they dismiss such words quite easily, the same way they dismiss or
distort the evidence for evolution. Perhaps this is more a hope than
an observation of facts on the ground?
Or those who have been targeting scientists and science writers with
abusive language merely because they confront their ignorance with
the
uneasy fact of evolutionary science.
What is astonishing is the way in which these ignorant doubters cling
to
all the hackneyed arguments propagated by their spiritual leaders,
using
unscientific material produced by creationists and Intelligent Design
theorists.
While such an observation may be interesting, I wouldn't say that it's
"astonishing." Not when the clinging to such unscientific, hackneyed
arguments has been so common within dogmatic religious cultures for
centuries, going back to the time of Copernicus and even before that.
Instead, what would be astonishing is if all the dogmatic religious
types would *stop* clinging to such hackneyed arguments. For this
would be way out of character for them, and would really be a surprise!
To me, what is really astonishing is the fact that, even though we know
so little about the subjective mind, and why so many people cling to
such outmoded ideas, there seems to be so little interest within the
scientific community for more research to be done, and so little
pressure from the educated public for them to do it. It's like they
either don't care, or are afraid of offending people's religious
sensibilities by asking the hard questions and doing the relevant
research. But this makes little sense to me, since they are at the
same time fighting tooth and nail against the intrusion of
pseudoscience into the classroom. Go figure...
I guess that scientists and educated people can be subject to emotional
blocks as well...
They distort the facts about evolution and clearly believe if you
repeat
something long and loud enough, it will become the truth.
----------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-
1630-1827_1707889,00.html or http://tinyurl.com/chotm
Perhaps in the future, when more is understood about the subjective
mind, these sorts of discussions will seem quaint.
Pax
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
21 May 2005 03:16:14 PM |
|
|
"If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it?"
One could ask dozens of similar questions:
If the holocaust is a fact, why do some people doubt it?
If the non-existence of WMDs is a fact, why do some people doubt it?
If Al Gore receiving more votes is a fact, why do some peopld doubt it?
It's amazing what ignorance and blind faith will (not) accomplish.
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
-----
"You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among
sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an
exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which
unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the
United States."
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pax Cosmos" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
22 May 2005 03:54:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it?"
One could ask dozens of similar questions:
If the holocaust is a fact, why do some people doubt it?
If the non-existence of WMDs is a fact, why do some people doubt it?
If Al Gore receiving more votes is a fact, why do some peopld doubt
it?
It's amazing what ignorance and blind faith will (not) accomplish.
Bob Dog
Yes, one could ask dozens of similar questions like these, and we would
be running up against similar cognitive processes as the root cause for
why people doubt these things.
Do you think the task of understanding the nature of these cognitive
processes merits an accelerated program of investigation by scientific
means, or should we be satisfied by simply standing in amazement of
people who think this way? Or by standing in smug intellectual
superiority over people who think this way, while they continue along
their merry way, largely unchecked?
While we criticize them for their ignorance, how do we justify our own?
Pax
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Poly" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
21 May 2005 10:54:46 AM |
|
|
"Pax Cosmos" <pax_cosmos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116618072.287942.27350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------
"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the
history of the
earth
can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the
evidence or are
resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to
plain
bigotry."
Sounds reasonable to me. Since the evidence is available
to everyone,
and since anyone who is open to the evidence should see
how it is
overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, then it makes sense
that only
those who are ignorant of that evidence, or who are
resistant to it,
would doubt evolution.
That quotation was way too simplistic. It conflates a
description of an effect with the cause.
But what *are* these emotional blocks of which he speaks?
And how
exactly *does* "plain bigotry" operate? It seems to me
that if we're
upholding scientific knowledge and method by supporting
evolution, we
should also do the same when it comes to describing these
psychological
impediments to the acceptance of evolution. I don't think
we should be
satisfied with simple, easy answers. Especially when we
don't seem
able to overcome these psychological obstacles and "make
them see
reason" with the methods we are now using.
You have stated the problem very one-sidedly. People like
John Haught, Ian Barbour, and Kenneth Miller - just to name
three - have written on the subject and its underlying cause
in a more balanced way.
The underlying cause is due to what has been identified as
the "Conflict" position vis-a-vis science and religion.
This position - and the supporting ideologies that go with
it - is taken by two groups.
One group uses religious-sounding language to attack
scientific knowledge, and the other group uses
scientific-sounding language to attack religious knowledge.
These words by the evolutionary scientist Theodosius
Dobzhansky will
make
all the activist doubters uncomfortable who are trying to
defend
their
belief in some kind of god promising them an everlasting
life by
discrediting evolution.
I haven't seen much evidence so far that these sorts of
words are
making the activist doubters uncomfortable. From what
I've seen so
far, they dismiss such words quite easily, the same way
they dismiss or
distort the evidence for evolution. Perhaps this is more
a hope than
an observation of facts on the ground?
Of course the words don't make the "activitist doubters"
uncomfortable. Perhaps because they don't make the
'activist non-doubters' uncomfortable either. So both can
stay ensconsed in there respective positions.
It could be that the reason is those words, and the
associated commentary, are so obviously one-sided.
If the scientific community, for the most part, is going to
continue to concentrate on beating down one side in this
conflict, while giving the other side a free pass, that
cannot succeed as a strategy.
It's impossible to maintain that you are in support of truth
and knowledge, when you allow or even maybe support
distortions of truth and knowledge.
I suggest you look at the writings of those three authors
for a more detailed presentation.
Or those who have been targeting scientists and science
writers with
abusive language merely because they confront their
ignorance with
the
uneasy fact of evolutionary science.
What is astonishing is the way in which these ignorant
doubters cling
to
all the hackneyed arguments propagated by their spiritual
leaders,
using
unscientific material produced by creationists and
Intelligent Design
theorists.
While such an observation may be interesting, I wouldn't
say that it's
"astonishing." Not when the clinging to such
unscientific, hackneyed
arguments has been so common within dogmatic religious
cultures for
centuries, going back to the time of Copernicus and even
before that.
You seem to be rather one-sided yourself. If you had any
background in the history of science, you would know that
the scientific program grew directly from what you mislabel
as "dogmatic religious cultures".
That being the case, your transparent attempt at
anti-religion propaganda can be seen for what it is.
Like all propaganda, it contains an element of truth, but
distorted and manipulated to support your agenda.
Instead, what would be astonishing is if all the dogmatic
religious
types would *stop* clinging to such hackneyed arguments.
For this
would be way out of character for them, and would really
be a surprise!
More propaganda.
To me, what is really astonishing is the fact that, even
though we know
so little about the subjective mind, and why so many
people cling to
such outmoded ideas, there seems to be so little interest
within the
scientific community for more research to be done, and so
little
pressure from the educated public for them to do it.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
The 'science of the mind' has been a subject of inquiry for
many years. If we include the 'philosophy of the mind' in
that - which IMO would be correct - the inquiry goes back
millenia.
The success of those inquires is another matter - but that
they have taken place is indisputable.
It's like they
either don't care, or are afraid of offending people's
religious
sensibilities by asking the hard questions and doing the
relevant
research. But this makes little sense to me, since they
are at the
same time fighting tooth and nail against the intrusion of
pseudoscience into the classroom. Go figure...
What I would like to "go figure" is how you and others like
you can be so obviously misinformed about what the
scientific program is, and yet feel obligated to comment.
That could be the subject of scientific inquiry itself.
I guess that scientists and educated people can be subject
to emotional
blocks as well...
They distort the facts about evolution and clearly
believe if you
repeat
something long and loud enough, it will become the truth.
----------------------------------
Perhaps in the future, when more is understood about the
subjective
mind, these sorts of discussions will seem quaint.
Perhaps - but if you knew your history better, you might be
surprised where that quaintness lies.
--
Poly
Please post in same thread.
Correct address before sending email.
All messages must have a verifiable return address.
Among the repulsions of atheism for me
has been its drastic uninterestingness as
an intellectual position.
- John Updike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
22 May 2005 08:11:16 PM |
|
|
"Poly" <NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
"Pax Cosmos" <pax_cosmos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116618072.287942.27350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You have stated the problem very one-sidedly. People like
John Haught, Ian Barbour, and Kenneth Miller - just to name
three - have written on the subject and its underlying cause
in a more balanced way.
The underlying cause is due to what has been identified as
the "Conflict" position vis-a-vis science and religion.
This position - and the supporting ideologies that go with
it - is taken by two groups.
One group uses religious-sounding language to attack
scientific knowledge, and the other group uses
scientific-sounding language to attack religious knowledge.
So far, so good.
...
If the scientific community, for the most part, is going to
continue to concentrate on beating down one side in this
conflict,
However, I object to this wording. The *scientific* *community* is not,
as a whole, denying faith or religion. All the *scientific* *community*
wants is for science education to be based on sound science. Only a
very small subset is attacking religion.
The simple fact is that YECs (and their allies) do *not* have any valid
science on their side, so they are, legitimately, opposed by the
scientific community.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pax Cosmos" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
23 May 2005 02:21:01 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
"Poly" <NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
"Pax Cosmos" <pax_cosmos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116618072.287942.27350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You have stated the problem very one-sidedly. People like
John Haught, Ian Barbour, and Kenneth Miller - just to name
three - have written on the subject and its underlying cause
in a more balanced way.
The underlying cause is due to what has been identified as
the "Conflict" position vis-a-vis science and religion.
This position - and the supporting ideologies that go with
it - is taken by two groups.
One group uses religious-sounding language to attack
scientific knowledge, and the other group uses
scientific-sounding language to attack religious knowledge.
So far, so good.
...
If the scientific community, for the most part, is going to
continue to concentrate on beating down one side in this
conflict,
However, I object to this wording. The *scientific* *community* is
not,
as a whole, denying faith or religion. All the *scientific*
*community*
wants is for science education to be based on sound science. Only a
very small subset is attacking religion.
The simple fact is that YECs (and their allies) do *not* have any
valid
science on their side, so they are, legitimately, opposed by the
scientific community.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Yes, I agree. Science per se is metaphysically neutral, and takes no
sides on the existence of God/the supernatural. So the "one side" the
scientific community is "continuing to concentrate on beating down" is
not religion per se, but a particular pseudoscience being promoted by a
particular religious group.
That's not to say that some scientists are not metaphysical
naturalists, because some are (just like some are metaphysical
supernaturalists). But people should beware of conflating, as Phillip
Johnson's crowd does, science with metaphysical naturalism. They are
not the same thing.
Pax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
23 May 2005 05:21:40 PM |
|
|
But people should beware of conflating, as Phillip
Johnson's crowd does, science with metaphysical naturalism. They are
not the same thing.
The best way of understanding this is that _if_ we could scientifically
proof supernaturality, we certainly would, since that would be the most
groundbraking thing ever since the beginning of science.
Also:
The relation between alleged miracles and scientific knowledge of said time
are quite convenient, don't you think?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
20 May 2005 08:18:07 PM |
|
|
If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it?
Aaah, the great argumentum ad numerum.
The one thing that people absolutely can not live with is the thought of
reality without them; or being dead, if you will.
The second thing people have enormous trouble with is the thought of their
view of reality being incorrect (and/or having to change it).
People who have no false (or prior) knowledge on the subject have no trouble
accepting it. People with false 'knowledge' on the subject however will, and
people with virusses of the mind will have the most trouble. These virusses
are damn hard to break through and I have yet to stumble upon a good
antidote.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
20 May 2005 08:31:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 03:18:07 +0200, "Niels van der Linden"
<n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it?
Let me frame it in a way that you can understand.
Why do some people doubt Bush?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
20 May 2005 08:44:57 PM |
|
|
Let me frame it in a way that you can understand.
Why do some people doubt Bush?
Nope, don't understand the relevance; elaborate plz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "george" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
21 May 2005 12:01:38 AM |
|
|
Evidently believing in a big pink sky pixy makes one unable to digest
and understand scientific knowledge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
21 May 2005 06:13:53 PM |
|
|
On 20 May 2005 22:01:38 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "george" <gblack@hnpl.net>:
Evidently believing in a big pink sky pixy makes one unable to digest
and understand scientific knowledge
The existence of theistic but competent scientists tends to
refute this. The belief in the inerrancy of a particular
book, however, along with an inability to understand the
concept of "allegory", "simile" or "metaphor", does seem to
generate such an inability.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pax Cosmos" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
22 May 2005 03:10:59 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 20 May 2005 22:01:38 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "george" <gblack@hnpl.net>:
Evidently believing in a big pink sky pixy makes one unable to
digest
and understand scientific knowledge
The existence of theistic but competent scientists tends to
refute this. The belief in the inerrancy of a particular
book, however, along with an inability to understand the
concept of "allegory", "simile" or "metaphor", does seem to
generate such an inability.
--
Bob C.
Yes, I agree. The existence of theistic scientists who accept
evolution is strong evidence against the hypothesis that mere belief in
"a big pink sky pixy" makes one unable to digest and understand
scientific knowledge. Many religious groups (Roman Catholic, Mainline
Protestant, Reform Judaism, etc.) teach that evolution is compatible
with their faith.
So, a better hypothesis might be that it's something related to the
*particular doctrine* of the religious group in question that is
involved in the inability or unwillingness to digest and understand
scientific knowledge (such as, like you mentioned, belief in the
inerrancy of Scripture, and also, certain hermeneutical approaches to
the interpretation of those Scriptures), and furthermore, it can be
observed that it's only *particular parts* of scientific knowledge that
seem to be affected by this process, rather than scientific knowledge
in general. Most Evangelical Christians, for example, seem to have
little problem digesting and understanding and accepting the periodic
table, basic Newtonian physics, or the heliocentric theory of the solar
system.
In addition to this, the post by "george" above (and many others like
it) seems to be strong evidence for the view that many people who are
very careful and diligent when it comes to framing hypotheses involving
the physical sciences are not so careful or diligent when the subject
matter involves the social and behavioral sciences. Perhaps something
similar to the observation above (that Evangelical Christians
selectively misunderstand certains aspects of the physical sciences but
not other aspects) is going on here. Maybe future research will be
able to sort this out.
Pax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
22 May 2005 04:50:17 PM |
|
|
On 22 May 2005 13:10:59 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Pax Cosmos"
<pax_cosmos@hotmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 20 May 2005 22:01:38 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "george" <gblack@hnpl.net>:
Evidently believing in a big pink sky pixy makes one unable to
digest
and understand scientific knowledge
The existence of theistic but competent scientists tends to
refute this. The belief in the inerrancy of a particular
book, however, along with an inability to understand the
concept of "allegory", "simile" or "metaphor", does seem to
generate such an inability.
--
Bob C.
Yes, I agree. The existence of theistic scientists who accept
evolution is strong evidence against the hypothesis that mere belief in
"a big pink sky pixy" makes one unable to digest and understand
scientific knowledge. Many religious groups (Roman Catholic, Mainline
Protestant, Reform Judaism, etc.) teach that evolution is compatible
with their faith.
.....which, of course, it is. The fact that it's incompatible
with a strict literal reading of a particular translation of
a particular book isn't really relevant, since Biblical
scholars don't seem to think that's how it should be read.
So, a better hypothesis might be that it's something related to the
*particular doctrine* of the religious group in question that is
involved in the inability or unwillingness to digest and understand
scientific knowledge (such as, like you mentioned, belief in the
inerrancy of Scripture, and also, certain hermeneutical approaches to
the interpretation of those Scriptures), and furthermore, it can be
observed that it's only *particular parts* of scientific knowledge that
seem to be affected by this process, rather than scientific knowledge
in general. Most Evangelical Christians, for example, seem to have
little problem digesting and understanding and accepting the periodic
table, basic Newtonian physics, or the heliocentric theory of the solar
system.
With certain reservations (such as the continuing belief by
some fringe sects in a geocentric universe, fueled by that
same literal reading), I believe this is true.
In addition to this, the post by "george" above (and many others like
it) seems to be strong evidence for the view that many people who are
very careful and diligent when it comes to framing hypotheses involving
the physical sciences are not so careful or diligent when the subject
matter involves the social and behavioral sciences. Perhaps something
similar to the observation above (that Evangelical Christians
selectively misunderstand certains aspects of the physical sciences but
not other aspects) is going on here. Maybe future research will be
able to sort this out.
That would be welcome, but I'd suspect profitable research
would lie in the field of clinical psychology.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pax Cosmos" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
23 May 2005 12:45:00 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 22 May 2005 13:10:59 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Pax Cosmos"
<pax_cosmos@hotmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 20 May 2005 22:01:38 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "george" <gblack@hnpl.net>:
Evidently believing in a big pink sky pixy makes one unable to
digest
and understand scientific knowledge
The existence of theistic but competent scientists tends to
refute this. The belief in the inerrancy of a particular
book, however, along with an inability to understand the
concept of "allegory", "simile" or "metaphor", does seem to
generate such an inability.
--
Bob C.
Yes, I agree. The existence of theistic scientists who accept
evolution is strong evidence against the hypothesis that mere belief
in
"a big pink sky pixy" makes one unable to digest and understand
scientific knowledge. Many religious groups (Roman Catholic,
Mainline
Protestant, Reform Judaism, etc.) teach that evolution is compatible
with their faith.
....which, of course, it is. The fact that it's incompatible
with a strict literal reading of a particular translation of
a particular book isn't really relevant, since Biblical
scholars don't seem to think that's how it should be read.
Well, I myself think it's *very* relevant (the fact that it's
incompatible with a strict literal reading of a particular translation
of a particular book), since the followers of this view are the people
who are opposed to evolution in the schools, and are the people who are
trying to inject supernaturalism into scientific method. Their views
are very relevant to this issue, since it's their behavior which *is*
the issue.
I'm a little confused, though, about what you're saying here. Do you
mean to say that "Biblical scholars" as a whole don't think that's how
it should be read, or that "some Biblical scholars" don't think it
should be read this way? That is, are you dismissing the literalists
as not being "real" Biblical scholars? There are many Biblical
scholars who hold to literalistic hermeneutics, and dismissing them as
"not real Biblical scholars" is not very helpful, in my opinion. The
fact is, millions of Evangelicals follow such interpretations of
Scripture, and act on their beliefs, which is the essence of the
problem (of the intrusion of religious ideas into science classrooms).
And the people who are guiding them in this interpretation are employed
in this capacity (to study the Bible, interpret it, and publish their
views). So they *are* de facto "Biblical scholars" even if you don't
like the results of their scholarship.
Of course, if this interpretation of what you were saying is wrong, I
apologize (like I said, I'm a little confused as to your intended
meaning here).
So, a better hypothesis might be that it's something related to the
*particular doctrine* of the religious group in question that is
involved in the inability or unwillingness to digest and understand
scientific knowledge (such as, like you mentioned, belief in the
inerrancy of Scripture, and also, certain hermeneutical approaches
to
the interpretation of those Scriptures), and furthermore, it can be
observed that it's only *particular parts* of scientific knowledge
that
seem to be affected by this process, rather than scientific
knowledge
in general. Most Evangelical Christians, for example, seem to have
little problem digesting and understanding and accepting the
periodic
table, basic Newtonian physics, or the heliocentric theory of the
solar
system.
With certain reservations (such as the continuing belief by
some fringe sects in a geocentric universe, fueled by that
same literal reading), I believe this is true.
I *did* say "most" Evangelical Christians.
In addition to this, the post by "george" above (and many others
like
it) seems to be strong evidence for the view that many people who
are
very careful and diligent when it comes to framing hypotheses
involving
the physical sciences are not so careful or diligent when the
subject
matter involves the social and behavioral sciences. Perhaps
something
similar to the observation above (that Evangelical Christians
selectively misunderstand certains aspects of the physical sciences
but
not other aspects) is going on here. Maybe future research will be
able to sort this out.
That would be welcome, but I'd suspect profitable research
would lie in the field of clinical psychology.
No, I think that cognitive psychology (and social psychology, cultural
anthropology, etc.) would be the more appropriate field(s). Religious
beliefs (even of the literalistic variety), and the jumping to
unscientific conclusions in the social and behavioral sciences by those
well-versed in the physical sciences, are not considered to be
psychological disorders to be studied within the field of clinical
psychology, as far as I know. Maybe your information is more
up-to-date than mine, though, and these have been re-classified this
way. Many clinical psychologists like to expand their list of
"disorders" so as to be able to treat more patients, and earn more
money, so you never know! :)
Pax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
23 May 2005 04:18:00 PM |
|
|
On 23 May 2005 10:45:00 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Pax Cosmos"
<pax_cosmos@hotmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 22 May 2005 13:10:59 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Pax Cosmos"
<pax_cosmos@hotmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 20 May 2005 22:01:38 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "george" <gblack@hnpl.net>:
Evidently believing in a big pink sky pixy makes one unable to
digest
and understand scientific knowledge
The existence of theistic but competent scientists tends to
refute this. The belief in the inerrancy of a particular
book, however, along with an inability to understand the
concept of "allegory", "simile" or "metaphor", does seem to
generate such an inability.
Yes, I agree. The existence of theistic scientists who accept
evolution is strong evidence against the hypothesis that mere belief
in
"a big pink sky pixy" makes one unable to digest and understand
scientific knowledge. Many religious groups (Roman Catholic,
Mainline
Protestant, Reform Judaism, etc.) teach that evolution is compatible
with their faith.
....which, of course, it is. The fact that it's incompatible
with a strict literal reading of a particular translation of
a particular book isn't really relevant, since Biblical
scholars don't seem to think that's how it should be read.
Well, I myself think it's *very* relevant (the fact that it's
incompatible with a strict literal reading of a particular translation
of a particular book), since the followers of this view are the people
who are opposed to evolution in the schools, and are the people who are
trying to inject supernaturalism into scientific method. Their views
are very relevant to this issue, since it's their behavior which *is*
the issue.
Sorry; my phrasing was a bit ambiguous. The fact that
evolutionary theory isn't compatible with a literalist
interpretation of the Bible isn't relevant *to the argument
that evolution is incompatible with religion*, since nearly
all Christian sects do *not* interpret the Bible literally,
and all but a few literalist fundamentalist sects accept
evolutionary theory. Your comments regarding the agendas of
the literalists are correct, but that wasn't the point I was
trying to make.
I'm a little confused, though, about what you're saying here. Do you
mean to say that "Biblical scholars" as a whole don't think that's how
it should be read, or that "some Biblical scholars" don't think it
should be read this way?
I'd go with "most"; Catholic scholars and most of those
associated with major Protestant sects don't seem to think
the Bible should be read literally, and don't have a problem
with evolutionary theory.
That is, are you dismissing the literalists
as not being "real" Biblical scholars? There are many Biblical
scholars who hold to literalistic hermeneutics, and dismissing them as
"not real Biblical scholars" is not very helpful, in my opinion.
Perhaps not, but since unlike science, religion *is* a
matter of opinion decided by vote, and since far more
Christians belong to sects which have no problem with
evolution than otherwise, I'll have to stand by my
statement.
The
fact is, millions of Evangelicals follow such interpretations of
Scripture, and act on their beliefs, which is the essence of the
problem (of the intrusion of religious ideas into science classrooms).
And the people who are guiding them in this interpretation are employed
in this capacity (to study the Bible, interpret it, and publish their
views). So they *are* de facto "Biblical scholars" even if you don't
like the results of their scholarship.
A "Biblical scholar" isn't someone who reads the KJV
assiduously, it's one who studies the original text in the
original language, and actually *understands* not only the
literal interpretation of what was written, but the
connotations implied by the cultural framework. Jimmy
Swaggart and his ilk don't qualify, nor does the average
revival meeting preacher.
Of course, if this interpretation of what you were saying is wrong, I
apologize (like I said, I'm a little confused as to your intended
meaning here).
I trust I've made myself more clear.
<snip>
Maybe future research will be
able to sort this out.
That would be welcome, but I'd suspect profitable research
would lie in the field of clinical psychology.
No, I think that cognitive psychology (and social psychology, cultural
anthropology, etc.) would be the more appropriate field(s). Religious
beliefs (even of the literalistic variety), and the jumping to
unscientific conclusions in the social and behavioral sciences by those
well-versed in the physical sciences, are not considered to be
psychological disorders to be studied within the field of clinical
psychology, as far as I know. Maybe your information is more
up-to-date than mine, though, and these have been re-classified this
way. Many clinical psychologists like to expand their list of
"disorders" so as to be able to treat more patients, and earn more
money, so you never know! :)
Well, I'm an engineer, not a physician of any sort, but I'd
classify someone who, when given evidence that his/her
worldview is flawed continues to hold that view simply
because he/she doesn't care for reality, as having a
cognitive problem little different from a belief that
everyone he/she meets is in reality an alien invader intent
on dining on him/her. YMMV.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pax Cosmos" |
|
| Title: Re: If evolution is a fact, why do some people doubt it? |
24 May 2005 07:42:12 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 23 May 2005 10:45:00 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Pax Cosmos"
<pax_cosmos@hotmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 22 May 2005 13:10:59 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Pax Cosmos"
<pax_cosmos@hotmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 20 May 2005 22:01:38 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "george" <gblack@hnpl.net>:
Evidently believing in a big pink sky pixy makes one unable to
digest
and understand scientific knowledge
The existence of theistic but competent scientists tends to
refute this. The belief in the inerrancy of a particular
book, however, along with an inability to understand the
concept of "allegory", "simile" or "metaphor", does seem to
generate such an inability.
Yes, I agree. The existence of theistic scientists who accept
evolution is strong evidence against the hypothesis that mere belief
in
"a big pink sky pixy" makes one unable to digest and understand
scientific knowledge. Many religious groups (Roman Catholic,
Mainline
Protestant, Reform Judaism, etc.) teach that evolution is compatible
with their faith.
....which, of course, it is. The fact that it's incompatible
with a strict literal reading of a particular translation of
a particular book isn't really relevant, since Biblical
scholars don't seem to think that's how it should be read.
Well, I myself think it's *very* relevant (the fact that it's
incompatible with a strict literal reading of a particular translation
of a particular book), since the followers of this view are the people
who are opposed to evolution in the schools, and are the people who are
trying to inject supernaturalism into scientific method. Their views
are very relevant to this issue, since it's their behavior which *is*
the issue.
Sorry; my phrasing was a bit ambiguous. The fact that
evolutionary theory isn't compatible with a literalist
interpretation of the Bible isn't relevant *to the argument
that evolution is incompatible with religion*, since nearly
all Christian sects do *not* interpret the Bible literally,
and all but a few literalist fundamentalist sects accept
evolutionary theory. Your comments regarding the agendas of
the literalists are correct, but that wasn't the point I was
trying to make.
Thanks for clearing up that point. I wasn't arguing that evolution is
incompatible with religion per se. It is, however, incompatible with
certain religions, since literalistic interpretations of certain
scriptures are part of the doctrine of certain religions. So I would
disagree with you somewhat on this point too, in saying that the fact
that evolutionary theory isn't compatible with a literalist
interpretation of the Bible is indeed relevant to the argument that
evolution is incompatible with *some* religions. The number of sects,
or the number of people in those sects is not relevant to this
argument, in my view. (Of course, this argument may depend on how you
define a "religion".)
And, from a purely practical, political standpoint, even though the
"number of sects" may be small, the number of people in those sects is
quite large, and their tendency to march in lockstep, and be better
organized than their more moderate brethren, makes them much more of a
threat to science education (and other things) than many give them
credit for.
I'm a little confused, though, about what you're saying here. Do you
mean to say that "Biblical scholars" as a whole don't think that's how
it should be read, or that "some Biblical scholars" don't think it
should be read this way?
I'd go with "most"; Catholic scholars and most of those
associated with major Protestant sects don't seem to think
the Bible should be read literally, and don't have a problem
with evolutionary theory.
I agree.
That is, are you dismissing the literalists
as not being "real" Biblical scholars? There are many Biblical
scholars who hold to literalistic hermeneutics, and dismissing them as
"not real Biblical scholars" is not very helpful, in my opinion.
Perhaps not, but since unlike science, religion *is* a
matter of opinion decided by vote, and since far more
Christians belong to sects which have no problem with
evolution than otherwise, I'll have to stand by my
statement.
But the persistence and organization of the religious right makes them
a force to be reckoned with. Look at the Kansas Board of education.
First, the pro-IDists had a majority; then they got kicked out; now
they have a majority again. Often, a fanatical, determined minority
can impose its will on a more passive, complacent majority (Bolsheviks,
Nazis, Taliban...need I go on?).
The
fact is, millions of Evangelicals follow such interpretations of
Scripture, and act on their beliefs, which is the essence of the
problem (of the intrusion of religious ideas into science classrooms).
And the people who are guiding them in this interpretation are employed
in this capacity (to study the Bible, interpret it, and publish their
views). So they *are* de facto "Biblical scholars" even if you don't
like the results of their scholarship.
A "Biblical scholar" isn't someone who reads the KJV
assiduously, it's one who studies the original text in the
original language, and actually *understands* not only the
literal interpretation of what was written, but the
connotations implied by the cultural framework. Jimmy
Swaggart and his ilk don't qualify, nor does the average
revival meeting preacher.
Yes, and Osama bin Laden's interpretation of Islam is dismissed by the
majority of "legitimate" Koranic scholars. And so he isn't a "Koranic
scholar" according to this criterion. And Lenin wasn't a "Marxist
scholar" by the same token. But look at the results.
Call them what you will, but they *are* the ones leading and inspiring
those who are engaged in the political struggle against legitimate
science education (and other things). A dismissive or contemptuous
attitude is unhelpful, as I said.
All fanatics need to be taken seriously. And if their ideas inspire
and motivate masses of followers, then those ideas need to be taken
seriously too. I agree with you that these ideas are unscientific, but
that's the nature of dogmatic fanaticism, isn't it? We ignore them at
our own peril, as history demonstrates (Bolsheviks, Nazis,
Taliban...but I repeat myself).
So, leaving aside the semantic debate over who is, and who is not, a
"Biblical Scholar," the question remains: should these dogmatic
fanatics *themselves* be a subject of serious scholarship, or should we
dismiss them with simple stereotypes, and "explain" their ideas with
simple, easy slogans and dismissive caricatures? Which approach do
*you* think--as a scientifically-minded person--would likely give us
the best chances for keeping them in check, given the experience of
history?
Of course, if this interpretation of what you were saying is wrong, I
apologize (like I said, I'm a little confused as to your intended
meaning here).
I trust I've made myself more clear.
Yes, and I hope that I have made myself more clear as well. I'm not
disagreeing with your views on evolution, just on the tactics and
methods to be used in fighting the fanatics who are opposing evolution.
I don't think a dismissive or contemptuous attitude is helpful. In
fact, I think it plays right into their hands.
On the other hand, if more people who were pro-science when it comes to
evolution would also be more pro-science when it comes to cognition,
behavior and culture, then we might have an easier time dealing with
these dogmatic fanatical types. I think it's clear that the methods we
are currently using are not having the desired results (of persuading
them to back off and leave science education alone). More scientific
knowledge on this score can't hurt, right?
<snip>
Maybe future research will be
able to sort this out.
That would be welcome, but I'd suspect profitable research
would lie in the field of clinical psychology.
No, I think that cognitive psychology (and social psychology, cultural
anthropology, etc.) would be the more appropriate field(s). Religious
beliefs (even of the literalistic variety), and the jumping to
unscientific conclusions in the social and behavioral sciences by those
well-versed in the physical sciences, are not considered to be
psychological disorders to be studied within the field of clinical
psychology, as far as I know. Maybe your information is more
up-to-date than mine, though, and these have been re-classified this
way. Many clinical psychologists like to expand their list of
"disorders" so as to be able to treat more patients, and earn more
money, so you never know! :)
Well, I'm an engineer, not a physician of any sort, but I'd
classify someone who, when given evidence that his/her
worldview is flawed continues to hold that view simply
because he/she doesn't care for reality, as having a
cognitive problem little different from a belief that
everyone he/she meets is in reality an alien invader intent
on dining on him/her. YMMV.
--
Bob C.
My own experience with them has been very different. To me, human
cognitive processes are *never* this simple. The subjective mind is a
very, very complex thing. And we are only beginning to explore its
mysteries. We have much further to go. And we're not moving very fast
in that direction, in my view. This ignorance on our part is a
handicap.
Pax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Serial # 19781010" |
|
| Title: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
25 May 2005 07:45:48 AM |
|
|
In reading the many threads on the issue of evolution vs creationism a
question consistently keeps coming to mind that I would like to ask
others about. This is an honest question and not argumentive nor
rhetorical.
There have been many thoughtful criticisms questioning the limits to
religion's ability to explain reality. Most of which I have no
problem with.
However I would like to turn that on it's head;
What are the limits, if any, to human reason's ability to explain
reality?
In asking this question I am asking it in a non-trivial way. I'm not
talking about, say, a lack of knowledge at any given time nor about
questions that would go beyond natural reality.
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
A mundane example:
We can predict with great precision and certainty an eclipse of the
Sun and Moon.
But will we ever be able to predict, with any practical degree of
certainty, the behavior of complex dynamic human systems such as the
collapse of the former Soviet Union?
What say you?
Beowulf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
26 May 2005 07:00:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:48 -0500 in talk.origins, Serial # 19781010
(Serial # 19781010 <none@none.net>) said, directing the reply to
talk.origins
In reading the many threads on the issue of evolution vs creationism a
question consistently keeps coming to mind that I would like to ask
others about. This is an honest question and not argumentive nor
rhetorical.
There have been many thoughtful criticisms questioning the limits to
religion's ability to explain reality. Most of which I have no
problem with.
However I would like to turn that on it's head;
What are the limits, if any, to human reason's ability to explain
reality?
That's a *really* good question. And I shall be applying for an SRC
grant immediately, if not sooner, and that itself may be the most
unsolvable problem of all....!
In asking this question I am asking it in a non-trivial way. I'm not
talking about, say, a lack of knowledge at any given time nor about
questions that would go beyond natural reality.
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
Hummm....
I think that question divides into two basic classes:
problems that are given the nature of the universe intrinsically
unsolvable even given arbitrarily high intelligence, or indeed weak
omniscience with respect to the universe.
problems that are in principle solvable but which given the way humans
are built are not problems we are capable of addressing, or perhaps
even/and or capable of recognising but which other hypothetical
entities from different evolutionary histories may be able to
recognise and - at least in principle - solve.
And no, I don't know what these problems are because humans aren't
capable of recognising them, and I'm human. Well, sort of.
Honestly.
But that said there may be hope. Perhaps we can build machines which
recognise and perhaps these problems for us, though this does seem
problematic at least in a philosophical sense. Though I do rather like
"COLLOSUS: The Forbin Project".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/
A mundane example:
We can predict with great precision and certainty an eclipse of the
Sun and Moon.
But will we ever be able to predict, with any practical degree of
certainty, the behavior of complex dynamic human systems such as the
collapse of the former Soviet Union?
Foundation 101 Psycho History, eh?
I'll have to think about this a lot more, but my initial impression is
that these are different classes of problem. As such I'm not sure they
can be legitimately compared.
What say you?
Thanks. Mine's a pint.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
25 May 2005 08:09:07 AM |
|
|
"Serial # 19781010" <none@none.net> wrote
What are the limits, if any, to human reason's ability to explain
reality?
What are the limits, or what are the limits RIGHT NOW?
Obviously, the answer to the former is "We don't know." Less
obvious though, the answer to the latter is "Why does it matter"?
Is there really any question of ceasing all technological
advancement, all scientific discoveries, and forever more
continuing at the level we are now?
If it isn't, what useful function -- in the context of arguing with
fundies -- is there in exploring are present limits?
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we
can reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but
intrinsically may seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever
answer?
We do it all the time, begining in childhood.
Yes, most of the time there is *Somebody* who could answer,
even if we couldn't & their answer is beyond us, but not all
of the time.
But will we ever be able to predict, with any practical degree
of certainty, the behavior of complex dynamic human systems
such as the collapse of the former Soviet Union?
Will we ever, or could we ever?
I'm pretty certain that we COULD do so accurately, given
enough time. It's really all a question of factors, identifying
them, their relationship & interaction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
25 May 2005 05:43:21 PM |
|
|
"Serial # 19781010" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:dgl891tsenv34fptv52jftvd06do0vusd9@4ax.com...
In reading the many threads on the issue of evolution vs creationism a
question consistently keeps coming to mind that I would like to ask
others about. This is an honest question and not argumentive nor
rhetorical.
There have been many thoughtful criticisms questioning the limits to
religion's ability to explain reality. Most of which I have no
problem with.
However I would like to turn that on it's head;
What are the limits, if any, to human reason's ability to explain
reality?
In asking this question I am asking it in a non-trivial way. I'm not
talking about, say, a lack of knowledge at any given time nor about
questions that would go beyond natural reality.
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
A mundane example:
We can predict with great precision and certainty an eclipse of the
Sun and Moon.
Actually, only on shorter time-scales. On long time-scales, the Earth, Sun,
Moon system is possibly chaotic. Well, if you can't predict the general
three-body problem, then there are likely many things that cannot be
predicted with any certainty.
But will we ever be able to predict, with any practical degree of
certainty, the behavior of complex dynamic human systems such as the
collapse of the former Soviet Union?
What say you?
Beowulf
If your reference to "reason" maps to a discrete logical system: Kurt Gödel
showed that within any finite system of axioms, there would always be some
propositions that can't be proven either true or false. That means humans
can never discover everything about something as simple as arithmetic.
Another analogy: Georg Cantor showed that the counting numbers cannot be
mapped one-to-one to the real numbers. Even an infinite logical system of
discrete logic cannot be mapped to a finite continuum (assuming reality maps
to the continuum).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
25 May 2005 08:56:17 PM |
|
|
<piggybacking>
"Serial # 19781010" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:dgl891tsenv34fptv52jftvd06do0vusd9@4ax.com...
<snip>
What are the limits, if any, to human reason's ability to explain
reality?
We won't know until we've reached them. So far, human reason offers
no shortage of useful, empirically reproducable and logically
consistent explanation. It doesn't explain everything, but its reach
has yet to stop expanding. Once that begins to happen, which it
hasn't - not even close - then we'll be able to more correctly
ascertain what realms lay beyond its reach. So far, it even explains
religion. Religion, on the other hand, explains nothing that reason
hasn't already done a much more thorough job of.
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
We won't know until such has been done. If it's never done, then
we'll never know. :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
25 May 2005 08:48:13 AM |
|
|
In article <dgl891tsenv34fptv52jftvd06do0vusd9@4ax.com>,
Serial # 19781010 <none@none.net> wrote:
In reading the many threads on the issue of evolution vs creationism a
question consistently keeps coming to mind that I would like to ask
others about. This is an honest question and not argumentive nor
rhetorical.
There have been many thoughtful criticisms questioning the limits to
religion's ability to explain reality. Most of which I have no
problem with.
However I would like to turn that on it's head;
What are the limits, if any, to human reason's ability to explain
reality?
In asking this question I am asking it in a non-trivial way. I'm not
talking about, say, a lack of knowledge at any given time nor about
questions that would go beyond natural reality.
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
A mundane example:
We can predict with great precision and certainty an eclipse of the
Sun and Moon.
But will we ever be able to predict, with any practical degree of
certainty, the behavior of complex dynamic human systems such as the
collapse of the former Soviet Union?
What say you?
It seems odd to expect to use human reason to determine the answer to
your question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Gradwell" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
25 May 2005 06:12:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:48 -0500, Serial # 19781010 <none@none.net>
wrote:
In reading the many threads on the issue of evolution vs creationism a
question consistently keeps coming to mind that I would like to ask
others about. This is an honest question and not argumentive nor
rhetorical.
I see.
There have been many thoughtful criticisms questioning the limits to
religion's ability to explain reality. Most of which I have no
problem with.
Ok.
However I would like to turn that on it's head;
What are the limits, if any, to human reason's ability to explain
reality?
We don't know ether. You sound like a theist so I'm answering you in
my capacity as an atheist btw.
In asking this question I am asking it in a non-trivial way. I'm not
talking about, say, a lack of knowledge at any given time nor about
questions that would go beyond natural reality.
Frankly I ask why not?
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
Ok well dismissing the fundamentally silly like say "Is it wetter
underwater when your'e there when it rains" (Part of a favourite song
lyric btw) I ask myself "Is there anything special here you have that
I would find intriguing"
A mundane example:
We can predict with great precision and certainty an eclipse of the
Sun and Moon.
But will we ever be able to predict, with any practical degree of
certainty, the behavior of complex dynamic human systems such as the
collapse of the former Soviet Union?
What say you?
I don't know I wish I did. Then I could answer an even more
fundamental question which faces us all.
How can we solve the world's economic problems?
Beowulf
--
Yours,
Mark Gradwell
aa#1478
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
26 May 2005 05:01:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:48 -0500, Serial # 19781010 <none@none.net> wrote:
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
Sure:
*****
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.
One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.
One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other hand, has
a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship directed backward
to the cow including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man other than the cow sees the man,
but has no idea what the man is or what the man does or why the man is
there.
Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.
What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.
We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't.
By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.
As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.
As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.
If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the world - war,
disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc.
Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.
How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.
So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.
Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*****
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
26 May 2005 07:19:38 AM |
|
|
"On Thu, 26 May 2005 05:01:54 -0500, in article
<3e7b91p7ako5jcrtaou8ceglr6nak1ir38@4ax.com>, duke stated..."
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:48 -0500, Serial # 19781010 <none@none.net> wrote:
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
Sure:
*****
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.
One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
[...snip...]
This is, of course, dependent upon a concept of "levels of being".
Plants are not "simple life" forms.
There is no meaningful, uniform sense in which any one thing is
"higher" than any other. We could, for example, say that many
plants, because they do not depend upon animals for their existence,
are "higher". Of course, we could also say that they are "lower",
for that very same reason (remembering that a king depends upon a
peasant more than a peasant depends upon a king).
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theo" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
26 May 2005 10:06:46 AM |
|
|
TomS <TomS_member@newsguy.com> wrote in <d74esq014qc@drn.newsguy.com>:
"On Thu, 26 May 2005 05:01:54 -0500, in article
<3e7b91p7ako5jcrtaou8ceglr6nak1ir38@4ax.com>, duke stated..."
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:48 -0500, Serial # 19781010 <none@none.net>
wrote:
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
Sure:
*****
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.
One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
[...snip...]
This is, of course, dependent upon a concept of "levels of being".
Plants are not "simple life" forms.
There is no meaningful, uniform sense in which any one thing is
"higher" than any other. We could, for example, say that many
plants, because they do not depend upon animals for their existence,
are "higher". Of course, we could also say that they are "lower",
for that very same reason (remembering that a king depends upon a
peasant more than a peasant depends upon a king).
Since the Subject refers to "Human Reason", perhaps the OP was looking at
"lower" and "higher" with respect to how entities approach, share, or exceed
the ability to reason. Still a can of worms, but not quite so devoid of
meaning.
On the other hand, it's rather a stretch to make the inference that because
cows reason better than plants and humans reason better than cows that
therefore there must be something that reasons better than humans (angels;
QED), not to mention the extrapolation up the Chain to get to God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explainreality? |
26 May 2005 06:56:07 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:48 -0500, Serial # 19781010 <none@none.net> wrote:
To put it another way- is it possible to ask questions that we can
reasonably expect there is in fact an answer to but intrinsically may
seem to be beyond reason's ability to ever answer?
Sure:
*****
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.
One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.
One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other hand, has
a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship directed backward
to the cow including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man other than the cow sees the man,
but has no idea what the man is or what the man does or why the man is
there.
Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.
What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.
We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't.
By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.
As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.
As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.
If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the world - war,
disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc.
Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.
How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.
So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.
Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*****
Good grief. I thought the Great Chain of Being was a medieval/enlightenment thing.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Serial # 19781010" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
26 May 2005 08:02:02 AM |
|
|
Perhaps this would be a better example;
Drawing from my own real life experience and without getting too far
into the details.....
My economically depressed rural community had a huge dispute over the
building of a industrial plant in our area.
It was a typical dispute between economic growth and concerns for the
environment.
There were endless studies and hearings on the issue by all levels of
government from the township level up to the Federal level and from
non-governmental agencies as well.
The long and short of it was that there would be very substantial
economic benefits to our community but at a price. The price would be
the destruction of the last remaining breeding population of Brook
Trout in our area due to the pollution of the underground aquifers
that feed the trout's spring fed stream.
I remember very well the testimony of three people:
The guy from the State Department of Economic development had no
problem in predicting very substantial economic benefits from building
the plant.
The fresh water biologist from the Dept of Natural Resources testimony
was interesting. He said that he had been in this position many times
before throughout the state. That as a biologist it was not his job to
tell the community wither on not they should or should not built the
plant- that was a political decision. The science however was not in
doubt- the plant would be devastating to the fish population in this
pristine little stream.
The most memorable testimony was from a farmer who's land the stream
ran through and who's family held this land back to the 1840's. He
more or less said he didn't give a damn about a few more bucks in the
local community but he sure as hell would no longer want to live in a
community that would sacrifice the little remaining wildlife in the
area for the sake of economic development.
All this is perhaps not abstract or theoretical enough for some folks.
But it was a real issue with real problems and demanded a real answer.
At the end of the day it was not an issue of objective fact. That was
not in dispute. It was however very much a question of subjective
individual value judgements. The facts may inform our values but
ultimately do not determine them.
This is not to say that we should run back to church and pray for
divine guidance on such issues. Human reason my very well be the only
and best way to understand things but it too might have it's
limitations.
Sometimes.....
There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never
has been an answer. That's the answer.
Gertrude Stein
Beowulf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the limits, if any, to Human reasons ability to explain reality? |
26 May 2005 08:17:18 AM |
|
|
I think the biggest limitation is that we have no real concept, (or
very little, anyway) of both the time and size scales involved. Yes we
understand how big things are, and how long this took, to a certain
degree. But it's still mindboggling.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
