Religions > Atheism > Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"t1gercat" |
| Date: |
30 May 2007 04:33:57 PM |
| Object: |
Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
30 May 2007 09:20:04 PM |
|
|
On 30 May 2007 14:33:57 -0700, t1gercat <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180560837.610725.233800@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
A small correction:
Neither Dawkins, nor I, consider religion to be a disease of the
brain.
It is a disease of the mind.
From birth, people are trained that belief without (and in the face
of) evidence, is a positive vitue, and that their world view is the
default one.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
31 May 2007 02:57:12 PM |
|
|
On May 30, 10:20 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 30 May 2007 14:33:57 -0700,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180560837.610725.233...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
A small correction:
Neither Dawkins, nor I, consider religion to be a disease of the
brain.
It is a disease of the mind.
From birth, people are trained that belief without (and in the face
of) evidence, is a positive vitue, and that their world view is the
default one.
I've never been fond of brain/mind discussions, although your point is
well taken. As with some other experiential factors it might actually
imprint the brain physically, making it a brain as well as a mind
disorder. But that's just speculation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
31 May 2007 06:40:00 PM |
|
|
On 31 May 2007 12:57:12 -0700, t1gercat <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180641432.768699.195010@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On May 30, 10:20 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 30 May 2007 14:33:57 -0700,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180560837.610725.233...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
A small correction:
Neither Dawkins, nor I, consider religion to be a disease of the
brain.
It is a disease of the mind.
From birth, people are trained that belief without (and in the face
of) evidence, is a positive vitue, and that their world view is the
default one.
I've never been fond of brain/mind discussions, although your point is
well taken. As with some other experiential factors it might actually
imprint the brain physically, making it a brain as well as a mind
disorder. But that's just speculation.
In a very gross literal manner, you are correct.
(Partly!)
"mind" consists of various patterns of nominally healthy brain tissue,
(or unhealthy tissue, it doesn't matter), and that include acquired
delusions that constitute a disordered or diseased mind, but in a
chemically normal brain.
A delusion or disease of the mind can therefore be maintained without
any organic disorder.
A disease of the brain, on the other hand is almost universaally taken
to mean a potentially identifiable corruption in the molecules of the
brain.
I like to use the analogy of "walking" or "running".
One can have a limp (disorder or disease) with perfectly healthy legs.
"Walking" is not the same as "legs".
One is a process, the other the machine.
"Mind" is not the same as "brain".
One is a process, the other the machine.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
31 May 2007 08:57:23 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 7:40 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 31 May 2007 12:57:12 -0700,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180641432.768699.195...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On May 30, 10:20 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 30 May 2007 14:33:57 -0700,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180560837.610725.233...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
A small correction:
Neither Dawkins, nor I, consider religion to be a disease of the
brain.
It is a disease of the mind.
From birth, people are trained that belief without (and in the face
of) evidence, is a positive vitue, and that their world view is the
default one.
I've never been fond of brain/mind discussions, although your point is
well taken. As with some other experiential factors it might actually
imprint the brain physically, making it a brain as well as a mind
disorder. But that's just speculation.
In a very gross literal manner, you are correct.
(Partly!)
"mind" consists of various patterns of nominally healthy brain tissue,
(or unhealthy tissue, it doesn't matter), and that include acquired
delusions that constitute a disordered or diseased mind, but in a
chemically normal brain.
A delusion or disease of the mind can therefore be maintained without
any organic disorder.
A disease of the brain, on the other hand is almost universaally taken
to mean a potentially identifiable corruption in the molecules of the
brain.
I like to use the analogy of "walking" or "running".
One can have a limp (disorder or disease) with perfectly healthy legs.
"Walking" is not the same as "legs".
One is a process, the other the machine.
"Mind" is not the same as "brain".
One is a process, the other the machine.
I don't pretend to know much about this, but I was thinking of a
serious article I recently read in which it was maintained that
traumatic experiences actually imprint the brain physically.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
01 Jun 2007 12:10:44 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:57:23 -0700, t1gercat <wexford1778@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1180663043.188503.48370@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
On May 31, 7:40 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 31 May 2007 12:57:12 -0700,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180641432.768699.195...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On May 30, 10:20 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 30 May 2007 14:33:57 -0700,t1gercat<wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180560837.610725.233...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
A small correction:
Neither Dawkins, nor I, consider religion to be a disease of the
brain.
It is a disease of the mind.
From birth, people are trained that belief without (and in the face
of) evidence, is a positive vitue, and that their world view is the
default one.
I've never been fond of brain/mind discussions, although your point is
well taken. As with some other experiential factors it might actually
imprint the brain physically, making it a brain as well as a mind
disorder. But that's just speculation.
In a very gross literal manner, you are correct.
(Partly!)
"mind" consists of various patterns of nominally healthy brain tissue,
(or unhealthy tissue, it doesn't matter), and that include acquired
delusions that constitute a disordered or diseased mind, but in a
chemically normal brain.
A delusion or disease of the mind can therefore be maintained without
any organic disorder.
A disease of the brain, on the other hand is almost universaally taken
to mean a potentially identifiable corruption in the molecules of the
brain.
I like to use the analogy of "walking" or "running".
One can have a limp (disorder or disease) with perfectly healthy legs.
"Walking" is not the same as "legs".
One is a process, the other the machine.
"Mind" is not the same as "brain".
One is a process, the other the machine.
I don't pretend to know much about this, but I was thinking of a
serious article I recently read in which it was maintained that
traumatic experiences actually imprint the brain physically.
Again, it depends on what is meant by "physically".
If you include the normal patterns of neuron growth and apoptosis,
then yes, it does, (as do any and all memories, traumatic or not.)
But this is not what is normally meant by a physical "disease".
I don't recall reading the article in question.
It sounds interesting.
Do you think that you might be able to find a reference to it, please?
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
30 May 2007 04:37:49 PM |
|
|
On May 30, 2:33 pm, t1gercat <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
You think Oxfordians are bad? Try arguing with someone who believes
in feeding dogs the BARF diet. I'd (almost) rather deal with a
creationist. <Shudder>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot ent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tokay Pino Gris" |
|
| Title: Re: Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
30 May 2007 07:50:44 PM |
|
|
skyeyes wrote:
On May 30, 2:33 pm, t1gercat <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
You think Oxfordians are bad? Try arguing with someone who believes
in feeding dogs the BARF diet. I'd (almost) rather deal with a
creationist. <Shudder>
No, I am not asking what that diet contains. There are some depths I
don't want to fathom.
Tokay
--
There is no substitute for good manners, except, perhaps,
fast reflexes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Small Observation on the Substance of Anti-Evolution Arguments |
31 May 2007 03:06:51 PM |
|
|
On May 30, 5:50 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
skyeyes wrote:
On May 30, 2:33 pm, t1gercat <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Some time ago I engaged in a series of discussions with the clan that
firmly believes the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare. I'm no Shakespearian scholar, but it was quite
easy to poke holes in their "arguments," which were so logically
flawed and so speculative as to be worthless. One thing about the
mentality of the Oxfordians, however, that is similar to our Fundie
Evolution-haters, is their proclivity for thinking that an argument
against your theory somehow proves theirs.
For the Oxfordians an unvarished assertion that "WS could not have
written the plays. He was a bumpkin who lacked the necessary higher
education," somehow "proves" that Oxford did. When I tried to point
out that even if the argument were valid, all it does is open the
authorship to any one of, say, ten thousand or more people living at
that time, they remain undissuaded. (In fairness, I should point out
that the people who think Marlowe or Bacon wrote the plays have the
same reasoning.) Similarly, Fundies seem convinced that if they can
find reasons for questioning evolution theory, it somehow proves not
only that God did it, but that their entire belief system is
validated, including every raving delusion in the Bible.
I'm certainly no psychologist but I can't help wondering if this is a
cognitive trait of certain people. Make an unfounded assertion whose
basis is faith then insist that the assertion is validated if some
contradictory notion can be questioned, even if the question is
unsubstantial. It sould seem to me that eventually a normal brain
would reject the argument, but these people adhere to it fanatically.
Perhaps Dawkins is right, Religion is a disease of the brain, or
causes brain function to alter. Even pseudo religions or beliefs in
the mold of religions (e.g., Oxfordism), that start as a fervent
assertion of an absurdity, affect cognitive powers and engage emotions.
You think Oxfordians are bad? Try arguing with someone who believes
in feeding dogs the BARF diet. I'd (almost) rather deal with a
creationist. <Shudder>
No, I am not asking what that diet contains. There are some depths I
don't want to fathom.
BARF diet = Bones And Raw Food.
As opposed to feeding your dog Alpo or Purina Dog Chow, or something.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
