Science and Theology, the sequel

12/11/2009 02:13:32 PM · #926

Originally posted by RayEthier:

It could be that the distinction between our perspective rests in the fact that you might lend credence to an open and unsubstantiated commments whereas I do not.

I am not inclined to "lend credence to an open and unsubstantiated comment," but I do find a meaningful distinction between rejecting someone's statements out of hand because they are "worthless anecdotes" and instead making it clear that the statements are not useful (meaning not persuasive in the context of the debate). One approach educates, the other alienates.

Further, anecdotes are not "worthless" in any absolute sense of the word, and so it actually undermines the persuasive value of your argument to take the position that they are. Anecdote is evidence, it is just not evidence of the truth of the anecdotal claim.

12/11/2009 02:16:50 PM · #927

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If someone came to you and started a discussion based on the assertion "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so!", would you look him in the eye and say, "Ah, you're full of crap!"? I sure wouldn't, and I doubt you would either. But telling him his opinion is "worthless" is pretty close to exactly that...

As the guy who used the actual word "worthless", I suppose I should respond. I know it's not a very polite or popular thing in most circles, but I would do exactly that. The fact is, such opinions *are* worthless. I have no trouble telling people so (obviously). It doesn't make me popular, or the "nice guy", or whatever, but at least it makes me honest, at least in my opinion.

I've permanently thrown my lot in with the aggressive latter-day debaters and refused to give credence or respect to that which deserves none. Note: this says nothing of my opinion for the character of the individuals involved in such discussions, other than that they hold worthless opinions. (As do I; for example, I'm convinced that everyone in my city of Burlington over the age of sixty is a terrible driver. I also think well-prepared German food is the height of culinary splendour.) So, am I a bad person because of this? Maybe.

12/11/2009 02:20:00 PM · #928

Originally posted by Louis:

So, am I a bad person because of this? Maybe.

It doesn't make you a bad person, no, but it sort of stifles the potential for any meaningful debate with the person whose ideas you have labeled "worthless". Now, you might argue that no such possibility exists anyway, but I prefer to be a little less cynical than that :-)

R.

12/11/2009 02:21:35 PM · #929

Cynicism is my middle name! That's right. Louis Cynicism Steiner.

12/11/2009 02:24:56 PM · #930

Originally posted by Louis:

I've permanently thrown my lot in with the aggressive latter-day debaters and refused to give credence or respect to that which deserves none.

I think one can refuse to give any respect to the argument, while still providing respect to the person making the argument.

This doesn't mean that one need provide unlimited tolerance to the intellectually dishonest or the chronically thick, however. At some point, "You're full of crap!" becomes a perfectly reasonable response. And sometimes that point arrives earlier than others.

Message edited by author 2009-12-11 14:28:11.

12/11/2009 02:29:23 PM · #931

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by Louis:
I've permanently thrown my lot in with the aggressive latter-day debaters and refused to give credence or respect to that which deserves none.

I think one can refuse to give any respect to the argument, while still providing respect to the person making the argument.

Are there worthless arguments? The "baby jesus" poem, presented as an argument, certainly is. I can't imagine responding with something pedantically conciliatory, like, "Your proposition requires further substantiated data." In an informal setting with an intelligent debater, the charge of worthlessness of an argument will not be so personally indicting. As Stephen Frye said, "But that's just a lot of tosh, isn't it?" He can get away with that around the dinner table because he's European. Why are North Americans so thin-skinned?

12/11/2009 02:38:12 PM · #932

Louis is all wrong. When I talk to him on IM he's nothing but roses and sunshine. He bends over backward for me and really he's just a big ol' cuddly teddy bear. Don't listen to his posturing on this thread! It's not true!

12/11/2009 02:40:04 PM · #933

Originally posted by Louis:

Certainly, but I would never lead with "your arguments are worthless." Bear said he was being explicitly cartoonish in his example, but I can imagine responding to such drivel (and yes, I think the treacly Jesus poem is drivel) with something along the lines of "well, why should we accept what the Bible says as truth?" It will become quickly apparent whether engaging in further, respectful debate will be useful, or whether telling the person to go jump is justified.

12/11/2009 02:41:37 PM · #934

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I certainly hope not. I like Louis in all his cynical, irascible glory. Cuddly teddy bear Louis is just to horrible to contemplate.

12/11/2009 02:44:24 PM · #935

Especially for me. :P

12/11/2009 02:54:07 PM · #936

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Bingo! This statement is not worthless, jejejeâ�¢

R.

FireBird

12/12/2009 12:21:51 AM · #937

Originally posted by Louis:

Especially for me. :P

Don't worry Louis. We see your hard edge. It casts a sharp shadow.

I wonder if you've read this? It seems to show a relaxation of sorts on atheists. I know, I know, the article shows contempt by religious nutters against a atheist man of high principles. But to me it shows a beginning. Who knows, maybe twenty years from now laws will uniformly allow anyone to hold office, no matter that it is state or local. Of course this is an anecdotal story as I've not comfirmed any of the facts.

12/13/2009 11:14:05 AM · #938

Originally posted by FireBird:

But to me it shows a beginning. Who knows, maybe twenty years from now laws will uniformly allow anyone to hold office, no matter that it is state or local.

It's a regression, not a beginning. While the law has never been taken off the books, it has been Constitutionally unenforceable for decades (and arguably unenforceable since the passage of the 14th Amendment). Your hope for what the law will be 20 years from now is what the law actually is right now and has been for quite some time. This is not a news story about laws needing to be changed, it's a story about some religious nutters' refusal to acknowledge the current law - or their deeper refusal to acknowledge the import of the 1st Amendment bar against religious tests.

As I have stated in the past, this is the type of thing that people and organizations do when they are feeling vulnerable and weak. If the believers were truly secure in their faith, the odd atheist getting elected to public office wouldn't trouble them.

12/13/2009 12:18:01 PM · #939

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

As I have stated in the past, this is the type of thing that people and organizations do when they are feeling vulnerable and weak. If the believers were truly secure in their faith, the odd atheist getting elected to public office wouldn't trouble them.

Exactly. The same goes for so-called blasphemy laws. They exist only because the religious are threatened, specifically Muslims. If religious tenets were as sacrosanct and inviolate as the religious claim they are, all the blasphemy in the world could not tarnish their truth. But of course, to the hardliners, "blasphemy" is another word for "enlightenment", and "blasphemy laws" are a good way to extinguish the light that exposes the pack of lies propping up the dogma.

edit: fix quotes

Message edited by author 2009-12-13 12:18:52.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/13/2009 12:55:19 PM · #940

Originally posted by Louis:

If religious tenets were as sacrosanct and inviolate as the religious claim they are, all the blasphemy in the world could not tarnish their truth.

So, if I'm really secure in my love for my mother, say, then I ought not to take it too amiss when you call her a bitch?

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/13/2009 03:48:58 PM · #941

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Louis:
If religious tenets were as sacrosanct and inviolate as the religious claim they are, all the blasphemy in the world could not tarnish their truth.

So, if I'm really secure in my love for my mother, say, then I ought not to take it too amiss when you call her a bitch?

R.

Is that even comparable? Wouldn't it be more like having an undying love, passion for something like golf? Would you be deterred if others came along saying golf isn't even a sport?

Message edited by author 2009-12-13 15:49:23.

12/13/2009 04:25:46 PM · #942

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So, if I'm really secure in my love for my mother, say, then I ought not to take it too amiss when you call her a bitch?

I don't think that the analogy is sound, but let me roll with it anyway . . .

A blasphemy law is not the same reaction as taking personal offense to statements of others. Nothing is preventing you from being offended by so-called "blasphemy," ("so-called" because defining what, exactly, will count as blasphemy is one of the big problems with such laws), but making it illegal to make statements that may be offensive to one religious group versus another means that you are using the power of the state to preference your particular religious belief or preference belief over non-belief. Being offended is perhaps normal and expected, appealing to the state to protect you from being offended is a sign of being (or feeling) so weak and vulnerable that one must be protected from being offended in the first place.

In other words, I would expect you to "take amiss" someone calling your mother a bitch, but you don't get to call the police when they do or to keep them from saying the words in the first place.

Given the particular shape of the analogy, I am going to avoid making the other side of the argument, which involves asking whether the offending statements are actually true, no matter how troubling they may be.

12/13/2009 05:20:59 PM · #943

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

In other words, I would expect you to "take amiss" someone calling your mother a bitch, but you don't get to call the police when they do or to keep them from saying the words in the first place.

I think Robert was responding to the possible interpretation of Louis' statement that the mere fact people were passionately defending their belief was, in itself, proof the belief was suspect.

12/13/2009 05:51:09 PM · #944

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In other words, I would expect you to "take amiss" someone calling your mother a bitch, but you don't get to call the police when they do or to keep them from saying the words in the first place.

I think Robert was responding to the possible interpretation of Louis' statement that the mere fact people were passionately defending their belief was, in itself, proof the belief was suspect.

Bingo!

R.

12/13/2009 06:33:44 PM · #945

But that's not what I intended. Blasphemy is a very specific complaint against a particular set of standards. I can't commit blasphemy against your mother, for example.

If religious tenets are to be interpreted as the most inviolate truths for the believer who holds them, then that's exactly what they are, inviolate, and no condition of blasphemy is going to take away from the truthfulness of those tenets. Are there really certain words and phrases and ideas that make God's truth less truthful? The complaint of blasphemy is completely facile, in my opinion.

Blasphemy laws should be especially troublesome for Americans, for whom free speech is sacrosanct, and who, in my opinion, shaped the modern concept of freedom of speech more than any other society.

12/13/2009 07:37:16 PM · #946

Originally posted by Louis:

Are there really certain words and phrases and ideas that make God's truth less truthful?

Of course not. However, if you are visiting the Queen, would you show the expected protocols of decorum and respect even though you pledge no alliegence to her and may not even understand the origin of the protocols? Listen, I am not advocating blasphemy laws suddenly make inroads into our country, but "facile" is pretty strong and you are making a caricature of what the laws would intend to accomplish in that culture. Is it really offensive to make my lips and vocal cords form the word "cunt"? That's silly, right? However, the intention and meaning behind the word certainly can be offensive.

Message edited by author 2009-12-13 19:38:30.

12/13/2009 07:41:40 PM · #947

Depends on who you talk to. ;-) Btw, I think I shall screen capture this one and use it against you in future. =)

I really think there should be more alarm against so-called blasphemy "laws". The idea is facile, because as shutterpuppy first pointed out, such laws are made from a position of weakness to protect that which is deemed inviolate. It's so wrong-headed, it begs to be skewered. It's an insult to free thought and reasonable expectations of freedom of speech.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

12/13/2009 08:05:08 PM · #948

Originally posted by Louis:

I disagree. I see the principle supporting it to be no different than any limit on hate speech. Is that an insult to free thought and freedom of speech? Of course we may feel one is important and the other isn't (especially if you think the God being protected is nonexistant), but the principle behind is equivalent; the intention and meaning behind certain speech is deemed to be so offensive or problematic to a culture that it is prohibited.

Message edited by author 2009-12-13 20:05:50.

chalice

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/13/2009 10:50:04 PM · #949

Originally posted by Louis:

Demanding evidence of value as opposed to someone's third-hand hearsay is sidestepping? Pointing out that a "true believer" is the least likely to refrain from exaggeration is sidestepping? Bringing up the very real issue of theodicy is sidestepping? Nonsense.

As yanko mentioned, one wonders why you brought this to an avowed group of atheists/agnostics in the first place. Unless you were seeking to value your conclusion in its refutation by those who hold no faith, I don't really see the point.

I'm just now getting back to this thread and have a couple of observations. While exaggeration is a possibility, I think it is unlikely in this instance. My friend is not someone who is foregoing medical treatment in favor of praying. To the contrary, he has been carefully following his doctor's advice and treatment regimen since May of this year. His doctor is the one who called and told him about all the tumors and fractures on the Friday X-ray and instructed him to get to the other hospital on Monday morning for more photos. It was also the same doctor who interpreted the Monday photos after consulting with the radiologist. Could my friend exaggerate and tell me that all the pelvic tumors were gone and one of the fractures was healed? I suppose he could, although that is inconsistent with his practice of following his doctor's instructions. There is nothing in the events as I recount them to suggest that my friend is kidding himself or me. But, hey, I'm willing to admit that it is a possibility, and it bears further investigation on my part (although strictly speaking, the veracity of one who testifies to an event (at least in court, and I would say in life) is prima facie valid and it is the burden of the person who challenges that to offer something countervailing). Nevertheless, I have no interest in recounting events that are not actually events. It does not serve anything or anyone. For me, the crux of the matter is the photographic evidence, regardless of what my friend says, as well as whether bone fractures can be healed in three days as a matter of medical and scientific fact. (No one on this thread, so far, has suggested they can heal in that time frame and my doctor acquaintance says they can't.)

As for the hearsay issue, that has already been mentioned several times and does not bear my "getting lawyerly" either. I simply note that I was a trial lawyer for twenty years, once knew the state and federal rules on hearsay and its exceptions very well, and also know that a lot of testimony/anecdotes are used for a lot of valid reasons when trying to get at the truth. To put a blanket assertion like the word "worthless" on this type of issue is overly broad and includes within it a negative value proposition that has the unwarranted effect of chilling discussion, whatever side of the issue one may prefer. For much the same reason all "hearsay" is not barred from evidence in a courtroom. Hearsay objections are routinely upheld and just as routinely overruled in courtrooms all over the country.

Finally, as to wondering why I would bring these events to "an avowed group of atheists/agnostics in the first place" I note that the title of this thread is "Science and Theology." I assume that this thread is not actually a forum exclusively for "an avowed group of atheists/agnostics." Maybe I am wrong, but I think that characterization is also overly broad and has a chilling effect on discussion. I've already mentioned that I was interested in the take people on this site would have on these events. One of many things I learned as a trial lawyer is that sometimes the truth can be obtained by making a presentation in a forum where an opposing point of view can be expected. At the very least, if not truth, then a better grasp of one's own position and beliefs is possible. It does me less good to go to a church and relate these events than it does to come to a forum where a more skeptical opinion can be expected. I am not interested in being a "nutter" - religious or otherwise. I am interested in honest feedback. Several of you have been helpful. Shannon's observation (link) about X-ray misdiagnosis is particularly helpful. Maybe the doctors got it wrong. However, I give them the same prima facie benefit of the doubt too.

I think my friend is willing to get the two sets of pictures for me, and if he is and with the appropriate releases, I'll have them looked at by experienced doctors I know who are interested in seeing them. Some of those doctors are Christians and some of them are either agnostics or atheists. Maybe someday this "anecdote" will be fully vetted in the media and elsewhere. And perhaps it won't get that far because the experts find a mistake. Time will tell.