No, not necessarily "oppressed" by the mere fact of "having to worry about it". The science was not the problem, it was the form of presentation basically presenting it as a Plato-esque dialogue between himself (cast as "Genius", and the Church, cast as "Idiots").
You could try such self-aggrandizement today too, say, using yourself written is as "Genius" and your company's management as "Idiots", and please let me know if there ends up having been any reason to worry. But, like was the case for the Catholic Church then, even though your position is already held by some members of that management, you can at least count on that being ignored in the retelling.
Am I saying the Catholic Church was completely correct in its actions with Galileo? Well, no, and as a Lutheran, I hope not.;)
You know, I said much the same thing to a friend today--letting him know that he'd understand why I dismissed his choice of political parties when he understood why he dismissed all others.
Well, okay, I'm certainly willing to hear you out, so I assume you have a basis for stating this is "wrong" on the basis of the process of evolution, or some other ethical construct.
Just state what that is, and your validating evidence showing that construct is objectively correct.
Apart from that, I'll continue to consider that harsh social and organizational norms can be valid in an effectively-wartime environment where the whole culture could easily have been wiped out by surrounding cultures at any time.
Since you're presenting the bible is "wrong" without qualifiers and without reference, and I know you wouldn't want me to take you on faith...
Have you an example verse that is not open to metaphorical interpretation and uncontingent on present-day constructs of Geometry you'd like to present for discussion?
The reality isn't Heliocentrism or Geocentrism, it's arbitrary-centrism. There is no objective "fact" mandating the body you choose as "the center", all the bodies are in motion in a wider context of the universe. It's just simplest (and therefore most conducive to human psychology and conceptualization) to use the system that provides the least-complex description of their respective movements.
Weird that we have scientists actively discarding science that's been clear at least since Einstein's Relativity, for the sole purpose of maintaining a stance that lets them "stick it to religion" over a largely-misrepresented (misrepresented in terms of the sharp "science versus religion" duality that's commonly touted, if you know the actual history--e.g. Galileo had permission to publish, and it only became in issue when he presented his theory in a politically-inflammatory fashion) wrong of history.
Since, I think, many will reject this post out-of-hand in that it fails their criterion of "seems to be being said by a theist", I suggest reading Robert M. Pirsig for a philosophical perspective on this very same question. Good reading there on Euclidian-versus-Riemann geometry, too.
Though it's pretty much automatic to exclude it presently out of scientific habit in our concepts of hereditability (like the summary seems to), don't forget epigenetics now tells us we have "mutated", "unmutated", and... "other", in terms of things that cause particular effects via descent.
Personally, I find it rather fascinating to be at the point of genetics that we can be mapping such subtle causal relationships, genetic and environmental.
Also interesting to me, as a side thought-experiment, is it appears that within epigenetics, Lamarck and certain Catholic literalisms (for those so inclined) are making something of a "comeback".
Consider, for example, the doctrine of "original sin," the most obvious effect of which is to instill an unearned sense of guilt among the innocent. In light of that effect, I think it is only reasonable to speculate -- to hypothesize -- that the purpose of that particular doctrine is to instill such unearned guilt, in order to effect the irrational eagerness to forgive, which is the direct result of that doctrine.
Miss Rand... is that you...?
Okay, name somebody "innocent" in a metaphysical sense (not "innocent of X", as you're changing your statement--"innocent" -unqualified-). Then I'll ask for your nonsubjective criteria for that determination, with a statement as to what -earned- guilt would be, assuming you acknowledge it. When you make reference to what you can, a legally codified body of law, I'll ask for it for a politically-opposite country.
Just trying to move the thread along in advance, as Atlas Shrugged was already way too long.
Gods are created by peoples from time to time to suit their own contemporary social needs; it's simply not possible that one can have existential primacy over others.
What would "make you think it" would be the standard process of evaluating different mythological/religious claims and figures for a sense of harmony with life and internal consistency of the mythos, much like you do everything else. While Christianity is typically given a 9 or 10 on the "hunt for contradictions" gauntlet by present society, as someone familiar with a broad range of mythologies, and have debated many other proposed religious figures and metaphysical structures, most tend to fall completely apart at a 2 on the scale. I find many people willing to say "How do you know it isn't figure X or Y or Z instead?"--I find very few who actually will put their effort where there mouth is and actually argue figure X, Y, or Z. Which, if they truly are asserting they are of equivalent plausibility, they should have no problem with doing.
Basically, your question is conceptually identical to saying, "So, you believe in political stance X. How do you know political stance Y or Z or Q isn't actually correct?" Well, by evaluating it, like everything else in life, and this question is hardly a refutation of any stance one may hold for their notion of "X".
Nothing can be deemed "irrefutable" as such a statement implies one can tell the future.
Unless, of course, one -can- tell the future, and thus provide an 1800-years-in-advance heads-up about the resulting challenges to your community, from the controversy resulting from the future human knowledge expansion...
When you see your image, you are pleased. But when you see your images that came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!
--Jesus, according to the extracanonical Gospel of Thomas
Just saying if you -could-, it'd be the right thing to do.;)
Yes, in fact you have said that, in more-obfuscated terms. You said that proposing design -logically necessitates- that the designer was designed. That is the only reason that there could even theoretically be a chain-of-inference such as an "infinite regression" at all, by what "regression" simply -means-. You stated this as a stand-alone argument, requiring no questions of scale or empirical dependencies whatsoever.
Even you don't believe it's me who looks "foolish" here; why would I?
Anyway, as I said, think what you want, for as long as you can. Bye.
Fact is, your argument is that it is somehow invalid to say something is designed without saying everything is designed. Your claim is destroyed by counterexample.
I am stating that both positions remain unrefuted, but I consider mine more plausible.
To simplify any further discussion of your basic line of reasoning here, I would first need to ask a clarifying question:
If I propose that my car is designed, is it your position that this position is invalid unless I further demonstrate how the car's designer was designed (the core of your [that is, Dawkins'] "infinite regress" argument), and additionally formally refute the counterclaim that my car was not designed?
"Okay, if a complex designer can be said to have existed eternally, then why can't a metaverse without a designer eternally exist?"
I have nowhere claimed it can't. You're the one whose overextended your argument by claiming mine "fails". I'm avoiding that mistake, due to my relatively-well-functioning logical faculties, and actual argumentative honesty.
"And the 'design' theory raises the question: what made the designer's universe perfect for It to exist in?"
Sorry, "raising a question" which can be answered plausibly that something eternally existed, and which isn't in-scope of "design of physical laws" anyway (sorry, you don't get to define the scope of an inference to contain whatever you feel like)--hardly "fails" demonstrates.
However, feel free to hold your view, that is, until you're Naturally Deselected, anyway.
"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
--Freeman Dyson
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
--Stephen Hawking
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
--Albert Einstein
Personally, "govern", "known", "adjusted", and "intelligence" seem like appropriate terms to me.
Probably contentedly realizing that it's psychologically impossible for humans to indefinitely continue to define "creationism" as "the straw-man combination of whatever the worst theistic argument I can find is, along with the idea God exists, by which I non-sequitur the supposed refutation of the second part, by the supposed refutation of the non-determinative first part". Sure, it's all packaged in one convenient word, but the irrationality of irrational usage of the term becomes clear as soon as its used in that way.
If Aristotle didn't make it clear how to form a valid concept, one's own sense of one's inability to evade what they themselves know (by reference to their own clear motivation) will... eventually.
Interesting alternative, but I think the scenario requires a general (and useful) categorical collapse.
Even more interesting would be if I could get the data to find out if my theory in posting that is correct--that precisely the right people will think I'm being sarcastic.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not necessarily "oppressed" by the mere fact of "having to worry about it". The science was not the problem, it was the form of presentation basically presenting it as a Plato-esque dialogue between himself (cast as "Genius", and the Church, cast as "Idiots").
;)
You could try such self-aggrandizement today too, say, using yourself written is as "Genius" and your company's management as "Idiots", and please let me know if there ends up having been any reason to worry. But, like was the case for the Catholic Church then, even though your position is already held by some members of that management, you can at least count on that being ignored in the retelling.
Am I saying the Catholic Church was completely correct in its actions with Galileo? Well, no, and as a Lutheran, I hope not.
You know, I said much the same thing to a friend today--letting him know that he'd understand why I dismissed his choice of political parties when he understood why he dismissed all others.
;)
Somehow, he found this argument unconvincing.
Well, okay, I'm certainly willing to hear you out, so I assume you have a basis for stating this is "wrong" on the basis of the process of evolution, or some other ethical construct.
Just state what that is, and your validating evidence showing that construct is objectively correct.
Apart from that, I'll continue to consider that harsh social and organizational norms can be valid in an effectively-wartime environment where the whole culture could easily have been wiped out by surrounding cultures at any time.
Since you're presenting the bible is "wrong" without qualifiers and without reference, and I know you wouldn't want me to take you on faith...
Have you an example verse that is not open to metaphorical interpretation and uncontingent on present-day constructs of Geometry you'd like to present for discussion?
The reality isn't Heliocentrism or Geocentrism, it's arbitrary-centrism. There is no objective "fact" mandating the body you choose as "the center", all the bodies are in motion in a wider context of the universe. It's just simplest (and therefore most conducive to human psychology and conceptualization) to use the system that provides the least-complex description of their respective movements.
Weird that we have scientists actively discarding science that's been clear at least since Einstein's Relativity, for the sole purpose of maintaining a stance that lets them "stick it to religion" over a largely-misrepresented (misrepresented in terms of the sharp "science versus religion" duality that's commonly touted, if you know the actual history--e.g. Galileo had permission to publish, and it only became in issue when he presented his theory in a politically-inflammatory fashion) wrong of history.
Since, I think, many will reject this post out-of-hand in that it fails their criterion of "seems to be being said by a theist", I suggest reading Robert M. Pirsig for a philosophical perspective on this very same question. Good reading there on Euclidian-versus-Riemann geometry, too.
The code that would, say, communicate your -1 Offtopic mod to a external data archive system.
tl;dr
Well, it's an... evolving field, compounded by there being lots of scoping questions in terminology when discussing.
It would appear not all would agree with your summary dismissal of the characterization, though.
Though it's pretty much automatic to exclude it presently out of scientific habit in our concepts of hereditability (like the summary seems to), don't forget epigenetics now tells us we have "mutated", "unmutated", and... "other", in terms of things that cause particular effects via descent.
Personally, I find it rather fascinating to be at the point of genetics that we can be mapping such subtle causal relationships, genetic and environmental.
Also interesting to me, as a side thought-experiment, is it appears that within epigenetics, Lamarck and certain Catholic literalisms (for those so inclined) are making something of a "comeback".
Consider, for example, the doctrine of "original sin," the most obvious effect of which is to instill an unearned sense of guilt among the innocent. In light of that effect, I think it is only reasonable to speculate -- to hypothesize -- that the purpose of that particular doctrine is to instill such unearned guilt, in order to effect the irrational eagerness to forgive, which is the direct result of that doctrine.
Miss Rand... is that you...?
Okay, name somebody "innocent" in a metaphysical sense (not "innocent of X", as you're changing your statement--"innocent" -unqualified-). Then I'll ask for your nonsubjective criteria for that determination, with a statement as to what -earned- guilt would be, assuming you acknowledge it. When you make reference to what you can, a legally codified body of law, I'll ask for it for a politically-opposite country.
Just trying to move the thread along in advance, as Atlas Shrugged was already way too long.
Gods are created by peoples from time to time to suit their own contemporary social needs; it's simply not possible that one can have existential primacy over others.
Unless, of course, your claim to personal omniscience as to the exhaustive basis of all religions historically and what is "not possible" aside--one has a clear distinction in terms of predictive success, peer-reviewed correspondence with existential phenomena, and/or direct demonstration via a methodology you haven't and won't try.
What would "make you think it" would be the standard process of evaluating different mythological/religious claims and figures for a sense of harmony with life and internal consistency of the mythos, much like you do everything else. While Christianity is typically given a 9 or 10 on the "hunt for contradictions" gauntlet by present society, as someone familiar with a broad range of mythologies, and have debated many other proposed religious figures and metaphysical structures, most tend to fall completely apart at a 2 on the scale. I find many people willing to say "How do you know it isn't figure X or Y or Z instead?"--I find very few who actually will put their effort where there mouth is and actually argue figure X, Y, or Z. Which, if they truly are asserting they are of equivalent plausibility, they should have no problem with doing.
Basically, your question is conceptually identical to saying, "So, you believe in political stance X. How do you know political stance Y or Z or Q isn't actually correct?" Well, by evaluating it, like everything else in life, and this question is hardly a refutation of any stance one may hold for their notion of "X".
Nothing can be deemed "irrefutable" as such a statement implies one can tell the future.
;)
Unless, of course, one -can- tell the future, and thus provide an 1800-years-in-advance heads-up about the resulting challenges to your community, from the controversy resulting from the future human knowledge expansion...
When you see your image, you are pleased. But when you see your images that came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!
--Jesus, according to the extracanonical Gospel of Thomas
Just saying if you -could-, it'd be the right thing to do.
Yes, in fact you have said that, in more-obfuscated terms. You said that proposing design -logically necessitates- that the designer was designed. That is the only reason that there could even theoretically be a chain-of-inference such as an "infinite regression" at all, by what "regression" simply -means-. You stated this as a stand-alone argument, requiring no questions of scale or empirical dependencies whatsoever.
Even you don't believe it's me who looks "foolish" here; why would I?
Anyway, as I said, think what you want, for as long as you can. Bye.
Okay, lie.
Fact is, your argument is that it is somehow invalid to say something is designed without saying everything is designed. Your claim is destroyed by counterexample.
I'll take that as a "no".
I am stating that both positions remain unrefuted, but I consider mine more plausible.
To simplify any further discussion of your basic line of reasoning here, I would first need to ask a clarifying question:
If I propose that my car is designed, is it your position that this position is invalid unless I further demonstrate how the car's designer was designed (the core of your [that is, Dawkins'] "infinite regress" argument), and additionally formally refute the counterclaim that my car was not designed?
"Okay, if a complex designer can be said to have existed eternally, then why can't a metaverse without a designer eternally exist?"
I have nowhere claimed it can't. You're the one whose overextended your argument by claiming mine "fails". I'm avoiding that mistake, due to my relatively-well-functioning logical faculties, and actual argumentative honesty.
"And the 'design' theory raises the question: what made the designer's universe perfect for It to exist in?" Sorry, "raising a question" which can be answered plausibly that something eternally existed, and which isn't in-scope of "design of physical laws" anyway (sorry, you don't get to define the scope of an inference to contain whatever you feel like)--hardly "fails" demonstrates. However, feel free to hold your view, that is, until you're Naturally Deselected, anyway.
"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
--Freeman Dyson
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron
--Stephen Hawking
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation
--Albert Einstein
Personally, "govern", "known", "adjusted", and "intelligence" seem like appropriate terms to me.
Probably contentedly realizing that it's psychologically impossible for humans to indefinitely continue to define "creationism" as "the straw-man combination of whatever the worst theistic argument I can find is, along with the idea God exists, by which I non-sequitur the supposed refutation of the second part, by the supposed refutation of the non-determinative first part". Sure, it's all packaged in one convenient word, but the irrationality of irrational usage of the term becomes clear as soon as its used in that way.
If Aristotle didn't make it clear how to form a valid concept, one's own sense of one's inability to evade what they themselves know (by reference to their own clear motivation) will... eventually.
Alternately, both premises are true concurrently.
Just thought I'd mention it, because I know how Dawkins loves his false dichotomy fallacies.
Ship's Register: Floating Point
Then let's just tell Luke she's "the Princess" and leave it at that for now.
Interesting alternative, but I think the scenario requires a general (and useful) categorical collapse.
Even more interesting would be if I could get the data to find out if my theory in posting that is correct--that precisely the right people will think I'm being sarcastic.