More undeniable proof for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(27-02-2015 01:08 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:08 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I understand and I appreciate the follow-up. Yes, very often a collection of academics will take a stand in an area like Creation. Yes.

All I found objectionable is any claim that there are no "true" biologists that believe in the Bible and Creation. But if we agree with Chas that there are few only, does that mean you are following them ad populum. I'm afraid it would unless you:

1. Investigate the science for yourself to some degree.
2. Recognize that science evolves.
3. Recognize that scientists are humans who are sometimes correct, sometimes not, but persons whose livelihood depends on adherence to a body of thought. You understand my meaning--an atheist or Christian may convert or deconvert based on science because the stakes are high. But a scientist is someone who can lose everything from face to friends to finances by going against the stream of thought in his field. That's huge.

So, in other words, you're not actually going to provide a source for your 5000 claim, but are instead going to switch to an aggressive defensiveness in hopes of making us forget that that was (momentarily) a subject of conversation.

That 5000 scientists might buy into religion, and even announce that they do, is... plausible. There are a lot of scientists out there, after all.

But the weight of their authority comes not from their numbers, or even that they are scientists, but the demonstrated rigor, accuracy, and effectiveness of the scientific method in a proper, peer-reviewed context. It is the process, and not so much the people engaged in the process, that is reliable and trustworthy. So scientists speaking AS scientists, discussing peer-reviewed findings backed by scientific consensus in the relevant fields, those are reliable and authoritative sources. But a bunch of scientists just deciding and declaring something, without peer-reviewed publications and falsifiable hypotheses and experiments and so on? That's just a bunch of people saying stuff. They might be scientists, but they're not talking AS scientists. Fair enough. People can't be on the clock all the time. So, take all the scientists in the world, and you can probably find an order of magnitude greater than 5000, if they aren't speaking as scientists. Or... if you're lazy liars, like these people, you can con the scientist into endorsing a statement that is technically not an endorsement of your religious position (and then have them joined by a bunch of non-scientists who you can pretend are scientists) and then con your audience into thinking that it is.

But yeah, the number is plausible. Not particularly persuasive if it is true, without the papers and scientific examination to back it up, but plausible, given the numbers we're talking about.

That an apologist would know about such a list, and believe that it is legitimate, and NOT actually help us take a direct look at it, when you are the one who brought it up and we are actually interested in having a look... that is very much NOT plausible. You're coming across like a used car salesman who had a car to sale, but is suddenly backpeddling when we want to look under the hood. But we should accept it anyway, because TRUST you, there are PLENTY of good used cars NO I WON'T LET YOU LOOK UNDER THE HOOD, and here's some arguments about WHY a good car might be found in a used car lot!

.... yeah, sure. Dodgy We didn't trust you before and we surer than Hell don't trust you now.

As to your original point, that we might do what you called a no-true-scientist response? I counter it with my point, earlier in this post, that it is the scientific process which is worthy of trust, rather than scientists in general, and also Chas's point that a scientist's opinion outside her field of expertise is not particularly valuable (I'd no more trust an engineer to comment on biology than I'd trust a roboticist to perform open heart surgery). I'd also cite the history of religious apologetics in engaging in deceptive, misleading tactics, such as the one linked above, as a reason of adopting a policy of skepticism towards such claims. The correct strategy in response to these things is to closely examine whether they were speaking AS scientists or were off the clock, so to speak, as well as the credentials and body of work of the scientists making the claim, the number and quality of papers published on the subject, and also how they fit in (or don't) with the consensus of the field as a whole. Examine it with a fine-toothed comb, because there ARE religious con artists out to trick us with things that look exactly like this. That is, as you histrionically demand of us, how we dare not accept your claims at face value.

Re..
"You're coming across like a used car salesman who had a car to sale, but is suddenly backpeddling when we want to look under the hood. But we should accept it anyway, because TRUST you, there are PLENTY of good used cars NO I WON'T LET YOU LOOK UNDER THE HOOD, and here's some arguments about WHY a good car might be found in a used car lot!"

Lovely analogy! It could be extended to evangelical types pushing their religion. They are like used car salesman rabbiting on about the greatness of their product, yet they object when people take a closer look at what they are trying to sell.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-03-2015, 04:51 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(02-03-2015 03:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 04:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, there's no evidence that that exists.


Why do you keep saying that? I'm a software and systems engineer.


Professor if what? It actually matters.

I'd asked you before if you had students. You said you treat your students less abusively than you treat Christians at TTA.

When did you do that?

Quote:I asked you on my previous post to be honest in your reply regarding what a tenured biologist would be frightened to do if he came to be a biblical literalist.

How should I know?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: