Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeals to Kansas School Board

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by galanga, Sep 29, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I've been meaning to ask, hopefully this isn't totally disrespectfull, but why can't you just type the word "God?" Is typing the characters "G-d" really so different. Do you really think that God cares that you replace the o with a hyphen? In my view, God rises above such stuff. Don't get me wrong, you can do what you like. I'd just like to understand the significance.
    Jack
     
  2. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    I am not evading the issue, and no, you apparently don't know what "proof" means.
     
  3. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Actually, I agree with you, it's more stylistic than anything. But if I feel kindof funny because I'm ingrained with that Third Commandment, well, you know, that's just the way I am.

    You're right, G-d (or God--there, I did it, are you happy now?) does rise above all such things.
     
  4. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Bill:

    And by the way, I do not believe in a literal six day creation (remember Bill, He rested on the seventh) as in 24 hour days; there was not even a proper arrangement of the Sun and Earth to create a 24 hour day for the first three of these "days", which could just as well be taken to mean periods of time. There is no particular reason to impose a 24 hour day upon this narrative. It can be taken literally to mean either 24 hours or a much greater length of time, perhaps eons.

    No, I was taking you quite seriously and precisely when you questioned the narrative of the creation of woman. No one knows how the first woman was created. We have a sketchy at best fossil record, we don't know the half of it. If by discussing the rib narrative, you were using that to represent the whiole creation narrative (which I didn't know was your intent), then I would agree that that need not mean six 24 hour days.

    But a larger point is that when you compare that narrative put together by primitive tribals and ex-slaves without any of our modern understandings approximately 3300 years ago with other creation narratives put together by far more advanced and greater civilizations, it matches up astonishingly well with our modern scientific understanding of things (which is itself far from perfect). It's really enough to make the hair stand up on your back: without a jot of modern knowledge, they somehow managed to "stumble" upon the idea that the earth started out rather formless, then continents rose up, the first form of life was flora, the first form of fauna rose from the oceans, this was followed by mammals and finally, men. If you set aside your skepticism for just a moment and your modern understanding, all that knowledge we take for granted, and consider where and when this was written and the humble nature of the whom it was written by, it's quite astonishing. Or miraculous, perhaps?

    And sorry about the snitty "you don't know what proof is" remark.
     
  5. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Okay then, I interpret that to mean that you take the story of creation of woman from the rib of man literally. It has been proven false as far as I'm concerned. (again assuming a literal translation)


    Thank you for accepting the possibility that I may know what the word proof means. That's very open minded of you. :D
     
  6. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    IIUC, to a pious Jew, the name of God is unpronounceable, which is why they would write YHWH for Yahweh or G-d for God.
     
  7. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Maybe we're talking past one another. The only point I'm trying to make is that there is no way of knowing how the first woman was created. There's no "proof" one way or the other. If the Creator decided to remove a rib from a male humanoid a few million years ago (or 6,500 years ago) and thus make a female, then that's what He did.

    You can say: "I do not think the weight of the evidence supports this conclusion; in fact, I believe the weight of the evidence makes it 99.9% certain in my mind that that is not what happened", then fine, I will accept that.

    But proof is proof, unless you are talking about legal burdens of proof, such as preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. If you mean one of those standards (even the third), then fine, if you mean absolute and irrefutable, then no.

    And thanks for accepting my semi-gracious apology. I tend to get a little passionate in these jousts (but never hold a grudge).

    Mike aka LF :)
     
  8. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    The definition of proof does not require a "mathematical" proof. My use of proof in this context is the first definition in the Webster's Ninth Collegiate dictionary. That is the congency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact.

    The question, "Where did the first woman come from?" makes no more sense than the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?". The very question itself flies in the face of scientific evidence and understanding. This appears to be another example to me of a literal interpretation of the bible that has been proven incorrect by science. It is okay with me if people want to believe that the Creator made a female from man but your apparent statement that there is no biological evidence that species evolve male and female together as a species not one after the other is wrong in my view.
     
  9. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I think that those remarks illustrate a fundamental issue in the epistemology of religion.

    Human beings live here in the natural world. They learn from observing its regularities, whether informally in life or formally in laboratories. They learn what's likely and what is vanishingly unlikely. It's true that people have what you call a "huge set of preconceived notions", but those notions constitute a tremendous body of inductive evidence.

    Obviously miraculous violations of the natural order remain logically possible (assuming that they aren't self-contradictory). But the question isn't whether we can imagine them, the real issue is whether it's rational to believe in their truth.

    If a miraculous explanation is improbable simply by definition, then it's probably the case that there is a alternative naturalistic explanation that it's more reasonable to believe.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2005
  10. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Why is a miraculous explanation "improbable by definition"? Because we've observed the natural and quantified it or devised theories which--we think--are semi-explanatory? Is that it?

    Sorry, but this is the problem with the epistemology of materialism. It assumes because we observe this-or-that and we can study it, that that is all their can be. Of course, it says nothing about where it all came from or how it could all be. It just goes back to the first chunk of matter and says: "There you are"--and ignores how it came to be.

    You're also ignoring all the scientific observations that would seem to mitigate against naturalistic, purely materialistic explanations for the origins of the Universe and life, which I've already mentioned on this thread and on this forum in general ad naseum.

    But, since your mind's already made up, I'm wasting my time.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2005
  11. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    That's not my view, I merely trying to press you on your definition of "proof", and as you have refined it to meaning: "evidence that compels acceptance", but not absolute certitude, then fine, no problem.

    This is pretty much what I said in my previous post vis-a-vis evidence, no? Take a look:

    You can say: "I do not think the weight of the evidence supports this conclusion; in fact, I believe the weight of the evidence makes it 99.9% certain in my mind that that is not what happened", then fine, I will accept that.

    But proof is proof, unless you are talking about legal burdens of proof, such as preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. If you mean one of those standards (even the third), then fine, if you mean absolute and irrefutable, then no.
     
  12. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    You are confusing this epistemology of materialism with science.

    Science does not really care about truth. Questions of truth, ultimate reality, etc. are not so much ignored as suspended. They are simply not relevant. If you "prove something is true" scientifically, that doesn't mean you just created an absolute, true, unchanging fact. It just means that to the best of our present knowledge, what you posited/theorized has a very high degree of accuracy. Working scientists can be atheists or Christians or worship the FSM but leave all that behind when they actually think according to the scientific method.

    The philosophy of science, on the other hand, has a lot of things to say about epistemology, materialism, whether it is really possible to know things truly and so forth. All those issues are very important. It would be great if all high-schoolers had a mandatory philosophy class which combined critical thinking, logic and epistemology (both materialist and otherwise). But the biology or physics class is no place for philosophy. It is not the proper place to discuss those intricacies. Doing so debases both fields of knowledge and ends up turning into a stupid lowest-common-denominator "that looks weird. God musta done it!" kind of exercise.
     
  13. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    You had your skeptic say: "Why the miracles, of course: parting waters, floating axeheads, virgin birth, raising the dead, healing the sick, other such nonsense--you kidding?"

    You tell me, are any of those things common parts of human experience? (Healing the sick is, but not through the expulsion of demons.)

    Religious belief typically depends on miracles being extraordinary signs and wonders. If similar events occurred every day, then they would lose their religious force.

    Yes.

    My remarks didn't concern what can be. People are capable of imagining any number of things. My point concerned what's most rational for people to believe.

    I agree that the mystery of being itself, the question of why there is something rather than nothing, is the greatest question of them all.

    But I don't think that anyone really knows the answer to that one.

    (I'm not even sure if that ultimate question can be answered, without falling into circularity or infinite regress.)
     
  14. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    I pretty much agree with all you say, so long as you would add to your list of "stupid lowest-common-denominators" the sentiment of: "I refuse to believe in anything that I cannot quantify or that cannot be explained by reference to the natural." That's pretty much lowest-common-denominator as well, and I don't care if some of that theory's proponents hold PhDs--they can be stupid as well.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2005
  15. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Looking through the dictionary definitions for proof, I find no definition that means absolute certitude. The only definition of proof that I know of that means absolute certitude is a mathematical proof. I suspect what you really meant :D (funny face because I find it amusing that I am pretending to tell you what you really meant) is that you wanted me to admit that the "proof" which I have concluded could be wrong. The direct answer to that is that I'm wrong so often, it doesn't bother me in the least to admit such a possibility and I consider that philosophy a strength rather than a weakness.

    Take care,
     
  16. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    First off, thank you for the education in the word "proof" (I say that without irony or sarcasm--honestly).

    Second, I consider that philosophy a strength as well, because it acknowledges our relatively humble state, our extremely limited frame of reference, and the fact that we cannot possibly know a good many things nor understand them even were something greater than us to sit us down like children and make the attempt.

    It takes a bit of humility to admit it--and you obviously have that. That puts you a huge leg up on the late Carl Sagan right there.

    Best to you!
     
  17. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Song of Solomon 7:2: "Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks mixed wine."
     
  18. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Sure, anyone can be stupid.

    But I don't think that naturalism is stupid.

    One one hand, people can hold beliefs that are consistent with the rest of human experience. On the other hand, they can believe in unique and unprecedented supernatural interventions that violate that experience.

    So...what justifies choosing the second alternative?

    And if we are going to dismiss the evidence of human experience and float off into the realm of imagination, then what prevents that ascent from being a matter of 'anything goes'? Presumably there's some kind of truth and falsity in the transcendent realm, so how are they distinguished?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2005
  19. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    I give, Mr. Dayson, you win; I'm busy today and I've wasted too much time on this nonsense already. You've already made up your mind and are thoroughly convinced that your perceptions are not influenced by heavy confirmation bias or a preconceived notion that naturalistic explanations are the only logical ones. A waste of time for me to clatter away here. But yes, purely naturalistic explanations to the dismissal of any other possibility, especially when faced with evidence to the contrary--which you've obviously not noticed because of your naturalism-only blinders--is stupid! It's illogical, foolish.

    Human experience is not confined to the natural, in case you haven't noticed or investigated.

    Again, preconceptions, preconceptions. The only difference is I'm willing to admit mine.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2005
  20. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I'm just curious - how that "evidence to the contrary" might look like? I mean, besides the Bible? "Apparent nonreducible complexities" do not qualify - they are merely unexplained (and I've heard, though can't confirm with links, that at least some of those have completely plausible naturalistic explanations).

    Again, as I've told, there is no particular logical reason to believe in "naturalism" - except that it WORKED SO FAR (wich, of course, is not proof - incomplete induction never is - merely an "indication"). Anyways, it's not even science, nor is nessesary for science (wich you seem to agree with). Yet "anti-naturalism" and "ID" folks (you included) tend to attack science. I know, I know, you switched to "Carl Sagan", but your first posts said "scientists".
     

Share This Page