And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them.”
- Bill Nye, CNN: Bill Nye slams creationism
Nothing like learning about the entire history of the Universe, biology, what is and isn’t science, and what is best for your own kids than listening to a mechanical engineer/actor who doesn’t have any children! (While such qualifications don’t limit his right to his opinion, they certainly imply that we should consider his opinions for what they are: his opinions.)
GOOD NEW / BAD NEWS
The Good New: I’m happy to report that the CNN article above sparked over 14,000 comments!
The Bad News: 13,237 of them are Bill Nye cheerleaders calling creationists “stoopid”.
Here’s a fantastic commentary by creationist Dr. David Menton on Issues, Etc.: 2012/08/30 Does Creationism Hurt Children? Responding to Bill Nye
And here’s a fantastic blog entry about this very subject: True Horizon Blog: Don’t Buy “The Science Guy”. In it, the author shows that truth of that new old saying, “A good TV host and a once stand-up comic do not a good scientist make.”
Fantastic commentary? Oh my. Menton – an Answers In Genesis spokesman – asks if our schools are getting better or worse, and then tells us that they are getting worse during a time when “evolutionary indoctrination has substantially increased.” You really clever folk who are also creationists will keenly see through this evolutionary indoctrination plot and make the link Menton wants you to make: that the “indoctrination” of evolution in biology class causes reduced standardized scoring on international comparative tests by Americans. If only we had the ‘academic freedom’ creationists like Menton advocate to teach the young that biology is what it is because Oogity Boogity POOF!ed it into being, then we’d sure fix them thar Murican scores Toot Sweet!
See how “fantastic” that commentary by Menton is? The man’s clearly a genius.
While such qualifications don’t limit his right to his opinion, they certainly imply that we should consider his opinions for what they are: his opinions.
Claim CA118:
Many arguments may be discounted because they were put together by amateurs who are not scientifically qualified.
Response:
1. A person’s qualifications, although important, are not the only thing to consider. The ultimate authority for arguments about the world is the world itself. If the argument is logical and is based on reliable real-world data (for example, if it contains verifiable data or has reliable references), then the argument has authority regardless of who is giving it.
2. Qualifications consist of a lot more than letters after one’s name. Perhaps the most important quality is how the person is regarded by others in the field. The soundness of the person’s past work is another important consideration.
3. One must also consider the qualifications of others who approve or disapprove of the argument. When an argument withstands peer review, the authority of those who review it adds to the authority of the original author. Withstanding further exposure adds even more to the argument’s reliability.
4. This argument about qualifications, if applied uniformly, would sink creationism in a second. For every creationist who claims one thing, there are dozens of scientists (probably more), all with far greater professional qualifications, who say the opposite.”
(Talkorigins: Index of creationist claims)
Science is the study of reality.
For example, prayer.
Do you honestly care about the results?
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Did you listen to the interview provided? Did you read the article linked in the post? (As of today, I only see 1 hit on the interview and 2 hits on the blog link.) If you haven’t, I strongly recommend that you do. You should also consider the information presented in this video from Creation Ministries International: Evolutionism is not appropriate for anyone.
Is something more true depending on how many people believe it? Qualifications and quantity are not necessarily related, though they can be.
And you seem to be equating “science” with “evolution”. That is not uncommon. Science is much more than evolution.
But I’m proud to be a creationist. Only in a created universe are you justified to have a foundation on which to build science. After all, science itself presupposes many things that can’t be proven scientifically.
Joshua
Only in a created universe are you justified to have a foundation on which to build science.
Meaningless babble.
Science is the study of reality. “Justification” doesn’t enter into it.
But I’m proud to be a creationist.
How old do you think is the Earth?
justified = to show a sufficient reason for an act to be done. Orderlessness, randomness, and nonsense can’t be comprehended and they don’t invite inquiry. Besides, as I said before, science presupposes things that can’t be proven scientifically. So, according to your definition, those things which science presupposes don’t exist because it can’t prove them.
Let me ask again: Did you listen to the interview provided? Did you read the article linked in the post?
Joshua
Only in a created universe are you justified to have a foundation on which to build science.
You are making an assumption with no supporting evidence. It’s meaningless babble.
Orderlessness, randomness, and nonsense can’t be comprehended and they don’t invite inquiry.
Non sequitur.
But I’m proud to be a creationist.
I doubt it. Lets’ try again. How old do you think is the Earth?
You ignored my questions twice, so that’ll be all for our interactions in this thread.
Joshua
Cedric Katesby:
“Meaningless babble.
Science is the study of reality. “Justification” doesn’t enter into it.”
Actually, it’s your response that is meaningless babble, I would suggest some calm on your part in actually trying to understand the point Josh is trying to convey about the presuppositions of science.
Also, here’s a quick question: As far as you’re concerned, is science the sole source of knowledge claims in the “study of reality”, and the sole arbiter of truth?
“Science is the study of reality.
For example, prayer.
Do you honestly care about the results?”
Question is, do YOU? Before I further discussion on this, are you claiming to actually KNOW that God does not answer any prayer or that prayer is absolutely not effective?
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for seeing that I was trying to point out, AG. Observed orderliness invites inquiry. If ours was not a created universe, everything would be chaotic and random. It would be impervious to inquiry since we can’t comprehend nonsense. We wouldn’t even know where to start!
Of course, I didn’t get a chance to touch on the inability for us to trust our senses if they are the result of a blind, random (that is, could’ve “evolved” a totally different and contrary way) process. One of the several presuppositions of science is that, that our senses are reliable tools with which we can investigate the world around us.
As a novice Origen scholar, I can now understand why he suggested that Christians read everything from every branch of philosophy and religion, but to avoid atheism. (To be surrounded with so much evidence and to deny its reality is the key to understanding why he said what he said.)
Joshua
Josh:
“Observed orderliness invites inquiry. If ours was not a created universe, everything would be chaotic and random. It would be impervious to inquiry since we can’t comprehend nonsense. We wouldn’t even know where to start!”
Cue a video that I think you’ll enjoy in 3, 2, 1…
‘Random Chaos vs. Uniformity of Nature’ (video):
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6853139/infinite_multiverse_vs_uniformity_of_nature/
Good thing then that evolution isn’t a random process (look how easily you confuse product with process, Josh, and never slow down long enough in your headstrong rush to creationism to check your work. Your grade 2 teacher who first introduced the notion of checking your work would be greatly disappointed you still don’t take this advice to heart). Speaking of taking advice to heart, as a novice Origen scholar, are you also expected to castrate yourself? Inquisitive minds want to know…
Josh:
I know it’s been a while. Hope all’s well, brother. =)
Doing well, GA! I figured you were in the skies somewhere…
Actually, it’s your response that is meaningless babble, I would suggest some calm on your part in actually trying to understand the point Josh is trying to convey about the presuppositions of science.
What point? You don’t seem to know either. All you can do is suggest I try and understand his point. It’s a copout.
If ours was not a created universe, everything would be chaotic and random.
This is a silly assumption. What would a non-created universe look like? You don’t know.
What would a non-created tree look like?
Or a non-created HIV virus look like?
Science is the study of reality. We don’t look at lightning say say it looks created by Thor any more. It’s magical thinking. We don’t need it. It’s useless. It “justifies” nothing.
Before I further discussion on this, are you claiming…
(…facepalm…)
No, I’m not the one making a claim. This is really easy to understand. I’m dismissing it. Prayer is magical thinking.
There is no evidence that prayer does anything.
(N.B. This is not a claim. It’s the rejection of a claim. Burden of proof, yeah?)
It’s religious people from all religions in history who make magical claims about prayer.
People from all religions and denominations pray for various things in various ways for various reasons. The results seem to be suspiciously the same.
…are you claiming to actually KNOW that Allah does not answer any prayer or that prayer is absolutely not effective?…
…are you claiming to actually KNOW that Vishnu does not answer any prayer or that prayer is absolutely not effective?
…are you claiming to actually KNOW that Thor does not answer any prayer or that prayer is absolutely not effective?
…are you claiming to actually KNOW that The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not answer any prayer or that prayer is absolutely not effective?
…are you claiming to actually KNOW that Baal does not answer any prayer or that prayer is absolutely not effective?
Hence the jug of milk.
Bill Nye Attacked By The Usual Suspects!
Cedric Katesby:
“What point? You don’t seem to know either. All you can do is suggest I try and understand his point. It’s a copout.”
Hmm, allow me to be clearer: do you, or do you not, agree that science relies on certain presuppositions?
“Science is the study of reality…”
On that note, you haven’t answered my question: As far as you’re concerned, is science the sole source of knowledge claims in the “study of reality”, and the sole arbiter of truth? Yes, or no?
“No, I’m not the one making a claim. This is really easy to understand.”
Let’s see: God has certainly answered my prayers, and Josh would tell you God has answered his prayers as well, as would many other Christians around the world. So it’s up to YOU – if you intend to make the knowledge claim that God does not answer prayers in any way – to show us why we are wrong to believe that.
This is really easy to understand. =D
“There is no evidence that prayer does anything.”
No evidence, really? It might help if you did this: actually look at the evidence. For instance, the Wikipedia article, ‘Efficacy of prayer’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer) has a couple of surprising bits of information:
“Determining the efficacy of prayer has been attempted in various studies since Francis Galton first addressed it in 1872. Double-blind studies have failed to find any effect. Other, nonblind studies have found both benefit and harm. Some suggest that the topic is outside the realm of science altogether. According to the Washington Post, ‘…prayer is the most common complement to mainstream medicine, far outpacing acupuncture, herbs, vitamins and other alternative remedies.’…
… The philosophical controversy on this topic even involves the basic issues of statistical inference and falsifiability as to what it may mean to “prove” or “disprove” something, and the problem of demarcation, i.e., as to whether this topic is even within the realm of science at all.
In comparison to other fields that have been scientifically studied, carefully monitored studies of prayer are relatively few. The field remains tiny, with about $5 million spent worldwide on such research. If and when more studies of prayer are done, the issue of prayer’s efficacy may be further clarified.”
So, to put it respectfully, in the absence of decisive results one way or the other, a prudent agnosticism (and not selective hyperskepticism) would surely be the healthiest scientific attitude to adopt, no?
“It’s religious people from all religions in history who make magical claims about prayer.
People from all religions and denominations pray for various things in various ways for various reasons. The results seem to be suspiciously the same.”
I hope you can see why this is a fallacious argument. According to your logic, the fact that some people might be making false claims with false results somehow invalidates a person who makes a truth claim with actual results. Good luck advancing that argument.
On my part, I never claimed to be speaking on behalf of any other worldview other than Christian theism. So it’s not up to me to account for other religions and their claims. All I can do is speak on behalf of my Christian faith, and direct your attention to evidence within my worldview. Here’s something for starters: the following video shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for American students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. In contrast, the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:
‘The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video’:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930
You can see that dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at the following site
Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report’:
http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html
Faced with evidence of this nature, I submit that an honest inquirer would withhold judgement regarding the efficacy of prayer. If you were to modestly assert a belief that at times, prayer MAY not be effective, you are perfectly within your rights. But when you claim to KNOW that that “there is no evidence that prayer does anything,” you are not speaking in a way consistent with your reliance on the scientific method.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this finding.
To sum up, listen, it’s good that you are approaching the subject with caution and thought, good on you. But If I were you, I’d put all selective hyperskepticism aside, and take a good, unbiased look at the evidence and follow it where it leads, instead of dismissing all claims about the effectiveness of prayer with one big sweep.
Think about it. =)
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer.”
- Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), one of the greatest scientists of all time
As far as you’re concerned, is science the sole source of knowledge claims in the “study of reality”, and the sole arbiter of truth? Yes, or no?
It’s the one that works.
If you want to find out about reality then you have to study it. There are no freebies from some guy with a collection plate.
Science is the study of reality.
It’s all about investigation; not revelation.
Let’s see: God has certainly answered my prayers…
That’s a claim. Can you demonstrate that it is true?
If a Muslim made the same claim, what would you do?
If a Baalist made the same claim, what would you do?
If a Hindu made the same claim, what would you do?
…and Josh would tell you God has answered his prayers as well…
That would be a claim. ( If he chose to make it)
…as would many other Christians around the world.
As do Hindus, Muslims, Janists and every other religion in the world-past and present. It’s the standard shtick of religious people everywhere.
So it’s up to YOU – if you intend to make the knowledge claim…
Read what I wrote. Quote me if you dare.
I.
Am.
Not.
Making.
A.
Claim.
No. Really! I’m not the one making a claim.
I’m rejecting a claim as idle nonsense and magical thinking. It’s not the same thing as making a positive claim myself.
Rejecting a claim is not the same thing as making a claim.
Don’t try and shift the burden of proof.
No evidence, really?
Yep. It’s mumbo-jumbo.
It might help if you did this: actually look at the evidence. For instance, the Wikipedia article, ‘Efficacy of prayer’ (…) has a couple of surprising bits of information.
I’ve read it. There’s nothing there that helps you. It’s still magical thinking.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
- Christopher Hitchens
Determining the efficacy of prayer has been attempted in various studies since Francis Galton first addressed it in 1872. Double-blind studies have failed to find any effect.
Yep. That’s the long and the short of it. All the rest is shadow chasing.
Some suggest that the topic is outside the realm of science altogether.
Science is the study of reality. It doesn’t surprise me that magic is outside the topic of reality at all. Same goes for astral travel and astrology and voodoo.
According to your logic…
I can feel a strawman being built. Do go on.
…the fact that some people might be making false claims with false results somehow invalidates a person who makes a truth claim with actual results.
Yep. I was right. Strawman.
Didn’t say this. Shame on you.
Here’s something for starters: the following video shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for American students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. In contrast, the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world…
So? What is your claim? Spit it out and stop dancing.
But when you claim to KNOW that that “there is no evidence that prayer does anything,” you are not speaking in a way consistent with your reliance on the scientific method.
Nope. Read what I wrote. Feel free to quote me in context and in detail.
But If I were you, I’d put all selective hyperskepticism aside…
“Selective hyperskepticism”?
What on Earth is that?
…and take a good, unbiased look at the evidence and follow it where it leads, instead of dismissing all claims about the effectiveness of prayer with one big sweep.
Look, it’s very simple.
All religions go on and on about prayer. All of them.
People pray for stuff.
Yet it seems like praying to a jug of milk. Your religion doesn’t seem to have an edge over any other religion in this department. It’s magical thinking.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), one of the greatest scientists of all time…
presented no evidence that prayer or any other form of magical incantation or spell actually worked. It was the same with his alchemy. Argument from Authority.
It’s religious people from all religions in history who make magical claims about prayer.
People from all religions and denominations pray for various things in various ways for various reasons. The results seem to be suspiciously the same.
The best optical illusion in the world!
Oh, BTW, here’s the update from South Korea over the creationist ‘victory’ (and resulting furor from the scientifically literate) to remove certain evolutionary references in the new biology guidelines.
Young Earth Creationism is a peculiarly American beast. It doesn’t travel very well overseas.
Preach the controversy. :)
Young Earth Creationism is a peculiarly American beast. It doesn’t travel very well overseas.
You’d have a point, if you completely disregard all the creationist groups and museums in countries around the world.
(I’ll be starting my own group in the next little bit way over here in the Far East. There’s one more.)
Joshua
You’d have a point, if you completely disregard all the creationist groups and museums in countries around the world.
Well, yes.
Exactly.
Around the world there are creationist groups. Yet Young Earth Creationism is a peculiarly American beast. It just doesn’t travel very well overseas. It doesn’t catch on to the wider public. It remains confined to oddball museums and specially created groups.
You are a YEC’er, correct?
I disagree with the implications, Cedric. That’s all. The idea seems to be that because an idea isn’t widely accepted by the public or a certain number of scientists, then it must be false. On the contrary, there are no few ideas accepted by the public at large that are false. Isn’t that what Snopes.com is for? And science itself has a history of being wrong. Do you use science textbooks from 100 years ago? 200? 300? Why not?
Three Reasons Why I Disagree with the Implications of Your Statement
First, because you didn’t tell us how you came to your conclusion. If it’s a matter of percentage of a population, tell us. If it was Richard Dawkin’s opinion, tell us.
Second, it doesn’t account for the social reality of most of the world. As you surely know from where you are, most of the world doesn’t have the time to discuss and debate these topics. So, if it’s a choice between debating the merits of a worldview or surviving, they usually tend to choose the latter. Most of the world also isn’t monotheistic. Add to that most people (most I’ve encountered) don’t really care about where they came from, considering the answer to be inconsequential. So, after we element from the discussion the people in those circles, what percentage are creationists?
Third, it doesn’t account for the available evidence. How do I know? Well, I collect young Earth creationist material in Mandarin. I’ve got books on the problems of the geologic column, questions on science and faith, etc. written by native Chinese and Taiwanese. (Mandarin is my second language and Taiwanese / Hokkien is my third.)
So what evidence did you see to come to your conclusion?
Thanks,
Joshua
PS – Yes, I’m a YEC.
I disagree with the implications, Cedric. That’s all.
Then we are in agreement.
Around the world there are creationist groups. Yet Young Earth Creationism is a peculiarly American beast. It just doesn’t travel very well overseas. It doesn’t catch on to the wider public.
The idea seems to be that because an idea isn’t widely accepted by the public or a certain number of scientists, then it must be false.
Oh but I agree. That would be wrong. Just because an idea isn’t widely accepted by the public doesn’t mean that it’s false. The same goes for a “certain number of scientists”.
However, the reverse is true as well.
Just because an idea isn’t widely accepted by the public doesn’t mean that it’s true.
First, because you didn’t tell us how you came to your conclusion.
Well, it’s not “my” conclusion.
Nothing to do with me.
The same goes for Germ Theory and the Earth revolving around the Sun. All the heavy lifting has been done by the scientific for many decades now, crossing all the physical sciences.
Third, it doesn’t account for the available evidence. How do I know?
Good question.
Well, I collect young Earth creationist material in Mandarin…
That’s a shame. You are being lied to. The Earth is not young.
Science is the study of reality.
Modern Young Earth Creationism, however, is a product of the George McCready Price and Ellen. G. White whoe were just Seventh Day Adventists spouting nonsense and people were gullibe enough to believe them.
If you don’t know who these two people are or how they got the ball rolling then google them. It’s a sad, pitful history and very American.
PS – Yes, I’m a YEC.
Kudos for being brave enough to admit it publically. How old do you think is the Age of the Earth?
Well, I won’t address you other points since many of them are just character assaults (which is the quickest way to end an interaction with me). I’ve got a lot better things to do than to read insults from a total stranger. But I’ll be nice and give you one more chance.
I was going to ask you about what evidence you examined to come to your conclusion that the Earth was not young, but you’re not the question answering type (synapticcohesion is still waiting for you to answer one of his questions in another thread).
Thanks for the video. James Powell seems like a nice guy. I did notice that he doesn’t really have a correct understanding of creationism or young earth creationism, or at least the part related to the Deluge. Around the 3:00.00 mark he says that creationist think everything we see on the surface of the Earth is the result of the worldwide flood in the age of Noah. That’s incorrect. But that the bulk of the surface of the Earth is covered with sedimentary rock is an interesting fact. And I always find it interesting when scientist like him like to poke fun at calculations of the age of the Earth based on the Bible. These are the same people who claim they “know” the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. They are so precise, they can date the age of the Earth to two decimal places! (And let’s not forget that the date has changed a lot in the past 50 years. In 50 years, how much older will the Earth be, I wonder…)
He takes exception at the idea that things could happen quickly. (Wonder what he thinks of punctuated equilibrium?) Well, scientific evidence for the instantaneous creation of granites have been in published in peer-reviews scientific literature for nearly four decades. Catastrophes change the landscape very quickly. We had a giant earthquake here back in 1999 that moved mountains, rivers, and destroyed countless schools, bridges, and streets. All totaled it was $10 billion USD worth of damage. It ended up greatly changing the lives and landscapes. And it did it all in about 30 seconds. Of course, additional evidence for quick, massive changes can be seen in fossilized sea creatures on mountain tops. (Catastrophism does have a lot of explanatory power.)
As for his other scientific claims, well, I’m not qualified or in the position to be able to verify the truth of his claims. Do you have the scientific training or education to do that?
However, I know you may feel a distinct pleasure in poking fun at a creationist. Well, I’m hardly ashamed of it. I’ve actually read the literature, not cringed in fear of it or disallowed to be placed before my eyes like many of its critics wish on it. Besides, the most important thing is to remember that Jesus is a creationist.
Joshua
Cedric Katesby (part 1 of 4):
(in response to me asking if science the sole source of knowledge claims in the “study of reality”, and the sole arbiter of truth) “It’s the one that works.”
There’s really no need to avoid my question. I’m going to help you out here and take it your answer is the same as mine, namely ‘No, science is NOT the sole source of knowledge claims about reality, there are other means of obtaining knowledge’. Do let me know if that impression is incorrect.
(in response to me suggesting that God has answered my prayers, as well as the prayers of many other Christians around the world) “That’s a claim. Can you demonstrate that it is true?”
This is interesting. Please do go on, what kind of demonstration do you have in mind?
And while you’re at it, do share with us how you intend to control the variables involved. For instance, how do you plan to eliminate the variables associated with the spiritual condition of those praying (eg. is the petitioner even a believer?), the motivation for which they offer the prayer (is it to provide evidence or because the Holy Spirit has moved them to pray?), the way in which they offer their prayer (are they praying a formulaic expression or intentionally bringing requests to God?), the way you intend to get God to ‘go along’ with your demonstration (like, 3 prayers in, 3 grants out, vending-machine style perhaps?), and so on.
With all due respect, personal testimony of answered prayer is only a bother for materialists (by the way, are you one?), who think of “evidence” as only that which is observable, measureable, and reproducible (hence my earlier question as to whether science is the sole source of knowledge claims, a question that you keep avoiding).
As a Christian theist, I would tell you that if personal testimony of answered prayer could repeatedly be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. It is possible that we cannot ‘discover’ God through empirical observations; we come to Him by faith. God is not so clumsy that He should reveal Himself in ways He did not intend. “He who comes to God must believe that He is” (that is, that He exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.
Scripture clearly teaches that prayers are answered. James 5:16 states that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” Jesus taught His disciples that “if you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). First John 3:22 echoes this truth, saying that we “receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.” Scripture, moreover, is replete with stories of answered prayer.
So does God answer prayer? Ask any believer, and you will know the answer. Every changed life of every believer is proof positive that God answers prayer. That includes my life.
On a related note, I find that the most compelling cases of answered prayer are the very specific ones. Let me refer you to 2 people. First, here is something Mike Licona shared about a friend of his (Lloyd) during his debate with Stephen Patterson.
In June of 1987, Lloyd was riding down a highway when he got into a horrific automobile accident that left him in the hospital for 21 days in a coma. The 21st day in the hospital was the 4th of July. At 4pm in the afternoon, his church members were somewhere at a park having a 4th of July picnic when they stopped to pray for Lloyd. Guess what happened at 4pm? Lloyd came out of his coma. Guess what else happened – a number of other people in the same room with Lloyd (some of whom were in a coma for 1-6 months) all came out of their coma as well.
I don’t know what kind of materialist explanation you have for this, but for me, that qualifies as a miracle. How do we know this? Firstly, it’s extremely unlikely to be caused by natural causes, and secondly, it occurred in a context that’s charged with religious significance. You, however, are left to conclude that this was not a miracle, but just a coincidence. There are several more stories out there like this one, but they all have to be just chance. You are forced to assume your conclusion from the get-go.
Secondly, one person who spoke often about the power of prayer was C. S. Lewis, a former atheist who was highly doubtful of the worth of intercessory prayer studies, but who had personal experiences which led him to affirm that prayer actually works. Lewis’ description of his experiences with prayer in his essay, ‘The Efficacy Of Prayer’ (http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/books/articles/cslewis.htm) makes for intriguing reading:
“Some years ago I got up one morning intending to have my hair cut in preparation for a visit to London, and the first letter I opened made it clear I need not go to London. So I decided to put the haircut off too. But then there began the most unaccountable little nagging in my mind, almost like a voice saying, ‘Get it cut all the same. Go and get it cut.’ In the end I could stand it no longer. I went. Now my barber at that time was a fellow Christian and a man of many troubles whom my brother and I had sometimes been able to help. The moment I opened his shop door he said, ‘Oh, I was praying you might come today.’ And in fact if I had come a day or so later I should have been of no use to him.
It awed me; it awes me still. But of course one cannot rigorously prove a causal connection between the barber’s prayers and my visit. It might be telepathy. It might be accident.
I have stood by the bedside of a woman whose thighbone was eaten through with cancer and who had thriving colonies of the disease in many other bones, as well. It took three people to move her in bed. The doctors predicted a few months of life; the nurses (who often know better), a few weeks. A good man laid his hands on her and prayed. A year later the patient was walking (uphill, too, through rough woodland) and the man who took the last X-ray photos was saying, ‘These bones are as solid as rock. It’s miraculous.’
But once again there is no rigorous proof. Medicine, as all true doctors admit, is not an exact science. We need not invoke the supernatural to explain the falsification of its prophecies. You need not, unless you choose, believe in a causal connection between the prayers and the recovery….”
So, given that you have yet to provide an argument of substance against my suggestion that personal testimony of answered prayer is valid, how do you deal with Lloyd’s and C S Lewis’ testimonies, and the possibly millions of other similar claims from people around the world about answered prayer? Since you apparently KNOW that there is NO evidence (as opposed to the more modest ‘weak’ evidence) for the effectiveness of prayer, do you dismiss each and every one of these as untrue upfront, even as you struggle to find an explanation for them within your worldview?
Cedric Katesby (part 2 of 4):
“Rejecting a claim is not the same thing as making a claim.
Don’t try and shift the burden of proof.”
Yes, we all understand that it’s a lot easier to ask questions than seek answers. But whether you realise it or not, you ARE making a knowledge claim. In response to many people around the world suggesting their prayers have been answered by God, you are asserting – with no justification – that there is NO evidence for answered prayer, which is essentially saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE that even one of those prayers was answered by God.
To say God rarely answers prayer is one thing. To say God always answers prayer would be another. How could it be determined that it is IMPOSSIBLE that God answers prayer? In order to do that, you would have to KNOW that there is no God capable of answering prayer in order to explain away all supposed answered prayers. In other words, you would have to beg the question.
Do you understand this? So let’s try this again: are you unsure as to whether God answers or doesn’t answer prayers, or do you KNOW with certainty that God does not answer prayers?
(in response to my reference, the Wikipedia article, ‘Efficacy of prayer’) “I’ve read it. There’s nothing there that helps you. It’s still magical thinking.”
Such a flippant dismissal isn’t warranted at all, and certainly doesn’t add to the discussion. DID you actually read it?
Excerpts (with caps for emphasis):
“Other, nonblind studies have found BOTH BENEFIT and harm… In comparison to other fields that have been scientifically studied, carefully monitored studies of prayer are relatively few. The field remains tiny, with about $5 million spent worldwide on such research. If and when more studies of prayer are done, the issue of prayer’s efficacy may be further clarified.”
Given the entry states in no uncertain terms that some studies “have found… benefit”, your claim that “there’s nothing there that helps you” falls flat on its face. And since you didn’t answer this the last time round, I’ll ask again: in the absence of decisive results one way or the other, wouldn’t a prudent agnosticism (and not selective hyperskepticism) surely be the healthiest scientific attitude to adopt? Yes? No?
” ‘…the fact that some people might be making false claims with false results somehow invalidates a person who makes a truth claim with actual results.’
Yep. I was right. Strawman.”
Hmm, how so? Do elaborate. In any case, you said this:
“People from all religions and denominations pray for various things in various ways for various reasons. The results seem to be suspiciously the same.”
The point is, SO WHAT, Cedric Katesby? You’re either genuinely interested in comparing my worldview against yours, or you’re not. Should a proponent of Islam or Hinduism or Thor-ism or Darwinism or materialism (to name some faith-based religions) come forward in the future asking to compare the effectiveness of prayer within their worldview against the effectiveness of prayer within mine, I would be compelled to engage the person in serious discussion. It certainly doesn’t serve you well to be borrowing from multiple worldviews when you have issues understanding the efficacy of prayer within your own. I’m happy to discuss the efficacy of prayer as it figures in both our worldviews, if you’re interested in serious discussion on the topic, that is. For now, I am getting the impression you’re just against the idea of answered prayer for the sake of being against it. I urge you to show me otherwise, and to intellectually engage me. That would be well appreciated.
“ ‘Here’s something for starters: the following video shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for American students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. In contrast, the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world…’
So? What is your claim? Spit it out and stop dancing.”
Hmm, interesting that the SAT scores for private Christian schools stayed at exactly the same level they were at in 1963 (which happened to be equal to the SAT scores of public schools at that time) while the public schools, where prayer was removed, showed the decline, and somehow, it doesn’t strike you as significant enough. I listed the data for the whole nation when prayer was removed from schools, and yet, as with my reference to personal testimony about answered prayer as well as the Wikipedia entry, you have conveniently avoided engaging the arguments on their merits, electing instead to provide lots of heavy breathing and handwaving.
Sounds to me like your selective hyperskepticism compels you to ignore the elephant in the living room. Not a good idea in my opinion.
Cedric Katesby (part 3 of 4):
So let’s recap: So far, I have seen plenty of assertions and handwaving from you, and very little engaged the topics on their merits, with regards to the following:
1) The personal – oftentimes, extraordinary – testimony of millions pertaining to answered prayer;
2) The Wikipedia entry stating that there HAVE been studies showing benefits due to intercessory, an indication that a prudent agnosticism about the matter is the very least someone should maintain; and
3) The telling statistics pertaining to declining SAT scores in public schools where prayer was removed.
While you grapple with the task of engaging the above on their merits, let me provide even more evidence. In 2007, a systemic review of 17 studies stated that there are “small, but significant, effect sizes” for the use of intercessory prayer (David R. Hodge, ‘A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer’ in Research on Social Work Practice, March 2007 – http://www.sagepub.com/vaughnstudy/articles/intervention/Hodge.pdf)
For your benefit, I’ll quote a few of the study’s highlights:
“Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Because the purpose of the review was to examine research capable of informing and guiding practice decisions, studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the review: (a) use intercessory prayer as an intervention, (b) implement the intervention with a population of clients or patients, and (c) test the efficacy of the intervention, preferably using standardized measures and a double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) methodology. (p. 175)”
“Findings Supportive of Prayer
Individual assessment revealed that patients who received intercessory prayer demonstrated significant improvement compared to those who received standard treatment devoid of prayer in 7 of the 17 studies. Furthermore, in an additional 5 studies, the trend favored the prayer group. This raises the possibility that an increase in power would yield significant findings. (p. 182)”
“The Use of Informed Consent for Private Intercessory Prayer
With the exception of one small pilot study (i.e., Mathai & Bourne, 2004), all six studies in which clients were completely unaware of the intervention yielded positive outcomes or exhibited a trend in favor of the group receiving intercessory prayer…”
“Conclusion
Intercessory prayer offered on behalf of clients in clinical settings is a controversial practice, in spite of its apparent frequent occurrence. The topic is one that engenders both support and opposition, often passionately held. This study has attempted to shed some light on the controversy by examining the empirical literature on intercessory prayer.
Practitioners who adhere to Division 12 criteria have little basis for using intercessory prayer, in spite of a meta-analysis indicating small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer. Most practitioners, however, are likely to affirm the broader understanding of evidence-based practice articulated in the APA’s Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice (2006). Such practitioners may believe that the best available evidence currently supports the use of intercessory prayer as an intervention.”
If you’re interested, further evidence on answered prayer as found in scientific studies can be found here:
‘Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of God’ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html#.UElRi6RVLfJ)
So, what DO you make of all these studies? Faced with substantial evidence of this nature, I submit that a reasonable person – even if he’s not persuaded to agree with me on the effectiveness of prayer – would, at the very least, withhold judgement regarding the efficacy of prayer, instead of stating outright that there is NO evidence. Agreed?
I look forward to your actual responses on these matters (no more handwaving please) with interest. Cheers.
Cedric Katesby (part 4 of 4):
” ‘Selective hyperskepticism’?
What on Earth is that?”
Here you go. ;)
‘On The Fallacy Of Selective Hyperskepticism’ (http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Selective_Hyperskepticism.htm)
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Ahh, so THAT’S what it is. I was wondering what to make of evolutionary accounts of abiogenesis and macroevolution, amongst other unsubstantiated, speculative materialist positions. Boy, your advice sure does come in handy. Thanks! =D
Cedric, you’ll find that these guys will accept the scientific method to explain why their cell phones work but won’t accept exactly the same scientific method to explain why their creationist beliefs are factually wrong. And they will refuse to see any hypocrisy in this entrenched position because they do not care about what is true but only what they believe must be true to comport with their religious certainties.
Well, I won’t address you other points since many of them are just character assaults (which is the quickest way to end an interaction with me). I’ve got a lot better things to do than to read insults from a total stranger. But I’ll be nice and give you one more chance.
Ok, so how old do you think is the Earth?
I was going to ask you about what evidence you examined to come to your conclusion that the Earth was not young, but you’re not the question answering type (synapticcohesion is still waiting for you to answer one of his questions in another thread).
Well, it’s not “my” conclusions.
Nothing to do with me.
The same goes for Germ Theory and the Earth revolving around the Sun. All the heavy lifting has been done by the scientific community for many decades now, crossing all the physical sciences.
Thanks for the video. James Powell seems like a nice guy. I did notice that he doesn’t really have a correct understanding of creationism or young earth creationism, or at least the part related to the Deluge.
Fair enough. Yet you do, right?
And I always find it interesting when scientist like him like to poke fun at calculations of the age of the Earth based on the Bible. These are the same people who claim they “know” the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. They are so precise, they can date the age of the Earth to two decimal places!
Scientists do think that Young Earth Creationism is funny. They also claim to know stuff because they’ve studied it and tested their results. Their knowledge is earned.
<i.(And let’s not forget that the date has changed a lot in the past 50 years. In 50 years, how much older will the Earth be, I wonder…)
Wonder away. In the meantime, the scientific community will do the work. The Earth is not young.
He takes exception at the idea that things could happen quickly. (Wonder what he thinks of punctuated equilibrium?)
No, sometimes things happen quickly. Sometimes things happen slowly. The idea is to have evidence for these things. Some things are young and some things are old. I’m sure the scientist understands this.
Well, scientific evidence for the instantaneous creation of granites have been in published in peer-reviews scientific literature for nearly four decades.
So? What is your point?
Catastrophes change the landscape very quickly.
Again, science already knows this. What is your point?
Of course, additional evidence for…
“Additional evidence”? How did we get to “additional evidence”?
…quick, massive changes can be seen in fossilized sea creatures on mountain tops.
Not according to the science.
As for his other scientific claims, well, I’m not qualified or in the position to be able to verify the truth of his claims. Do you have the scientific training or education to do that?
Well, do you have the scientific training to verify the truth of any scientific claims across any of the physical sciences coming from anybody including mystery YEC books written in Madarin? Most people don’t. There’s no shame in that. Science requires effort and years of formal education and real work. The University of Google doesn’t cut it. This is where skepticism comes in.
You have to have a methodology to separate science from pseudoscience.
That methodology must take into account any possible biases you might have.
It’s not the conclusions that are important. It’s the method you use.
However, I know you may feel a distinct pleasure in poking fun at a creationist. Well, I’m hardly ashamed of it. I’ve actually read the literature…
Of course you have. Did you look up McCready Price and Ellen. G. White?
You should.
Without them, there would be no Modern Young Earth Creationism. They were just Seventh Day Adventists spouting nonsense and people were gullibe enough to believe them.
If you don’t know who these two people are or how they got the ball rolling then google them. It’s a sad, pitiful history and very American. Young Earth Creationism is a peculiarly American beast. It just doesn’t travel very well overseas. It doesn’t catch on to the wider public.
Well, I’m hardly ashamed of it. I’ve actually read the literature, not cringed in fear of it…
I admire your courage. So…how old do you think is the Earth?
Using condescension again, are we? Oh well. At least you are continuing to prove that you have no real aim leaving many messages here at the NAA blog (just as I suspected). I’m sorry to say that while I do appreciate the multitude of comments you’ve left, I’m not looking for a pen pal.
Enjoy yourself!*
Joshua
*Meaning: You won’t be getting any more of my time or attention here on the NAA blog.
Cedric Katesby (part 1 of 4):
Part One of Four? My goodness! Do go on.
No, science is NOT the sole source of knowledge claims about reality, there are other means of obtaining knowledge’.
I’m open to suggestions. What do you have?
This is interesting. Please do go on, what kind of demonstration do you have in mind?
It’s really easy. You make the claim. You provide evidence for that claim. It’s nothing to do with me. If you can’t demonstrate your claim to someone else then that is your problem, not mine.
…do share with us how you intend to control…
It’s not my claim. It’s your claim. Burden of proof, remember?
With all due respect, personal testimony of answered prayer… is something that happens all the time. It’s not just your personal brand-name magical thing.
Muslims do it. Hindus do it. Even little, tiny Satanists do it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
– Christopher Hitchens
As a Christian theist, I would tell you that if personal testimony…
Sure, I get it. Deep in your heart, you just “know” your prayers work. That’s great.
It’s what religious people from all brands of religon say too. You’re not doing anything different. The rationalisations you invoke work well for any other religion too.
As a Muslim/Krishnan/Baalist/ Sky Woman/ Set theist, I would tell you that if personal testimony of answered prayer could repeatedly be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. It is possible that we cannot ‘discover’ Allah/Krisha/Baal/Sky Woman/Set through empirical observations; we come to Allah/Krishna/Baal/Sky Woman/Set by faith. Allah/Krishna/Baal/Sky Woman/Set is not so clumsy that He/She/It should reveal Her/It/Heself in ways It/He/She did not intend. “He who comes to Allah/Krishna/Baal/Sky Woman/Set must believe that He/She/It is” (that is, that He/She/It exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.
It even works for the jug of milk…
“As a JugofMilkist, I would tell you that if personal testimony of answered prayer could repeatedly be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. It is possible that we cannot ‘discover’ the power of the Jug of Milk through empirical observations; we come to It by faith. The Jug of Milk is not so clumsy that It should reveal Itself in ways It did not intend. “He who comes to The Jug of Milk must believe that It is” (that is, that It exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.”
No need to change a thing. Just switch the labels around and, hey presto, excellent excuses for not testing the results of praying to a jug of milk. Do you really care about the results?
So does God answer prayer? Ask any believer, and you will know the answer. Every changed life of every believer is proof positive that God answers prayer. That includes my life.
Sure. It seems to be the same for all religions. Religious people from all religions in history have made magical claims about prayer.
People from all religions and denominations pray for various things in various ways for various reasons. The results seem to be suspiciously the same.
On a related note, I find that the most compelling cases of answered prayer are the very specific ones. Let me refer you to 2 people.
Personal testimony sounds very much like personal testimony no matter what religion it comes from.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Take the anecdote about the barber.
It awed me; it awes me still. But of course one cannot rigorously prove a causal connection between the barber’s prayers and my visit. It might be telepathy. It might be accident.
Or it might have something more to do with human memory. It happens with telephone calls too. Ever thought about someone and then suddenly received a call from that very person? It happens. Yet people get freaked out by it and attribute it to something “special” or “magical”. It’s not. You have to factor in the number of times you think about someone and…they don’t call you. That’s hard to do because, of course, you forget about those times and only remember the “special” times where you got a “hit”. Human memory is fallible. Also, people cheat. Saying “What an incredible coincidence! I was just thinking about you” is a nice thing to say. It makes people feel good and it’s a good conversation starter. Nobody says…”What an incredible coincidence. I haven’t spared you a thought in ages.”
Rejecting a claim is not the same thing as making a claim.
Don’t try and shift the burden of proof.
Yes, we all understand that it’s a lot easier to ask questions than seek answers.
No, it’s easier to make assertions than back them up.
If you make a claim then you must support that claim.
It’s really that simple.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Rejecting a claim is…rejecting a claim. It doesn’t magically transform into a claim itself. It’s just the way the burden of proof works. Feel free to look it up for yourself.
But whether you realise it or not, you ARE making a knowledge claim. In response to many people around the world suggesting their prayers have been answered by God, you are asserting…
No, read what I wrote. Quote me if you dare.
In response to many people around the world suggesting their prayers have been answered by God…
Any god: not just your particular brand.
All religions “suggest” that their prayers do whatever. Religious people from all religions in history have made magical claims about prayer.
People from all religions and denominations pray for various things in various ways for various reasons. The results seem to be suspiciously the same.
– with no justification – that there is NO evidence for answered prayer…
I’m justified saying that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence. Look around.
…which is essentially saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE…
Strawman. Didn’t say it. Read what I wrote. Quote me in full and in context if you dare.
So let’s try this again: are you unsure as to whether God answers or doesn’t answer prayers, or do you KNOW with certainty that God does not answer prayers?
I don’t care about your particular beliefs. I don’t care how your prayers work. I am interestedin if they work. Just the results.
Such a flippant dismissal isn’t warranted at all, and certainly doesn’t add to the discussion. DID you actually read it?
Yes, I did.
Determining the efficacy of prayer has been attempted in various studies since Francis Galton first addressed it in 1872. Double-blind studies have failed to find any effect.
That’s it. They failed to find any effect.
“Other, nonblind studies have found BOTH BENEFIT and harm…
Yep, nonblind studies. Says so right there in the first part of the sentence in plain English.
The field remains tiny, with about $5 million spent worldwide on such research. If and when more studies of prayer are done, the issue of prayer’s efficacy may be further clarified.”
Yep, “if” and “when and “may be”. Like I said there’s nothing there that helps you.
…in the absence of decisive results one way or the other…
Yes, exactly. There are no decisive results. The claim is rejected. You can always come back with a battery of sucessful tests and solid evidence later, but right now, there’s nothing. The same goes for medicine too.
People from all religions and denominations pray for various things in various ways for various reasons. The results seem to be suspiciously the same.
The point is, SO WHAT, Cedric Katesby?
Well, if they are all the same then…what’s actually going on?
You’re either genuinely interested in comparing my worldview against yours…
No. There is no “worldview”. Whatever worldview you have is…um…great. I don’t care.
I’m interested in prayer. Specifically, the results. It doesn’t seem to work.
Hmm, interesting that the SAT scores for private Christian schools stayed at exactly the same level they were at in 1963 (which happened to be equal to the SAT scores of public schools at that time) while the public schools, where prayer was removed, showed the decline, and somehow, it doesn’t strike you as significant enough.
Not particularly. Are you claiming something specific or do you want to continue dancing?
Whatever you think you have found has to be squared with what you said earlier…
I would tell you that if personal testimony of answered prayer could repeatedly be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. It is possible that we cannot ‘discover’ God through empirical observations; we come to Him by faith. God is not so clumsy that He should reveal Himself in ways He did not intend. “He who comes to God must believe that He is” (that is, that He exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.
Perhaps your brand-name god makes an exception with SAT scores?
Josh,
You may be unaware that over the past year I have received seven Thank-yous from readers (probably lurkers) of this blog (sent to either me or my blog) for offering what I do here. I don;t write what I do here for you or to please you or to make you look good; I do it because your ideas need criticism from someone able to effectively do so.
What you consider ‘rude’ comments from me are in fact simply a counter balance to the common negative terms applied to me and many like me who are sympathetic to the atheist perspective and the unfair treatment to which we are constantly subjected (with any responses to correct this gross distortion called militant!). That I say you and other YECers simply don’t care about what’s true is not rude; it’s an observation along with an explanation why this is so. If you care to criticize my explanation why you guys are hypocrites to accept the scientific method in all things right up until it is in conflict with your religious beliefs, then do so; after all, that’s what your site with pointed cartoons invites along with this forum to delve into the issues they raise. But to simply delete my comment and claim it’s for reasons other what it is is disingenuous: your bias to allow those who agree with your beliefs to have one set of rules is revealed because you hold those who do not to a different set of rules. (Check out the length of GA’s comments without the same negative criticisms aimed at mine. Check out the derogatory tone and patronization by GA and SC and yourself towards atheists all without any equivalent negative comment reminders to keep it civil. Check out GA going after Ryan on a personal level without your direct intervention and correction as soon as this ugly tendency arose. And so on.) See what I did there? I offered an explanation for my position with specific examples. None of this is any more rude (and a great deal less, I believe) than what you yourself exercise.
Now let’s see if you have the intellectual integrity to allow this comment to stand and the fortitude to correct your bias now that you are aware of it.
tildeb:
“Check out the length of GA’s comments without the same negative criticisms aimed at mine.”
I am aware of the lengths of my posts (if you’ve noticed, in recent times, I’ve broken down my comments into parts, for ease of discussion). And while I almost always do stay on topic, perhaps I get too carried away with my various references. I’ll keep that in mind for subsequent discussions.
“Check out GA going after Ryan on a personal level without your direct intervention and correction as soon as this ugly tendency arose.”
This is odd. I’m certainly not apologetic about highlighting the numerous, deliberate lies Andrew Ryan perpetuated on this site and many others. It’s a bit strange that you view that as going after him “on a personal level” I understand that you might be comfortable with dishonest online debating tactics, but do realise that that approach is not for all of us. Even if you do not have a duty of care to objectivity and truth, I certainly do.
Besides, I dropped that topic pretty soon after I brought it up and certainly didn’t harp on it (I even noticed he has written on this site a few times after that), so it’s funny that you’re going back to an issue that’s been over for a while.
tildeb:
“Check out the derogatory tone and patronization by GA and SC and yourself towards atheists all without any equivalent negative comment reminders to keep it civil.”
This is a comment without substance. Please feel free to show us where Josh, SC and I have been unreasonably derogatory and patronizing towards atheists in general. In fact, I’ve even commented in more than one place about how most atheists and agnostics I’ve come across are wonderfully tolerant and respectful during discussions, and how you are not at all representative of this wonderful majority. Do you want me to refer you to those quotations?
And you know, I actually smiled at hearing you suggest that you were providing “negative comment reminders to keep it civil”. I’m trying to square “civil” with the numerous times you’ve responded to proper discussions and references from Josh and I countering your claims, not with actual intellectual responses that engage our arguments on their merits, but with crude references to religious people as delusional and God as “Oogity Boogity”, amongst other references people and things pertaining to religion (remember “Discoveroids”?).
Want proof? I’ll provide two recent examples:
1) On one thread (http://noapologiesallowed.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/qwerky-quotes-for-the-inquisitive-g-k-chesterton-on-morality-from-an-evolutionists-perspective/), you had claimed some results from Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment, and, without dismissing your claims outright, I presented a peer-reviewed paper that scientifically refuted some of those claims, even highlighting the relevant points for you. And it’s worth noting that you didn’t address a single one of the points I made on scientific grounds. In fact, the gist of your response was this:
“This critique by Behe… and the other Dicoveroid Fellows at the Discotute is entirely expected (after all, one must either believe in Intelligent Design or accept Lenski’s results like the other 99.99% of biologists) and is utterly worthless except to offer some pseudo-support to creationist quote miners who wish to pretend that there exists some scientifically acceptable magical barrier to adaptive and beneficial and multistage genetic change. Sorry to disappoint, Getic, but the belief you mention lies entirely on the side of creationists and IDiots like Behe..”
Way to go for an “intellectual” response, huh?
2) On another recent thread (http://noapologiesallowed.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/some-standard-definitions-from-the-doublespeak-dictionary/#comments), I asked you a simple question (one that I had to ask you numerous times): to provide your working definition of evolution. In doing so, I provided a list by Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas highlighting six different ways in which ‘evolution’ is commonly used by scientists and evolutionists. I concluded with this: “Please let us know, in no uncertain terms, which of the 6 definitions of ‘evolution’ above (or maybe even one of your own) you subscribe to. I’d appreciate if you do not avoid the question this time round.”
And your impassioned response was peculiar: one with very little substance, but plenty of insults. In fact, the perfect example of how your heated exchanges sometimes cloud your thinking is this:
“Take a look at who wrote this list you demand I select from. Is it from a renowned biologist? Ha! Of course not. It’s from another Discovery Institute employee who makes his living from writing for the Discovery Institute… an ‘Institute’ whose mandate for Templeton funding is to try to insert creationism – aka Intelligent Design – into public education and public debate…”
Wow, and all that because I asked you for a definition of evolution, huh? And yet, in the midst of your response, you failed to even realise that Meyer and Keas didn’t pluck the definitions out of thin air, and in fact, each of these definitions have been used by various evolutionists and scientists themselves! I dare you to find this out yourself, it’ll be embarrassing if I have to point it out to you. Also, I even made sure to add at the end that you were in no way compelled to choosing one of the 6 definitions and could in fact offer “one of your own”. So your impulsive, unthinking response is hardly warranted at all, and clearly betrays the bias you bring into such discussions, that you are not even willing to consider arguments put forward by people of faith on their merits.
It’s reasons such as these that make it extremely difficult for Josh, SC and I to take people like you and Cedric Katesby seriously, as much as we would like to, for you do not make any attempt to engage us intellectually. Nor are Josh, SC and I of the illusion that all atheists are like you and Cedric Katesby (in fact, many of the ones I have come across are wonderful people).
I challenge you (and the like-minded Cedric Katesby) to start engaging our intellectual discussions and questions rather than avoiding them, it’s really the best way forward in any discussion, and it’ll be well appreciated.
But to simply delete my comment and claim it’s for reasons other what it is is disingenuous: your bias to allow those who agree with your beliefs to have one set of rules is revealed because you hold those who do not to a different set of rules.
That’s what Joshua did?
Eww.
That happens a lot with creationists. Not all though. Some have integrity.
(…awkward silence…)
Well, some.
The trouble with deleting comments from critics, Joshua, is that you fool yourself into thinking the criticisms will magically disappear. They don’t.
This is the Internet.
Those same citicisms will appear elsewhere. They really will. This is a problem because you (and lurkers) can’t remember and refer to those criticisms in your own echo chambers and perhaps learn from them. This condemns you to repeating the same mistakes that led to the criticisms in the first place.
History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time.
However, others that don’t live in your bubble, can learn from them. They see the censored material. They read the failed responses or lack thereof and can become better informed. North Korea can cut itself off from the rest of the world as much as it likes. It doesn’t stop the outside from seeing the structural weaknesses of the regime.
Nobody’s being nasty to you or calling you names. You get to run your blog the way you want but your behaviour (and by extention your tribe) will reflect on you.
Sooner or later, the “I’m offended” card gets played too often and it breeds cynicism amongst those very people that you are trying to appeal to.
One last, lengthy note on these unfounded comments you guys are leaving (for the benefit of readers):
Cedric, your comment is very uniformed.
1) You haven’t read all the comments at this blog, have you? So you don’t know who has and hasn’t been “nasty”. I invite the interested readers to spend some time in the comment section.
2) You also wrongly accuse me of “playing the ‘I’m offended’ card”. I’m not the least bit offended when a total stranger starts to insult me. Remember that I did say that I’ve got better things to do than read insults? Well, I really do actually.
3) Your latest comments have been condescending and you know it. It doesn’t bother me, but it does make you look bad. Ideally, knowledge goes to show a person how little we as a human species actually know. That’s a humbling thing, not one on which to build an intellectual high tower. I can talk to and learn something from anybody — kids, grandparents, atheists, Buddhists, but not when they start to view me as their inferior. Yes, there’s a whole lot I don’t know. I can admit that. The same applies to you and everyone else.
4) You refuse to answer my questions and the questions of others in other posts. That alone is enough to show that you are not here to actually dialog. (Posting a plethora of YouTube videos is not my idea of a discussion, either.)
5) The insinuation that I live in a bubble or that I desire to live in one is a little ridiculous. If I lived in one or wanted to live in one, why would I have a blog inviting comments from anyone and everyone?
Again, you can feel free to leave comments, but I’m not obligated to respond. You must not consider me your pen pal.
That’s all!
Joshua
PS – Accusations about the behavior of other posters here who are not me should be addressed to them. I don’t control other people’s behavior. They do. I can delete comments, but I don’t read every one, especially very long ones (not enough time).
PSS – To show that I’ve got no problem with insults, I’ve restored tildeb’s deleted comment. Now everyone can go and see what they missed. It’s sadly anti-climactic. Maybe you can let us all know how you read it and what good blanket statements that have been written several times before are to a discussion. (I didn’t see much value in it, so that’s why I had deleted it.)
To show that I’ve got no problem with insults, I’ve restored tildeb’s deleted comment.
A rare event. Thank you. It would be nice if more creationists had the same attitude.
You haven’t read all the comments at this blog, have you? So you don’t know who has and hasn’t been “nasty”.
No, I haven’t read “all the comments”. However, based on the ones I have read, no one’s been nasty to you.
You also wrongly accuse me of “playing the ‘I’m offended’ card”
Do go on.
I’m not the least bit offended when a total stranger starts to insult me. Remember that I did say that I’ve got better things to do than read insults? Well, I really do actually.
Well, yes. It’s called playing the “I’m offended” card. Though it can also be called “the flounce”.
Well, I won’t address you other points since many of them are just character assaults (which is the quickest way to end an interaction with me).
This is you playing the “I’m offended” card.
Instead, I’m met with condescension again and again. Hmmm. I’ve rarely met a person who appreciates condescension. I’m not one of them, either. We’re not getting anywhere. So my responses to you in this thread will end here.
This is a prime example of a flounce.
Your latest comments have been condescending and you know it. It doesn’t bother me…
Then there’s no reason for you to flounce off.
(shrug)
Ideally, knowledge goes to show a person how little we as a human species actually know. That’s a humbling thing, not one on which to build an intellectual high tower.
Ignorance is not praiseworthy. Willful ignorance is genuinely shameful.
I can talk to and learn something from anybody — kids, grandparents, atheists, Buddhists, but not when they start to view me as their inferior.
Inferiority is a fact of life. Nobody is the best at everything. There’s always going to be someone better than you.
Yes, there’s a whole lot I don’t know. I can admit that. The same applies to you and everyone else.
Yes, I said much the same thing myself on this very thread.
“Well, do you have the scientific training to verify the truth of any scientific claims across any of the physical sciences coming from anybody including mystery YEC books written in Madarin? Most people don’t. There’s no shame in that.”
Then I went on and said “Science requires effort and years of formal education and real work. The University of Google doesn’t cut it. This is where skepticism comes in.
You have to have a methodology to separate science from pseudoscience.
That methodology must take into account any possible biases you might have.
It’s not the conclusions that are important. It’s the method you use.”
If you are serious about talking and learning, then you have to start paying attention to the scientific community that does the hard work that science demands. Embrace the outside world of the physical sciences.
It’s not good enough to put the word “know” in scare quotes. Just because scientists don’t know everything doesn’t mean you get to ignore the stuff they do actually know.
Science does change but that doesn’t mean that you can hope the great hope that the Earthi is magically young and expect to be taken seriously. When you ignore the wealth of information from all the physical sciences in favour of YEC books written in Mandarin, then it just sounds silly.
I’m not being condesending to you as a person. I don’t even know you.
It’s your YECism thats funny and richly deserving of criticism. You’ve been sold a dodgy bill of goods.
The insinuation that I live in a bubble or that I desire to live in one is a little ridiculous.
There was no insinuation. I was very direct.
I said that others that don’t live in your bubble can learn from them and I meant it. This was in relation to you censoring comments. Censorship is how you create bubbles. Plus there’s the whole YEC book thingy.
The idea seems to be that because an idea isn’t widely accepted by the public or a certain number of scientists…
Nope, this is bubble thinking. It’s not a “certain number of scientists”. It’s religous people peddling pseudoscience. Modern YECism isn’t from scientists at all. It’s from the Seventh Day Adventists George McCready Price and Ellen. G. White. The window dressing of scienceyness came later.
Look them up on google. It’s woeful.
…scientific evidence for the instantaneous creation of granites have been in published in peer-reviews scientific literature for nearly four decades.
Bubble thinking. Step outside the talking points and look at the physical science. Contact your local university. They will tell you the same thing.
Well, Cedric, here’s one last comment to you:
I see many assertions (again), more condescending remarks (again), and, oh, who can forget the Youtube links (again)! But I’ve already lost interest in discussing anything with you. Now, before you pat yourself on the back for accomplishing something here in the comments section or think you’ve offended me — as you yourself admitted, to your credit, you don’t even know me, which means you don’t know what offends me (and I don’t offend easily) — know that I’m not interested in discussing anything with you because you’re not here to discuss anything. You’re here to preach. I know because you continually ignore questions posed to you from me and others (GA and SC are still waiting). You make assertions and the only evidences you provide are Youtube videos (posting the same video multiple times) – mostly by anonymous (!) people or users using pseudonyms!
Still, thank you for these comment. I actually have decided that I won’t delete them. They too well capture the common atheist mindset to deserve deletion.
As always, you’re welcome to comment. But you must remember, let me say it again: I’m not obligated to respond and neither should you conclude that you’ve got a new pen pal. An anonymous atheist online is not high on my list of people to impress or befriend.
Enjoy yourself!
Joshua
PS – To set the record straight for readers, I would like to add: The idea that I’m somehow “censoring” someone or something important (!) is as exaggerated as it is uninformed. Anyone can view the comment that I recently deleted (and restored!) [ here ]. (Yeah, I know sadly anti-climactic.)
What great thing did I censor? What great revelation did I delete in my evil scheme to silence critics? It was two sentences (!) that tildeb often repeats and has, in essence almost word-for-word, written in the comments section on this blog several times already [ here ], [ here ], [ here ], and [ here ]. (And there are more!)
That’s why I deleted them; they weren’t new, brilliant thoughts nor were they adding anything to the discussion.
Conspiracy theories are always more entertaining than facts. The idea that I have a dark, sinister plan to silence criticisms and delete atheist comments is proven false by the facts. (I’ve deleted more of my own posts than anything else, except spam!) Far from wanting to censor atheists, I welcome them. I couldn’t ask for better material than what atheists have posted here. In fact, one of my most popular and applaud cartoons on the site is Angry Anonymous Atheist’s Custom Keyboard, which features some priceless comments which proved the point of the cartoon! And both the cartoon and the comments were just broadcast to a much larger audience after being picked up by a major apologetics site.
So, visiting atheists should be happy to find out that I decided this morning to let the frothing at the mouth continue rather than wipe it off.
Nevertheless, people who are not reading comments half-cocked wouldn’t come to cries of censorship so easily, I think.
I see many assertions (again), more condescending remarks (again), and, oh, who can forget the Youtube links (again)!
You are entitled to you opinions, Joshua. I prefer to stick to the facts and let them speak for themselves.
But I’ve already lost interest in discussing anything with you.
Well, that’s a shame. I was hoping that you meant it when you said that you can talk to and learn something from anybody. It you are going to flounce and play the “I’m offended” card again and again rather that engage…then that’s your decision, of course. As you yourself said, there’s a whole lot you don’t know. I’m encouraging you to step outside the bubble and meet the real world. Contacting your local university would be a good start.
…you’re not here to discuss anything. You’re here to preach. I know because you continually ignore questions posed to you from me and others.
Nonsense. I’ve been very fair with you and all the others. I’ve carefully laid out my reasoning and even provided youtube videos to back up my position. I’ve answered a host of questions here.
(GA and SC are still waiting).
Oh, you’re referring to the other thread where I asked you about your cartoon?
Ok, let me explain what happened in simple terms. You drew a cartoon and put a caption under it. I questioned you on it. Then, somehow, you started taking about ‘teh gay”. When I asked you about “teh gay” in relation to your cartoon and caption, you started waving your hands in desperation.
SC interpreted my questions to you as me “grilling” you. Hardly fair. So he decided to try and switch the topic of converstation to…me.
Here’s what he said…”OK. So how do YOU define what is acceptable sexual behavior and what is not?”.
Not relevent to to the conversation. You were the one that drew a cartoon-not me.
You were the one that put an oddball caption under the cartoon-not me.
You were the one that decided that “teh gay” was somehow connected.
Nothing to do with me. It’s all about you.
Besides, it’s all good.
If he answered, we would have seen that his thoughts on what is “appropriate” and “inappropriate” would have been arbitrary at best; ridiculously and outrageously permissive (to most human beings) at worse.
See? Even without my participation in being distracted, you already have the prepacked results for a conversation that never actually took place. Everybody’s happy.
I’ll give the link and let the lurkers decide for themselves.
You make assertions and the only evidences you provide are Youtube videos (posting the same video multiple times) – mostly by anonymous (!) people or users using pseudonyms!
It’s called the Internet. Those youtube videos represent the mainstream scientific position on the Age of the Earth etc. There’s no need to just take them at face value. If you object to “anonymous” people then you can always verify the facts using NASA videos or vidoes from the USGS. Feel free to contact your local university and go through any and all the details yourself. If you find any errors, then tell me. I’d be very surprised but, as an honest person, I’d be happy to admit it and withdraw the video.
Still, thank you for these comment. I actually have decided that I won’t delete them. They too well capture the common atheist mindset to deserve deletion.
Well, to be fair, it’s not an “atheist” mindset. The magority of religious people also reject the absurd idea that the Earth is a few thousand years old or whatever. It’s completely rejected by the scientific community.
As always, you’re welcome to comment.
Thank you.
But you must remember, let me say it again: I’m not obligated to respond and neither should you conclude that you’ve got a new pen pal. An anonymous atheist online is not high on my list of people to impress or befriend.
I understand. That also applies to me too. I’m not obligated to respond and neither should you conclude that you’ve got a new pen pal. If someone tries to switch topics mid-thread (hint, hint) then that’s their problem- not mine.
PS – To set the record straight for readers, I would like to add: The idea that I’m somehow “censoring” someone or something important (!) is as exaggerated as it is uninformed. Anyone can view the comment that I recently deleted (and restored!) [ here ].
So you didn’t censor anything…you just deleted something…BUT, but then you restored it.?
Ah.
I see. Ok.
What great thing did I censor?
Did anybody mention anything about “greatness”?
(Looks back through the previous comments)
Nope.
What great revelation did I delete in my evil scheme to silence critics?
Did anybody mention anything about “evil schemes”?
(Looks back through the previous comments)
Nope.
This hyperbole all comes from you.
It was two sentences (!) that tildeb often repeats and has, in essence almost word-for-word, written in the comments section on this blog several times already [ here ], [ here ], [ here ], and [ here ]. (And there are more!)
That’s why I deleted them; they weren’t new, brilliant thoughts nor were they adding anything to the discussion.
It’s a sad thing that you didn’t let your readers judge for themselves rather that just delete stuff.
It’s not about the amount. Nor is it about how you personally judge the material tildeb wrote. It’s a little thing called principle.
Censorship is ugly. Even a little bit of censorship is still ugly.
Nobody starts out creating an echo chamber. It happens gradually. A comment here, a comment there etc.
The idea that I have a dark, sinister plan to silence criticisms and delete atheist comments is proven false by the facts.
But you did delete comments. You’ve tried to give it some spin to make yourself look better but the bottom line is… you did delete comments. That’s the thing.
So, visiting atheists should be happy to find out that I decided this morning to let the frothing at the mouth continue rather than wipe it off.
(..awkward silence…)
Odd thing to say but, hey, go for it. Froth away to your hearts content.
(…grabs the popcorn…)
Just one quick question.
(One of course that you are under no obligation to answer, of course.)
Give that you yourself freely admit to being a YEC, well, how old do you thing is the Earth?
A separate, new thread devoted to the topic of why you are an YEC and how old you think is the Earth would be very interesting. Just a suggestion.
Well, Cedric, I haven’t been satisfied with our interactions. I crave meaningful interactions with humans. You probably do too. This seemingly unfocused back and forth that we’ve kind of gotten into is not what I want the blog to be about. I accept my part of the responsibility for causing it to be this way. I apologize.
Let’s try to re-establish some meaningful interaction. It’ll take both of us to do it. Now trying doesn’t necessarily mean succeeding, but here’s my best shot. Hope you don’t mind:
RE: University Visit
I can do better than just visit the local university — I teach there part-time. When I talk to other professors and students, they are interested in religious issues and the creation / evolution debate. They are intensely interested in the subject, mostly because it has been censored. I’ve heard of people having similar experiences in other countries like Russia and China.
For what it’s worth, let me put this out there for the readers and for your consideration:
Far from living in a bubble, I live in a wide-open field. A picture of my bookshelf would suffice to show that. Furthermore, I have a job and a life that puts me in touch with people from all over the world from all walks of life, both social, economic, and religious. I consider it my distinct privilege to have met homeless people, congressmen, principals, business leaders, handicap children, Olympic athletes. The point is that almost every interaction with them is related to these issues, either directly or indirectly. So, of course I’ve got to know something (I didn’t say “everything”!) about them. And I’m always learning more.
Throughout your comments, you seem to have assumed that I’ve never heard the atheist / evolutionist explanation of different things (age of the Earth; existence of God). Fact is, I’ve heard those sides of the argument. I’ve heard the best apologist for atheism and evolution put forth their best cases for both in the most public forums and settings possible. I’ve read books on the subject (I didn’t say “every book”). There’s a lot that those theories don’t explain. Look at the human body itself. Even something like a simple book on physiology presents enough problems to last a lifetime for anyone who would pose a purely naturalistic origin for it. I’ve considered both sides and chosen the one I promote, Young Earth Creationism. (By the way, you have some understanding of the tenants of YEC, so you should already know the answer to your question.)
Oh, and since we’re in the video sharing mood, I’d like you to watch this excellent interaction on the Michael Coren Show, one of the best, brightest hosts I’ve ever seen on TV.
Creation / Evolution debate on Michael Coren Show
RE: Videos and References
I did appreciate one of the videos (the one with James Powell). (At least it had a name that I could verify and check into.) The bulk of the remainder have just been disingenuous and crass (which does not negatively reflect on you, just the videos themselves). And regarding the anonymity, well, university standards for reference materials is pretty convincing: anonymous is almost always a no-no; online sources are dubious at best and completely wrong at worst. Add to that the videos don’t even include a bibliography or references at the end or in the comments. You know about citations and correct citing. (As an avid book reader yourself, I’m certain you do.)
RE: The Deleted Comment
If I wanted to make myself look good, why would I mention what I did? If I was trying to censor his words, why would I leave the same statements in several other comments here? You guys overreacted, in my opinion. The way you both reacted would make it appear as if I deleted some great argument or secret. That’s why I used hyperbolic satire. In language, it is not uncommon to use such techniques for effect (saying something to emphasize its opposite — I do it all the time in my daily life; it makes my Wife smile).
RE: When Bad Excuses Go Bad
Well, first, a side note: Why don’t you spell “the” correctly? Is this another Simpson reference? (Another atheist visitor, Andy, used a Simpson reference that I didn’t get because I don’t watch the Simpsons. [They ceased to be funny when Conan O'Brien left the writing staff.])
As I’ve explained, the cartoon is not just related to one single issue, like only homosexuality (that was an example). Basically, it deals with the issue regarding control over one’s sexual behavior, which includes more than just homosexuality. One group says they can’t control their sexual behavior. The other group can use the excuse, too. If the government is going to draft legislation to approve and promote one form of abnormal, harmful, currently socially unacceptable sexual behavior (like homosexuality, polygamy, etc.), then that sets a dangerous precedent. Where do we draw the line?
So, the “bad excuse” = “I can’t control my sexual behavior” which “goes bad” when it enters the mind of a rapist.
By the way, do you have your own blog?
Joshua
This seemingly unfocused back and forth that we’ve kind of gotten into is not what I want the blog to be about. I accept my part of the responsibility for causing it to be this way. I apologize.
I appreciate the offer but it’s unnecessary. Let actions speak louder than words. We’re both adults. It’s good of you to restore comments. It’s a sign of integrity. Certain other bloggers don’t have it. The shame is theirs.
Let’s try to re-establish some meaningful interaction. It’ll take both of us to do it. Now trying doesn’t necessarily mean succeeding, but here’s my best shot.
Ok, go ahead.
When I talk to other professors and students, they are interested in religious issues and the creation / evolution debate.
There is no “debate”.
It’s not like there is one side and then the other side and, goshdarnit, it’s all so hard and we haven’t figured it out yet.
Nope.
Science is the study of reality. The Theory of Evolution works. That’s why scientists for a very long time have used it to conduct research. There’s nothing better. It does an excellent job. It’s been tested up the wazoo, it provides value to society and we all reap the benefits.
Germ Theory is the same. The Heliocentric Theory is the same.
There’s no “debate”.
There will always be discussion amongst peers who actually know what they are talking about because it’s their job to know and do the work but…no “debate”.
Your framing is wrong. It’s not grounded in real life with the actual, working scientific community.
This is not me being condecending. This is me being honest.
It’s easily verifiable. If you read YEC books, then gosh there’s a debate.
(surprise, surprise)
If you go to your local university and walk into any and all of the physical science faculties-there is no debate.
Throughout your comments, you seem to have assumed that I’ve never heard the atheist / evolutionist explanation of different things (age of the Earth; existence of God).
No, this is (again) bubble thinking. There are no “atheist/evolutionist” explanations of, say the age of the Earth or anything else.
The word you need is “scientific”.
Science explains things. It’s science that found out the age of the Earth. It’s science that discovered what makes diseases tick. It’s science that launches satellites.
To accept that the Earth is old is to accept reality.
It’s got nothing to do with being an Atheist or an “evolutionist” or whatever.
Scientists know that the Earth is old. Educated people rely on the scientific process to find out stuff that they can’t do themselves. Nuclear physics etc.
Fact is, I’ve heard those sides of the argument. I’ve heard the best apologist for atheism and evolution…
No.
Atheism and evolution have nothing to do with each other in the same way that atheism has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. Being religious does no mean that you have to believe in a young Earth or anything like that.
There’s a lot that those theories don’t explain. Look at the human body itself.
(facepalm)
The value of a scientific theory is if it works or not. Scientific theories…work. They are useful. Just because you don’t understand something does not mean that the fault lies with the scientific theory. You have to take into account your own limited understanding of what you are talking about and the fact that you’ve been taking seriously YEC books of all things.
I do the same thing. I adopt a skeptical position.
This is not me be condecending. Really. This is me being blunt.
You have bought a dodgy bill of goods. You’ve been lied to.
Scientists don’t support scientific theories just to make you mad, they do it because those theories make sense and it allows them to conduct real research. That’s all there is to it.
Creationism doesn’t help anybody do any work.
Thinking that the Earth is young just ties you up in logical contortions where you keep having to apply magical thinking.
(By the way, you have some understanding of the tenants of YEC, so you should already know the answer to your question.)
Nope, that’s why I asked. The numbers always vary. I’d honestly like to know how old you personally think is the Earth.
The bulk of the remainder have just been disingenuous and crass (which does not negatively reflect on you, just the videos themselves). And regarding the anonymity, well, university standards for reference materials is pretty convincing…
The videos reflect the science faithfully. There’s nothing there that conflicts with any of the physical sciences. It’s a popularisation of science. If you find something that doesn’t gel with current scientific understanding then then tell me. I’d be very surprised but, as an honest person, I’d be happy to admit it and withdraw the video. I mean that in all sincerity.
The way you both reacted would make it appear as if I deleted some great argument or secret.
It really is a matter of principle. If you’ve done it to tildeb then perhaps you’ve done it to others. If you’ve done it once…then you can do it again…and again…and again. Eventually you end up with the echo chamber of all echo chambers -Uncommondissent. Those people lost the plot years ago.
As I’ve explained, the cartoon is not just related to one single issue, like only homosexuality (that was an example).
Yes but it was the solitary example you gave. I followed your initial explanation very carefully. You failed to give any others. I didn’t assume anything about your cartoon. I didn’t run off and build a strawman at your expense. I gave you every opportunity to explain in detail what you really meant.
When you started talking about “teh gay” it was, well, disturbing.
Again, I don’t say that to condecend to you.
I don’t see the connection between rapists and being gay. Try saying that on TV in the modern era and you will be eaten alive. There’s just no way to make it sound good.
You could have withdrawn your statement.
You could have come up with a different example that explained the “legalising bad excuses” thing.
Yet there was nothing from you.
It was clearly an awkward moment and so SC decided to create a smokescreen with his silly question directed at me which only made the situation more painfully obvious.
Basically, it deals with the issue regarding control over one’s sexual behavior, which includes more than just homosexuality.
I accept that it was your intention but there’s still that caption.
By the way, do you have your own blog?
No, I don’t. If I start one, I’ll be happy to send you an invitation. That’s a promise.
Why don’t you spell “the” correctly? Is this another Simpson reference?
It’s an internet thing. It’s also commonly spelt “teh ghey”.
It’s interesting to see you say that there’s no debate on the age of the Earth, creation / evolution, or “or anything else” (a sweeping claim).
Next time I go to the university, I’ll have to visit some of the other departments to see if that’s the case. Since most of the graduates at the university where I teach are mechanical engineers (they’re as close to scientists as I can get at the moment), I’ll have to see if they study evolution and apply its principles in their work. I’ll ask the department heads directly to see if that’s the case. It should be an interesting conversation. If I get the chance in my busy schedule, I’ll be happy to report back what they said. I mean it. 1) Have you ever done that, gone into a university and talked to the faculty about this? Did you witness them applying the principles of evolution? What did you see?
Is that hyperbole? That’s an interesting statement. 2) What is the source of your information that “creationism doesn’t help anybody do any work”?
The gene gun doesn’t count? MRI? I think two examples is enough to show that the principles of creationism — information is necessary to do precise work and information only comes from an intelligence — have helped at least two scientists do some work. (The implications I’ll leave to readers to unfold.)
If you have the time, you can watch the video I linked to above. In it, fellow YEC Laurence Tisdall, himself a geneticist who, at the time of the interview, worked at HP, says that (paraphrased) most scientists don’t deal with evolution while doing their work.
Now, let me ask you one last question because I see your comments tinged with scientism.
3) Would you agree with the statement that something can be known only if it is scientifically testable? Why or why not?
Joshua
RE: Mystery YEC Books & Creationism Outside America
I just wanted to add a note about something I kept skipping over. You’ve mentioned my “mystery YEC books written in Madarin [sic]“. I mentioned them in the context where you made the statement that young Earth creationism is an “American beast” to try to show you and readers that wasn’t the case. If YEC was limited to America, why would there be any YEC in Mandarin for me to collect?
4) By the way, share with us what creationist materials you have read (article name, book titles, video names). Just two of any length will be fine.
I thought I’d throw out two brief articles on this topic, too (given the country featured in them, I thought they’d be of particular interest to you):
Can Creation Science Be Found Outside America? According to Frank Sherwin of ICR, the largest creationist group in the world is in South Korea, the Korea Association of Creation Research. Here’s a brief overview of their leadership:
Creation Science in Korea The article mentions that one of the Korean creationist organization’s homegrown efforts Is Evolution a Scientific Fact? “has become one of the best-selling books in Korea”.
There have been news stories about creationism in South Korea (“South Korea surrenders to creationist demands”) just recently and in Hong Kong (“A Creationism Row in Hong Kong”) in 2009.
So readers can judge for themselves whether or not creationism is a purely American phenomenon…
Josh:
“Your latest comments have been condescending and you know it. It doesn’t bother me, but it does make you look bad.”
Couldn’t agree more.
“I see many assertions (again), more condescending remarks (again), and, oh, who can forget the Youtube links (again)!”
Sigh, I see those assertions too… wait, what was that Hitchens quote again? Right – “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence” =D
“… know that I’m not interested in discussing anything with you because you’re not here to discuss anything. You’re here to preach. I know because you continually ignore questions posed to you from me and others (GA and SC are still waiting)…”
Relax, I’m sure Pastor Katesby will get down to those unanswered questions in due time, no? ;)
“Now, let me ask you one last question because I see your comments tinged with scientism.
2) Would you agree with the statement that something can be known only if it is scientifically testable? Why or why not?”
Sigh.. don’t worry, Josh, you are not alone. I suspected Cedric Katesby was struggling with the grips of scientism long before you did (if you remember, I asked him a similar yes/no question about science being the sole source of knowledge, a question he repeatedly avoided), and each passing comment he makes – coupled with the numerous questions from you, synapticcohesion and myself that he avoids – only makes it more obvious.
Which is why I find great irony in him speaking from his scientistic bubble, “encouraging you to step outside the bubble and meet the real world.”
One thing Cedric Katesby seems to have overlooked is something best summed up by Professor William Lane Craig, who replied in devastatingly brilliant fashion to a letter sent to him by a militant atheist quite similar to Cedric Katesby in tone and conduct [‘Questions to Ask an Atheist – Overweening Ignorance (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-to-ask-an-atheist)%5D:
“… your letter reminds me of those auditions for American Idol by contestants who are so cringingly bad but who actually imagine that they can sing. They are so arrogant that they cannot see how really poor their performance is. Your letter betrays that same deadly mix of ignorance and arrogance.”
Cedric Katesby’s cockiness blinds him to the poverty of his arguments and comments. And unfortunately, there are a handful of such ideologues around, who do not at all represent the numerous other fair-minded, intellectually-engaged atheists and agnostics I’ve met online. Kudos to you for refusing to stoop to his level of ignorance and arrogance, and for exemplifying the fact that should engaging someone in discussion ever require us to exhibit conduct that doesn’t reflect the glory of God, the glory of God always comes first. You can be proud of yourself. =D
By the way, another way to expose these ideologues, for the benefit of the many wonderful onlookers who abound, is to keep reasoning with them and to expose faults in their reasoning and dogmatism. I’ll work on that bit today, for Cedric Katesby has left some loose ends in our ongoing discussion that I intend to bring up with him.
Have a great week ahead, Josh! =)
Cedric Katesby:
“That’s what Joshua did?
Eww.
That happens a lot with creationists. Not all though. Some have integrity.”
Fancy you talking about integrity when last I looked, you jumped into dishing out comments laced with assumptions without having the integrity to actually find out what it is that Josh was referring to in the first place. And you even admitted as much later. Allow me to direct your attention to this thread – http://noapologiesallowed.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/when-bad-excuses-go-bad/:
Josh: “Few things are as dangerous to a society as legalizing bad excuses.
Cedric Katesby: “Um, yeah. That would be bad if it ever actually happened.” (implying that you know what “it”, meaning “legalizing bad excuses”, refers to)
Josh: “Cedric, please explain the issue addressed in between my cartoon and the sentence below it. Let’s see how close or far your interpretation is from what I’m saying.”
Cedric Katesby: (and here comes the awkward admission) “I don’t know what you are saying. It’s too vague to even make a guess.
“Legalising bad excuses”? What are you referring to?”
Um, not looking good, Cedric Katesby. Don’t you think a little humility is in order here? Josh is human, as are you. Right? =)
“See? Even without my participation in being distracted, you already have the prepacked results for a conversation that never actually took place. Everybody’s happy.
I’ll give the link and let the lurkers decide for themselves.”
I’m sorry, it’s not working for you. I followed the link, and all I see is you running from a simple question synapticcohesion posted. Not looking good for you.
“Well, that’s a shame. I was hoping that you meant it when you said that you can talk to and learn something from anybody. “
I find it most peculiar that you say this, when I’ve not seen a single decent, response from you addressing the various references Josh brought up on this thread, nor a single reply to synapticcohesion’s simple question on the other thread (http://noapologiesallowed.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/when-bad-excuses-go-bad/). Not to mention that you provided plenty of handwaving and very little substance with regards to our ongoing discussion on the effficacy of prayer (something that I intend to highlight and press you about right after this post). And yet here you are, offering Josh “learning”.
Way to go with the humility huh, champ? =D
“Nonsense. I’ve been very fair with you and all the others. I’ve carefully laid out my reasoning and even provided youtube videos to back up my position. I’ve answered a host of questions here.”
Obviously you were at a very different conversation from the rest of us. Either that, or we’ve been speaking to another Cedric Katesby, who avoided many questions and provided half-baked answers.
“It’s a sad thing that you didn’t let your readers judge for themselves rather that just delete stuff.
It’s not about the amount. Nor is it about how you personally judge the material tildeb wrote. It’s a little thing called principle.
Censorship is ugly…”
I see, but ugly comments – the kind you perpetuate – are in fashion, is that so?
Just in case you missed the bus, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from common sense, from intellectual engagement, from decent, civilised conduct, or from responsibilty for what you say.
A little word of advice, Cedric Katesby: As far as I’m concerned, when visiting Josh’s site, I’m a guest in someone’s house here. I’ve no “right” to be here. It’s not a free speech issue. I’ve no right to act in any dishonest way that suits me, nor protest too much if I’m asked to leave due to ritual impertinence. If you find the honest, civilised atmosphere here less than amiable, you are free, even encouraged, to move along. This isn’t a public park. For those who enjoy endlessly and militantly debating theists, there are probably millions of other places to have flame wars and troll hunts on the internet. For my part, I’m glad this site isn’t degrading into another one of those. Once undesirable conduct and devious discussion tactics (the kind you constantly demonstrate) enter the fray, intellectually illuminating conversations go out the window, and any attempt at reasonable discourse risks being in vain.
At some point, good conversations depend on participants who can agree about foundational things, or who have a willingness to learn. It’s then that differences in opinion or outlook become illuminating. To borrow what you said to Josh, “Nobody’s being nasty to you or censoring your comments for fun. You get to try your luck with uncivil behaviour the way you want but your behaviour (and by extention your tribe) will reflect on you.”
So, kindly shape up, if not, you’re welcome to ship out.
Cedric Katesby (part 1 of 2):
(and now, back to our ongoing discussion. I apologise for making it 4 long parts the other time, I’ve brought it down to 2 concise parts this time round. Cheers.)
“Sure, I get it. Deep in your heart, you just “know” your prayers work. That’s great.”
“It’s really easy. You make the claim. You provide evidence for that claim. It’s nothing to do with me. If you can’t demonstrate your claim to someone else then that is your problem, not mine.”
I have concerns about whether yours is a scientific approach, or a SCIENTISTIC one, for you seem to be in knots about some things. As we’ve both established, science is not the SOLE means of acquiring knowledge. Anyone who understands how proper science operates knows that there are some categories of truth (existential truth, moral truth, logical truth, historical truth, and experiential truth, which includes love and personal experiences of answered prayer, amongst other things) that science cannot prove. Remember, I never said every aspect of a person’s belief (in this case, personal experiences with answered prayer) needed to be at the whim and fancy of your selective hyperskepticism or scientism. Besides, note that I’ve already provided ample evidence from the scientific field that you have had trouble responding to (for your benefit, I’ll bring them up again later).
But of course, you’re more than welcome to set up scientific tests that are capable of conclusively proving that you exist or that your wife/mother/son/friend loves you or that laws of logic are true or that Barack Obama won the 2008 US Presidential Elections. I’ll make sure to be personally there to hand you that Nobel Prize! =D
P.S.: Given you are a fan of YouTube videos, I’m sure you’ll enjoy this. ;)
‘Does science prove everything?” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vxJQe_FefxY)
“Personal testimony sounds very much like personal testimony no matter what religion it comes from.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Take the anecdote about the barber.”
Better yet, why not take the testimony you avoided, that of Mike Licona’s friend Lloyd?
“In June of 1987, Lloyd was riding down a highway when he got into a horrific automobile accident that left him in the hospital for 21 days in a coma. The 21st day in the hospital was the 4th of July. At 4pm in the afternoon, his church members were somewhere at a park having a 4th of July picnic when they stopped to pray for Lloyd. Guess what happened at 4pm? Lloyd came out of his coma. Guess what else happened – a number of other people in the same room with Lloyd (some of whom were in a coma for 1-6 months) all came out of their coma as well.”
I don’t know what kind of materialist explanation you have for this, but for me, that qualifies as a miracle. How do we know this? Firstly, it’s extremely unlikely to be caused by natural causes, and secondly, it occurred in a context that’s charged with religious significance. You, however, are forced to assume your conclusion from the get-go: that this, like several other similar cases, was not a miracle, but just a coincidence. Pure chance. Am I right?
“The burden of proof is on the claimant. Rejecting a claim is…rejecting a claim. It doesn’t magically transform into a claim itself. It’s just the way the burden of proof works. Feel free to look it up for yourself.”
Scientism is… scientism. Feel free to look it up for yourself.
“Strawman. Didn’t say it. Read what I wrote. Quote me in full and in context if you dare.”
Not letting you off so easily. Quick question: is it possible that God answers prayers, or is it IMPOSSIBLE?
Or if you’d prefer it in the manner the question was originally put (and not answered): are you unsure as to whether God answers or doesn’t answer prayers, or do you KNOW with certainty that God does not answer prayers?
“ ‘Other, nonblind studies have found BOTH BENEFIT and harm…’
Yep, nonblind studies. Says so right there in the first part of the sentence in plain English.”
No True Scotsman fallacy. I’m saying so right here in plain English. So, no substantive response, or engaging the associated studies on their merits, huh? Noted.
“I’m interested in prayer. Specifically, the results. It doesn’t seem to work.”
Sure, you’re entitled to your unsubstantiated assertion.
“ ‘Hmm, interesting that the SAT scores for private Christian schools stayed at exactly the same level they were at in 1963 (which happened to be equal to the SAT scores of public schools at that time) while the public schools, where prayer was removed, showed the decline, and somehow, it doesn’t strike you as significant enough.’
Not particularly. Are you claiming something specific or do you want to continue dancing?”
Still no substantive reply on something so clearly spelt out? Noted.
I’m happy intellectually dancing with you, my friend, for the more you avoid addressing this, the more obvious your two left feet become! =D
Cedric Katesby (part 2 of 2):
So, to recap, here’s what you’ve provided in response to my references:
1) The personal – oftentimes, extraordinary – testimony of millions pertaining to answered prayer:
A rigid insistence on applying a scientistic approach.
2) The Wikipedia entry stating that there HAVE been studies showing benefits due to intercessory, an indication that a prudent agnosticism about the matter is the very least someone should maintain:
No substantive argument that discredits what I referenced.
3) The telling statistics pertaining to declining SAT scores in public schools where prayer was removed:
Not a single point that engages the reference on its merit.
Not to mention, you COMPLETELY glossed over another important piece of evidence I cited. Allow me to refresh your memory: in 2007, a systemic review of 17 studies stated that there are “small, but significant, effect sizes” for the use of intercessory prayer (David R. Hodge, ‘A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer’ in Research on Social Work Practice, March 2007 –http://www.sagepub.com/vaughnstudy/articles/intervention/Hodge.pdf)
For your benefit, I’ll quote a few of the study’s highlights:
“Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Because the purpose of the review was to examine research capable of informing and guiding practice decisions, studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the review: (a) use intercessory prayer as an intervention, (b) implement the intervention with a population of clients or patients, and (c) test the efficacy of the intervention, preferably using standardized measures and a double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) methodology. (p. 175)”
“Findings Supportive of Prayer
Individual assessment revealed that patients who received intercessory prayer demonstrated significant improvement compared to those who received standard treatment devoid of prayer in 7 of the 17 studies. Furthermore, in an additional 5 studies, the trend favored the prayer group. This raises the possibility that an increase in power would yield significant findings. (p. 182)”
“The Use of Informed Consent for Private Intercessory Prayer
With the exception of one small pilot study (i.e., Mathai & Bourne, 2004), all six studies in which clients were completely unaware of the intervention yielded positive outcomes or exhibited a trend in favor of the group receiving intercessory prayer…”
“Conclusion
Intercessory prayer offered on behalf of clients in clinical settings is a controversial practice, in spite of its apparent frequent occurrence. The topic is one that engenders both support and opposition, often passionately held. This study has attempted to shed some light on the controversy by examining the empirical literature on intercessory prayer.
Practitioners who adhere to Division 12 criteria have little basis for using intercessory prayer, in spite of a meta-analysis indicating small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer. Most practitioners, however, are likely to affirm the broader understanding of evidence-based practice articulated in the APA’s Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice (2006). Such practitioners may believe that the best available evidence currently supports the use of intercessory prayer as an intervention.”
If you’re interested, further evidence on answered prayer as found in scientific studies can be found here:
‘Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of God’ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html#.UElRi6RVLfJ)
So, what DO you make of substantial evidence of this nature? I don’t mind if you’re persuaded to disagree with my views for whatever reason, but I would appreciate less sarcasm and personal incredulity, and something substantive to your argument. The intent here is for civil conversation where people can explore ideas together and make their own determinations. Your posts and non-arguments have not contributed to that type of discussion.
So it seems you have two choices, Cedric Katesby: you can either engage my arguments on their merits, or you can dismiss them as before and give yourself a rhetoric victory. Which path will you choose?
I look forward to your replies with interest.
It’s interesting to see you say that there’s no debate on the age of the Earth, creation / evolution, or “or anything else” (a sweeping claim).
It’s verifiable.
There’s no need to take my word on it. You have to take a skeptical approach.
Since most of the graduates at the university where I teach are mechanical engineers (they’re as close to scientists as I can get at the moment), I’ll have to see if they study evolution…
The age of the Earth is well known. There is no “debate”.
Again, this covers all of the physical sciences.
Have you ever done that, gone into a university and talked to the faculty about this? Did you witness them applying the principles of evolution? What did you see?
It’s mainstream, Joshua. The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of modern Biology. That’s not just in America. It’s everywhere. It’s been that way for well over a century now. The same goes for the age of the Earth. There’s no debate. Every natural history museum will tell you the same. Every mainstream scientific journal. Every biology faculty. It’s common knowledge. The same goes with the Heliocentric Theory. Geo centricism is dead. Really.
Now, let me ask you one last question because I see your comments tinged with scientism.
The word you are looking for is “science”. Framing, remember?
The gene gun doesn’t count? MRI?
How? Examine the fine print.
I think two examples is enough to show that the principles of creationism — information is necessary to do precise work and information only comes from an intelligence — have helped at least two scientists do some work.
This is handwaving. How exactly did “creationism” help create the MRI?
It’s froth. You can’t use creationism to conduct research or do tests or make predictions. Nobody finds it useful. Otherwise people would, y’know, USE IT!
In it, fellow YEC Laurence Tisdall, himself a geneticist who, at the time of the interview, worked at HP, says that (paraphrased) most scientists don’t deal with evolution while doing their work.
I’m sure he does. Yet you have to take a skeptical approach to these matters. How do you know that he’s telling you the truth? He’s one person. That does not a “debate” make. Skepticism? Hello?
There can be real debates in the science community about all sorts of things. Yet they look different from the fake debates touted by special interest groups. It’s possible for a genuine skeptic to spot the difference.
So readers can judge for themselves whether or not creationism is a purely American phenomenon…
Nope. You are creating a strawman.
This is what I said, in response to you saying that I’d have a point, if I completely disregard all the creationist groups and museums in countries around the world.
“Well, yes.
Exactly.
Around the world there are creationist groups. Yet Young Earth Creationism is a peculiarly American beast. It just doesn’t travel very well overseas. It doesn’t catch on to the wider public. It remains confined to oddball museums and specially created groups.”
Nobody is disregarding creationist groups. Yet YECism is a peculiarly American beast.
You really should look up George McCready Price and Ellen. G White. They were the Seventh Day Adventists that got the ball rolling, after all.
Cedric, I have a healthy skepticism, not an unreasonable one that I apply to everything and everyone equally. The type of skepticism you suggested that I have towards Laurence is one that could apply to everyone everywhere else, too.
You didn’t really answer my questions again. Let me reduce the number of questions and post them again:
3) Would you agree with the statement that something can be known only if it is scientifically testable? Why or why not?
4) By the way, share with us what creationist materials you have read (article name, book titles, video names). Just two of any length will be fine.
By the way, “scientism” is a real word. It’s tied to question #3.
I think you answers to these two questions will give myself and readers just the information we need to more accurately weigh your opinions on science, creationism, and what we humans can know with any level of certainty.
Joshua
I have concerns about whether yours is a scientific approach, or a SCIENTISTIC one,…
Whatever. I don’t care.
As you said “Back to the discussion”.
But of course, you’re more than welcome to set up scientific tests that are capable of conclusively proving that you exist…
Idle babble. Back to the discussion. Focus.
Better yet, why not take the testimony you avoided, that of Mike Licona’s friend Lloyd?
Again, it’s a personal anecdote, remember? The plural of anecdote is not data.
Not letting you off so easily. Quick question: is it possible that God answers prayers, or is it IMPOSSIBLE?
Anything is “possible”. Yet science is the study of reality.
Is it possible that Allah answers prayers, or is it IMPOSSIBLE?
Is it possible that Xenu answers prayers, or is it IMPOSSIBLE?
Is it possible that Satan answers prayers, or is it IMPOSSIBLE?
Is it possible that Baal answers prayers, or is it IMPOSSIBLE?
Is it possible that pixies answers prayers, or is it IMPOSSIBLE?
Is it possible that Santa answers prayers, or is it IMPOSSIBLE?
“Other, nonblind studies have found BOTH BENEFIT and harm…”
Yep, nonblind studies. Says so right there in the first part of the sentence in plain English.”
No True Scotsman fallacy.
Non sequitur. Find out what the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” is before you apply it. Also find out what nonblind studies means.
I’m happy intellectually dancing with you, my friend,…
You dance. I point it out. I choose my own friends.
So, what DO you make of substantial evidence of this nature?
You don’t seem to understand what substantial evidence means.
There’s nothing.
You bring up SATs scores (of all things), child-like anecdotes and a tiny group of nonblind studies complete with caveats.
You yourself pointed out that there is an absence of decisive results one way or the other.
Either there is substantial evidence or there is not.
Make up your mind.
Either there are decisive results or there are not.
Make up your mind.
Either prayer is testable or it is not.
Make up your mind.
Whatever studies or evidence you find has to be squared away with what you yourself said before…
I would tell you that if personal testimony of answered prayer could repeatedly be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. It is possible that we cannot ‘discover’ God through empirical observations; we come to Him by faith. God is not so clumsy that He should reveal Himself in ways He did not intend. “He who comes to God must believe that He is” (that is, that He exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.
Perhaps your brand-name god makes an exception with SAT scores?
Or did it make an exception with some test or other?
People from all religions and denominations pray for various things in various ways for various reasons. The results seem to be suspiciously the same.
Hence the jug of milk.
Cedric Katesby:
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. The drunk says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if the drunk is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “This is where the light is.”
P.S.: Your hand waving and non-arguments work well for me. Thanks! =D
I would tell you that if personal testimony of answered prayer could repeatedly be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. It is possible that we cannot ‘discover’ God through empirical observations; we come to Him by faith. God is not so clumsy that He should reveal Himself in ways He did not intend. “He who comes to God must believe that He is” (that is, that He exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.
“As a JugofMilkist, I would tell you that if personal testimony of answered prayer could repeatedly be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. It is possible that we cannot ‘discover’ the power of the Jug of Milk through empirical observations; we come to It by faith. The Jug of Milk is not so clumsy that It should reveal Itself in ways It did not intend. “He who comes to The Jug of Milk must believe that It is” (that is, that It exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.”
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
– Christopher Hitchens
“Fancy you talking about integrity when last I looked, you jumped into dishing…”
Tu Quoque.
I’m not the one censoring comments. Besides, the comments have been restored and the conversation has moved on.
…without having the integrity to actually find out what it is that Josh was referring to in the first place. And you even admitted as much later. Allow me to direct your attention…”
English comprehension fail. Re-read what I wrote.
Josh: “Few things are as dangerous to a society as legalizing bad excuses.
Cedric Katesby: “Um, yeah. That would be bad if it ever actually happened.”
(implying that you know what blah, blah…
No, that won’t do. Keep your strawmannery to yourself. “Implying”, indeed. My words speak for themselves perfectly well.
Josh: “Cedric, please explain the issue addressed in between my cartoon and the sentence below it. Let’s see how close or far your interpretation is from what I’m saying.”
Cedric Katesby: (and here comes the awkward admission)
Nope. There’s no need to guild the lily. There’s no “awkward admission”. That comes from your imagination. Ignore the voices in your head and focus on reality. If you have to insert a running commentary to make your case, then that just exposes the weakness of your position.
“I don’t know what you are saying. It’s too vague to even make a guess.
Here’s what I meant by that. Ready?
I meant that I don’t know what Joshua was saying. Simple, really. It was too vague for me to make a guess. So…I didn’t make a guess. Not that hard to figure out. My words really do speak for themselves.
“Legalising bad excuses”? What are you referring to?”
This me asking a question. You can tell that because it’s got a question mark at the end of it. It’s not even a trick question. It’s just me reading the caption at the bottom of the cartoon and not understanding it. Joshua gets to answer it as he saw fit. A casual observer would conclude that I have the integrity to actually find out what it is that Josh was referring to in the first place as opposed to leaping to conclusions and creating strawmen.
(shrug)
“See? Even without my participation in being distracted, you already have the prepacked results for a conversation that never actually took place. Everybody’s happy.
I’ll give the link and let the lurkers decide for themselves.”
I’m sorry, it’s not working for you. I followed the link, and all I see is you running from a simple question synapticcohesion posted. Not looking good for you.
It’s looking fine. That’s why I gave the link. Smokescreens don’t work with me. I wasn’t the topic of conversation. I’m not obligated to respond and neither should you conclude that you’ve got a new pen pal. If someone tries to switch topics mid-thread (hint, hint) then that’s their problem- not mine.
Nothing to do with me.
Censorship is ugly…” I see, but ugly comments – the kind you perpetuate…
Tu quoque.
Just in case you missed the bus, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from common sense, from intellectual engagement, from decent, civilised conduct, or from responsibilty for what you say.
You will run out of straw at this rate.
Cedric Katesby, story time:
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. The drunk says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if the drunk is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “This is where the light is.”
P.S.: Your hand waving and non-arguments work well for me. Thanks! =D
Cedric Katesby, story time:
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. The drunk says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if the drunk is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “This is where the light is.”
P.S.: Your hand waving and non-arguments work well for me. Thanks! =D