Mageth

Rather than editing the above post, I'll add here, xian's original post in question from which his "non-strawman, non-loaded" question was extracted, and from which he has spent several posts in a backpedalling defense in an attempt to put it in a better light:

you think that theists do not examine the evidence as objectively as you? You think your logical processes are more "tuned" than a theist? Who are you to stand on a pedestal of reason looking down on people that conclude other than you?

this is the problem I have with some atheists (not all atheists). They have the sort of cocky arrogance that flagrantly flaunt around like they are rationally superior to a theist simply because the theist reaches a different conclusion, given the same evidence.

Sorry, but I see that as pure arrogance.

Sorry, but I see that as pure strawman, loaded as hell, and see apparent disingenuousness in your post-hoc defense of it.

xian

and I readily admitted the loaded components of that statement. Then I re-asked a nonloaded question.

You are now committing the fallacy of poisoning the well.

because of my original loaded question, you therefore are ignoring valid and objective subsequent questions based upon something no longer relevant.

SO I will ask yet again, as I have.....repeatedly.....continuously.



I will maintain my post-hoc neutral question that does not contain loaded elements, and await an answer.


Do you think your rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being?

(any as in all theists...scientists, philosophers, laypeople....it doesn't matter....all we know about them is that they concluded in theism)

Dr Rick

Your question is still a fallacious strawman, but rather than watch you run around in circles defending your irrational reasoning, I'll answer it:

No.

Rick

Mageth

Originally posted by xian
that is all fine and dandy, but I admitted the loaded question in my next post, rephrased the question adding a "DO" making it more harmless, and clarified it without the loaded context, and then re-asked it in a much more objective fasion....

And you still dodged it.

As I've said several times, the answer was evident in Dr. Rick's original post, and I implicitly agreed with his answer. So the question has not been dodged. It was answered before the question was posed. The real "dodging" going on is on your part.

this is all irrelevant. If all you had to go on was my original post, then I would agree with this. But since I spent several subsequent posts making it abundantly clear that no loaded question is intended, added a "DO" to the question to make it more objective, then clarifying my intentions....only to have them continually dodged.....i do not see that as a reasonable excuse. Maybe to dodge it the first time, but not the 8th time.

Again, the question has not been dodged. Indeed, I explicitly answered the question as posed at the end of the post you're replying to.

And your defense in your subsequent posts was a bit tainted by comments such as:

So, you are right, there are fallacies here...but not by me.
...
Strawmen?
*yawn*
I see you tossing around logical fallacy accusations like a caesar salad to be humorous.

...

well of course! That doesn't make the question a fallacy. It makes the person an arrogant supremacist. lol!

Yet another strawman. Answering the question "yes" would not make the person an "arrogant supremacist." It might make you have that opinion of the person, but that would not necessarily make the person that.

If i ask a quesiton that exposes arrogance or bigotry with a truthful answer, then I don't think I'm the one with the problem.

If you're in the habit of labeling someone an "arrogant supremacist" merely because they think their "logical processes are more accurate than a theist", I'd say you might have a problem. One can honestly hold the opinion that one's rational processes are more accurate than another's without being an "arrogant supremacist" or a bigot. Hell, one could even demonstrate it.

And if your intent was indeed to "ask a quesiton that exposes arrogance or bigotry with a truthful answer", then how was the question not loaded?

I mean you. And I'll clarify it even more.

Do you think your rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being?

(any as in all theists...scientists, philosophers, laypeople....it doesn't matter....all we know about them is that they concluded in theism)

To the best of my knowledge, I'd have to answer that version of the question "no", I don't think my "rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being."

But that doesn't mean theistic beliefs are rational. People more "rationally gifted" than me are capable of reaching or holding irrational beliefs, as I am or anyone else is. And that answer is in agreement with Dr. Rick's original:

People, including scientists, can simultaneously hold rational and irrational beliefs. An irrational belief held by a scientist is no more rational than anyone else's irrational belief.

So there's been no dodging going on, at least on my and Dr. Rick's part. You got the same answer as was in Dr. Rick's original statement, as I've said all along.

Mageth

and I readily admitted the loaded components of that statement. Then I re-asked a nonloaded question.

You are now committing the fallacy of poisoning the well.

Really. I'd consider it more of pointing out your rather...odd...method of argument, which seems to be continuing with your latest post.

because of my original loaded question, you therefore are ignoring valid and objective subsequent questions based upon something no longer relevant.

xian, I've answered the question repeatedly in this thread. In my second post, I responded "None of your questions [are] necessary, as you could answer them yourself just from the content of his post." Read that to mean: the answer was in Dr. Rick's post.

In my first post in response to your post, I said "He did not rule out theistic scientists from holding rational beliefs, nor from objectively examining evidence, nor from exhibiting logical processes just as "tuned" as any other scientist. Further, he did not rule out non-theistic scientists from making irrational beliefs; indeed, his comments were inclusive for all scientists. Hence, he's not claiming anyone's "logical processes" are any more or less tuned. " I agreed with this statement, and claim that in itself was an "answer" to your question.

To clarify that, in a susequent post, I clearly stated: "In any case, as I have previously pointed out, Dr. Rick's answer to your question was in his post that I deconstructed and explained to you above, and to which your questions were in response to, so your accusation that Dr. Rick (or I, since I implicitly agreed with his post) have "dodged" it is unfounded. The answer was given before the question. "

I think I stated much the same on at least one other occasion.

So stop with the ridiculous "dodging" bit.

SO I will ask yet again, as I have.....repeatedly.....continuously.

I will maintain my post-hoc neutral question that does not contain loaded elements, and await an answer.

Do you think your rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being?

(any as in all theists...scientists, philosophers, laypeople....it doesn't matter....all we know about them is that they concluded in theism)

And as I've repeatedly and continuously pointed out, the answer to the question was in Dr. Rick's post, answered before the question was posed, which I agree with. The disingenuousness continues. Not to mention the fact that I explicitly answered the original question several posts above, and answered the rephrased question in a post I was composing while you were composing this post. Speaking of "poisoning the well" and "dodging"...

xian

thanks.

Tabula_rasa

Is there any rational reason to assume that gravity is not the cause of motion observed in Andromeda?

Before people made it to the Moon, was there any rational reason to assume that gravity did not exist there? There were numerous calculations done to determine the amount of fuel needed to send a payload to the Moon, land a LEM on the moon, send the pod back to the orbitter and return the payload back to the earth. Gravity was a key component of those calculations and they proved correct. Had those calculations proved wrong...

Since scientists hadn't actually been to the moon prior to performing the calculations, the analogy is correct because observation is what's in question, not gravity. We observe gravity's effects on Andromeda just as we observe gravity's effects on the Moon.

Of course, you could pose your question to some of those theistic scientists who actually study astrophysics. Afraid of their answer?

Tabula_rasa

The Lone Ranger

Logically, this is an indisputable statement. If you believe this to be true, no one can gainsay your belief.

More to the point, though, do some atheists summarily dismiss theists are irrational? Probably. Atheists are people; some are arrogant.

It is not necessarily arrogant to disregard an argument because you think it's exceedingly unlikely to be of value. There are an infinite variety of arguments that can be made. No one can possibly entertain all possible arguments on any given subject. The best one can do is pay attention to those which seem promising, while hopefully not overlooking arguments which will prove to have merit, but don't appear to be meritorious. It's the job of the person making the claim to provide convincing evidence that it's worth paying attention to.


In what matter? I do not believe that it is ever logical to conclude that because we don't understand a thing, we must conclude that it has a supernatural cause. The fact that we don't (yet) understand why the various Universal Constants happen to have the values they do means just that -- we don't know. It's premature to conclude that this is evidence of a Creator.

But complete objectivity is simply not possible, try as we might. Note that an awful lot of the scientists you've cited were raised in religious households, and it's hardly surprising that they'd tend to interpret such unanswered questions as "evidence" which "confirms" their already-held beliefs. You might note also that some of them explicitly state that their reasons for belief are emotional or psychological, rather than an unbiased assessment of the evidence.

In other words, even the wisest and most logical of persons has blind spots. This doesn't mean that they're stupid, or that they're incapable of being perfectly rational in other areas.

I mean, my nieces and nephews are the smartest, most beautiful, and most charming children in the world. Don't you dare tell me that my opinion in this matter is a result of anything other than completely informed and unbiased judgement!

Cheers,

Michael

Clutch

As has been pointed out, the idea of a person's "rational processes" tout court is impossibly vague. Reasoning is domain-specific in many respects, and some individual beliefs are treated very differently within one's cognitive economy.

Your way of asking the question looks like an attempt at brinkmanship. If we think of the belief in supernaturalism in terms of a target, you are attempting to place the human bodies of the believers themselves in front of the target. No hitting the target without hitting the people! This attempt to read arrogance or ad hominem into legitimate criticism of a view is just plain silly.

The only serious way of asking your question is just this: Do you think that anyone who concludes that the universe was created supernaturally is thereby making a mistake?

Answer: Yes. Of course. Since I have reasonably concluded that the view is unwarranted, it follows that anyone believing it is, to that extent, making a mistake.

Psycho Economist

So has the topic changed? Has xian dropped gravity in Andromeda to try and prove that the existence of Christian scientists proves his God exists?

If so, shouldn't you start a different thread, xian?