Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Biff the unclean · 01-20-2003, 12:57 PM

I'm glad that you asked me to be fair Richard and not nice.
Because I'm sick and tired of Theists claiming some virtue that they do not posses and then pointing a hypocritical finger at Atheists and claiming they have a fault they do not.

Many Christians today deeply embrace Humanism. They do so soundly that they assume that Humanism's self-evident benefits-such as Humanitarianism-are Christian virtues dating back to the teachings of Jesus. They are not, they are in spite of the teachings of Jesus. Humanism isn't based on the supernatural at all, but on a respect for human dignity for it's own sake.

The same goes with "Stewardship." Two thousand years Christians have pillaged the environment. Now many are realizing the havoc this has wrought and have embraced the ideals of Naturalists in order to undo it. The virtues of this are so self evident; like the virtues of Humanism; that many Christians wish to credit them to their religion. But history just doesn't allow for this deception.

Naturalism rejects the fantasy of supernaturalism just as Humanism does. In fact both concepts arose in reaction to, and opposition of, the abuses of Supernaturalism.
Today's Christians may very well be Humane and Naturalists but that would only be so because they were good and decent people. Both are against the teachings of Christianity.

luvluv · 01-20-2003, 03:20 PM

Biff:

a) as far as I know, Wendell Berry is not a Christian, and I don't even know if he's a theist. There's a fair chance your animousity is misdirected.

b) read the book. He makes a pretty good case as to how many negative attitudes about the environment emerge from materialistic philosophy.

c) Can you give me a reason to believe that most of your comments on this issue are not bigoted (I'm sorry, you seem irrationally hostile to Christians in this area), stereotypical, rantings?

I agree that the notion that many Christians have interpreted much of scripture in a way that has been harmful to the environment, but if you think any country or society based on any nonChristian creed (and the objection you raise only apply to Christians) then I feel very comfortable ignoring your opinion on the matter. Do you think Confucionist China or the Hindu and Muslim Middle East and Africa have done any better with the environment? What about countries which have been atheistic? The mythical pseudo-religion of progress, the Industrial Revolution, was adhered to by atheists as much as anyone.

RichardMorey is right, certain Christian groups have at least united and called into question many of their classical stances regarding the environment. There has yet to be a serious any serious analysis or self-reflection on the part of materialists as to how their own worldview adversely effects the environment. We are at least attempting to get our house in order. Why not get the beam out of your own eye before telling us to get the toothpick out of ours?

Starboy · 01-20-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardMorey
Sure, I mostly agree with you. Often, though, because we of course do not have direct access to reality and we also (unfortunately) have, time and monetary constraints, we have to decide where we are going to spend our time. Parsimony has a hand in that. That does not mean that scientists believe that the universe holds to this "parsimony" standard; eventually (hopefully) the best theory wins out regardless of whether it is parsimonious or not.

Occam's razor is not a logically sound principle, but neither really is induction (as Hume showed). It does not keep it from being useful in many cases.

I suppose it is a good as anything else. It would be interesting if someone did a study of such choices. My bet is that parsimony does no better than random selection. In any case it doesn�t seem to be important to the process, you could have just as well chosen which experiment to conduct based on cost, or opportunity or any number of other criteria.

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardMorey
What, then, were Russel, Popper, and Kuhn writing about when they discuss science? Science is a particular kind of epistemology - it has something to say about knowledge, belief, and the justification thereof. I share your distaste for non-scientific philosophy and I see a time when non-scientific philosophy is a part of the past. Many of the issues of classical metaphysics have already been dealt with, or are being dealt with, in cognitive psychology or physics (thank goodness for that).
But science is an epistemology. Tentative beliefs (theories) are justified by successful experimentation and dodged attempts at falsification. Insomuch as these theories are true, they constitute knowledge about the universe.
This epistemology is gives us a method of determining whether to evolutionary theory is a better explanation then a Christian fundamentalist's creationism. Epistemology is philosophy. Science just is more successful than other philosophy.

Thinking of science as philosophy clouds one very important thing about science. Science has an authority it can appeal to that philosophy lacks. It is the authority of experiment on nature. Because of this science is more than philosophy. To be a scientist you must practice the scientific method or create work that can be tested using the scientific method. The scientific method requires experiment on nature. No such requirement is made for philosophers. If scientists didn�t experiment on nature they would be philosophers and if philosophers experimented on nature they would be scientists. This one difference makes all the difference in the world.

Calling science a philosophy is like calling the space shuttle an aircraft, yes it is a correct statement but if that is all you knew about it you would be in for a big shock when you took your first ride.

Starboy

Biff the unclean · 01-20-2003, 04:19 PM

That's cool, Luvluv. Any complaints about Christians and you label them bigoted, irrational, stereotypical, and ranting. You seem to find it easier to name call than address issues.
I did center on Christians because they have done the most harm to the worlds environment. This however is not to be taken as an exoneration of any other supernatural fantasy.
As for "beams in the eye" you are full of it. Supernaturalists were not the ones who realized what the problems were nor have they been the ones who have worked so hard the fix it.
The Christian groups you speak of are unknown to me. Individual Christians are doing their part but they are doing it in spite of being Christian not because they are.

luvluv · 01-20-2003, 04:46 PM

Read your own post, and reverse the terms referring to theists and those referring to atheists. See if you think that those are fair statements or one betraying bigotry.

I don't complain about ANY negative comments about Christians. Some negative comments about Christians are very much deserved. But blaming the fall of man myth for the current environmental crisis is beyond the pale.

It is absurd to think that you could divide the actual industrialists who have spoiled the environment into Christians and non-Christians. At any rate, I feel comfortable in speculating that you did not bother to do so before you blamed the environmental crisis on Christianity. EVERYBODY has contributed to the mess we are currently in, Christians no more or less so than complete atheists. If you do not have some very good evidence that this is not the case, then your statements above amount to bigotry and stereotyping.

I'm not calling you a bigot, but you just made some bigoted statements. Try reading them from my point of view and see if you don't come away with the same opinion.

Biff the unclean · 01-20-2003, 06:46 PM

Read your own post, and reverse the terms referring to theists and those referring to atheists. See if you think that those are fair statements or one betraying bigotry

Oh I've already seen it reversed. That version is on page one, the OP.

If you are going to dish it out you are going to have to learn to take it. Funny God didn't tell you that in one of his chats.

luvluv · 01-20-2003, 07:12 PM

Biff:

That wasn't my claim, that was the claim of a man who IS NOT A CHRISTIAN, and who, for all I know, is not even a THEIST. It may be that he is an atheist who was indulging in some reflection instead of pointing fingers (an idea that's long overdue).

Further, the thread was not about whether that particular claim was true.

God generally leaves me to sort out nonsensical tirades on my own.

I generally don't give it, but around here I take a whole lot of it. And usually it isn't justified. I understand if you want to rant about the content of the article. But when you direct your ire at Christians for something a NON-CHRISTIAN said, it betrays some visceral bigotry. The opposite of materialism isn't Christian. Simply because the man is not a materialist, it doesn't make him a born-again, bible-totin', inerrantist Evangelical. If you have a problem with his views, e-mail him. Don't bash Christians who had nothing to do with his statements.

Wyz_sub10 · 01-21-2003, 06:38 AM

Let's cool down everyone. This thread has been pretty civil to date (and very interesting). Let's keep away from anything "bigoted" - comments or accusations, please.

RichardMorey · 01-21-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
Thinking of science as philosophy clouds one very important thing about science. Science has an authority it can appeal to that philosophy lacks. It is the authority of experiment on nature. Because of this science is more than philosophy. To be a scientist you must practice the scientific method or create work that can be tested using the scientific method. The scientific method requires experiment on nature. No such requirement is made for philosophers. If scientists didn�t experiment on nature they would be philosophers and if philosophers experimented on nature they would be scientists. This one difference makes all the difference in the world.

Calling science a philosophy is like calling the space shuttle an aircraft, yes it is a correct statement but if that is all you knew about it you would be in for a big shock when you took your first ride.

Starboy

Probably the best way to sum up what I've been trying to say up to this point is that the philosophy of science is necessary, though not sufficient, for the practice of science. We've got to get our epistemological "ducks in a row" before we practice science. Luckily, all this has been done for us over the past several hundred years, but the practice of science was different in the past. It took philosophers to make science what it is today. Hume, Russell, Popper, and Kuhn were not scientists, but the logic of science is what they helped shape.
Remember that while experimentation is important, it is not the only thing in science. "When are we justified in inference X given data D?" is the philosophical question we as scientists deal with every day. All the experimentation in the world will not tell you when you are justified in your ideas, nor will it tell you which experiments to conduct to test your hypothesis (verificationism versus falsificationism is the idea that comes to mind regarding that question). Luckily, we have past philosophers and statisticians to help us out.

There is a good passage regarding parsimony in science in a book I have; I am going to post it tonight sometime.

RichardMorey · 01-21-2003, 06:12 PM

Regarding parsimony in science....

This passage illustrate the view I have very well, and I thought I would use it. It is from "Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: a Model Comparison Perspective" by Maxwell and Delaney, 2000. (from page 11)

Quote:

Many scientists, particularly physicists, stress the importance of a strong belief in the ultimate simplicity of scientific laws. As Garder points out, "this was especially true of Albert Einstein. 'Our experience,' he wrote, 'justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas.'" (Gardner, 1979, pp. 169-170; see Einstein, 1950, p. 64). However, as psysiological psychologists studying the brain know only too well, there is also and enormous complexity to living systems that at least obscures if not makes questionable the appropriateness of simple models. And, indeed, the same may be said in some sense in all areas of science. Simple first approximations are over time qualified and elaborated: Newton's ideas and equations about gravity were modified by Einstein; Gall's phrenology was replaced by Flouren's views of both the unity and diversification of function of different portions of the brain.

Thus, we take as our guiding principle that set forward for the scientist by Alfred North Whitehead: "Seek simplicity and distrust it." Or again, Whitehead suggests that the goal of science "is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts" while attempting to avoid the error of concluding nature is simpler than it actually is (Whitehead, 1957).

Admittedly, the principle of parsimony is easier to give lip service to than to actually apply. The question of how to measure the simplicity of a theory is by no means an easy one....

This is not meant to be some sort of argument from authority; on the contrary, it is meant to simply show that parsimony is indeed used in science, and the issues involved with parsimony are well known. Starboy's concerns are well founded, and reflected in research literature. But parsimony is used.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2003, 12:57 PM	#81
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I'm glad that you asked me to be fair Richard and not nice. Because I'm sick and tired of Theists claiming some virtue that they do not posses and then pointing a hypocritical finger at Atheists and claiming they have a fault they do not. Many Christians today deeply embrace Humanism. They do so soundly that they assume that Humanism's self-evident benefits-such as Humanitarianism-are Christian virtues dating back to the teachings of Jesus. They are not, they are in spite of the teachings of Jesus. Humanism isn't based on the supernatural at all, but on a respect for human dignity for it's own sake. The same goes with "Stewardship." Two thousand years Christians have pillaged the environment. Now many are realizing the havoc this has wrought and have embraced the ideals of Naturalists in order to undo it. The virtues of this are so self evident; like the virtues of Humanism; that many Christians wish to credit them to their religion. But history just doesn't allow for this deception. Naturalism rejects the fantasy of supernaturalism just as Humanism does. In fact both concepts arose in reaction to, and opposition of, the abuses of Supernaturalism. Today's Christians may very well be Humane and Naturalists but that would only be so because they were good and decent people. Both are against the teachings of Christianity.

01-20-2003, 03:20 PM	#82
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Biff: a) as far as I know, Wendell Berry is not a Christian, and I don't even know if he's a theist. There's a fair chance your animousity is misdirected. b) read the book. He makes a pretty good case as to how many negative attitudes about the environment emerge from materialistic philosophy. c) Can you give me a reason to believe that most of your comments on this issue are not bigoted (I'm sorry, you seem irrationally hostile to Christians in this area), stereotypical, rantings? I agree that the notion that many Christians have interpreted much of scripture in a way that has been harmful to the environment, but if you think any country or society based on any nonChristian creed (and the objection you raise only apply to Christians) then I feel very comfortable ignoring your opinion on the matter. Do you think Confucionist China or the Hindu and Muslim Middle East and Africa have done any better with the environment? What about countries which have been atheistic? The mythical pseudo-religion of progress, the Industrial Revolution, was adhered to by atheists as much as anyone. RichardMorey is right, certain Christian groups have at least united and called into question many of their classical stances regarding the environment. There has yet to be a serious any serious analysis or self-reflection on the part of materialists as to how their own worldview adversely effects the environment. We are at least attempting to get our house in order. Why not get the beam out of your own eye before telling us to get the toothpick out of ours?

01-20-2003, 04:19 PM	#84
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	That's cool, Luvluv. Any complaints about Christians and you label them bigoted, irrational, stereotypical, and ranting. You seem to find it easier to name call than address issues. I did center on Christians because they have done the most harm to the worlds environment. This however is not to be taken as an exoneration of any other supernatural fantasy. As for "beams in the eye" you are full of it. Supernaturalists were not the ones who realized what the problems were nor have they been the ones who have worked so hard the fix it. The Christian groups you speak of are unknown to me. Individual Christians are doing their part but they are doing it in spite of being Christian not because they are.

01-20-2003, 04:46 PM	#85
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Read your own post, and reverse the terms referring to theists and those referring to atheists. See if you think that those are fair statements or one betraying bigotry. I don't complain about ANY negative comments about Christians. Some negative comments about Christians are very much deserved. But blaming the fall of man myth for the current environmental crisis is beyond the pale. It is absurd to think that you could divide the actual industrialists who have spoiled the environment into Christians and non-Christians. At any rate, I feel comfortable in speculating that you did not bother to do so before you blamed the environmental crisis on Christianity. EVERYBODY has contributed to the mess we are currently in, Christians no more or less so than complete atheists. If you do not have some very good evidence that this is not the case, then your statements above amount to bigotry and stereotyping. I'm not calling you a bigot, but you just made some bigoted statements. Try reading them from my point of view and see if you don't come away with the same opinion.

01-20-2003, 06:46 PM	#86
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Read your own post, and reverse the terms referring to theists and those referring to atheists. See if you think that those are fair statements or one betraying bigotry Oh I've already seen it reversed. That version is on page one, the OP. If you are going to dish it out you are going to have to learn to take it. Funny God didn't tell you that in one of his chats.

01-20-2003, 07:12 PM	#87
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Biff: That wasn't my claim, that was the claim of a man who IS NOT A CHRISTIAN, and who, for all I know, is not even a THEIST. It may be that he is an atheist who was indulging in some reflection instead of pointing fingers (an idea that's long overdue). Further, the thread was not about whether that particular claim was true. God generally leaves me to sort out nonsensical tirades on my own. I generally don't give it, but around here I take a whole lot of it. And usually it isn't justified. I understand if you want to rant about the content of the article. But when you direct your ire at Christians for something a NON-CHRISTIAN said, it betrays some visceral bigotry. The opposite of materialism isn't Christian. Simply because the man is not a materialist, it doesn't make him a born-again, bible-totin', inerrantist Evangelical. If you have a problem with his views, e-mail him. Don't bash Christians who had nothing to do with his statements.

01-21-2003, 06:38 AM	#88
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	Let's cool down everyone. This thread has been pretty civil to date (and very interesting). Let's keep away from anything "bigoted" - comments or accusations, please.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.