Just cut in with the social angle and see where it leadsI guess no one wants to discuss the social angle.
Just cut in with the social angle and see where it leadsI guess no one wants to discuss the social angle.
KennyJC
yes, there's just the small question of macro evolution ....
The only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is time. They are both the same thing (evolution).
so in other words much of it is not observable
The fossil record provides us snapshots of speciation from another time and we put those snapshots together in order with time and we see the lineage of change in species. This is why I said the fossil record is useful for tracking macroevolution despite our short lifetimes. Just as today we have our snapshots of what species are.
its not clear why you don't see anything dissimilar between tentative claims from a body of evidence and an observable fact
Tentative claim would be a hypothesis of something we don't have much to go on. Body of evidence would be something in which we can interpret a fact (gravity or evolution).
Now you just have to find that one common ancestor - also observing how one species actually changes into another would also be helpful to your cause
Well we know we shared a common ancestor with other species in the recent to distant past. Stands to reason we keep going back until there was a root in the tree of life.
I think I owe baum an on topic post... but I suffered the same off topic stuff in my thread... so there!
and because that window period of time escapes the powers of empirical evidence you have, at least according to the authority of empiricism, a theory“
yes, there's just the small question of macro evolution ....
”
The only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is time. They are both the same thing (evolution).
so in other words it is not observable“
so in other words much of it is not observable
”
The fossil record provides us snapshots of speciation from another time and we put those snapshots together in order with time and we see the lineage of change in species. This is why I said the fossil record is useful for tracking macroevolution despite our short lifetimes. Just as today we have our snapshots of what species are.
gravity can be measured and it can be physically evidenced“
its not clear why you don't see anything dissimilar between tentative claims from a body of evidence and an observable fact
”
Tentative claim would be a hypothesis of something we don't have much to go on. Body of evidence would be something in which we can interpret a fact (gravity or evolution).
know? The only evidence appears to be that things appear similar“
Now you just have to find that one common ancestor - also observing how one species actually changes into another would also be helpful to your cause
”
Well we know we shared a common ancestor with other species in the recent to distant past.
the moment such reasoning enters the sphere of direct perception is the moment you will have scienceStands to reason we keep going back until there was a root in the tree of life.
I guess no one wants to discuss the social angle.
Just cut in with the social angle and see where it leads
...
Neither should we be attempting to simply compete with religions, i.e. establish our own churches etc, or as Crunchy suggests, provide an alternative.
No, what I'm suggesting, and I think it is the same as Dawkins - teach people how to think clearly and hence overturn the current paradigm and create something entirely new. In short we need a complete revolution that will help kickstart the human race into a renewed and clearer direction.
Chris, part of what Dawkins is proposing is to treat 'believers' negatively (socially). Additionally, pure rationality doesn't provide an outlet for an array of psychological needs that humans have.
I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Religion is not the problem... there is evidence that it (or an equivelant) might be absolutely necessary for human psychology. Magical thinking is the problem.
What is your opinion on the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?
Is it wrong for parents to indulge in such childish fantasies?
It would certainly be a problem if billions of adults worldwide believed in this fantasy figures.
I would agree, if religions would merely make supernatural claims and their followers would leave it at that. To state that there is a creator existing outside the laws of our universe, which by definition we can't observe, measure and deduce, that's perfectly fine. It's a statement beyond the scope of science. It holds no additional value for me, but that's beside the point.So it can be plainly seen, by keeping in mind the difference between natural and supernatural things, why science is separate from and unopposed to religion. For if science could oppose religion, then it would have to try to refute religion's supernatural claims. And science cannot say anything supernatural.
It is not futile to disproof a young earth theory. It is, of course, futile to disproof the existence of one or more Gods.The supernatural cannot be refuted by science in the same way that magical thinking cannot be refuted by rationality. So why try either refutation if, rationally, it is futile?
They only can coexist, if those who follow religion make no claim about the validity of the stories, which do relate to our observable world, they happen to believe in.Even though science and religion, reason and intuition, can conceivably coexist, perhaps one himself has decided that they cannot, so when he claims that science opposes religion, what he really means is that he opposes religion.
In this, purely philosophical scope, you are right. However, I do not think that the motivations of Dawkins and company, are of this philosophical nature. I suppose they urge atheists to "come out of the closet", to create a counter balance to the influence theists may have on politics and education programs. That seems like a sensible thing to do, if you feel the objective and secular nature of public education and the state is at risk.The only argument here is that he believes religious claims to be wrong, because it is this epistemological issue that we are discussing. I think it is possible to see, with what has already been laid out, that in a purely philosophical scope this belief is essentially arbitrary.
Millions of children do.
Should they ban Santa Claus and the tooth fairy?
What about RPGs? That may distort the sense of reality of a lot of children.
Perhaps those should be banned as well?
What about bedtime tales that feature fairies, gnomes, elves, leprechauns, banshees, goblins, Harry Potter?
Children obviously believe in that stuff when they are little. Its obvious brainwashing in magical thinking.
Whats your idea about banning those?
Then we could move on to animation films, movies, etc.
I have absolutely no problem with those. If I was dumb enough to ever have children, I would read them stories like Humpty Dumpty and not mind if the child takes it literally. But the difference between Humpty Dumpty and god is that the child won't grow into an adult and use their belief in Humpty Dumpty to influence political decisions, war, descrimination etc.
Fairytales based on fiction are harmless, but the problem with religion and god is that the parents themselves don't recognise them as fairytales. And the child will more often than not believe in these things into adulthood failing to recognise them as fairytales because of the way in which they were indoctrinated.
Actually an absence of philosophy is apparent in those who wish to indulge in their fantasies without being tormented
In theism at least you have the claim that there are persons on the platform of direct perception (Of course you can claim that such claims are not accurate, which is an argument that boils down to a challenge of authority, just like the example of the high school drop out challenging the claims of the physicist is a challenge to authority - in other words such a challenge is not very convincing unless one can establish one's credentials).
In regards to such claims of abiogenesis etc there is no such person. there is not even an agreed definition on when, how or what happened. In other words what to speak of lacking a credible authority, it also lacks a definition that illustrates process.
No - I don't have a problem with the measuring of a lizard's leg.
Nor do I have a problem with them measuring the length of a primates leg.
What I have a problem with is with the gap in credible perception of how the lizard's leg turned into a primate's leg.
In theism at least you have the claim that there are persons on the platform of direct perception (Of course you can claim that such claims are not accurate, which is an argument that boils down to a challenge of authority, just like the example of the high school drop out challenging the claims of the physicist is a challenge to authority - in other words such a challenge is not very convincing unless one can establish one's credentials).
Do you reject the use of reason entirely, Lightgigantic? Darwin used concrete examples and logical reasoning to deduce the fact of evolution. Have you read the evidence?
And therein lies the rub, to paraphrase some guy who wrote some stuff a while back.To put it tersely, who cares what you believe if it doesn't affect me at all?
samcdkey said:What is your opinion on the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?
Is it wrong for parents to indulge in such childish fantasies?