JohnA1nut wrote:
"I don't know why I'm posting this, mostly just superstition. Wednesday, July 1, I will be exactly the same age as my father was when he died of a heart attack. If you don't hear from me after Wednesday, that's probably why. If I post on July 2, it means I officially outlived my father. It's just superstition. "
well, if you think about it, what is superstition? A belief that there is something supernatural about the world that leads to strange or coincidental events that cannot be readily explained? Well, there are a lot of odd things about the world, and SOMEthing caused the idea of superstition to come about in the first place.... Let's just hope that your superstition is incorrect though, and you do outlive him, neh?
Anyway, I thought it would be useful to really define superstition and any other words that are bandied about without people really thinking about what the words mean. So, any words people can think of needing to define? Anyone want to share their thoughts about 'supernatural'? How about 'demonic'? 'coincidence'? 'fate'? 'life'?
By the way, I don't mean just literal meanings, I mean all the meanings, including those in common use. If you think a word means something, pray tell us what you think!
One definition I've used for demonic is 'that which causes disintegration in the personality', but I should add 'with ill intent'. I've thought you can be demonic without trying to be. But the ill intent comes in with the effect of boot camp where DI's try to break you down to build you back up later, and the Spirit as it convicts you of sin to get you to turn to God for mercy, it may have to break you down a bit (I'm less sure about that last bit...I'm pretty unsure about the operations of the Spirit.)
Coincidence: At some level, all things are controlled by God (But my Free Will arguement disagrees with that). But at certain levels, the purely material, random oddness occurs on occasion. This is coincidence.
Once coincidence passes a certain level of improbability, or has a second layer or level, one of meaning (aka there is a message) then coincidence is generally tossed out, and design is brought in. This is 'specified complexity' by Dembski.
Once coincidence passes a certain level of improbability, or has a second layer or level, one of meaning (aka there is a message) then coincidence is generally tossed out, and design is brought in. This is 'specified complexity' by Dembski.
As long as "generally" doesn't include me or or anyone giving me advice or instruction, I guess I'm okay with that.
At least Tad sited Dembski, who I can stand, instead of Behe, who claims to be doing science when he touts intelligent design, which is nothing more than warped theological theory.
I didn't mean to argue against ID directly, because there's a huge thread devoted to that already (which I abandoned in the face of exams and never returned to); I just wanted to note that there are ways of defining coincidence that don't infer a supernatural designer. Perhaps I ought to have rewritten my post to make that more clear.
SOMEthing caused the idea of superstition to come about in the first place....
Flaws in human cognition and reasoning.
Or rather, adaptive features of human cognition and reasoning which are optimized for human survival rather than optimized for arrival at the truth.
One superstition of which I know the origin is the superstition that cats steal the breath of a baby. This belief came around because after mom was finished feeding baby, the cat would jump up onto the baby to try to lick up the leftover milk. An 8 pound baby with a 13 pound cat sitting on his chest can't breathe too well. It looked like the cat was sucking out the baby's breath.
Johnosevens said in his game thread:
"I've since learned, OOCly, that pretty much every inch of my religious practice is wrong, being based more on Wicca than actual Asatru, but Verser-me has no way of knowing that, so my 'Wicca-tru' flavor of divine magic must, for now, remain"
hehe, well, I could have told you that. I make a study of these kinds of things, but I have a question: Do you believe in their Rede, 'An it harm none, do as ye will'?
If not, no Wiccan would ever claim you are similar to them, because they view harming anyone for any reason, ever, as very wrong, and doing so with magic doubly wrong. Besides, the ritual isn't what matters, it's the belief that a higher power guides you, which you obviously have.
If so, then your eclectic faith is already very like Wicca's, even if you change up the method of ritual.
Wodium,
Alfred Russell Wallace, a friend of Darwin, pointed out that we have too much brains for strictly material evolution to be true. Another point he made to Darwin was that people who lived in Africa and such weren't halfway between man and apes. He had the actual advantage of meeting them whereas Darwin was in that delightful position for a theorist--unencumbered by facts.
Graham,
Most any critique you can make of ID, you can make of Darwinism with the added disadvantage for Darwinism that there is a metric ton of slams you can make on Darwinism that you can't make on ID. Origin of Species is largely a philosophical treatise with some bits thrown in to make it look scientific....
I'm writing a comedic novel based on a world in which Origin of Species is largely true.
One restaurant is Lee Wonton's which has a jade foot of a god which holds the door open. It keeps trying to get in.
I'm sure you're familar with Leewontin's confession where he says that no matter how i contra-intuitive or lacking in factual basis it may seem, Darwinists have made an a priori committment to materialism, because otherwise would be to let a Divine Foot in the door.
==Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.==
This is something Behe is good at. He exposed the Darwinian 'logic'. "I'm going to ask you a question, and you can choose A or B as the correct answer. Note, A is wrong. Now what's the answer?"
Keep in mind that I've just wrote 53,000 words making fun of Darwin and his disciples. (Just 7,000 more to go!!).
You might not want to throw stones at the sleeping dragon. :)
I thought it was triply wrong, the Law of Three. Both MJ and I have pagan magic working characters in our separate novels. Mine is Kiera Wellington, sister of Jackson Wellington, in 'Worldwalker', and MJ has a former auto mechanic turned Enjherar wannabee in his novel.
Question:
My verser character arrives in an alternate Victorian London, she sees someone encourage the mistreatment of a child so she is enraged and casts a spell on their horses and carriage to make something bad happen to them. The skill of the coachman keeps the bad thing from happening.
Effects....?
And this makes five posts...
Tad: is your fourth post in the right thread? Either I'm missing some context or I simply don't understand the question.
With regard to your first of five: I'm not having that argument with you this month. The points you attempt to make are so absurd from my perspective that it takes more effort than I am willing to expend to craft any response that I don't believe will appear equally absurd from your perspective. Maybe next month. Or next year.
Graham, if you feel like butting heads with Tad, be my guest.
__
Edited to add: Brock has some very interesting comments in his post, and I think that the rest of this thread should be about that instead of this.
I don't mind, my objective with this thread is to spark a philosophical discussion. Without doubt, I just want to pick your brains :).
I don't mind, my objective with this thread is to spark a philosophical discussion. Without doubt, I just want to pick your brains :).
Heh. Well, thank you, Brock, but I confess that I wasn't trying to change the subject for your benefit. If you want to read Me vs. Tad on evolution vs. ID -slash- logic vs. Darwinianism (we can't even agree on what the argument is about, you see), I'll dig up the old link for you.
Edit: the thread is here. Just finding it again made me tired. If you have any questions for me about anything in that thread or any other topic having to do with evolution, I am perfectly willing to discuss it with you by email. I have a Yahoo! account under my username.
I have long given up any real endeavor to argue evolution with anyone, simply because of what Scott states above; that it takes effort I don't care to expend because I doubt I will really convince you one way or the other (Scott has a better chance at that last part, at least.)
I have no beef with intelligent design as a theory. Just like I don't nay-say young earth theorists, I won't say that intelligent design is wrong; because it isn't. If you accept the premises of intelligent design, then yes I think the conclusion is inevitable. However, the only thing that I do hold against Behe and his kith is that intelligent design is not, and can never be, science. It violates the major principles of what a scientific theory can be, and therefore, trying to tout it as such (Teach the Controversy! and the like) is, if you'll pardon the word choice, blasphemous.
My mother, who has taught biology at a university for many years now, tells her students this; "If you choose to belief in creationism, then you must realize that this is ignorance. If you choose in belief in creationism in light of such, then so be it, I will not hinder your beliefs." Harsh, but my mother isn't one to mollycoddle her students.
That's not really how I'd phrase it, probably something more like, "Believe what you want, but this is scientific fact right now," but it's the doctrine I was raised on.
Speaking of evolution, I would be curious how a person can argue against evolution from a completely non-religious standpoint. In order for me to accept any part of someone's theory, it must be non-religious, because I view religion as a form of bias, a belief that a person has that won't be altered. Then again, science could be said to be a form of bias, so I think I'll just stop talking now, heh. Don't want an argument.
And, to be honest, my belief that creatures change over time is pretty much set in stone, so...
EDIT: cross posted with Graham, and I agree with him.
Um, I stopped reading that thread Scott. Some of the things in there, like the cause of AIDS, was extraordinarily offensive to me (and you, according to your responses). I think that thread should be ignored like it never happened.
Which thread was this? I think in my luck I glazed over it.
Brock, how can you possibly argue that there is a creator God without bringing in religion? Arguing against evolution, therefore, arguing the God exists, without using religion seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.
No John, Brock's problem is that some people try to debunk evolution as a science, which you can't without bringing in some kind of religious testament.
Also, do not blindly assume that evolution and God are mutually exclusive.
No John, Brock's problem is that some people try to debunk evolution as a science, which you can't without bringing in some kind of religious testament.
And since the alternative to evolution is that there is a creator God, it would be impossible to do that without bringing in religion, therefore, the entire argument is completely moot.
No, the alternative that a lot of people want is that evolution can be debunked by attacking it's logical construction WITHOUT citing the supernatural.
God Moves in Mysterious Ways? Could the ways not be evolution?
...Or maybe, the alternative to evolution is an aspect to the changes present in the world that we cannot as of yet see, or any of a dozen other theories that someone could probably come up with. For all we know, we don't change to adapt to the environment, maybe the environment changes to adapt to us, and qualities we already had come to the forefront. I don't know, and I certainly wouldn't try to defend such a theory, but there are probably much more plausible explanations we just can't see.
two posts
the thread you say you can't see is in Scott's post, he edited it in. It's a link.
EDIT: Am I the only one who gets frustrated reading MJ's time travel theory? I can't find very much in there that I hadn't already thought of, he seems to have the exact same theory I do. I wanted a nice leisurely discourse, and instead I find all I can do is read it. *sigh*
Johnosevens said in his game thread:
"I've since learned, OOCly, that pretty much every inch of my religious practice is wrong, being based more on Wicca than actual Asatru, but Verser-me has no way of knowing that, so my 'Wicca-tru' flavor of divine magic must, for now, remain"hehe, well, I could have told you that. I make a study of these kinds of things, but I have a question: Do you believe in their Rede, 'An it harm none, do as ye will'?
If not, no Wiccan would ever claim you are similar to them, because they view harming anyone for any reason, ever, as very wrong, and doing so with magic doubly wrong. Besides, the ritual isn't what matters, it's the belief that a higher power guides you, which you obviously have.
If so, then your eclectic faith is already very like Wicca's, even if you change up the method of ritual.
Yes, I do believe in the Wiccan Rede, for the most part. The problem is, I was not trying to be Wiccan. I actually potently dislike Gardnerian Wiccans, mostly because they are FAR too similar to the Catholics I grew up with (though neither group would ever admit it). I was trying for Asatru, but since most of the really prolific writers on how to be Pagan are Gardnerians (and most of them, unlike Buckland, not honest enough to tell you so up-front), I wound up inheriting a lot of their Gardnerian practice before I knew any better, and now I'm more or less stuck with it simply because I don't really have the time or the energy to completely deconstruct my entire philosophical structure again at this point in my life. Maybe someday, but not soon.
I'm also not going near the 'Creation Vs Evolution' thing. Not with a ten-foot pole. I know where I stand and why, I've done both sides of it, and I'm just bloody sick of it, so, no, I will not indulge in that again.
Time travel in general gives me a headache. Case in point: both Star Trek IV (in the form of Kirk's glasses) and Terminator (in the form of the arm and microchip of the T-800) create objects that are in effect self-perpetuating and have no discernible temporal origin. They didn't come from anywhen. Things like that bug me.
Wodium,
Brock and O7 brought up paganism. I thought to ask them a question about it.
Graham,
Your mother is welcome to her opinion. I'm pretty much a first amendment absolutist. She is of course, being deliberately offensive. Unfortunately for her, I'd be smiling. Such venom is more likely a sign of fear than of strength. I don't get mad at flat-earthers, I'm amused by them. One only gets mad at people one fears.
You say ID isn't science. By the definition of science, I can say Darwinism isn't science.
Brock,
Change over time aka microevolution is the only form of eight forms of evolution thats been proven. EVERYONE agrees with it. Do you believe in Molecules to Man evolution? Or in 'First there was nothing, and then it exploded' evolution? Or 'there was this bacteria, and it had lots of mutant children, and some became lizards, and others became whales, and one day a whale through a long process involving lots of eons became a man?'
First you have to define the term. Then you can argue about it.
Non-religious. First question then. Do you agree with Leewontin? That is, do you have an a priori committment to materialism? This is a philosophical position (read religious).
Or, are you committed to following the truth however the chips may fall? If you're of Leewontin (a high level evo) and his followers then I cannot prove to you ID or Creationism because such ideas are wrong from the get go. No evidence need apply. He's already got the answers.
If on the other hand, you're open-minded, then yes, I can poke a tonne of holes in the S.S. Beagle with strictly science. But first, I have to know if I'm wasting my time.
I think with those you have an original time line that creates a self-closing time line. MJ has some literature posted on his article/blog thing on this site about it.
O7,
I'm still hoping for an answer to my paganism question. Unlike C v. E, I don't profess to know much about it. And right now, we're just practising how snidely dismissive we can be of the other guy's position because most of us don't really want to get into a four week long arguement. Its basically the equivalent of post Ice Age tribes shaking their spears and shouting at each other across a clearing.
Thing is, I'm a lot more condescending than most Creationists.
And I think you'd like MJ's time travel theory then. Its founded on a dislike of just what you complain about.
One only gets mad at people one fears.
Tad, I get mad at cockroaches. I'm sure that given a few minutes I could think up more counterexamples to this.
Also, I doubt my aunt is deliberately giving offense; rather, she doesn't care if that statement offends. It's the difference between venom and indifference, and it has important implications for your anger/fear/weakness hypothesis.
(Duly ignoring the "Darwinianism" business.)
Tad - is this the paganism question?
Question:
My verser character arrives in an alternate Victorian London, she sees someone encourage the mistreatment of a child so she is enraged and casts a spell on their horses and carriage to make something bad happen to them. The skill of the coachman keeps the bad thing from happening.Effects....?
Or did I miss something again? I'm really not on the ball tonight.
Tad I'd like to see your argument saying evolution doesn't follow the rules of science; I think what will end up is we realize we have different ideas of science.
I'm sorry if I miss represented what my mother said; she does not state something like that in fury or frustration with students' objections, simply as a precautionary and blanket statement. If the language seems harsh or offensive, that is more because of the environment, and that my mother does not fool around while teaching, not fear of creationism (something my mother could not feel).
on evolution: I am no expert on it, I'm just saying that it always ends up boiling down to one side or the other, and I think there could be more to it. I don't want to discuss it, precisely because of my lack of knowledge of it, but as long as people can avoid preaching things like 'AIDS is a punishment for sins' and the like, I can listen to anything you say. As I said earlier, I seek to pick your brains and see what people think. My problem is with people who assert they are right and no other view can ever be close to the truth, and preach at people. If you have a religious standpoint that doesn't do that, I would love to hear it, I am sure it would be fascinating (not being sarcastic, being serious). If you have a scientific viewpoint that supports your theory, I would love to hear it, too.
0sevens: sounds like a real pain. I would detest being given information that is not quite accurate. I could look for some sites on Asatru practices for you, if you want.
Time travel: I AM reading MJ's site, but it contains the same info I have been discussing with my mom most of my life, but his site has a general level of more detail. She is majorly philosophical, we talk about existentialism, time travel, you name it.
Time travel: I AM reading MJ's site, but it contains the same info I have been discussing with my mom most of my life, with a general level of more detail.
Congratulations!
on what? Being familiar with these kinds of debate? On having an intelligent mom? something else? All of the above?
Hmm, rereading my post, it sounds wrong in the time travel section. I am editing it.
on what? Being familiar with these kinds of debate? On having an intelligent mom? something else? All of the above?
I just think it's a useful theory, so to have arrived at something similar independently is pretty cool. But perhaps I should wait for your edit.
Oh the edit is done, it now reads Time travel: I AM reading MJ's site, but it contains the same info I have been discussing with my mom most of my life, but his site has a general level of more detail. She is majorly philosophical, we talk about existentialism, time travel, you name it.
Wodium
Yes, thats the question. The character isn't a Discordian. She's a worshipper of Gaia, and a member of a coven. I'm wondering what happens to someone who tries to zap someone with magic, and fails by bad luck.
Graham,
Flip it around. Imagine I had a position of power over you, I was your biology teacher, and I said "People who believe in evolution are ignorant or insane. There is a third possibility which I don't like to entertain...they are wicked." That was Dawkins, but he was saying it about Creationists or IDers, if I remember right. I can get the exact quote if need be. Would you be remotely comfortable in that class?
Science is
1. A hypotheses.
2. An experiment to yield positive or negative data.
3. Confirmation or disconfirmation.
4. Repeat process.
5. Eventually yield a tested hypotheses that gets elevated to a fact, and papers are written, and peer reviewed and so on.
Both main theories are one-time only events. Can't repeat them, can't observe them. Neither are experimental science.
At best, they are historical sciences like Forensic Medicine.
Another strike, both have a strong element of philosophy aka religion. Darwinism does not require Materialism, but most practitioners are such. Creationism and ID don't require Theism (one noted IDer, Berlinski is an atheist), but most are. This is a religious conflict. Philosophy is not science.
And I can argue the exact opposite as well, both Darwinism and ID are science. It depends on your definition of science.
However, I will not accept the definition that goes 'Only natural causes are science' because that is the fraud that Behe exposed.
Brock:
Let me poke a few holes in S.S. Beagle then.
1. There are huge lengths of time where the pre-human hominids and man coexisted. The superior form must destroy or replace somehow the inferior form, or you can't have evolution. Evolution is about death of the inferior form. No death, no evolution.
2. After Mt. St. Helens exploded, they had a hundred foot deep canyon form in ten days. It requires lots of time OR lots of water to form something like the Grand Canyon. Lots of water=Noah's Flood.
If the various sediment layers in the GC were laid down millions of years apart, then you'd expect to see significant erosion between the layers. When you don't see it, there's an obvious conclusion.
I've seen multiple pics of stalactites that were seriously tall (one was a pillar taller than a man) that were formed in timespans of half a century or less. Some processes can work a lot faster than we think.
3. Take out a globe. Look at all the brown areas. Doesn't it look like someone took out a cosmic blowtorch or some tool of destruction and just had at it with our poor ball of mud? Such a view point is Catastrophism which is opposed by Uniformatarianism. U was embraced by Darwin as a means to get teh vast amounts of time neccessary for his theory. Catastrophism can give you the same results in a lot less time, and I think C fits the evidence better.
4. Icons of Evolution: There are a number of great supports for evolution. I'll discuss one. The Peppered Moths.
A. They were dead. That famous picture was of dead moths glued to a tree. Like Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, and Neanderthal Man as originally envisioned these were blatantly incorrect, or frauds.
B. If I sent out my Killer Robots to destroy all Chihuahuas, and as a result there was a general loss to the dog genome of small genes and yappy genes, and people instead bought more Great Danes, would that be evolution? Has any new information been added? Hasn't there been a loss of data? If a pair of little yappers survived my mad plan, and reproduced in plenty after the police hauled me and my bots away, and people got rid of their Danes because they were too big, would that be evolution? Or would it simply be variation in a kind?
5. Specified complexity. To be simple, this is the idea that if you add lots of improbability and a message together you get something that has only been observed to be created by an intelligent mind. If you walk into the dessert and see three stones on top of each other, you think 'how unlikely, maybe a man made it.' If you see five stones with three in a line and two branching off to make an arrow, you think 'a human made this'.
Is it not reasonable to see a staggeringly unlikely formation that has information in it, and think 'someone made this'? Whether that someone is the Progenitors or Yahweh is not provable at that point.
6. Irreducibility: There are a number of processes that require the whole system to function at the same time, or the parts that do not function are a drag on the body, and are selected against. It does little good to give stronger muscles to a jaw if there are not stronger bones in the jaw is a very simple example.
7. Polonium Halos: Without signs of leakage, you can find radioactive halos in granite. These halos form when there is a radioactive decay which takes three minutes for this particular situation. If the rocks were slowly cooling over vast time spans, the halos would be disrupted. Just as if you dropped a dot of food coloring into a pot of water on a rolling boil. Any ring created would soon be gone. However, such a ring might last longer if you dropped it in to a pot of still water, and then flash froze it with your handy bottle of liquid nitrogen that you keep at all times (mine is right next to me.)
Thus the granites with the halos were created in a timespan under three minutes.
8. There are roughly 200 independent stories of global floods in various national histories. Where did this come from? Were our ancestors clueless or liars?
It took Noah a year to build the Ark. If it was a local flood, why didn't he walk ten miles a day for six months, and get 1800 miles away? It would have been easier.
9. A brain scientist tested people's reactions to having an electrode touched to move their arm. They said even as their arm moved "I didn't do that." What is that "I" to which they are referring? Is it the immaterial part of humans the signal that finds a receiver in a human brain, and that receives messages back from the human brain which alter the signal?
Why is it that a professor who teaches determinism will counsel a student to make an effort not to be late to class again?
If Darwin is right, we are determined. If we're not determined, then Darwin is wrong.
If we're determined then we have no validity to what we think. I cannot say 'this is true' because I'm just a pinball machine without flippers or a ball booster. If we're determined, then we're zombies. I'm not a zombie. Thus I'm not determined. I can discover truth by various means including science. If I'm determined, I can't.
Without free will and the capacity to find truth, science is quite literally nonsensical.
This does not mean that Evolution is wrong. Some form of non-materialist Evolution could allow for free will and reason, but Darwin was a materialist. The point of evolution was to remove the necessity of God. Its why Darwin made the theory. Darwin, like a lot of atheists, I think, was mad at God. His beloved daughter died.
However, I'm not sure that saying 'my daughter was an illusion' is much better than 'my daughter died'. Thankfully, I've never been there. But we can have compassion for a man without buying into his bad ideas.