or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › A problem of terminology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A problem of terminology

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
So many issues certain segments of the population have with science stem from a fundamental problem with the vocabulary of science itself. Some words have multiple meanings, scientific and more mainstream layman ones. Problems arise from applying the wrong definition to the situation. Other words are simply misused and definitions completely distorted.

Let me help build your scientific lexicon.

In Science
Theory - A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.

Law - A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning.

Note that a theory does not become a law. In fact, scientific laws form the foundation for scientific theories.

Hypothesis - A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

Note that the above is what laymen often call a theory. However, in science, we do not call proposed but unverified explanations theories. We call them hypotheses.

Evolution - Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Note there is nothing in this definition about the origin of life. It is about the history of life.

Abiogenesis - the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.

Note that the above is the science that studies the origins of life--not evolution.



We simply cannot have an intelligent discussion if we are using the same words but intending different meanings. Some words people are simply misusing; that needs to stop.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2 of 45
Thread Starter 
Let me reiterate two definitions here:


Evolution = History of Life: how single cells led to what we see today

Abiogenesis = Origin of Life: how life arose from inorganic matter

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #3 of 45
So...why can't evolution and ID be taught side-by-side in our public schools?

One is an attempt to explain the history of life.

Another is an attempt to explain the origin of life.

Why are they incompatible?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #4 of 45
Thread Starter 
ID isn't science. It's an attempt to rebrand creationism and insert religious indoctrination into the public schools. Plus the arguments of those in favor of ID tend to try to pass off logical fallacies or misinterpretations of what evolution actually does. The stickers on books that school boards wanted to add to promote intelligent design say that "evolution is just a theory." Gee, a problem with terminology there. The irreducible complexity arguments are specious and have been thoroughly debunked. Yet, proponents of ID continue to push that same misinformation.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #5 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.[3] It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer.[4] Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][5]—believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n 2][n 3]

It seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer.[6] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,[n 4][n 5][7][8] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.[15][n 6][16] The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[17] From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[18][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[19]

From the wikipedia page, all very thoroughly footnoted.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #6 of 45
BR, personally, I sincerely appreciate your attempt to bring clarity and civility to this discussion by clarifying the terminology.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 45
Thread Starter 
Here's another problematic word: faith.

Religious faith- disqualifies reasoning in favor of "transcendent reality"

transcendent reality - state of being that surpasses physical existence and in one form is also independent of it



more common usage of faith - the word is often used as a mere substitute for trust or belief


It is a mistake to equate the common usage of the word faith with the religious usage. Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to intentionally conflate the two contexts. Please choose your words and supporting examples carefully as to adhere to the actual meanings that words carry.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 45
How about defining atheist, agnostic, and religious.
post #9 of 45
Thread Starter 
Sure, I'll get to that later this evening. I'll even add in igtheist!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

igtheist!

Someone who worships fish?
post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Sure, I'll get to that later this evening. I'll even add in igtheist!

Your definition of Christian would be interesting as well.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #12 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Someone who worships fish?

Haha, no that would be an ichtheist.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 45
Thread Starter 
Atheist - One who lacks a belief in gods.

Agnostic - One who views that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.

Theist - One who has a belief in a god or gods

Now, these definitions are rather interesting. If you read them carefully, agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism.

One can be an agnostic atheist: He lacks a belief in gods and also feels that its existence is unknown or unknowable.

One can be an agnostic theist: He believes in a god or gods despite feeling it is truly unknown or unknowable.

Atheists, by definition, do not proclaim that no god could exist. They merely lack belief. Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. The problem is there are too many definitions of god or gods to make blanket statements of nonexistence.

Bring up the Christian god, and I say it does not exist because it is self contradictory. It can not be omnipotent yet need anything, especially worship. Define your god, present evidence, and the atheist will judge from there.

Now here's where it gets awesome...

Igtheist or Ignostic- one with the view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

I am an ignostic atheist. I lack belief in gods and demand a falsifiable definition before even entertaining the idea of one. Theological noncognitivism for the win.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So...why can't evolution and ID be taught side-by-side in our public schools?

One is an attempt to explain the history of life.

Another is an attempt to explain the origin of life.

Why are they incompatible?

Evolution is taught by reading and explaining the original hypothesis and resulting theory. (And TONS of scientific literature... not just Darwin.) You can SEE the supporting evidence and run experiments to demonstrate it.

ID has NO evidence... all you can teach is "someone said ID is how it happened, so that's how it is!" ... I think we can safely leave that to the Sunday School teachers.
With ID, there just isn't anything TO teach. It would be no different than teaching that Zeus is real, or that there's a billion year old chinese teapot orbiting the Sun within the asteroid belt.

I suppose, you could spend 10 minutes in the classroom explaining what the ID idea is, I wouldn't have a problem with that... though it would belong not in a science class, but in a class on philosophy.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #15 of 45
Thread Starter 
I watched a few talks that astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson gave on the subject. It's changed my opinion somewhat on the ID matter, but regardless, Jazzy won't be happy with what my ultimate view is. I'll start another thread up later about it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 45
Thread Starter 
I ran across this image earlier today. I think it belongs in this thread and is pretty self-explanatory.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #17 of 45
BR ... Define "Gnostic". Give it a shot then I'll chime in.
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I watched a few talks that astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson gave on the subject. It's changed my opinion somewhat on the ID matter, but regardless, Jazzy won't be happy with what my ultimate view is. I'll start another thread up later about it.

No need to start another thread, out with it here.
post #19 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

BR ... Define "Gnostic". Give it a shot then I'll chime in.

It is literally the opposite of an agnostic.

Gnostic - One who views that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are known or knowable

I am a gnostic atheist with regard to the Christian god. It is knowable that, as defined, the Christian god is 100% bullshit. I am an agnostic atheist when it comes to the less well-defined gods (those in the deist sense), although I also fall into the igtheist category there as well.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

No need to start another thread, out with it here.

I wouldn't be able to do it justice without a lot of effort I really don't want to put forth right now. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a fantastic speaker and a brilliant astrophysicist. If you have a half hour and are interested in the history of our knowledge of the solar system, I highly recommend you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wouldn't be able to do it justice without a lot of effort I really don't want to put forth right now. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a fantastic speaker and a brilliant astrophysicist. If you have a half hour and are interested in the history of our knowledge of the solar system, I highly recommend you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY.

post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wouldn't be able to do it justice without a lot of effort I really don't want to put forth right now. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a fantastic speaker and a brilliant astrophysicist. If you have a half hour and are interested in the history of our knowledge of the solar system, I highly recommend you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY.

OK very briefly... Neil does a great presentation and it is true to me that there seems to be a breakdown in the structured way of thinking previously common to Americans. There will always be gaps in our knowledge, in fact that is the fundamental basis of scientific enquiry. To continue seeking new knowledge assumes that new knowledge is out there. That's why published research must always be "original".

It's hence a double-edged sword in a way, there will always be a "God of the Gaps". This is inevitable going into the next thousand years.

His proposal is totally sensible. Teach Science in Science, and Philosophy (eg. the concept of ID) in Philosophy. When you try and mash everything together it doesn't help. Science-inclined people will bristle at having to include ID and the more religious or philosophical will bristle at ID being "explained" by Science, if you get my drift.

While his hinting of religious threats to modern American civilisation borders on scaremongering I'm sure it is no doubt a possibility.

Where I disagree with the talk is when he implies that once the historical scientists found God they stopped new discoveries. It could well be the other way around. They simply hit a wall or produced as much as they can, and then had to capitulate to the unknown. The Science of discovery itself is fairly unknown. All of us are one or two electrical impulses away from sparking thoughts that could lead to clean, unlimited, super-powerful energy that can fold space and time. Does belief in a Divine inspire or inhibit that?

Finally, the true question we must ask is how many people can actually grasp what he is talking about? I have the capability to absorb the large swathe of concepts he draws upon. He mentions algebra, mathematics, history, physics, astrophysics, religion, the scientific process, as well as geography. I have realised that unlike some of us, some people truly do not have or have not cultivated the ability to think laterally in such broad terms. I for one, was soundly accused growing up at being a "jack of all trades, master of none". But now I can connect the dots looking backward, as Steve Jobs says. My ability to know a little bit about many different things has contributed to my life in a way others did not see, and still do not see.
post #23 of 45
Thread Starter 
It would not have been much of a leap for Isaac Newton to figure out perturbation theory. Inventing calculus was an immensely larger task. Newton's god of the gaps got in the way. Newton was satisfied that he could go no further--he had an explanation for the orbits and didn't need perturbation theory because he had a god of the gaps to handle the details.

Yes, belief in the divine does hinder scientific advancement. If god did it, there's no further room to explore and look for answers--you have your shitty answer already. The god of the gaps, though, does not have to be inevitable. It only requires an understanding that we will not ever have perfect, complete knowledge of the universe but that we should always strive toward learning more--WITHOUT ever doing the intellectually dishonest and lazy thing in assigning a god of the gaps.

Our education system does need some reworking. The new Common Core standards go a long way toward doing just that. It shifts away from memorization and algorithmic learning toward real critical thinking and deeper understanding. What we don't need is modern day Republican al Ghazalis stifling the education of our youth, brainwashing the children not to accept the mountains of evidence behind the biological fact of evolution.

I agree with Laplace. In reference to a god, "I have no need for that hypothesis."

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #24 of 45
big font is annoying.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 45
Thread Starter 
Thank you for your contribution, Incredible Hulk. I'll be sure to take that under advisement.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Thank you for your contribution, Incredible Hulk. I'll be sure to take that under advisement.

That would have been funnier if his font was in green.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #27 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It would not have been much of a leap for Isaac Newton to figure out perturbation theory. Inventing calculus was an immensely larger task. Newton's god of the gaps got in the way. Newton was satisfied that he could go no further--he had an explanation for the orbits and didn't need perturbation theory because he had a god of the gaps to handle the details.

Yes, belief in the divine does hinder scientific advancement. If god did it, there's no further room to explore and look for answers--you have your shitty answer already. The god of the gaps, though, does not have to be inevitable. It only requires an understanding that we will not ever have perfect, complete knowledge of the universe but that we should always strive toward learning more--WITHOUT ever doing the intellectually dishonest and lazy thing in assigning a god of the gaps.

Our education system does need some reworking. The new Common Core standards go a long way toward doing just that. It shifts away from memorization and algorithmic learning toward real critical thinking and deeper understanding. What we don't need is modern day Republican al Ghazalis stifling the education of our youth, brainwashing the children not to accept the mountains of evidence behind the biological fact of evolution.

I agree with Laplace. In reference to a god, "I have no need for that hypothesis."

You say that god got in the way of Newtons research. Do you have evidence of this or is it something you are assuming? Things always look easier when you are standing on the shoulders of the ones who came before you.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #28 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

You say that god got in the way of Newtons research. Do you have evidence of this or is it something you are assuming? Things always look easier when you are standing on the shoulders of the ones who came before you.

There's a long line of astronomers who made advancements but stopped when god filled in the remaining gaps for them. Again, the link I provided for nvidia2008 is an excellent half hour lecture from Neil deGrasse Tyson (he's going to be doing an updated version of Cosmos for Fox next year...I'm fucking excited about that). Even if you disagree with the conclusions he draws, it's very informative and well worth watching.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 45
Can we get a terminology lesson for eradication?

http://atheists.org/blog/2011/09/14/...the-gloves-off

Or are people here ok with taking the gloves off and eradicating schools of thought as well?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #30 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There's a long line of astronomers who made advancements but stopped when god filled in the remaining gaps for them. Again, the link I provided for nvidia2008 is an excellent half hour lecture from Neil deGrasse Tyson (he's going to be doing an updated version of Cosmos for Fox next year...I'm fucking excited about that). Even if you disagree with the conclusions he draws, it's very informative and well worth watching.

To be honest, from that particular lecture of Neil's, it doesn't present clear evidence that scientists "stopped" *because* of belief in divinity. It may be true, but I think that historical evidence probably needs an hour on its own, if such evidence exists. Like I said, various thinkers could have maxxed out in their achievements and then capitulated to divinity, rather than vice versa.
post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

To be honest, from that particular lecture of Neil's, it doesn't present clear evidence that scientists "stopped" *because* of belief in divinity. It may be true, but I think that historical evidence probably needs an hour on its own, if such evidence exists. Like I said, various thinkers could have maxxed out in their achievements and then capitulated to divinity, rather than vice versa.

Agreed.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #32 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Can we get a terminology lesson for eradication?

http://atheists.org/blog/2011/09/14/...the-gloves-off

Or are people here ok with taking the gloves off and eradicating schools of thought as well?

I have no problem with superstitious bullshit never rearing its ugly head again. There's nothing wrong with eradicating an idea--it's how it's done that's the issue. Hopefully one day it happens through education and childhood indoctrination in religion becoming frowned upon.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #33 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

To be honest, from that particular lecture of Neil's, it doesn't present clear evidence that scientists "stopped" *because* of belief in divinity. It may be true, but I think that historical evidence probably needs an hour on its own, if such evidence exists. Like I said, various thinkers could have maxxed out in their achievements and then capitulated to divinity, rather than vice versa.

You tell me...what's the motivation for seeking a deeper understanding when it is the literal hand of god keeping the Earth in orbit around the Sun amidst all the little tugs from Mars, the Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn?

Sure, study the situation more, but I think Neil has done an excellent job establishing that throughout history, god has domain over whatever concepts humans don't thoroughly understand. Huygens did not need god to deal with all the little tugs--perturbation theory took care of it instead.

Intelligent design is nothing more than god of the gaps--the idea itself is, as Neil said, a philosophy of ignorance.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I have no problem with superstitious bullshit never rearing its ugly head again. There's nothing wrong with eradicating an idea--it's how it's done that's the issue. Hopefully one day it happens through education and childhood indoctrination in religion becoming frowned upon.

So you are fine with other people telling you what you can and cannot tell your children?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #35 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So you are fine with other people telling you what you can and cannot tell your children?

Did I say made illegal? I said frowned upon--like you are a social pariah if you take your child into a church.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So you are fine with other people telling you what you can and cannot tell your children?

Everybody's fine with that. I don't think you're fine with the guy who wants to tell his children that gay people (which he might call "faggots") deserve to be slaughtered in order to cleanse society, for instance. Are you?

It's not a black and white issue (almost nothing is), and don't pretend it is.

The question is, where do we draw the line?
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Did I say made illegal? I said frowned upon--like you are a social pariah if you take your child into a church.

So you are trying to create a new second class citizen based on religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Everybody's fine with that. I don't think you're fine with the guy who wants to tell his children that gay people (which he might call "faggots") deserve to be slaughtered in order to cleanse society, for instance. Are you?

It's not a black and white issue (almost nothing is), and don't pretend it is.

The question is, where do we draw the line?

Not the same thing. I am talking about taking a step backwards and making something that is ok now, and is beneficial to many people and creating a situation where it becomes what you are trying to liken what I said to. Only instead of calling them "faggots" you would call them religious nuts and you would protect your children from them because they walked into a church.

I am trying to find out where that line is here as it is not black and white, but it seems to be fairly black andnwhite with BR.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So you are trying to create a new second class citizen based on religion.


Not the same thing. I am talking about taking a step backwards and making something that is ok now, and is beneficial to many people and creating a situation where it becomes what you are trying to liken what I said to. Only instead of calling them "faggots" you would call them religious nuts and you would protect your children from them because they walked into a church.

I am trying to find out where that line is here as it is not black and white, but it seems to be fairly black andnwhite with BR.

There was recently a time and place where what I just described was okay. Everything is relative.
post #39 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So you are trying to create a new second class citizen based on religion.

I'm sure you'd scoff at people who taught their children the moon was actually made of white chocolate and to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Teaching stupidity and unreality should not be an acceptable social norm.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #40 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There was recently a time and place where what I just described was okay. Everything is relative.

And thankfully we are slowly and surely moving away from that...even if we have to drag half the country kicking and screaming with us into the 21st century.

In the meantime, here's some funny blasphemous shorts you might enjoy from the awesome folks over at SMBC Theater.

Just a Theory
Nature Documentary
Both Sides

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › A problem of terminology