1.6% of the North American population says, “Best Evidence” or “Agents of Causal Adequacy,” that are KNOWN to bring about the effect in question are judged to be better candidates than ideas that are merely theoretical.”
Because that is a scientific axiom, that’s what these people say they believe.
In reality, what they rest their faith upon is something entirely different. When the Best Evidence points to an intelligence other than our own, then all bets are off. Then any atheist origin of life mythology is acceptable.
Example:
What do we experience now, in the present, that is capable of producing digital code or specified complexity? Intelligent design.
What does our uniform experience tell us is always responsible for the development of highly formulated information? Intelligent design.
That we consistently observe this to be true is critically important because this portion of the population DEMAND that nothing can be believed without consistent observation and verification. Snerk! Atheists have the highest motivation to accept this premise but that makes no difference when it comes to their blind faith.
When it goes against what these people WANT to believe, best evidence or causal adequacy means absolutely nothing.
Because an intelligence that pre existed our own is required for the results in question (the specified, formulated, coded information that governs life) this small portion of the population says that this information and the cell’s information processing ability is the only exception to the rule. In this case, they say, the equivalent of 1000 volumes of specified, formulated, coded information evolved from inanimate, inorganic gas.
That’s what they say.
The single most crucial example of where intelligent design is required (second only to the existence of the universe) to explain the observed evidence and these people say that the scientific axiom does not apply.
Even though these people say that without observation and verification nothing can be believed these people maintain this implausible position not because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence. They have to or their belief system will collapse.
That’s what these people are like. It’s how they think
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That’s what they say.
ReplyDeleteNah...
That’s what these people are like. It’s how they think
...Nah.
A portion of the population continually demands that there is a magnificently large volume of evidence that demands the assumption that the universe was designed.
ReplyDeleteThese people are truly convinced that their anthropomorphically intuitive interpretation of this "data" actually qualifies as evidence to support their make-shift theory.
And yet not one peer reviewed, published, scientific paper supports this "scientific theory".
No biologist has made predictions and scientific advances to our collective knowledge with "intelligent design theory".
No physicist has made predictions and scientific advances to our collective knowledge with "intelligent design theory"
This is quite obviously because Intelligent design is not science. And people adamantly return to their proposition, even in the face of the most extreme criticism of their "theory". Their distorted approximation of reality might have them think this to be a virtue of endurance. It's not. In the real world, this is just stubbornness.
Only the most highly brainwashed, biased, and non-scientific minds could so tightly cling to modern scientific theories as evidence supporting the weird notion that Jesus is god. And yet people are more then content to continue to perpetually render this logical error...
...Just the same as those people who "know" Allah is the one true god.
...Just the same as those people who "knew" that Ra the sun god, created the world.
...Just the same as those people who "understood" the stars to be the campfires of explorers in the sky.
These people follow in the footsteps, not of Jesus, but of every other non-scientific, paranoid superstition to find it's place in the human annals of collectively primitive and poor interpretations of how the universe operates.
When a belief system maintains that you may live forever or burn forever, anybody educated or thoughtful enough to escape the gravity of these nonsensical notions, can easily see how humanly tempered the whole premise of religion is.
Religion is unintelligently designed, and its dangerously obvious to those unaffected by it's madness. Theists are the first to tell you that religion is supported by scientific evidence, and yet despite their attempts, their "theory" remains UNABLE TO CONQUER THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS AND BECOME A LEGITIMATE THEORY. How suspiciously odd right? Despite the obvious human influence on the design of religion, these people maintain their implausible position not because of the evidence, but in spite of it.
They must do this or their worldview will collapse.
Its how they are, its how they think.
Is Science the only objective source of truth?
ReplyDelete76% of North America ignores all evidence that contradicts their claims of knowledge of the divine.
ReplyDeleteThey turn a blind eye to the fact that, for every testable claim that's been made attributing natural events or objects to the divine, for all such claims made during the last 1000 years, no evidence has been found of the divine. In fact, the only thing we find are "dumb" mechanical laws.
Because of this embarrassment, they misrepresent science, and they ignore the clear presence of theistic scientists. They lie to protect their faith in their own claims.
That’s what these people are like. It’s how they think.
Is Science the only objective source of truth?
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily.
However, that is a very deceptively complicated question. Because it requires definitions, parameters, or qualifications for the terms involved. We would need to define the relationship between objectivity and truth. Being that there are some extremes to handle.
For instance, one extreme would be the relativistic approach. Which would be to question whether ANYTHING is real. And in that sense we could not define objectivity. However I imagine we would both agree that to take such a stance is weak and does not qualify as reasonable under the umbrella of human knowledge, we purpetually pursuit.
On the other end, we could declare all our intuitive and common sense conclusions about our universe as not only objectively true, but as benevolent and eternally true. It's important to reserve judgement on our conclusions. The human faculty for reasoning is faulty and flawed at times, and we can reach premature conclusions about things that may feel objectively real. Like how it seemed obvious at one point that the world was flat.
Truth from non-objective sources can be explored, but a foundation on such observation by which all other successive theories must balance, should be reserved for theories that can conclusively support the weight of scientific truth.
Thanks for asking a serious question, Thesauros. 'Snackbar is right, in that the definitions used fundamentally impact how the question can be answered.
ReplyDeleteI'm not willing to claim science is the only source of objective truth. Are "love" or happiness objective truths? Probably not, according to most definitions of 'objective' I'm familiar with, but perhaps there are scientific markers which indicate when a person is in love or happy. Both of those can safely be considered "truths", in that they're a fundamental part of human existence - but the devil's in the details.
When I listen to a great jazz solo, are objective truths involved? I'm not sure - superficially, the answer appears to be "no". However, if pressed I'd argue that my experience (re. listening to the band) represented something significant, more than a moment of mere subjective happiness.
---
In any case, 'objective truths' are not the only source of 'truths' humans have available to them. Problems occur when people misunderstand that their subjective opinions/beliefs/understandings don't necessarily apply universally.
Incidentally, I'm a deist. I believe (cautiously) that the universe was intelligently designed.
ReplyDeleteI don't find any of the supposed evidence of intelligent design to be compelling, however. The existing ID movement tries too hard to assert their faith as fact, rather than ACTUALLY looking for evidence of intelligent design.
I really wish someone would tackle the question scientifically. This would involve defining "design" and "intelligence" in ways that we could test for them both. We would need to differentiate between something designed by unintelligent (materialistic) processes, from something designed by a conscious act of will.
"In fact, the only thing we find are "dumb" mechanical laws."
ReplyDeleteLaws that govern the greatest construct that we can observe.
Laws the govern a mathematically precise universe.
Laws that were put in place in an instant - at Planck time.
God hasn’t been removed from anything. As the Creator of matter and energy, as the One who put into place the laws of science, including all the constants and quantities, all of the ways that chemicals interact, God IS responsible for thunder and lightening. God is the cause of rainfall and volcanoes. God is not absent from anything that takes place in our lives.
---------
“We would need to differentiate between something designed by unintelligent (materialistic) processes, from something designed by a conscious act of will.”
So you agree with this post. When the evidence points directly to intelligent design, when there is no known cause other than intelligent design for what we observe, some people just throw up their hands and say, “Ya, but there aren’t any peer reviewed papers!”
You say that "science" isn't the only source of objective truth but you act as though it is when it comes to confronting in your own mind what is clearly evidence that points toward the Supernatural.
There's no clear evidence that the supernatural exists. On the contrary, all the objective evidence we have suggests the opposite.
ReplyDeleteScience is a method, yo.
ReplyDelete"Is Science the only objective source of truth?"
Is the scientific method the only source of objective truth?
ReplyDeleteDefine "objective truth" and we'll be able to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head, simple perception is pretty good at approximating objective truth, but it's not perfect.
I'm having a hard time undestanding how someone can say that he is a Deist who doesn't believe that God exists and at the same time is not an atheist.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific method is a method, not a "source" but using this method is probably the best way to discover what is supported by evidence and what is unsupported.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the Christian God, as described by the Bible and individual believers, exists. I believe a creator deity might exist, though.
ReplyDeleteBelieving in a God, even hesitantly, makes one not an atheist.
It's not rocket surgery.
Your problem, Thesauros, is that you're trying (and failing) to pigeonhole my beliefs even though you've barely asked me about them.
ReplyDeleteThat's your call, of course. However, the misunderstanding is your own fault.
Barely asked? Personnaly I missed the part where he actually asks people about their beliefs, at all...
ReplyDeleteI gave him partial credit for asking metaphysical questions (re. is science the only source of objective truth). Heck, he even questioned my use of the word 'deist'.
ReplyDeleteNo, he hasn't requested that we talk about or express our beliefs. But at least he's asking questions which get at them...