Just a reminder!

[AE 87]

That an an Idiot

Well, I don't agree that the earth is only 6000 years old, but I don't think that such belief is sufficient for someone to be labeled an idiot, especially if the person asserts it as a position of faith.

It seems to me that a person who believes that the earth is only 6000 years old because they trust an authority's interpretation of a book they consider sacred is no more idiotic than someone who believes that complex life evolved from simple life through an unguided process of natural selection working on random variation because they trust an authority's interpretation of a textbook.

Calling someone an idiot simply because they hold a different faith position is bigotry.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I have not personally heard him say that. I did look quickly last night discussing politics with my brother. It is amazing how many presidential candidates believe the earth is 6000 years old or when asked how old the earth was just declined to even answer.

Ted Cruz did announce his candidacy at Liberty University. A university that is famous for its anti logic teaching.

O.K.

It does raise an interesting philosophical and ethical question. The old cliche is that a politician's first job is to get elected. Often we say we want a candidate who tells the truth, shoots straight and does not compromise his own integrity just to get elected. But the reality is that you can't make changes in government unless you get in office and most candidates will say and do whatever they have to in order to get into position to win. The good ones just do this smoothly without getting caught. Is this wrong? Is it a hard and fast line that one crosses as a candidate or is it a vague and blurry line? Candidates can run campaigns in which they promise to never compromise but these candidates, from my experience, don't get elected if they hue to that rule and they just end up fading into the sunset without having accomplished any kind of change or reform. I am just talking out loud here, not advocating a position.

On the other hand a candidate who is too ready to adapt to his audience and too willing to compromise may also have problems. A certain governor from Wisconsin named Walker went to Great Britain in preparation for a presidential bid. His hosts asked him on camera if he believed in evolution. He apparently was worried how his base might hear his answer as well as worried how his answer might get portrayed by the American news media. No matter how many ways they asked the question he politely refused to answer. It became humorous at one point as both guest and hosts began to laugh about how a simple question about evolution was considered too risky to answer if he wanted to run for President. Needless to say, his Great Britain trip generally left people so unimpressed with his leadership abilities that he has disappeared from the national political landscape.

 

[AE 87]

O.K.

It does raise an interesting philosophical and ethical question. The old cliche is that a politician's first job is to get elected. Often we say we want a candidate who tells the truth, shoots straight and does not compromise his own integrity just to get elected. But the reality is that you can't make changes in government unless you get in office and most candidates will say and do whatever they have to in order to get into position to win. The good ones just do this smoothly without getting caught. Is this wrong? Is it a hard and fast line that one crosses as a candidate or is it a vague and blurry line? Candidates can run campaigns in which they promise to never compromise but these candidates, from my experience, don't get elected if they hue to that rule and they just end up fading into the sunset without having accomplished any kind of change or reform. I am just talking out loud here, not advocating a position.

On the other hand a candidate who is too ready to adapt to his audience and too willing to compromise may also have problems. A certain governor from Wisconsin named Walker went to Great Britain in preparation for a presidential bid. His hosts asked him on camera if he believed in evolution. He apparently was worried how his base might hear his answer as well as worried how his answer might get portrayed by the American news media. No matter how many ways they asked the question he politely refused to answer. It became humorous at one point as both guest and hosts began to laugh about how a simple question about evolution was considered too risky to answer if he wanted to run for President. Needless to say, his Great Britain trip generally left people so unimpressed with his leadership abilities that he has disappeared from the national political landscape.

The problem with the "Do you believe in evolution?" question is that the word, evolution, has several definitions and is often used equivocally.

Your post, by labeling it "a simple question about evolution," reflects this lack of understanding, in my opinion.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The problem with the "Do you believe in evolution?" question is that the word, evolution, has several definitions and is often used equivocally.

Your post, by labeling it "a simple question about evolution," reflects this lack of understanding, in my opinion.

Answering a simple question is just an expression.

Politicians are asked questions like this all the time. What would you do about Social Security? What would you do to defeat ISIL? How you would fix the immigration system? What would you do to end the partisan divide in Washington? How would you improve medical care for Veterans? On and on and on. None of these are simple questions but are in fact quite complicated with lots of room for misunderstanding or oversimplifying. In fact most of these questions are posed in such a way to be misleading. Yet politicians are expected to answer them. My point was that it is just a question. You can answer it however you like and even use this as a teachable moment if you think the question was asked inappropriately. But to simply refuse shows either a lack of conviction or a lack of courage. Unlike some questions that are asked, this one, in my opinion, was asked out of genuine curiosity. Politicians not believing in evolution is a rare phenomenon in Great Britain. This was a chance to ask something that TV viewers in that country would have found interesting and exotic. It was a blown opportunity for Mr. Walker because, whatever that fine line is that politicians walk, he miss stepped.

 

[AE 87]

I'm not sure that I follow. I don't see the equivocal terms in the other questions you cite. Please clarify. Thanks.

 

[collegeballfan]

One who runs for public office must be prepared to answer any question asked in a public forum. The nature of the question is not important, the answer to the question is very important.

"Do you believe in evolution?" is a solid question for one running for public office.

If you are not prepared to answer, do not run for public office.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I'm not sure that I follow. I don't see the equivocal terms in the other questions you cite. Please clarify. Thanks.

I think the answer from collegballfan covers it. You could presumably avoid a question that you felt was not serious or that was just an attempt to play games, but the question itself is a common one asked by the public all the time. You can't just not answer. You have to say something even if you response is, "Your question shows a lack of adequate understanding of the theory." I wouldn't advise that answer if you are a politician but at least it is an answer.

 

[BuzzStone]

Calling someone an idiot simply because they hold a different faith position is bigotry.

No your just wrong here. Just because someone believes in some asinine idea doesn't mean it is off limits for ridicule. The word Faith is a conversation stopper and I am supposed to walk on egg shells just because a person of faith might be offended. That won't happen. I am not a bigot. I think for the most part religion is a bad idea. I don't want a government ran buy religious ideology. If you think that makes me a bigot you are obviously hindered by fear of understanding.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Religion and politics are two of the worst things I can think of to delve into on the internet. I always regret my part in these things.

I have no way out of this that will not devolve further. I may have to make one stab at explaining how I view these things and then call it good. I will say that I think there is a real dialectic when it comes to these things, that is, two contradictory things can both be true at the same time. Ridiculing someone just because of their religion is a bigoted thing to do. Holding a religious point of view out of ignorance and then using this to manipulate other people, especially in public policy, is reprehensible. Both things are true.

Let's use climate change arguments to illustrate how we might approach matters of faith. AE some times seems to assume that if someone does not have the working knowledge of a climate scientist on the subject and ends up with the "wrong position" it is because that person accepted on faith what 97% of scientists are saying on climate change. That strikes me as a false premise. One can study a topic as a lay person and take the arguments as far as you can given your limited math skills or understanding of physics and then draw a conclusion that seems most likely. That is not the same thing as acting in blind faith.

Likewise, when it comes to fundamentalism, whether in its Christian form, Jewish form or Muslim form, one can reject that position because one has at least made the effort to understand why a majority of scholars and religious teachers reject it. Religious fundamentalism in this country is supported by virtually no reputable bible scholars for a reason. Again, a half way intelligent lay person could read enough, without knowing Greek, Hebrew and all the nuances of historical theology to arrive at the same position as the majority of bible scholars. This too strikes me as not the same thing as acting on faith.

Acting on faith always involves a leap in understanding. This is true. But that is not always the same thing as saying I believe something because someone told me so and because they are an authority in my life I always believe what they tell me. In one sense I act on faith every day of my life, whether it involves getting on an airplane, driving my car or using my computer. But I do not have to be an expert in any of these areas to conclude that my faith in using these things is reasonable.

 

[BuzzStone]

Just one quick definition of Bigot
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

A person can condemn an idea without being a Bigot. I can condemn both religion and climate change based on evidence not opinion. I do this on a regular basis. I see AE87 do this on a daily basis here. I do not think he is a Bigot in any definition. I do not hate nor am I intolerant either. I wish everyone the best no matter which fairy tale they believe in. You can have an discussion based on facts. You can condemn the things that clearly are wrong (ie evolution deniers, young earthers, ext) When someone throws out the Bigot card it is normally because they can not justify their belief and normally it is after being presented with evidence contrary to their belief.

Being a part of this board I would hope we all have the intellectual capability to have a discussion on any topic without having our feelings hurt over an internet post either way.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Just one quick definition of Bigot
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

A person can condemn an idea without being a Bigot. I can condemn both religion and climate change based on evidence not opinion. I do this on a regular basis. I see AE87 do this on a daily basis here. I do not think he is a Bigot in any definition. I do not hate nor am I intolerant either. I wish everyone the best no matter which fairy tale they believe in. You can have an discussion based on facts. You can condemn the things that clearly are wrong (ie evolution deniers, young earthers, ext) When someone throws out the Bigot card it is normally because they can not justify their belief and normally it is after being presented with evidence contrary to their belief.

Being a part of this board I would hope we all have the intellectual capability to have a discussion on any topic without having our feelings hurt over an internet post either way.

I have no quarrel with this.

I just wanted to acknowledge that faith has reasons which go beyond reason (Paschal- "The heart has reasons which the mind cannot reason") while at the same time acknowledging that when faith becomes totally unreasonable it is fair game for attack.

 

[Declinometer]

The Iranian Student Association at @GeorgiaTech says prezPetersen has agreed to sharia-compliant swim times for Muslim women "uncomfortable"

 

[Declinometer]

If he believes the earth is 6000 years old what else would you call him?

Smarter than you?

 

[AE 87]

@BuzzStone, I appreciate your use of the Webster dictionary “Full Definition” of bigot, but you may also look at their “Simple Definition” which includes “religious group” as a possible object of bigotry.

When you jump into a conversation about a political figure to call them an idiot because you suspect that they hold a religious belief, that's an expression of intolerance. Moreover, this intolerance and ridicule still seems bigoted to me because it arises not from understanding of the data but because that belief or faith commitment is different from your own.

Now, if you are confident that your position is based on evidence, start another thread where you make your case and defend your position on evolution or the age of the earth. I suspect that you won't because you know that your positions really are just your faith.

 

[AE 87]

Religion and politics are two of the worst things I can think of to delve into on the internet. I always regret my part in these things.

I have no way out of this that will not devolve further. I may have to make one stab at explaining how I view these things and then call it good. I will say that I think there is a real dialectic when it comes to these things, that is, two contradictory things can both be true at the same time. Ridiculing someone just because of their religion is a bigoted thing to do. Holding a religious point of view out of ignorance and then using this to manipulate other people, especially in public policy, is reprehensible. Both things are true.

Let's use climate change arguments to illustrate how we might approach matters of faith. AE some times seems to assume that if someone does not have the working knowledge of a climate scientist on the subject and ends up with the "wrong position" it is because that person accepted on faith what 97% of scientists are saying on climate change. That strikes me as a false premise. One can study a topic as a lay person and take the arguments as far as you can given your limited math skills or understanding of physics and then draw a conclusion that seems most likely. That is not the same thing as acting in blind faith.

Likewise, when it comes to fundamentalism, whether in its Christian form, Jewish form or Muslim form, one can reject that position because one has at least made the effort to understand why a majority of scholars and religious teachers reject it. Religious fundamentalism in this country is supported by virtually no reputable bible scholars for a reason. Again, a half way intelligent lay person could read enough, without knowing Greek, Hebrew and all the nuances of historical theology to arrive at the same position as the majority of bible scholars. This too strikes me as not the same thing as acting on faith.

Acting on faith always involves a leap in understanding. This is true. But that is not always the same thing as saying I believe something because someone told me so and because they are an authority in my life I always believe what they tell me. In one sense I act on faith every day of my life, whether it involves getting on an airplane, driving my car or using my computer. But I do not have to be an expert in any of these areas to conclude that my faith in using these things is reasonable.

@Northeast Stinger , your analogies at the end again seem to disclose a lack of understanding of what I mean by a faith position. Getting on a plane, driving a car, using a computer etc are examples of activities which repeated experience makes trustworthy, regardless of what you think about any underlying theory of how they work.


So, let’s go back to the “climate change” example. My position is, and has been, that coming to any scientific conclusion on climate change is made difficult because the competing scientific claims on the matter debate not only the interpretation of the data but the data itself. So, I conclude that any firm stand on this issue by laymen must come down to faith, who am I going to believe.


Now, I do tend to be most skeptical of the so-called climate experts who support the position that human contribution to climate change is dangerous. I do that because global temperatures have not risen as they predicted and because published data sets show temperatures from over a hundred years ago becoming significantly cooler. Moreover, the peer-reviewed analysis of Mann’s influential hockey stick graph has shown that it was based on faulty data. Also, the climate-gate emails suggest that climate scientists discussed this as a “trick” to fix the data. Finally, the “warmest year” announcements and the popularizing of the bogus 97% number suggest that they don’t care as much about truth as the billions of dollars of government funding.


So, @Northeast Jacket, why don’t you explain the data and reasoning which has made you confident that AGW is real and dangerous, including why you used the 97% number which has been called into question.


Also, your position on a “majority of bible scholars” similarly seems to reflect a faith position in what you’ve been told rather than knowledge of the data.

 

[AE 87]

On “a simple question”:

@collegeballfan and @Northeast Stinger, I agree that politicians should be prepared to answer questions and understand that y’all feel that the question on belief in evolution falls into that category.

However, my question was about the equivocal terms in the questions posed as analogous. You both avoided a pretty simple question as to whether those political questions were actually analogous. You see, I was calling into question the suggestion that the evolution question is rightly seen as a simple question, analogous to those other questions on political policy issues.

As I stated, the problem with this question arises from an inherent equivocation on the word, “evolution.” On the one hand, it can refer simply to any biological change over time, including adaptations to environment, which no one denies. On another hand, it can refer to the textbook scientific theory of the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinism, the theory that all biological diversity developed from a single common ancestor through an unguided process of natural selection working on random variations, including mutations. This theory has largely been falsified, or significantly undermined if you prefer. Then on a third hand, “evolution” can refer to an ideological position that says that although the modern-synthesis cannot explain the origin of biological diversity some future theory of a natural process will be discovered to explain biological diversity without reference to a creator or designer. However, most uses of the word “evolution” seem unaware of this potential equivocation.


This problem arises because most science education, in both the UK and the US, has failed to clarify these distinctions. As a result, as @Northeast Stinger notes, even a short answer which reflects the complexity of the question will not be received well by many, if not most, because they have simply accepted by faith that evolution is both an unambiguous term and also settled science.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Now, if you are confident that your position is based on evidence, start another thread where you make your case and defend your position on evolution or the age of the earth. I suspect that you won't because you know that your positions really are just your faith.

I can't speak for him but I would suggest that not wanting to have a discussion on this also might just mean that you find it tedious.

Several years ago I got locked into a conversation with a "Truther." They honestly believed that the collapse of the Trade Towers was an inside government job. No matter what I said and what document I put forward they had a scientist or an expert to "prove" otherwise. I learned from that experience that if someone is on a crusade they will find an amazing amount of evidence to disprove the majority of experts and arguing otherwise will not change their mind. I find that with people who hold unconventional thoughts that are obviously wrong, the only thing that can ever change their thinking is simply time. Give them a few decades and they will over time see the futility of holding a position that is constantly having to contort to stay viable. But arguing with them only reinforces their need to be right.

At a certain point most of us rely on common sense. To be sure, common sense can be wrong but I lean toward the position that if common sense also seems to align with the majority of experts in an area it is rarely wrong. Finding exceptions in history to this only proves the rule.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Also, your position on a “majority of bible scholars” similarly seems to reflect a faith position in what you’ve been told rather than knowledge of the data.

All this statement tells me is that you consider yourself an expert on all topics. Therefore anyone who has a different opinion must be just accepting something on faith.

 

[AE 87]

I can't speak for him but I would suggest that not wanting to have a discussion on this also might just mean that you find it tedious.

Several years ago I got locked into a conversation with a "Truther." They honestly believed that the collapse of the Trade Towers was an inside government job. No matter what I said and what document I put forward they had a scientist or an expert to "prove" otherwise. I learned from that experience that if someone is on a crusade they will find an amazing amount of evidence to disprove the majority of experts and arguing otherwise will not change their mind. I find that with people who hold unconventional thoughts that are obviously wrong, the only thing that can ever change their thinking is simply time. Give them a few decades and they will over time see the futility of holding a position that is constantly having to contort to stay viable. But arguing with them only reinforces their need to be right.

At a certain point most of us rely on common sense. To be sure, common sense can be wrong but I lean toward the position that if common sense also seems to align with the majority of experts in an area it is rarely wrong. Finding exceptions in history to this only proves the rule.

Listen, it's pretty simple. If you didn't want to have a conversation with a truther, than don't call them an idiot. If you do call them an idiot, then be prepared to discuss it. If after discussing it a while, you realize that you're not getting anywhere, then at least you've done your due-diligence.

 

[BuzzStone]

@BuzzStone, I appreciate your use of the Webster dictionary “Full Definition” of bigot, but you may also look at their “Simple Definition” which includes “religious group” as a possible object of bigotry.

When you jump into a conversation about a political figure to call them an idiot because you suspect that they hold a religious belief, that's an expression of intolerance. Moreover, this intolerance and ridicule still seems bigoted to me because it arises not from understanding of the data but because that belief or faith commitment is different from your own.

Now, if you are confident that your position is based on evidence, start another thread where you make your case and defend your position on evolution or the age of the earth. I suspect that you won't because you know that your positions really are just your faith.

I can say without any doubt or bigotry that anyone who believes the earth is 6000 years old is an idiot, I can also say anyone who is willing to kill innocent people based on religion is an idiot. That does not make me a bigot. You are a prepositionalist so there is not point in arguing with you, you have your faith on things and no evidence will ever change your mind.

Faith is belief with the intentional absence of all evidence. I do not have any faith. I only know what evidence tells me.