Just a reminder!

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

Again, not to speak for the other poster, but I think we got your point originally. I guess I should have said what I thought was obvious which is that I think those other questions also suffer from similar equivocation. Just look at the incredible misunderstanding over the use of the acronym ISIL or ISIS. There seems to be a serious dearth of understanding both in media and among the public about this phenomenon which then lends itself to manipulation, fear, misrepresentation and even conspiracy theories. Oh well, welcome to democracy, huh. Which is why politicians have to answer simple questions even when sometimes they are stupid questions.

 

[AE 87]

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.

No, it means I claim to know something about Bible scholarship. If you actually read the post you are quoting from here, I acknowledged my limitations on climate science and why coming to a dogmatic conclusion is difficult. I then cited the data I use for being more skeptical of one side than the other. In my opinion, that's what it looks like when you hold a position that is not based on faith, you are able to lay out the data that you rely on. In this case I used data which I believe came from the experts who claimed a certain position for being skeptical of their position. I wasn't just citing the data coming from the opposing experts.

So, either your post reflects an extreme failure in logic or it was intended as an ad hominem personal attack on me. If the latter, I wonder what I have said to warrant such an attack.

 

[AE 87]

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.

First, please, don't tell me what I am. I suspect that you mean presuppositionalist, and you would be wrong. I'm not a presuppostionalist but a post-foundationalist. You may be familiar with the historian of science, Thomas Kuhn and his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Fwiw, I've been using the word, "faith," as accepting something as true without proof, i.e typically based on the authority of another. That is not the same as without evidence, and I think it's a fairly standard definition. It also corresponds with how Kuhn used it in Structure.

Although you didn't mention it here, my focus has been on your reference to evolution. I wonder if your unwillingness to start a thread where you lay out the case for your belief in evolution arises from the fact that, as you say:

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.​

Of course, you can prove me wrong on this score by actually starting the thread.

 

[BuzzStone]

AE
Is there any amount of evidence that will make you believe in evolution? Is there any amount of evidence that would make you believe in Climate change? Is there any amount of evidence that would turn you away from god?

That is the difference from me and you, I am always open to better information. Please change my mind about anything that will mean i have learned something. I used to believe in a God, I used to deny man made climate change, I used to deny evolution. These are all things that i previously believed in out of ignorance. I enjoy learning about many different topics. I have no use in debating someone who has immense belief out of ignorance.

 

[AE 87]

...
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.

Yes!!!!!
I agree that most of us rely on what seems as "common sense" to us.
That's the point!!!!

You see, in a culturally diverse society, we find that there is often no one, single, common sense. What is common sense to the conservative fundamentalist is not common sense to the Yankee liberal. What's common sense to the creationist-theist is not common sense to the materialist-atheist. What's common sense to polytheists from Chinese or Indian culture is not common sense to any of the above.

That's why ethical discourse must get beyond the simplistic position of they disagree with what is common sense to me so they must be idiots. We have to be able to talk about the reasons we have for holding certain positions and their limits.

My problem with your posts in the climate change discussion is that you haven't actually moved beyond saying you agree with the majority of the experts. You haven't explained why the arguments against 97% number aren't persuasive to you. You haven't explained why you trust the manipulated and constantly corrected surface data but not the satellite data. You haven't explained why you suspect millions of dollars may have influenced the science and positions of those who are skeptical about a dangerous influence of humanity on climate change but don't seem worried that the billions of dollars of government money are affecting the science on the other side.

I don't say that you have taken your position by faith because it disagrees with mine. I say that you have taken your position by faith because you don't lay out your reasons beyond accepting the data and conclusions of one side and dismissing the data and conclusions on the other.

Oh, and for completeness, I think you misused the phrase the exceptions prove the rule. Iirc, it does not mean that exceptions to the rule prove the rule. I'm pretty sure that it means that exceptions to normal circumstances which still follow the rule prove the rule. But, that's again, iirc.

 

[AE 87]

AE
Is there any amount of evidence that will make you believe in evolution? Is there any amount of evidence that would make you believe in Climate change? Is there any amount of evidence that would turn you away from god?

That is the difference from me and you, I am always open to better information. Please change my mind about anything that will mean i have learned something. I used to believe in a God, I used to deny man made climate change, I used to deny evolution. These are all things that i previously believed in out of ignorance. I enjoy learning about many different topics. I have no use in debating someone who has immense belief out of ignorance.

Again, you are trying to speak for me as well as yourself. I respect that it's easier for you to claim victory in a discussion if you can control both sides, but that's not how ethical conversation occurs.

I can't answer your questions in the abstract. I have not seen evidence to make me change my mind. So how could I know the answer? I know one way. You claim to hold your positions based on evidence. You claim to have changed positions based on evidence. So, why don't you start a thread on each of those topics explaining with that evidence your change of position.

@Northeast Stinger thought that you might find such conversations tedious, but here you say that you enjoy learning about many things. So, do I. Rather than just assume that I will only speak out of ignorance, be the bigger man and speak from your vast knowledge and experience.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So, either your post reflects an extreme failure in logic or it was intended as an ad hominem personal attack on me. If the latter, I wonder what I have said to warrant such an attack.

Sorry if you felt attacked.

I had three majors in college and one of them was in religion. I read a little bit of Greek, became familiar with biblical interpretation going back to Origen, read the German form critics, looked at church history including the rise of late 19th century fundamentalism, was intrigued by a tiny fringe movement at the time which has since taken over TV evangelism called premillennialism, and I became very familiar with biblical texts throughout this process. What I learned and discovered helps me understand why it is the top seminaries in the country are filled with scholars and theologians of every stripe except fundamentalists. If there is an exception to the rule I have not heard it but my experience is that if you go to Harvard, Yale, Emory, Drew, Princeton, Union, Notre Dame, Columbia, SMU, Chicago, Vanderbilt or any number of other reputable universities, you will be hard pressed to find a bible scholar who is a fundamentalist.

I did not make my statement out of faith but from own research and experience.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

My problem with your posts in the climate change discussion is that you haven't actually moved beyond saying you agree with the majority of the experts. You haven't explained why the arguments against 97% number aren't persuasive to you. You haven't explained why you trust the manipulated and constantly corrected surface data but not the satellite data. You haven't explained why you suspect millions of dollars may have influenced the science and positions of those who are skeptical about a dangerous influence of humanity on climate change but don't seem worried that the billions of dollars of government money are affecting the science on the other side.

There is a whole lot I find myself getting ready to say to you and then my better judgement says it is not worth it. Because, to be honest with you, I honestly do not think you can be persuaded.

You are a thoughtful, intelligent and articulate man. I enjoy, often times watching a keen mind in action. I agree with you on a host of issues and enjoy it when you argue something I believe so well that I feel like I do not even need to add my two cents worth. I therefore read and consider everything that you post and say. In the areas where we do not agree, and you have not persuaded me, I realize that you will always have more energy than I have to keep hammering away. Not sure why this is but I know for me, as I have gotten older, I realize that a lot of arguments are not worth having.

Some of this is the internet. There is a certain toxicity that I experience in anonymous arguments that isn't healthy for me. When I am in my church's bible study or I am attending as a guest of the AMA at a convention in Chicago, or I am at the local watering hole, I enjoy the debates and the interactions because I have a relationship with the people and there is a certain level of trust. We can disclose vulnerabilities and doubts without fear that someone is just trying to score points or draw blood in a debate.

I only come on this site because it is fun. When people start to get too serious it is no longer fun for me. My real job, which I hope to retire from in July, is too full of real conflict and pain for me to enjoy it when that seems to be exhibited on a sports blog. That is why I am only willing to go so far with these types of discussion.

 

[collegeballfan]

There is a whole lot I find myself getting ready to say to you and then my better judgement says it is not worth it. Because, to be honest with you, I honestly do not think you can be persuaded.

You are a thoughtful, intelligent and articulate man. I enjoy, often times watching a keen mind in action. I agree with you on a host of issues and enjoy it when you argue something I believe so well that I feel like I do not even need to add my two cents worth. I therefore read and consider everything that you post and say. In the areas where we do not agree, and you have not persuaded me, I realize that you will always have more energy than I have to keep hammering away. Not sure why this is but I know for me, as I have gotten older, I realize that a lot of arguments are not worth having.

Some of this is the internet. There is a certain toxicity that I experience in anonymous arguments that isn't healthy for me. When I am in my church's bible study or I am attending as a guest of the AMA at a convention in Chicago, or I am at the local watering hole, I enjoy the debates and the interactions because I have a relationship with the people and there is a certain level of trust. We can disclose vulnerabilities and doubts without fear that someone is just trying to score points or draw blood in a debate.

I only come on this site because it is fun. When people start to get too serious it is no longer fun for me. My real job, which I hope to retire from in July, is too full of real conflict and pain for me to enjoy it when that seems to be exhibited on a sports blog. That is why I am only willing to go so far with these types of discussion.

NE Stinger - Being retired for 8 1/2 years I will testify to the pleasure of retirement and highly recommend it. Most of the retired crowd I move around in would agree with me that retirement, if done properly, will keep you as busy and challenged as you personally allow. You will probably find out as I did that your church and community can really use your talents. You have decades of experience that need not go unused.

 

[AE 87]

Sorry if you felt attacked.

I had three majors in college and one of them was in religion. I read a little bit of Greek, became familiar with biblical interpretation going back to Origen, read the German form critics, looked at church history including the rise of late 19th century fundamentalism, was intrigued by a tiny fringe movement at the time which has since taken over TV evangelism called premillennialism, and I became very familiar with biblical texts throughout this process. What I learned and discovered helps me understand why it is the top seminaries in the country are filled with scholars and theologians of every stripe except fundamentalists. If there is an exception to the rule I have not heard it but my experience is that if you go to Harvard, Yale, Emory, Drew, Princeton, Union, Notre Dame, Columbia, SMU, Chicago, Vanderbilt or any number of other reputable universities, you will be hard pressed to find a bible scholar who is a fundamentalist.

I did not make my statement out of faith but from own research and experience.

It seems you're deflecting. I was replying to your statement about me thinking I'm an expert "on all topics." Your background has no bearing on your claim about me.

However, I do respect that this post better responds to my earlier post. I agree that mainline majority scholarship is not fundamentalist. I also agree that fundamentalist positions are not strong. However, I was responding to your assertion that they reject it for a reason.

You see, the mainline majority is, in fact, weaker in important ways. I don't think their reasons hold up well. My point was that you referenced them as if their authority was unassailable, which fits the pattern.

Unlike others, I don't think people are idiots for simply accepting expert opinion by faith. I just think they should admit it.

Consider if someone responded to you by saying no reputable university which actually takes the Bible seriously has any higher critics and has many fundamentalists: Liberty, Dallas, Moody, Wheaton. Don't you agree that that's a meaningless, question begging post?

When you define expert, whether on the Bible or climate, by holding a particular view or belonging to the academy which promotes a certain view, then it's circular reasoning to use them as the expert opinion on that view.

Yet, it seems to me that you keep doing it. What's the problem with either just admitting that you accept the liberal line by faith or answering my simple questions about your opinion on climate data from earlier?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Yet, it seems to me that you keep doing it. What's the problem with either just admitting that you accept the liberal line by faith or answering my simple questions about your opinion on climate data from earlier?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you saying that your opinions are really just faith statements? I was interpreting your differently before, ie., that those with whom you disagree are the ones expressing faith statements while you are expressing opinions earned through some kind of rigorous empiricism.

This is the problem with internet debate.

 

[AE 87]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you saying that your opinions are really just faith statements? I was interpreting your differently before, ie., that those with whom you disagree are the ones expressing faith statements while you are expressing opinions earned through some kind of rigorous empiricism.

This is the problem with internet debate.

No. You've misunderstood. Positions based on data with a willingness to discuss openly different interpretations of the data are not faith based but evidence based. Positions based on a cited authority without a willingness to discuss data and how the position is derived from the data are faith based.

I do not say a position is faith based because it differs from mine but because it falls into the second category.

On climate change, I stated my position and the data on which it is based. I asked you a few questions to show that your position is not faith based, and you haven't responded to them.

 

[SwarmArmy]

Ted Cruz - Cum laude Princeton & magna cum laude Harvard Law School
Funny how dumb people call brilliant people idiots. Envious I guess

Right, because that's the definition of smart.. I can argue that Ted is dumb despite his education. The education has toned his dumbness down a wee bit.

 

[SwarmArmy]

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.

Where did you get the idea that evolution is ambiguous and "has several definitions"? Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, and it has been proved. There is no ambiguity or debate about it.

 

[SwarmArmy]

Smarter than you?

What a dumb comeback... If you believe the earth is only 6000 years old, then I understand why you root for Cruz. I understand, but I think it's dumb.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, and it has been proved. There is no ambiguity or debate about it.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It's a fact that organims evolve, but it's a theory that man has evolved from apes. There is much evidence to support the theory, but that doesn't make it a fact.

 

[BuzzStone]

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It's a fact that organims evolve, but it's a theory that man has evolved from apes. There is much evidence to support the theory, but that doesn't make it a fact.

It is a fact that man and chimps evolved from the same ancestor. The fact that humans are hominids is not up for debate.
And a theory is science is the best you can hope for. If you think theory means it is not proven then please jump in the air and not come down so you can prove the theory of gravity wrong.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

but it's a theory that man has evolved from apes.

Uh oh, here we go.

 

[AE 87]

Where did you get the idea that evolution is ambiguous and "has several definitions"? Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, and it has been proved. There is no ambiguity or debate about it.

LOL. I wonder if you are any more confident than @BuzzStone that you are actually willing to start a thread to define and defend what you mean by the fact of evolution.

Of course, if you're point was simply to assert your faith commitment in what you learned in school like a fundamentalist asserts what they learn in Sunday School, then don't start a thread. That's how @BuzzStone has handled it.

Hey, some people call their god, Yahweh, and claim that Moses and Isaiah were prophets of their god whose words were just accepted without being able to lay-out data and arguments. Some people call their god, "Science," and claim that Dawkins and Cone are their prophets whose words are just accepted without being able to lay-out data and arguments. If you, like apparently @BuzzStone, fall into this latter category, that's fine too. I have no problem with that, I just wonder why so many are adult enough to admit that they've just accepted this nonsense by faith.

 

[AE 87]

It is a fact that man and chimps evolved from the same ancestor. The fact that humans are hominids is not up for debate.
And a theory is science is the best you can hope for. If you think theory means it is not proven then please jump in the air and not come down so you can prove the theory of gravity wrong.

Start a thread. Asserting that something is not up for debate is what fundamentalist believers do, not scientists.