Robin
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009
|
| Quote (REC @ Mar. 14 2013,08:32) | | Quote | | So, Robin, the next time you call someone a “wanker” after you think you have just defeated their argument, you might want to find a person smarter than you (that shouldn’t be hard) and check with them to make sure you understand the question, much less the answer to the question. |
What an unbelievable ass-so now he'll stalk us here, excerpt comments, and post them at UD, along with insults. |
I must admit, I laughed at that bit since I did in fact defeat Barry's previous argument. He created a strawman discussion, I pointed it out, and I corrected it. That, by definition, is a defeat. That he can't seem to grasp something so simple does render his retort questionable at best.
So now he's trying a slightly different approach to the same premise. Note however, it doesn't change the inaccurate nature of his previous strawman discussion. That example is still wrong and my rewrite is still valid. That he wants to quibble about the concept of "belief" and whether my belief in evolution (that I still insist I don't hold) is the same as his belief in his god and that selecting for false beliefs that lead to survival should be a conundrum for evolution is just plain old silly.
The fact is, no scientist (or "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist" or "Naturalists" or whatever) can know or really claim that religious belief is false. I know there are a few, such as David Sloan Wilson for example, who make the claim that religious belief is false. I certainly don't hold such and don't see many other scientists who do. Simply put, it would be impossible to validate such a claim. So from my perspective, religious believe is NOT FALSE. Period. That's a strawman statement Barry and Plantinga and whole bunch of other apologists have been blasted for it numerous times.
Religious explanations - as I noted previously - are in most cases false. Quite false in fact, but the religious beliefs themselves are not and in most cases are quite valid as they form the foundation of the social structure of given cultures and nations.
Now I'm sure that Barry et al will complain and insist (erroneously) that valid religious beliefs and false religious explanations is a contradiction. How can you have both? Simple - it depends upon the different domains in which the two magistrates (to borrow a term from Professor Gould) operate. In other words, religious beliefs in most cases lead to social behaviors within a social/cultural magistrate. Religious explanations, otoh, lead to functional behaviors - e.g., burning crops to appease the gods for better harvest, sacrificing goats and virgins for prosperity, temple sexual rituals for fertility, daughters being sold into slavery to pay debts, not mixing dairy and meat, women not being allowed to pray in temples with men, money changers outside of the temples, demonic possession as an explanation for fevers and illness, the earth being the center of the universe, and so on an so forth. The explanations that lead to these behaviors and beliefs are just plain erroneous and in some cases kill people. The religious beliefs from which such explanations come may well be overall useful for the group, but the explanations themselves are just plain old silly.
--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis
|
