Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 24 2008,00:36)|
|Now that that current round of Ftkdoodle has run its course, some thoughts. |
First, I think Ftk formulates an interesting question that could provoke some interesting answers when she asks, rather desperately, "Right here, right now, I want you to tell me about your philosophical beliefs. How do you think this little molecule of life could have been responsible for everything we observe in nature today."
I haven't responded to this question myself largely because Ftk has lately elected to ignore my comments. However, such a response might be worth sharing, if not with Ftk in particular, then with others here, if there is interest. I'd expect considerable diversity in philosophical outlook. For example, Louis, in my view, goes a bridge too far when he states that belief plays no role in fixing his, well, beliefs. This suggests that science is akin to an automated fact machine that runs independently of, and produces products that stand apart from, human belief. I don't see it that way, and that might be worth exploring some time. I'd expect there are other differences of perspective to be found here on sane street.
Second, I noted a subtle/clever bit of illogic on Ftk's part (although this may also have been accidental) in the same post: "If you believe that a bloggy spore can result in everything we observe in nature today, then I question your logic. If you give me a reason to think your logic is in tact, then perhaps I'd venture out on the science issues with you."
Here she uses one's putatively unjustified confidence on abiogenesis to impeach reasoning on vastly more secure topics such as common descent. I swear, Ftk must ask to have her tires conflated when she gets an oil change - but I also found this to be a semi-interesting move. Assumptions regarding OOL certainly do fill a rather large void - although it does not follow (as Ftk fervently hopes) that other findings (common descent) are therefore less secure. I think here again she is pulling, legitimately (and perhaps again accidently), for those philosophical assumptions. For example, I certainly DO assume that OOL was a natural phenomenon and that science proceeding on the basis of methodological naturalism may succeed in articulating those ancient events. But I don't know that. And if I am wrong, then the world is a somewhat different place than I previously grasped.
Third, some dangling Ftkdoodlisms worth noting:
- Ftk never really responded to my challenge to her to describe how creation scientists operating from a framework of "common design" could possibly accomplish work comparable to that conducted by Johanne Haile-Selassie. Again, I take it that she has no real response.
- Tom Ames patiently asked Ftk to affirm or deny that he had provided examples of practical benefit of research into human origins. This after he articulated several careful responses to her repeated question. She failed to respond in any way.
- Ftk has openly and repeatedly declared that she simply cannot and will not accept common descent, one of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory, regardless of any evidence presented. I take her at her word.
- Similarly, Ftk has openly and explicitly declared her disinterest in the scientific method, in a statement that is now carried forward in several signatures. We have it in her own words: she doesn't give a flying fuck how science works. (I, for one, WOULD like to see how a flying fuck works.) Again, I take her at her word. Perhaps this is why she can't perceive the courage of those "creationists" who, in the 18th and 19th century, believed their eyes rather than their indoctrination and understood the essential implications of their observations within geology. As Wesley has underscored, there is no identity between these scientists, and the cultural context in which they operated, and present day creationists within their manufactured context, who refuse to know things that we already know.
Ultimately, the combination of this "flying fuck" declaration, and that above vis common descent, explains the complete futility to date in engaging Ftk on these scientific questions. Her beliefs are fixed, and there is no likelihood that scientific reasoning is going to break them.
[edits for clarity]
I'm extremely interested. I'm always up for an opportunity to learn something new. Let's have at it!
Separate thread? What do you want to call it?*
Could I ask one tiny favour, please? I think a lot of this will hinge on various definitions of words like "belief", so if we could get a series of (perhaps personal) definitions out of the way first, I think it would seriously help us out. It might be a bit dull, but I reckon that once we know what tools we are working with, the conversation will be several orders of magnitude more productive. Sound fair?
ETA: * Bill and Louis' Existential Adventure?