Oh, by the way, there’s an even more hilarious example of the mythology fanboy modus operandi to present.
Several here may already be aware of the existence of one Henry Morris, who, back in the 1970s, was instrumental in laying the foundations for modern American corporate creationism, and courtesy of this cancerous service, polluted the arena of discourse with toxic ideological waste on a grand scale. It will become apparent very shortly why I refer to this individual as an arch-charlatan and professional liar for doctrine, even without poring over his various screeds in detail. Here’s the text, from one of said screeds, that seals the deal, so to speak, with respect to the duplicity endemic to mythology fanboyism, and creationism in particular:
The above was taken from Biblical Cosmology & Modern Science, pp 32-33 (1970), emphasis added in above.
With those words, Morris, in a no doubt wholly unintended moment of candour, admitted that his position (and every other creationist) can be summarised as “if reality and my favourte mythology disagree, then reality is wrong and my favourite mythology is right”.
Amen! Brothers and sisters! "No scientific facts of any kind, real or imagined, can be allowed to take prescience over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Biblical scholarship. This guy is worth reading!
I’m glad you found the actual book, not only so that I can point to the source in a properly irrefutable manner, but because even a cursory glance at that text yeilds more horrors emanating from creationism … indeed, immediately following my quote are these chilling words:
That creationists celebrate this horror, speaks volumes about their mentality.
And, of course, we have the facile part at the end about more agile organisms being better able to reach high ground as the fantasy “global flood” progressed:
This really is infantile drivel, isn’t it? Did he take himself seriously when scribbling this diseased excrement?
Oh wait, we have prototypical birds found in the same strata as 100 ton Sauropod dinosaurs. So organisms that can fly were unable to reach the tops of mountains quicker than lumbering giants? This really is pathetic and infantile.
I see he also regurgitates the “kinds” bullshit so many creationists masturbate over.
I’m tending to the view that he didn’t actually believe a word of this garbage, but disseminated it because doing so was lucrative while requiring the expenditure of little effort. Utter bag of sleaze and slime.
How would knowing their names help you or did you mean some other form of identification? Eyewitness testimony is not necessarily unreliable it can be inconsistent a rather different state of affairs.
Exactly.
Michael Grant, Robin L. Fox, A.N. Sherwin White and many more. The absence of Jesus from the writings of other contemporary histories no doubt has multiple explanations besides Jesus being made up. I have no idea how many people witnessed the events described, again a dearth of written accounts can have many explanations besides the events being a fabrication.
Yes I have, that’s a natural thing to consider of course. But there are lots of things about it that do not fit such a convenient narrative. For example the text of the gospels though not absolutely static over the centuries is nevertheless very stable indeed which suggests to some that there was no overt editing or adjustments made and such textual changes is something any sensible person would expect to see particularly given the often puzzling claims that are made.
Consider too circumcision and gentiles. It is anathema to Jewish culture and orthodoxy to regard gentiles as spiritual brothers and to advocate that circumcision is no longer required. If Jesus or his disciples had a plan to invent some new “religion” then this is very very difficult to explain. Furthermore Jesus stating he is God’s son and that he was present at the creation of the universe and was central to that creation makes no sense either, or what about the statements he made about the sabbath? all of these things serve only to alienate him and followers from Jewish culture, none of these are consistent with a claim that some attempt was being made to define a new theology because one would naturally expect such an alien and heretical concoction to to be doomed to failure.
Like the assumption that science reveals reality, that’s an assumption. Not an unreasonable one but an assumption nevertheless and we should never elevate assumptions to the status of fact - that’s exactly what you accuse theists of too!
Yes euphemisms (“ancient goat herder”) abound and in both directions. We can tarnish our discussion with these if we want but it does no help, all that does is change the debate from one about the facts at hand to one about euphemisms and that’s all too often what I see in these threads.
Excep that this is another of your strawman caricatures of our actual thought.
What we actually state, is that direct empirical test of assertions, as conducted by science, is a far more reliable means of obtaining genuine knowledge, than treating uncritically as fact the scribblings of pre-scientific nomads.
But presenting the genuine facts has never prevented you from engaging in manifest and rampant apologetic duplicity in the past, so no one here expects the above will bring a halt to your discoursive malfeasance.
Except that I’ve just explained why your caricature is precisely that, and why your further expansion thereupon is null and void.
As opposed to the assumption that a bunch of people who knew nothing about science, magically alighted upon the keys to the cosmos 3,000 years ago?
There goes another irony meter …
With good reason.
You can’t even learn the correct definitions applicable here. What I present is a dysphemism, one chosen deliberately to highlight the ignorance of the individuals in question.
You can’t even conduct your apologetics competently.
You mean, such as your fake resort to tone policing as a substitute for substance?
You “see” a lot of things that are wholly imaginary. Your cartoon magic man being one of them.
It is a very safe assumption based on the overwhelming objective evidence that supports it.
Something can be both an assumption, and a fact, they are not mutually exclusive, you seem to be creating yet another false equivalence fallacy, as it is demonstrably false to imply all assumptions are equally valid. You keep doing the same thing with beliefs, implying your some sort of generic parity.
Assumptions, as with beliefs, become more reliable in direct proportion to the amount of objective evidence that supports them. Science is by far and away the most successful method we have for understanding reality. Religious apologists seem to want to deny this fact, simply because science, like reality, don’t objectively evidence any deities or anything supernatural.
There are assumptions though, science always rests on assumptions do you agree at least with that?
Why do you think we’re discussing science here, we’re not.
Oh so you were being derogatory, of course, why am I not surprised. Here’s something to think about, James Burke - no stranger to science education and history of technology, its just the first few minutes, specifically the part about Wittgenstein:
See? every generation thought they were the arbiter of truth, every culture in its day thought it’s views were truth. As Burke says and as I’ve said more times than I can remember here “what you think the universe is, and how you react to that in everything you do, depends on what you know and when that knowledge changes then for you, the universe changes”.
So how you react to discussions about philosophy, logic and theism is governed by your existing beliefs and assumptions.
Perhaps you can prove to me that the gospels make claims that are provably false? I’d love to see you struggle with that one.
Yes but I already said just that in the post you were replying to but you truncated what I’d written, here it is again with added emphasis:
Anyway at least you agree that there are assumptions and we should always be cognizant of the fact that assumptions that were wrong is precisely why theories of physics get replaced.
A fact is by definition unquestionable, cannot logically be doubted, that’s not true for an assumption, of course confusing the two is an all too common error of reasoning.
You say “it is demonstrably false to imply all assumptions are equally valid” but what does that mean? what does “valid” mean here? did you mean “justified” perhaps? and how can we use “equally” here how are you measuring that?
We can’t do much scientifically about the gospels either. Trying to decide to what degree there’s any historic truth contained within them is not a question about science. Did Jesus turn water into wine? The materialist will say “no” but that’s because of their current worldview being materialism.
Think about how science is useless when trying to ascertain the truth about whether Spartacus existed and what he did while alive, these questions are not within the domain of the natural sciences.
So you’re moving the goalposts there with something of a straw man, but again assumptions can also be objective facts.
Hmm…
The same old straw man fallacy, no one here has claimed any scientific facts are immutable, only religions make such claims.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is irrational to claim any assertion claim or belief gains any credence because it cannot be disproved?Surely this fallacy has been explained enough times by now, for you to avoid making the same basic error in reasoning?
I pointed out that the assumption was based on overwhelming objective evidence, as you had disingenuously tried to imply all assumptions have some sort of parity, as you have done with the word belief for many months, even after it has been explained that you’re offering a false equivalence fallacy.
nope, again I can only recommend you consult a dictionary, in the meantime for objective readers:
Fact noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
So if something is known to be true it is a fact, note the word or in the defintion, it need not necessarily be proved. Now lets take a look at assumption:
noun
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
Now for context here is your original claim:
That is also a fact.
Valid
adjective
1, (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
No justified is subjective, and I am not measuring anything as equal, assumptions like beliefs can range from purely subjective, to objective fact, so it was you who implied they were equal, by comparing assumptions about archaic superstitious hearsay that is unsupported by any objective evidence, with the idea that science reveals reality, again here is your claim:
They are not remotely comparable, as such an assumption about the efficacy of science is, as I said, supported by overwhelming objective evidence.
Straw man, and it has been explained to you that disbelieving claims and making contrary claims are no more the same thing, than materialism and atheism are the same thing. However Occam’s razor applies here.
To what end, no one is making any supernatural claims about Spartacus, and if they did without any objective evidence, then I would disbelieve those claims.
Is it now, are you sure? I see creationists question scientific facts all the time.
More obfuscations and equivocations fallacious bullshit. The assertions of science can NOT be compared to the assertions of THEISTS. Science does not elevate assumptions to the status of ‘fact.’
“FACTS”
There are 206 bones in the human body.
Water can boil & freeze at the same time.
Light takes almost eight minutes to proceed from the sun to earth.
A cockroach can live for up to one week without its head.
Shirlock’s problem is that he does not know the difference between a fact and an assumption.
You need to be more thorough, go back and see to what I was responding:
You either have no assumptions about reality or you do, wo which is it?
Do you disagree with Burke? What is a “scientific fact” in your world and how can a fact not be immutable?
You seem to be willing to go to great lengths to avoid admitting that what you believe is based on assumptions, you’d rather created contrived meaningless statements than be honest.
Where did I “disingenuously tried to imply all assumptions have some sort of parity”? I did no such thing.
No I’m not.
So I see “known or proved to be true” to have a different meaning to “accepted as true”, if you see these as being identical meaning then it explains much.
I said a fact is “unquestionable” and that is true, anything known to be true or proven to be true cannot itself have a truth that is open to doubt.
No it isn’t.
Not me you don’t.
You have a pathological, irrational dread of admitting that you must make assumptions in order to reason your own worldview, that’s not healthy and it’s not being open minded.
Oh I am still no confident he knows what fact means. His claim was specifically about we view science though, that “science reveals reality” is an assumption. He is clearly implying all assumptions are the same, as he did with beliefs. However you are making a sound point, since proven is defined as demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing, one could argue it is not an assumption that “science reveals reality”, but an easier point to argue is that assumptions though not proven, need not be equally valid, since one may make an assumption based on overwhelming objective evidence, and also based on a “gut feeling, tarot cards, or crystals”. For example I assume there will be a sunrise tomorrow. He’s indulging in semantics by using facile generalisations, as the specifics do not support comparing his theistic belief with science or the efficacy of science to reveal reality.
Yes science and philosophy are different intellectual disciplines, we know this. Yes I know science does not elevate assumptions to be facts, that’s what I said and so I don’t understand why you even reacted like this.
But there are people who elevate assumptions to the status of fact, it goes on all the time in these threads.
Yes I said already these are reasonable assumptions, I said that already!
Are you denying that physics works? It’s a fact that computers work, as demonstrated by you posting to this forum. Computers work because the underlying science works. The underlying science, like electromagnetism, special relativity, high frequency electronics, transmission theory, semiconductor physics, and quantum mechanics work because the underpinning postulates of physics actually tells us something about reality, and because mathematics seems to be an excellent tool to derive properties from these postulates. If the postulates did not reflect reality, and mathematics was bullshit, physics would not work. We can say the same about disciplines like chemistry, biology, geology, etc. The big difference between science and religion is that you don’t have to believe in science for it to work (computers work whether you accept or deny physics), but religion requires you to believe in it for it to “work” (whatever one might mean by that).
No. I’m stating unequivocally that they are all the sameinsofar as they are all assumptions. A dime and a quarter are coins - do you take that mean that a quarter and a dime are identical? You are confused again, stating that various statements are all assumptions is not to state they are all backed to the same degree.
My dear fellow the very phrase “overwhelming objective evidence” is itself grounded in assumptions and beliefs.
I have not compared theistic beliefs with science, what I have said is that science has limited utility when discussing philosophical questions, you seem to think all questions can be reduced to questions about the natural world, answered by doing natural science but I strongly disagree.
Consider “Did Spartacus actually exist” you can read all the science books you like, study all branches of science until you’re a hundred years old but that will not help you answer the question because these are not science questions, they are not questions about nature.
Similarly “Jesus changed water into wine” cannot be even remotely investigated by science, it is useless to even talk about science because it has no possible application to this question.
Yes I studied these subjects myself. But I do not take our ability to predict a future state of a system to reveal reality, the example of the differing (very different) interpretations of quantum physics proves this.
Is reality the many worlds interpretation or is it the Copenhagen interpretation? The former means reality is wholly deterministic but the latter means it is not, so which is it? Each is a valid formal interpretation (assessed meaning) of the VERY SAME equations.
A clear fact is that we have NO IDEA what reality is, right there science PHYSICS proves that we do not know anything about reality at all, we just kid ourselves we do.
You are now discussing philosophy though not science. Terms like “work” and “reflect reality” are not in the domain of the natural sciences. You guys struggle to hard to always treat every question in theism as being scientific questions and then when that analysis becomes unproductive you interpret that to mean that theism is nonsensical and a delusional.
Bu the questions in theism are NOTHING TO DO with the natural sciences, if you insist they are then right there you have a belief and one that we do not share.
Do you agree some assumptions are more likely true than others? IF you don’t then can you tell if you think my assumption there will be a sunrise tomorrow, is as valid as people’s assumptions about tarot card readings, or astrology?
Now if you agree assumptions are not equally likely to be valid or true, then your point just seems like another false equivalence fallacy, since what you labelled an assumption is supported by overwhelming objective evidence. You can demonstrate none for any deity, or any supernatural claim.
Facts are things we known or proven to be true, what we know to be true can change in the light of new evidence, if it can change it is not immutable.
Ok lets check the context then, the posts are sequential and I will number them for clarity:
1
2
3
So the answer to your post (1) would be, why need we do this if the assumptions we are making are far more reliable than the (objectively) unevidenced hearsay of archaic text derived anonymously from an epoch of extreme ignorance, credulity, and superstition?
Then what’s your problem with atheists being unable to reconcile the unevidenced superstitious hearsay of the gospels, where they are directly at odds with scientific facts, like corpses rising out of their graves after many years below ground and wondering the streets for example?
Sigh, I never said they were identical, it is demonstrable however that they are not mutually exclusive, yet you said:
Again assumptions CAN ALSO BE facts, now read carefully and slowly, this does not mean they are identical or even the same. How you could leap to that assumption when my whole post was explaining that assumptions are not all equally likely to be true or valid if bizarre?
Are you saying no one knows it to be true that science reveals reality? I can only strongly disagree.
Not you I don’t what? You didn’t answer my question? Do you agree that creationists question scientific facts?
That’s a lie, a rather silly one as well, as all anyone need do is scroll up. I am simply asserting that assumptions needn’t ALWAYS be unreliable or entirely subjective, they can also be facts based on overwhelming objective evidence, again then… I assume there will be a sunrise tomorrow, and I also assume that people cannot rise from the dead after being buried for many years, and walk around the place, both safe assumptions because there is overwhelming objective evidence that the first does happen every time the earth rotates, and because there is no objective evidence that second is even possible.
I have not claimed otherwise, must you produce a dishonest straw man in every single post? All anyone need to is scroll up to see I took a great deal of effort to semantically examine the limits of the definition of assumption to see that it could be applied in this case, albeit subjectively, however it is a meaningless assertion to describe the assertion that science reveals realty as an assumption, when you know assumptions are not all equally true or valid.
So all assumptions are assumptions, genius. Anymore tautologically redundant gems for us?
So the comparison was facile semantics then?
My dear fellow, so what?
Actually you have on more than one occasion claimed they are not incompatible, and you are at this very moment asserting both require, GASP assumptions. Though of course as we now see, assumption was a rather facile claim here, as not all assumptions are equally reliable or valid.
Nope, that’s a lie, I have never remotely made any such claim. You seem to struggle with the obvious difference between disbelieving superstitious claims that the supernatural is possible, and claiming it is impossible, but they are very different assertions.
