Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

a moronic Richard Dawkins saying

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stuu
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Oh he's not?

    https://youtu.be/-AQvWrX-mKg

    Pretty moronic, if you ask me...
    The matter in the universe is borrowed gravitational energy from the expansion of space-time. One is positive and the other is negative energy, like credit and debit. The total energy of the universe is zero.

    So actually, everything has come from nothing.

    I note too that Mr. Pell, the man wearing the funny clothes and making the truly moronic comments in that video, is now in jail for sexual assault on a minor (actually two minors). As well as that representing justice for the victims, it seems a very satisfactory outcome more generally.

    Stuart

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post


    Child, please.
    Don't underestimate. Stuu knows what he's talking about: he runs a finely-tuned machine on cow manure for a living.

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Dawkins writing on the topic of religion.
    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    ...it's like running a finely-tuned machine on cow manure.
    Stuart


    Child, please.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stuu
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    What is?
    Dawkins writing on the topic of religion.

    Stuart

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    But it's like running a finely-tuned machine on cow manure.

    Stuart
    What is?

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    But it's like running a finely-tuned machine on cow manure.

    Stuart
    Is that a thing--"running a finely-tuned machine on cow manure"? What do you mean? Do you mean, like, cow manure is somehow powering a machine? Can any machine that you know of be running on cow manure in some sense? Were you really trying to draw some analogy, or just making some noise?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stuu
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Where it comes to science then sure, he's not, but where it comes to his forays into theology and the like he's pretty cringe worthy to be honest.
    But it's like running a finely-tuned machine on cow manure.

    Stuart

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    tldr; it's not important.
    Couldn't you have put that at the start?

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    I don't even know if there are valid appeals to authority. Certainly, it's good to seek the knowledge of those in the know, but I find it sensible to keep the phrase "appeal to authority" exclusively for use to describe the fallacy.

    So we probably have a semantic disagreement.
    We can agree to disagree, but for my part, I too held your view for many years, combining the logical fallacy with what some famous philosopher once said, something like that the appeal to authority is the weakest of arguments (this presumed that it was a valid appeal to authority).

    But then it dawned on me that because there were three tests for the validity of an appeal to authority, then if all three tests are passed, then that appeal to authority is valid, and I asked myself, are there any areas where the valid appeal to authority, while the weakest of arguments, is still useful?

    And my answer was that yes, in cases where the claim being argued only depends upon some widely held view from a particular field, but is not that same view, then valid appeals to authority can be employed profitably during discourse. For instance, if religion is or is not the root of all evil (re: to OP) cannot be supported by any valid appeal to authority, but that religion itself involves belief in abstract ideas, can be established through appealing to all the religions' authorities, and all the world's authorities in the secular field of religious studies, and seeing where the authoritative beliefs overlap, this would constitute, through analysis, a valid appeal to authority to establish what every religion has in common, which I am only positing is something like belief in abstract ideas of some kind.

    I pit the valid appeal to authority against whatever it might take to instead demonstrate a proposition is true. I am not an authority in any field (I am not a doctor of any discipline), so it would be difficult to establish through demonstration that propositions from this or that field are true, but it is feasible for me to make a valid appeal to the proper authority in order to establish the truth of such propositions.

    And it further implies that wherever there is actually a void of authority, it is in those spaces that my view and arguments are just as weighty as anybody else's. I am fighting a losing battle if I'm trying to argue that an entire field is wrong on some point that they uniformly agree on and teach, but there are lots of gaps in authority, especially in matters of faith, morals, politics, philosophy and theology. And Dawkins, in the OP, ventured into one of these fields when he made his claim about religion and roots of evil.

    tldr; it's not important.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    Which is not unusual, and why would we expect a single science PhD to also be able to do philosophy? When PhD physicists or biologists weigh in on philosophical or political or even moral matters, they are a bridge too far, and their views in such matters have no more weight than yours or mine do.
    No disagreement here. His expertise is in science and his personal views as regards religion are just that and nothing more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    I don't think I disagree with that. I certainly agree that "ideas should be judged against logic, reason and evidence," but "academic achievements" are relevant to a logically valid appeal to authority, which is valid when an authentic authority in a field, teaches what the entire field of authentic authorities in his field uniformly teaches, when the matter concerns that same field.
    I don't even know if there are valid appeals to authority. Certainly, it's good to seek the knowledge of those in the know, but I find it sensible to keep the phrase "appeal to authority" exclusively for use to describe the fallacy.

    So we probably have a semantic disagreement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    I can't get onboard with this. A man's ideas should be judged against logic, reason and evidence, not against the number or nature of his academic achievements.
    I don't think I disagree with that. I certainly agree that "ideas should be judged against logic, reason and evidence," but "academic achievements" are relevant to a logically valid appeal to authority, which is valid when an authentic authority in a field, teaches what the entire field of authentic authorities in his field uniformly teaches, when the matter concerns that same field.

    There is no valid appeal to authority possible if the person you appeal to, isn't an authority in the field that the claim you're making appears. Dawkins, for instance, is not an authority in philosophy, so whatever he thinks or says concerning the field of philosophy, must stand on its own, because he himself is not an authority in philosophy, outside of his doctorate in the philosophy of biology.
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Dawkins, for instance, should be laughed out of the room on every topic.
    I would imagine that he's not an extremist when it comes to teaching what is found in typical introductory biology textbooks though, which probably contain what amounts to a canon of biology propositions that are uniformly taught by all PhD biologists.

    But outside of his doctorate, for sure, his views have no more gravity than anybody else's, insofar as appealing to himself as an authority to argue his claims outside of biology, whether explicit or implicit.

    For example the OP has him saying, declaring really, that no one thing is the root of anything, which is not a proposition of biology, but a proposition of philosophy, if it's a sensible proposition at all.

    Other PhD scientists have weighed in on political matters, philosophical matters, theological and moral matters, like "Bill Nye" and "Carl Sagan" and "Neil deGrasse Tyson," and the combined weight of their views in these fields that are not their 'bread and butter,' is the same as any child's view on those matters, so far as them not possessing any teaching authority in these matters, but only in the fields in which they earned their doctorate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    Which is not unusual, and why would we expect a single science PhD to also be able to do philosophy? When PhD physicists or biologists weigh in on philosophical or political or even moral matters, they are a bridge too far, and their views in such matters have no more weight than yours or mine do.
    I can't get onboard with this. A man's ideas should be judged against logic, reason and evidence, not against the number or nature of his academic achievements.

    Dawkins, for instance, should be laughed out of the room on every topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Where it comes to science then sure, he's not, but where it comes to his forays into theology and the like he's pretty cringe worthy to be honest.
    Which is not unusual, and why would we expect a single science PhD to also be able to do philosophy? When PhD physicists or biologists weigh in on philosophical or political or even moral matters, they are a bridge too far, and their views in such matters have no more weight than yours or mine do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by The Horn View Post
    Whether you agree with him or not, Richard Dawkins is no moron !
    Where it comes to science then sure, he's not, but where it comes to his forays into theology and the like he's pretty cringe worthy to be honest.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X