Jesus Camp Trailer

[Cromcruaich]

No which is exactly why I reiterated the point of it not being that simple. Black widows eating their mates for example is rather obscure, but my underlying point was more that these kind of concepts do exist in the animal kingdom - it's not the same for every species certainly and sometimes an animal of a species goes a bit screwy and attacks it's own when others don't (this is similar to the fact you get the odd phsycopath once in a while in the human world) for the most part.

Aye, without diversity we wouldnt be here. If we were thrust into a Mad Max world, i dont doubt that those psychopaths would be heavily seleted for due to environmental pressure, while the liberals sitting in their commune are slain before they get chance to breed.

Ofcourse it wouldnt matter, god would spontaneously create those liberals (in some muddy pool, outside of Waitrose) if they were to die out.

[Cromcruaich]

Unsure of what the point of this reason debate is, except a total diversion and offshoot resulting from a past post you made Shark.

Anyway, I dont like to miss a chance of wasting more work time.. so..

Shark, can you explain if you are trying to connect reason in anyway with creationism or the existance of god. Seems your driving the discussion down a road that is close to your heart without it having any defined relevance.

Would make a very interesting seperate thread though, but it is a shame to stick it in here as religion will only cloud the issue.

Its been a good while since ive read around 'what is consciousness', the overarching quality of which reason is perhaps a part. Its gonna be another of those problems with definitions again though I feel.

[Xest]

You citing someone else back at me simply verifies my point that reason is not located in the brain but that it is something to do with rationality and scientific community. So like I said whilst Steven Pinker might disagree with those people it by no means concludes the discussion.

That's exactly what I said. It's pointless citing sources when none of them are absolutely certain either way. However trying to do as you did and infer that it was conclusive in some way that reason isn't a process performed by the brain shows how weak your argument is, as does the fact that once again you're getting rather uptight and aggressive.

I find your point(that reason is organic) more and more shrill and desperate as time moves on because as yet you have not even defined reason let alone told me where I can see it. So go on then be my guest.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I can see god also. So go on then be my guest. Weak religious zealot style arguments ftw!

And remember this is the main plank that you use to refute arguments about God.... If you cannot even defend your main plank then why accuse others of being unreasonable? That Xest was my purpose in entering the debate. Its not so funny when the boot is put on the other foot now is it?

Oh but it's not is it? The comments about reason are actually an absolutely miniscule subset of the argument that you've focussed on in an attempt to demonstrate as being wrong (which you haven't, you've just reached a point where science hasn't reached a definitive conclusion). What you've done is little different to be saying god doesn't exist purely because there's no mention of dinosaurs in the bible, the fact is it takes far more than simply focussing on one miniscule point of the argument to prove conclusively either way. It's actually highly funny that you feel the boot is on the other foot because the irony is in defending religious beleifs you've argued like any other religious zealot, that is you've based your arguments on misdirection, missing the point and ignoring the questions.

Your the one who said it was in the brain. I guess that means you didn't have a point after all. And that of course is why I brought up the idea of sources and authority of evidence. Thanks for proving what I already knew about 'reason'.

The funny part is more that this is an area of expertise to you and not to me yet even with your supposed expertise and knowledge of the subject you still felt the need to infer that it was conclusively known that reason wasn't something that wasn't part of the brain when in fact again there's nothing conclusive about that at all. I guess the fact you needed to infer this is evidence enough at how weak your argument actually is.

I find it ironic that you are the one who claims logic and fact as the basis for rejecting God and now in your irony admitting that logic certainly is not the only answer. Very ironic and of course the point I was driving at yet again.

Once again it's a case of misinterpretation on your behalf, when I said "that logic", I was referring to your flawed logic, afaik you're from the UK so I'm not sure how you missed that when that term and various twists on it is in common use over here such that "your logic", or "that logic" can infer that the logic in question is flawed. Logic is the answer, flawed logic is most certainly not, nearly all your comments in the last 24hrs have fallen into the latter category.

So are you going to continue getting uptight, focussing on miniscule parts of the bigger picture and suggesting that because science contains uncertainty about some things that it's wrong about everything, making false connections such as suggesting that evolution must have reason and infering that your psychologist friends know more than anyone else in the world? Hopefully not, maybe you'll start trying to argue without needing to resort to the above to cover up such persistently weak and nonsensical arguments.

[Cromcruaich]

Shark,

Do you believe that reason is proof of god? Please explain why this is so. In under 100 words. I dont get the link at all. I dont think baiting Xest, and Xest baiting you back is getting very far. Though it's probably fun for both of you, we all enjoy a bit of mutual baiting now and again, and you're both masters.

da old ones are the best. least thats what jupi tells me.

[Luz]

Gandelf, sorry if I insulted you.

Its just that I was sure I would read the Bible and get some sort of understanding of Christianity. Only to find myself get lost after no more then 6 pages(!) which I also considered to be poorly writen.

I had to change to the American Standard Bible, because the Swedish one did not make any sense to me at all and I did not want anything to get lost in translation.

I mean sure I am a critic, I am reading my way thru it with a critical eye, but its painfully obvious that God is not perfect, nor allknowing or even very wise. Not even a few pages into the Bible he has made several misstakes which does not fit very well into the whole God thing.

He continues to wipe out all of the entire planet(!), which by the way would certainly be killing more people in a "single blow" then any Atomic bombs. Asking a single man to build an Ark which need to be big enough to support like 40.000 animals (housing, food and sanitary should really be amazing).

I am sorry, but even if I were to have read the Bible for the first time without any bias to anything I could not for the world see how I could believe it! There is nothing in it to even suggest its true by the way, atleast not sofar.

Even if it wasnt a matter of religion the book in it self, standing alone, sofar isnt even very good. Maybe it gets better when the action kicks in..

[Cromcruaich]

Gandelf, sorry if I insulted you.

Its just that I was sure I would read the Bible and get some sort of understanding of Christianity. Only to find myself get lost after no more then 6 pages(!) which I also considered to be poorly writen.

I had to change to the American Standard Bible, because the Swedish one did not make any sense to me at all and I did not want anything to get lost in translation.

I mean sure I am a critic, I am reading my way thru it with a critical eye, but its painfully obvious that God is not perfect, nor allknowing or even very wise. Not even a few pages into the Bible he has made several misstakes which does not fit very well into the whole God thing.

He continues to wipe out all of the entire planet(!), which by the way would certainly be killing more people in a "single blow" then any Atomic bombs. Asking a single man to build an Ark which need to be big enough to support like 40.000 animals (housing, food and sanitary should really be amazing).

I am sorry, but even if I were to have read the Bible for the first time without any bias to anything I could not for the world see how I could believe it! There is nothing in it to even suggest its true by the way, atleast not sofar.

Even if it wasnt a matter of religion the book in it self, standing alone, sofar isnt even very good. Maybe it gets better when the action kicks in..

I think genesis is where the action kicks in. Oh and revelations, which was added in medieval times iirc. The inbetween stuff is just filling. The love scenes arnt very erotic either. Begattings all well and good, but it needs more descriptive language, there isnt a throbbing engorged member in sight.

[Sharkith]

true Crom - I engage because it is fun I am also doing it because I feel those who think they are on solid ground when they use science (and logic which is what Xest does throughout the thread) need to think very carefully about how they are doing that.

I find Xest's essentialism dangerous and hence it for me it really ought to be undermined. I can explain my motives later if it becomes relevant.

This is frankly pure sophistry (though i appreciate your wordcraft as always Shark). Reason and rationality have nothing to do with it, it is completely flawed logic. The other point to make here is regards you use of language - 'Darwin and all his followers'. Its a misuse and a misrepresentation, people who dont believe in creationism are no more followers of Darwin, than people who use computers are followers of Turing.

OK in your reply your still not being clear and I don't think we should gloss over the notion of the distinction between ideas and facts so quickly - it is definitely not sophistry and is quite an important distinction in the philosophy of science. I will try to do this by referencing your reply I hope this works.

I want to point out that the retreat to phenotype is no more a solution to the problem than the original idea of selection was the final answer. When I read evolutionary psychologists and writers like Helena CroninI see the use of intelligent design quite frequently especially in their treatment of counter cases which I note you have neglected to discuss.

Can I propose the principal theoretical point of Darwin's theory?

Structural changes in organisms are selected through the interaction between an organisim and its environment and this occurs over time. The process occurs through competition where the organism with a structural advantage survives better than other similar organisms that do not have such an advantage.

is this ok? Or would you restate it? I am not sure if that is a good summary tbh.

Lets take this a step at a time.

Explain:
Why a fact is observable only with an idea? Without recourse to the old existentialism again (no tables here!)

I will respond here because whilst some others have singularly failed to move things forward I do feel it is necessary to try and address the points I am making. First of all note that the notion of idea is incorrect and that it would be more helpful for me to substitute the notion of value instead. I can reply why this is the case if you feel you need to know why later.

Facts refer to statements about how things are.
Values are statements about how things ought to be.

The distinction between facts and values is crucial to understanding why you can see in Darwinism the notion of intelligent selection. Put simply whilst it is a fact that human beings exist there is no inherent reason why they should exist. Instead all the way through his theory and if you read the articles and books (edit I left this bit out ) you can see he is inferring towards a future where higher forms of life would exist.

Darwins theory responds to the fact that higher forms of life exist by trying to explain how this could have happened. In so doing it accidently proposes that in some way one selection by the environment was made over and against another and that in some way this selection was achieved because of the 'advantage' that one organism had over another.

The key question is the degree to which this theory is factual or actually quite value laden.

Secondly you misunderstand (deliberately i think) the mechanism of natural selection, finally to arrive at a conclusion that nature has rationality and reason. Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with rationality and reason.

I don't actually misunderstand natural selection I think you will find I am teasing out an idea that runs 'behind' what the theorists are saying (I am trying to locate a Foucaultian analysis of the history of Darwin which covers much of these ideas). I do read a lot on the approach if you have read "The Ant and the peacock" then you will agree with me that Darwins theory is tremendously elegant. This does not mean there might well be a hidden point of observation that he missed when formulating his theory? In fact if you read that text you will know there are loads of places were values creep in...

I am sure you would also agree that we ought to scrutinise his theory?

Firstly you make a completely false link that natural selection needs to be observed. This is false, because it is observable, doesnt mean that it requires observation to be an idea.

Actually I agree with you here what your missing is that 'behind' natural selection is another idea that is best conceptualised as 'intelligent selection'. I am offering an alternative interpretation to show that 'in fact' not even Darwin's theory is as solid as people in this thread have tried to maintain. I did it with the purpose to directly undermine the claims that it was a good foundation to counter God...

Secondly, 'the idea that somehow the selection was made naturally'. Here the suggestion is that there is a force called nature that makes selections, almost in a god like way. Really thats a false representation. Environmental changes resulting in members of populations having advantages within that environment means that the population over time aquires higher proportions of the genes that produce phenotypes with the more competitive features. There is no intelligence to that, its simply a result of molecular genetics and the environment. The environment was changed by some Gaia nature entity, it did change, and amoung the by chance random phenotypic differences, some of those died less and bred more than others because of accidental benefits within the changed environment from their phenotype as dictated by their genotype.

You see they have to have an advantage Crom? Who decides what advantage they had other than the person using the theory of evolution looking back and 'reinterpreting' and reconstructing the facts according to the theory...

The notion of advantage implies a degree of 'intelligent' selection after all organisms evolved into a higher and higher state eventually producing cognition. Surely the myth is just this that in some way there is progress to higher and higher forms. Within the idea of advantage is hidden a form of intelligence. Thats why I stated the question (ironcially I might add) about whether or not nature was intelligent? Of course nature is not intelligent but a lot of Darwinists write as though it is...

Can you see the problem? Is competitive advantage another way of reading an overall move towards intelligence? If so is then the premiss of intelligent selection underpinning the theory?

Lets not forget that Darwin started by trying to establish how intelligent life was indeed possible.

[Sharkith]

Shark,

Do you believe that reason is proof of god? Please explain why this is so. In under 100 words. I dont get the link at all. I dont think baiting Xest, and Xest baiting you back is getting very far. Though it's probably fun for both of you, we all enjoy a bit of mutual baiting now and again, and you're both masters.

da old ones are the best. least thats what jupi tells me.

Thank you Crom for asking this. I believe that reason is not proof of the existence of God. In fact what I have deliberately gone out of my way to do is to undermine the apparent steady foundation of reason which has been placed in opposition to God.

Likewise I never once said that I have any personal faith in God. Ironic don't you think?

[Sharkith]

As for you Xest - your always fair game here. You don't really have a strong position to use reason and logic as the foundation for objecting to God. In many ways the whole discussion on these grounds is pointless.

There is no point reading aggression into me I am quite calm and thoroughly enjoying the crack as we put it at home.

I find Ankh's position much more honest (and frightening).

Like I said above - there is no proof of God's existence. Why do you keep getting me to try and prove he exists? I am happy knowing that lots of people think he does and I am happy studying what that does for them. I don't feel the need to tell them there is no place for them in our 'developed' society. Which is what you do.

As for the reason and brain thing. Reread your original post - you seemed pretty sure it exists in the brain. When probed further you were forced to agree that in fact we are not too sure where it exists. In fact all you did was verify my point that your statement is by no means conclusive.

Now if your statement is not really conclusive on what ground can you categorically state that there is no place for belief in God in this modern/developed world?

Are you trying to tell me that there is no place for people who have these beliefs?

I am waiting to see your logic at the moment it totally escapes me if you will excuse me for saying it!

[Luz]

If I understood the Bible right sofar, reason is what we got when Eve ate the apple of wisdom and gave a piece to Adam.

Gen 3:5
"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and (D)you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Is that not the first step to reason? Or is that morals maybe..


Anyway. About "Darwins Theory", when you speak of it do you mean HIS litteral theory and not the current theory of evolution?

I would think that science had made progress on Darwins theory and reformed it some? I might be wrong tho, should read up on it some since its needed to pass time at work, ie debate in this thread

Regarding "theory" in scientific terms, a theory is a theory untill proven wrong. That means nobody has proven Darwins theory wrong, or it would no longer be classed a theory.

It has however been proven, with science, that praying to God dont help (in various independent studygroups of random people), you can try this yourself anywhere, even at work. It has also been proven that alot of the stuff in the Bible just isnt right, so Christianity isnt a scientific theory from what I can make of it.