Quote from: CRKrueger;427778Don't want to get in the middle of this, but, John there's a difference between talking about existence of God or matters of faith in a religion and whether the Earth is 5,000 or 5,000,000,000 years old.

While I understand your point, anyone who has seen the Matrix should understand the philosophical foundation upon which it was based, which is that we take just about everything on faith except for our own existence and concepts just a logic and mathematics.  We could all be brains in a vat or the universe could have been wished into existence seconds ago and we simply cannot prove beyond any doubt otherwise.

Do I believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old?  No.  I'm not a Biblical literalist.  But I also know that I can't prove with 100% certainty that I'm right and the Biblical literalists are wrong.

Quote from: CRKrueger;427778We have a sitting US congressman who thinks that there won't be major worldwide flooding because God promised Noah in the bible that He wouldn't send another flood.  Who is this jackass?  John Shimkus.

The presence of one person who takes something too far does not mean that they all do. The most recent Gallup Poll on evolution (December 2010) showed that 40% of Americans believe in young Earth Creationism, another 38% believe in guided evolution, and only 16% believe God had no part in the process.  Not every religious conservative is a young Earth Creationist and not all of those who are will be as boneheaded as John Shimkus.  And my point, that started this whole digression, is that Fundamentalism is often a backlash against attacks on religion.  When atheists use evolution to argue that God doesn't exist, they provide evidence in support of a slippery slope argument that positions guided evolution on the path to atheism, so the backlash is to reject guided evolution and even science and embrace Fundamentalism because science is positioned as being anti-God.

Quote from: CRKrueger;427778Intelligent design, young earth, all kinds of Fundamentalist Protestant Christian beliefs are simply and objectively wrong.

Prove to me, objectively and without any room for doubt, that we all existed a day ago.  I doubt you can without building on a fairly sizable pile of assumptions that are just that... assumptions, even if I agree with them.

Quote from: Simlasa;427839Just saying, not necessarily famous for policing their own... or owning up to past mistakes.

You're not seeing the point. EVEN if the numbers are WAY off. Think about it. An estimate of between 1,200 and 2,000 people actually executed. Over the course of nearly two HUNDRED YEARS.

Point of comparison:

IN ONE DAY.

Between 6,500 and 14,000 soldiers, Allies and Germans, DIED on D Day. A SINGLE DAY.

I think people really do not understand what they are talking about, sometimes. We're just repeating bullshit that's been passed on for decades upon decades down to us, and like to think we are the ones who are righteous, and objective, and know "the truth," while in fact, we really are no better than the people that came before us. Same lack of judgment. Same bias. Same mob mentality.

Quote from: jhkim;427841I'm about to teach evolution in January to my kids.  The above pretty much fits the standard response of liberal-biased California educators, and mostly fits the California standards for the topic.  While there are those who would teach science and evolution as inherently anti-religion (like Richard Dawkins), they are a rare fringe.  Within the U.S., the majority of Democrats and liberals are themselves religious - usually Christian.

Part of my point is that people like Dawkins do not do their own side a favor by positioning science that way.  If you give many people a choice between science or God, they'll pick God for reasons no doubt unfathomable to many atheists.  So add an explicit disclaimer that the purpose of teaching evolution is not to undermine religion or tell children what to believe.

Quote from: jhkim;427841A few caveats on this:  I would never use the phrase "just a theory" - because there is nothing more solid in science than a well-established theory.  I would say that it is a theory that represents our best understanding as much as anything else in science.  I would say that students don't have to believe evolution as the absolute truth - just that they have to understand it and correctly answer test questions about it.

I'm perfectly fine with that.

Quote from: jhkim;427841However, the liberal side isn't going to budge anywhere past that.  I am willing to teach that science is not absolute truth - and indeed that is part of the California standards.  However, I'm not willing to put in any special disclaimer to suggest that evolution is any less solid than other parts of science.  I personally would be willing to mention Intelligent Design, but mainly by way of demonstrating that it is weaker.  However, in general the educational and liberal community is completely opposed to that.

I think many people misunderstand Intelligent Design.  It's not so much a theory as a method to attempt to invalidate the theory of Evolution.  If you can prove that something can't evolve naturally, then naturalistic evolution fails as a theory.  I personally think it's a bit of a fool's errand, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate way to test evolutionary theory, even if it never pans out.  I also think it's constructive to ask evolutionists to explain how certain systems evolved rather than simply assuming they must have somehow.

Also bear in mind that what the standard say and what teachers teach is not always the same thing.  Teacher do go off the rails.  It may be rare, but thanks to the global transmission of news, local mistakes are no longer local.

I know the liberal side isn't going to budge much past that point, which is why I picked it.  I was, in fact, looking for the middle ground.  In fact, I might even have been too generous, since the true middle ground is often the point at which both sides aren't really happy.  You aren't unhappy enough.

Actually, as Wittgenstein points out in On Certainty, the justification for a doubt has to be as well-founded as the justification of any other similar proposition. Unless there is some particular reason you have for believing we are brains in jars, then there is no reason to believe we are (a delightful tautology). Similarly so - can you describe a well-founded reason for believing that we could have been created a moment ago?

A healthy measure of skepticism is a good thing, but it's important to be skeptical about the right things in the right ways, and not to treat epistemologically unequal statements as equally sound or plausible.

Quote from: Benoist;427847You're not seeing the point. EVEN if the numbers are WAY off. Think about it. An estimate of between 1,200 and 2,000 people actually executed. Over the course of nearly two HUNDRED YEARS.

Mao's Great Leap to Famine

45 million people.  Less than a decade.  And he had the Cultural Revolution as an encore.

Quote from: John Morrow;427852Mao's Great Leap to Famine

45 million people.  Less than a decade.  And he had the Cultural Revolution as an encore.

For instance. Absolutely.

So when I read people talk about the left's "momentary lapse of reason" during the 20th century and throw all kinds of ridiculous comparisons into the mix to sort of prove their point... all the while saying that, in not so many words, they are speaking some sort of actual Truth with a capital "T" since "as we all know," "The Truth has a Liberal bias"... but not actual numbers mind you, because of course, the numbers aren't comparable... - OH MY GOD MY BRAIN IT IS BLEEDING NAO.

How deluded can you get, really?

Not that Liberals can't have the right out of some issue or problem, they absolutely can and do, some times, but all the time, ever, the end, and it's so obvious if you don't see it you're somehow mentally retarded? Are you fucking kidding me? LOL

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427850Actually, as Wittgenstein points out in On Certainty, the justification for a doubt has to be as well-founded as the justification of any other similar proposition. Unless there is some particular reason you have for believing we are brains in jars, then there is no reason to believe we are (a delightful tautology). Similarly so - can you describe a well-founded reason for believing that we could have been created a moment ago?

No, but I do think that many religious people believe they have a well-founded justification for believing that the Bible is literally or largely true based on their personal experience of God.  A lot of atheists assume that religious belief is "blind faith" but I think is often not the case and that many people feel the presence of God in their lives.  And, yes, I know skeptics can dismiss that as self-delusion or psychological issues.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427850A healthy measure of skepticism is a good thing, but it's important to be skeptical about the right things in the right ways, and not to treat epistemologically unequal statements as equally sound or plausible.

That's a perfectly legitimate and useful point that I agree with.  But my point was not to advocate militant skepticism but to point out that people talk with absolute certainty about things which are not absolutely certain.

Quote from: Benoist;427847You're not seeing the point.

No, I saw your point... I was just commenting on that particular quote.

Quote from: John Morrow;427854No, but I do think that many religious people believe they have a well-founded justification for believing that the Bible is literally or largely true based on their personal experience of God.(snip) And, yes, I know skeptics can dismiss that as self-delusion or psychological issues.

The last straw that finally brought me OUT fundamentalist Christianity was doing a long hard study into the history of the bible... based entirely on materials I gathered from Christian bookstores. That's what made me a skeptic, not 'liberal' science teachers.

Quote from: Simlasa;427857The last straw that finally brought me OUT fundamentalist Christianity was doing a long hard study into the history of the bible... based entirely on materials I gathered from Christian bookstores. That's what made me a skeptic, not 'liberal' science teachers.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian and I personally think it often creates expectations that can destroy a person's faith when various aspects are challenged and don't hold up for a person.  For example, author Bart Ehrman writes books about textual differences in early Bible Manuscripts because such differences destroyed his faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.  Stephen Colbert, of all people, actually blew his socks off while trying to be funny.

Quote from: John Morrow;427846While I understand your point, anyone who has seen the Matrix should understand the philosophical foundation upon which it was based, which is that we take just about everything on faith except for our own existence and concepts just a logic and mathematics.  We could all be brains in a vat or the universe could have been wished into existence seconds ago and we simply cannot prove beyond any doubt otherwise.

...that I can't prove with 100% certainty that I'm right...

...so the backlash is to reject guided evolution and even science and embrace Fundamentalism because science is positioned as being anti-God.

Prove to me, objectively and without any room for doubt, that we all existed a day ago.  I doubt you can without building on a fairly sizable pile of assumptions that are just that... assumptions, even if I agree with them.

The bolded parts are the reasons people think you have a hard time with reality.  No serious inquiry into philosophy starts out by positing The Matrix.  A serious inquiry or discussion would start with the actual underpinning to which you refer obliquely: Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  I bring it up directly, because I strongly suspect you think The Matrix is based on something much more contemporary, and I have grave doubt you would have made the connection.

And your last paragraph?  Those of us out here in the reality whose existence eludes you call that 'solipsism'.  It's also why I laughed about 'objective reality' and 'objective truth' when they were brought up previously.  Those always lead back to the ultimate discussion silencer:  "You can't prove anything exists!!".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;427850Actually, as Wittgenstein points out in On Certainty, the justification for a doubt has to be as well-founded as the justification of any other similar proposition. Unless there is some particular reason you have for believing we are brains in jars, then there is no reason to believe we are (a delightful tautology). Similarly so - can you describe a well-founded reason for believing that we could have been created a moment ago?

A healthy measure of skepticism is a good thing, but it's important to be skeptical about the right things in the right ways, and not to treat epistemologically unequal statements as equally sound or plausible.

I am going to go ahead and cut-and-paste this into my later reply and get Brett to delete yours, if that is OK with you.  

Quote from: Simlasa;427839Just saying, not necessarily famous for policing their own... or owning up to past mistakes.

Yes, its bullshit. They discounted every case where the victim was handed over to the local authorities, who then executed them with the church's support.

In fact, there were probably less victims of the Inquisition than popular conception likely imagines, but these guys just chose to slant all their statistics. Its like if a mob boss were to say "I only whacked 4 people myself, for the other 79 I just gave them the kiss of death, and then someone else whacked them for me, so that shouldn't count".

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;427861The bolded parts are the reasons people think you have a hard time with reality.  No serious inquiry into philosophy starts out by positing The Matrix.  A serious inquiry or discussion would start with the actual underpinning to which you refer obliquely: Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  I bring it up directly, because I strongly suspect you think The Matrix is based on something much more contemporary, and I have grave doubt you would have made the connection.

No, I simply see no reason why I shouldn't use a popular cultural reference that everyone is almost certainly familiar with on this message board rather than a more obscure philosophical reference that many people may not be familiar with.  I don't know about you but I thought I was having an off-topic discussion on a role-playing message board and not having a "serious" inquiry or discussion or trying to impress the teacher.  The point of these arguments is not to impress people with what a smarty pants you are.  It's to explain the point so they can understand it, a point lost on people who believe they are smarter than everyone else.

Quote from: StormBringer;427861And your last paragraph?  Those of us out here in the reality whose existence eludes you call that 'solipsism'.  It's also why I laughed about 'objective reality' and 'objective truth' when they were brought up previously.  Those always lead back to the ultimate discussion silencer:  "You can't prove anything exists!!".

That you can't absolutely prove anything exists does not mean that it doesn't exist and that people perceive reality subjectively does not negate the existence of objective reality, a point that seems to be lost on many people.  The question is whether your subjective assessment of reality really matches reality or not, and simply claiming that it's self-evident or certain doesn't do that.

Quote from: StormBringer;427861The bolded parts are the reasons people think you have a hard time with reality.  No serious inquiry into philosophy starts out by positing The Matrix.  A serious inquiry or discussion would start with the actual underpinning to which you refer obliquely: Plato's Allegory of the Cave.  I bring it up directly, because I strongly suspect you think The Matrix is based on something much more contemporary, and I have grave doubt you would have made the connection.

Plato's allegory of the cave is not about how we're all brains in jars.  In fact, its arguing just the opposite; that our sense of questioning reality is a product of our own flawed perceptions and assumptions and not a problem with reality itself, the direct experience of which would remove all doubt.

QuoteAnd your last paragraph?  Those of us out here in the reality whose existence eludes you call that 'solipsism'.  It's also why I laughed about 'objective reality' and 'objective truth' when they were brought up previously.  Those always lead back to the ultimate discussion silencer:  "You can't prove anything exists!!".

Only among people who don't get the real message of Plato's Cave. Or the Buddha's truths.  Or the Matrix, for that matter.

RPGPundit