Well, I'm not sure what to comment on. I found Boop's story interesting. What I'd want to know was all of the things she had been reading and contemplating prior to this experience. What had she been supercharging her brain with?
Like the story of the guy discovering the benzine ring, (I can never remember the details like names anymore - too much stuff) if one fixates on something long enough, one will dream about it. If we are going to start taking dreams of evidence explaining reality . . .
Going back to the thread this came from was more interesting though, and reminds me of why I have all but quit writing.
You say things like,
Like the evolutionist researchers, I'm not fettering this principle of purpose to the exclusivist error of objectivism and logical positivism.
Oh, so you're fettering it to the subjectivist error of undemonstrable inclusivity? You Beg the Question it is an error, you Beg the Question of existence of that which has no demonstrable existence.
So the thread contains statements like,
the public face of Western Science would drop its insistance upon neutrality toward the existence of a Vastly Superior Intelligence, of God, the evidence being so massive, crushing, overwhelming.
Of which, without that error of subjective inclusivity, there would be no evidence at all. To consider it evidence of a Vastly Superior Intelligence, of God one must presuppose the existence of that very being. It is a Smuggled Premise that must exist before it can be considered 'evidence' of a 'Vastly Superior Intelligence.'
If the evidence were so overwhelming, then the issue wouldn't be in dispute. What it is, is a breakdown in logic, in reasoning, that permits the Smuggled Premise, the Begged Question, to be an unexamined premise upon which the conclusion that reality and life 'must be' created by God depends. This breakdown in reasoning you termed, the exclusivist error of objectivism because to remain objective means that you have to admit there is no such evidence.
One thing that I have had pounded into my head here is that logic and reason take a back seat whenever it is a choice between them and belief and faith. In that sense you're right, objectivity will always be considered error ridden. It is an either/choice, because the two will always conflict.
To get down to brass tacks, it is the reason (there's that word again!) for the debate that reveals what is truly happening here. To quote Phaedrus again (and I'm not picking on you Phaedrus, you just happen to state the issue so well in the thread) We forget that the womb of Christianity spawned modern science.
Only by chance, not by reason. The fallacy here is post hoc ergo propter hoc : The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this". This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.
It was the womb of Christianity that kept Europe in the horror of the Dark Ages for a millenia. It only when Aquinas made the mistake of trying to logically prove the existence of God and reintroduced the world to Aristotle that science advanced. The fact of the matter is it was logic and reason, not religion that are the parents of science.
Religion has fought every scientific advance, every step along the way. Just as it does today, fighting evolution, cloning, stem cell research, certain medical procedures and all the rest that will be commonplace 100 years from now. It will just be the people that could have been saved today, that will lose. And why this opposition to science? The issue is actually control. And the means to that control? Morality.
What is the chain of logic that motivates creationists? If evolution is proven correct, God is disproven, and society will suffer as people will no longer feel obligated to follow Christian morality. And this has proven true over the ages, the more science advances the less people do feel obligated to follow Christian morality.
When Nietche observed that 'God was dead' what he meant was, the moral influence of the concept of God was falling away from Europe. This proved true and would have proven true whether Nietche said it or not. That Napoleon was Nietche's inspiration demonstrates this fact.
The next typical objection is that the loss of God resulted in Marxism, and the horror that it has brought. What is conveniently forgotten is that with the loss of the influence of religion and the rise of capitalism Marx was trying to keep alive the principle of Altruism, since it was dying as a religious principle. Marx tried to create a philosophy of altruism without the God demanding it, but on 'scientific' principles. That he abandoned logic in the exercise is why it is such an abject failure. Rather than being 'scientific' it is about as unscientific as one can get.
Thus we have the desparate situation in the US today. One the one hand we have the failed socialist altruists on the left, and the dying religious altruists on the right. In the middle of this is the abandonment of the principle that truly makes America the great nation it is, although that is being murdered by the altruists on both extremes: Capitalism.
See, the laws of logic, reason, science and economy are laws that cannot be broken without having adverse results in reality. The fact is Capitalism cannot survive in an altruistic society, it is either/or. If the principle of serving others is primary then Capitalism is 'selfishness' by definition. As someone here recently wrote to me, selfishness is evil. Period. End of discussion. You go to hell. His arrogance was truly amazing. What he didn't realize he was also saying was that Capitalism is evil.
The reason why this is significant, especially here, is that 'religious conservatives' and 'left wing socialists' have more in common than they think. They differ on issues but not on fundamental philosophy: Altruism. This is why, if you do a Google search on 'social justice,' as left wing a concept as one can have, the first twenty hits will be the Catholic Church. Thus, the conservatives and liberals are in a secret pact with one another. They actually justify the existence of one another. They are two peas of the same pod. They are just arguing details. One wants to control your uterus, the other just steal from your pocketbook. Both want control. Both use the same justification, you don't own yourself, you are obligated to society.
The only true opposition to this is Capitalism. Capitalism, by its very nature, is logical, dependent upon reason, and moral. Moral in the sense it can only operate in the truth, that only correct actions will have correct results, and if one wishes to follow it, one must take the right actions. The moral principle than one works for one's own personal gain is in direct opposition with the altruistic principle that one is obligated to place others first.
I was listening to some preacher on the radio in this town recently and he was talking about how some of us reserve that last 5% of ourselves for ourselves and our own selfish desires, and that last 5% is what God really wants, so that one is wholly in the service to others. In other words, you cannot do anything for yourself, only for others. Thus one is a complete slave to others. This is in utter contradiction to the principle of Capitalism, which holds one is responsible to oneself, for oneself.
The contradictions inherent here, as in all altruism, is the real issue. And this brings us back to the importance of creationism to all this. Creationism is the rejection of science in favor of belief, logic in favor of faith. The twisting and the convolutions that creationists have to go through to seek to attempt to prove the unprovable utterly destroys the concepts of logic, facts and reason in the process. The same inability to see the fallacies inherent in creationism is the same inability to see that 'religious altruism' furthers, strenghthens and empowers the 'secular altruism' of the socialist left.
This is demonstrated by the supposedly 'compassionate conservative' President Bush coming up with a budget increase beyond anything seen in years. Giving $14 billion to Africa to fight AIDS just as the leftist liberal Bono from U2 wanted is a perfect example. Bush granted the moral high ground to the left, and thereby undercut the very Capitalism that this nation is dependent upon to survive. He will have given away the moral high ground already when they come to him with the next hike in the minimum wage. You must give to others who need it. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Altruism, religious obligation, communism. It is all the same.
This is why this nation is slowly dying and why nothing anyone does seems to change it. It is because both sides, right and left, reject logic, reject reason, and reject Capitalism. They are just two different kinds of altruists. They are only arguing about which part of the pie to control, not that there should be no control at all. Only true Capitalism asserts that. There are very few such Capitalists now. Everyone is afraid of being called 'selfish.' Being selfish being evil and all.
So we have secular altruists and religious altruists and their only point of disagreement is whether the source of the alruistic mandate is God or the state. This is where the creationism/evolution debate comes in. It determines how they divide the pie. As I have said before, even if proven true, creationism would have no practical effect. It would add nothing to science at all. Evolution actually explains how we can modify animal breeds to our purpose. It has actually been proven by the systematic breeding of farm animals.
And this brings me back to this thread. I see so many statements from ignorance. A typical example is the assertion there are no transitory forms between species. This is a specious argument, since each species is a species itself while in transition. The answer has been defined away in the assertion. Like some stated that scales and feathers are different from each other, which is precisely not true. Feathers have been shown quite precisely, and exactly how, to be modified scales. But since evidence, logic, and reason play no role, such fautly assertions are made endlessly. With no logic, no amount of discussion can convince anyone otherwise.
The heart of the creationists argument is, If evolution is proven false, creationism must be true. Faulty logic again, proving one wrong doesn't prove the other true. Each must prove itself. It is logically impossible to come up with a concept of a Supreme Intelligence creating everything, creating life, from the pure observation of the natural world. This is proven by the fact that evangelizing is necessary. If an Supreme Creator were so obvious then one wouldn't need to tell the gospel to anybody, they'd already know. That difference in languages creates differences in concept of Diety proves that it is a projection of man, not an objective fact. Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, the Tao, on and on and on. All have the same source. All come from the human mind. They are conceptual handles for the inexplicable.
And to go back to Boop's Dream. Even if true, it would have no practical effect. Couldn't build a house with it, couldn't build a fire. Nothing. On its own it has no meaning, only within a context that this experience proves something which proves something else which means the Bible must be true. It is circular reasoning so blatant that it is silly.
But the issue here isn't to prove anything, it is to destroy reason. Let's be very clear on that point. Only by destroying reason can one defend the irrationality of Altruism and dethrone Capitalism as selfish evil. Having said that, when you succeed don't be surprised when the USA falls, for just as logic was the mother of science so too it was the father of Freedom. If one studies the philosophy of the founders, not just their religious views, one finds that they held that Reason was the gift from God that made men Men. As Ethan Allen said, 'Reason is the only Oracle for man.' Not your dreams, not my dreams, not Boop's dreams, Reason.
We are coming to crossroads in the not too distant future and the choice will be between Capitalism or Altruism. If we don't turn from the road we are on the United States of America will become a failed experiment. If we don't see that Altruism will not work, cannot work, is irrational, is illogical and is the philosophical opposite of Capitalism then we are doomed. You won't have to read Atlas Shrugged to get it, you will live it.
Capitalist placemarker.
Really a pity this thread is so innactive right now. That was a great post.
feathered dino placemarker. Check out the latest Scientific American for a cover story on feathers.
A truly excellent post. Bravo!
The one characteristic of your wonderful post is that it smuggles in the historical without clarity. Both you and I should know that clarity ought to be the chief characteristic of the age of science and logic.
You toe the line of a dialectic between faith and reason--a very useful dispute. It assumes the two positions of faith and reason as fundamental. This is the position you have pounded into your head and tout it when you want it so: "the two will always be in conflict." But when useful, you will be monist, for in your world reason must be ascendant, except when chance happens to show up, whatever that is.
You say: The fact of the matter is it was logic and reason, not religion that are the parents of science. Huh? What is a parent? A genesis? Is this a metaphor interrupting the order of logic? Are you trying to say history is logic? Get this straightened out before you confuse all these bumbling posters who are under your poetic tutelage. Historically, religion was inseparable from the birth of science--prior to Socrates and Plato, both of whom retained a profound understanding of the limits of logic. But better not talk about Plato for he would pound your arrogance: "Oh well, answered my own question." Aristotle then? No, you want to talk about Aquinas while arguing for the parents of science. Your argument is framed anachronistically. When exactly was science born? When? And if reason and logic are the parents, who gave birth to religion? Is this genealogy of yours--this parentage of logic and reason-- is this what you call a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? For sure this is a mass confusion, a confusion very typical of today's journalism, most of which is propaganda.
Religion has fought every scientific advance, every step along the way. Yeah right.. This is so demonstrably false. OK class, back to logic 101: "All men are wise" and "All cows are brown" etc? What you should have said is religion has fought scientific advance. Or, science has fought religious advance. Both are historically true. And this one is true too: you fight religion at the expense of logic and history.
If evolution is proven correct, God is disproven. Only if you are a monist belonging to your school. Draw the map of reality and you can prove anything. Anything. You can even prove or disprove your own existence--as you wish, draw your map. *God forgive these Creationist shysters for doing the same.*
It was the womb of Christianity that kept Europe in the horror of the Dark Ages for a millennia. All I will answer to that is this 
Aquinas made the mistake of trying to logically prove the existence of God False. He did no such thing. I see so many statements from ignorance. One thing that Aquinas did read was Aristotle. Aristotle said first principles are not proven. Can't be proven. The five ways make God's existence logically consistent. You see, Aquinas does not share your dualistic monism. He will not make logic the cause of existence, as in the Cartesian method. He will not make logic the first principle. (Dataman caught you on this). In your world, reason = existence. Therefore, anything that reason proves, exists. All else is antithetical (and on a better day, non-existent by insistence). And if the likes of you had lived at the time of Aquinas, they would have begun with your first premise and ended up proving existence from your logic. In other words you would do exactly what you claim Aquinas failed to do. But he did no such thing. You might rather join up with Abelard.
the moral influence of the concept of God was falling away from Europe. And you say, this proved true. What are you proving? To use your language: what also proved true was the rise of Christianity, whether Nietzsche postdicted it or not. What's your point? Is your monism a deterministic fallacy of the Latin kind? post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And now, just like Marx and Nietzsche (famous conservatives!) you try to answer to the problem of creating an ersatz morality. And like Nietzsche and Foucault, you argue that all what the others want is control. To which the words of Bob Dylan: "you gotta serve somebody." And you call in reason like a self-service station. How convenient. In your world, otherness does not exist as it makes way for your expansive reason, fueled by you high octane will.
you cannot do anything for yourself, only for others. Thus one is a complete slave to others. This is in utter contradiction to the principle of Capitalism, which holds one is responsible to oneself, for oneself. Here's where your dualism springs up again. Logically, a contradiction. But why ought the existence of otherness or plurality be a contradiction. Why does your monism push against your dualism? Why does the service to another logically (or did you want to argue existentically?) negate the existence of the self? Or vice versa? All this springs from your dualistic conundrum coming under a monistic domination of LogicWing's reason. The twisting and the convolutions that your logic goes through attempts to disprove the unprovable and while asserting the unprovable as the provable. This self-destructs the concepts of logic, facts and reason in the process because it reduces existence to thought. Read your Aristotle. Read your Kant: a hundred dollars in your mind don't put any in your pocket. The inability to see the fallacies inherent your accusations is the same inability to understand what has occurred in the history of logical thinking.
Oh, so you're fettering it to the subjectivist error of undemonstrable inclusivity? You Beg the Question it is an error, you Beg the Question of existence of that which has no demonstrable existence.I'll assume you are able to reflect, infer, maybe even intuit.
This breakdown in reasoning you termed, the exclusivist error of objectivism because to remain objective means that you have to admit there is no such evidence.>/i>
Even overwhelming evidence can be explained away.
One thing that I have had pounded into my head here is that logic and reason take a back seat whenever it is a choice between them and belief and faith.
Isn't it interesting that at the apparent heights of 'evolution' there exist beings whose very being demands this? I empathize with you. But here again, it is a matter of which subjective premises one wants to build his objective house upon.
Religion has fought every scientific advance, every step along the way.
Certainly Sir Isaac Newton and a host of many witnesses testify against this. But the religion of objectivism does deny advances, indeed, including the advance of knowing the limits of self.
Then you go off about altruism, complain about Marx, then swerve into seeming to say that the Christians are against reasonablly restrained capitalism, when it was the People of the Word who have upheld capitalism from before the time of Abraham.
Then you create a straw man regarding evolution vs. creation and skewer it.
Then you say something interesting to me:
And to go back to Boop's Dream. Even if true, it would have no practical effect. Couldn't build a house with it, couldn't build a fire.
The stuff of betty boop's dream is the only rock upon which a lasting house may be built. As for the fire, it has always existed.
Then you set up another straw man, but show your intent in trying to prop up reason against God. "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; 20 but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured....
Have you read anything by an apologist?