tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post4780933629356184036..comments2024-02-17T19:58:47.311-05:00Comments on Textuality: Information Doesn't Get You God; The Bible Doesn't Get You ScienceLarry Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-63880334224984186592011-02-02T10:56:33.813-05:002011-02-02T10:56:33.813-05:00Mark,
I'm genuinely interested to understand ...Mark,<br /><br />I'm genuinely interested to understand the reasoning followed by folks like BA77. I think of him (I assume BA77 is male) and others, such as "GEM of TKI," as very bright folks with several key intellectual flaws:<br />(1) They revel in being outsiders. As far as I can tell, they don't have or want any sustained engagement with working research communities in their disciplines of interest.<br />(2) They are monumentally unclear about "connecting the dots" between the hard data they frequently cite and the conclusions they reach. Just ask GEM, for instance, what the FSCI threshold is to determine when something is or is not a hallmark of design.<br />(3) They are overly enamored of boogeymen, notably materialism. Materialism is the great evil, and it's always evil, almost cartoonishly so. Sometimes materialism encompasses atheism, naturalism, and scientism. Sometimes it doesn't. <br /><br />A perfect example is a recent, long post by GEM on ID foundations. He begins with a slightly modified version of Behe's IC concept and winds his way to seemingly support "guided evolution." Yet for all the huffing and puffing in the essay, there's no concrete support marshaled for the concept--only a long quote from A.R. Wallace (sp.?)--and no description of what kind of guidance, when, or how.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-62402611048676552772011-02-02T02:33:44.313-05:002011-02-02T02:33:44.313-05:00Larry I think you are extraordinarily kind and pat...Larry I think you are extraordinarily kind and patient to engage in debate with BA77 - but perhaps a little foolhardy. In the past I have occasionally responded to his comments and regretted it. You rapidly disappear into a morass of what might be non sequiturs if you can fathom what they mean. He is now on my "do not read" list.Mark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-58785555097598071432010-12-02T13:48:30.594-05:002010-12-02T13:48:30.594-05:00Rabbi,
BA77 seems like a bright guy. It's har...Rabbi,<br /><br />BA77 seems like a bright guy. It's hard to know what statements belong to him (I assume he is a male). He has a definite knack for collecting information--videos and articles--and then assigning it value within a particular theistic framework. Unfortunately, he rarely connects the dots between the claim he seems to advance and the data dump of videos and articles. It may well be that he's so bright that he doesn't see how the ordinary unwashed, like myself, need have it spelled out exactly how the "evidence" relates to the claim.<br /><br />The basic science he references usually seems to be right at a macro-level. It just doesn't say all that he argues it does, and then the Bible also doesn't say the same thing as the science. It's basically double-liberal reading both ways. But the biblical "evidence" is usually the weakest part of his spiel because it's much easier to see that the Bible often doesn't quite say what he claims it does. The science he gives is often so jargon-ridden that it's hard to decipher unless one is already familiar with the field.<br /><br />He seems to have this very personal, I KNOW FOR A FACT kind of belief. Ironically, he also made said one or two things about my "education" (in scare quotes) that makes me think he himself is not a fan of the university system--but this is a wild guess and I bring it up to add to the picture that he is very much personally and psychologically invested in the ID-theism axis.<br /><br />In any event, BA77 was probably patient with me. I was overly snarky and didn't read as carefully as I could have in some cases. But such is the way it goes on the interwebz.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-25234657108955287782010-12-01T19:32:52.364-05:002010-12-01T19:32:52.364-05:00"As far as I can see, any confirmation of non..."As far as I can see, any confirmation of non-local causality tells us nothing about deities, bibles, the supernatural, divine plans, the afterlife, sin, or anything that makes up the meat ans potatoes of religion. To use non-local causality as a data point in favor of theism is not only premature but disingenuous. Confirmation of non-local causality can only tell us that the universe is more interesting and less familiar than we thought--even in our wildest religious fantasies."<br /><br />I salute you for engaging this idiot. I couldn't have indulged him that long! In the end your conclusion is right on. What the hell does any of this new-agey misapplied dumbassery have to do with actual religion? Does he think the guy who wrote John was some kind of plugged-in quantum physicist?<br /><br />http://www.TheAtheistRabbi.comRabbi Jeffrey Falickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02973331979300912844noreply@blogger.com