Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
Yes, I saw that EL had a mention. I thought it was probably me.
I really don’t get it.
KF
Very well. I withdraw the improper tainting invidious comparison in question.
Let it be know that at this point forwards I shall simply consider you to be and refer to you as simply a plain bigot.
Wiki notes:
You also note KF
You certainly have my permission to explain how homosexual behaviour is patently disordered and damaging to self and community. Nobody seems to have stopped you so far.
Is it? It seems to me that the only person stopping you having a discussion of design theory with people who seem to be equipped to have that discussion is you. Of course, that discussion would have to take place here wouldn’t it?
And that’s really how design theory is being treated is it? Seems to be that there is a lively discussion about it right here, which is rather interesting. Join in! What’s the worst that can happen? I write something you don’t like? Ignore it! I’m an idiot!
kairosfocus writes:
The only objections and concerns I’ve heard are decidedly unprincipled.
I’d go as far as ignorant, hateful bigot, if that’s not redundant.
I’d not care so much if KF did not use me as a fig leaf to pretend that if it were not for me he’d be here defending his notions.
I’ve already offered to withdraw my participation for as long as he’d care to pop on over, however long that might be. The offer is still open KF.
But it appears he must have his pound of flesh.
Kairosfocus: I am not going to censor this site. I will certainly monitor conversations closely, and move any comments that seem to me to be violations of my rules to TSZ, and that includes comments that focus on motivation rather than content.
But it does not include comments that focus on content, whether or not that content is “correct”. It is up to those who make claims to defend those claims, not for me to make the validity of those claims a criterion for posting them here.
As for comparisons with Nazis: I have seen atheists compared to nazis and I have seen anti-homosexuality proponents compared to nazis. The comparisons may or many not be legitimate, but that is a matter for debate IMO, not a matter for censorship.
As always you are welcome to come here to make your case. For my part, you would be extremely welcome. I hope you will take up the invitation 🙂
Your posts are too offensive for him to venture out of UD, but he’s happy to be associated with Joe and Mung?
I . . . have nothing to say that won’t get moved to Guano. 😉
I suspect that rather than defend his views in an open forum, KF would prefer to play the martyr on a site where censorship is the norm, particularly when KF is the thread owner:
I would be surprised and delighted if KF would prove me wrong by participating here. However, he would soon find that his vaunted arguments quickly wither and die outside of the clement hothouse environment of UD.
Hi Lizzie,
Could you release my comment above from the moderation queue? It’s stuck there (probably because of the number of links).
Released.
Here’s a proposal: Lizzie can be held accountable for what OMagain, or Alan Fox, or myself say when Arrington can be held accountable for what Robert Byers, bornagain77, JoeG, or KF themselves say.
RDFish at UD:
keiths,
Just before RDFish’s comment we have our dearly beloved WJ Murray insinuating that RDFish is not actually a human:
What a creepy and dishonest insinuation!
I think WJM’s behavior is far skeevier than Joe’s foulmouthed-but-honest behavior.
I don’t know how much money you’d have to pay me to post anything in their putrid swamp. I’m not banned, as far as I know, but I can’t think of anything that would get me to exchange words with KF. Not after what I’ve seen over there lately.
One fairly deep-rooted intellectual pathology over at Uncommon Descent is that they think that accepting their specific metaphysical views is required in order to be taken seriously in a reasonable dialogue. They don’t see those views as themselves up for reasonable debate. For example, Murray thinks that no one can be taken seriously if they don’t first accept a fairly extravagant theory of libertarian freedom, and KF thinks that no one can be taken seriously if they don’t first accept a fairly demanding conception of “reason’s rules”. As a result, anyone who disagrees with their views, regardless of how good (or bad) the arguments for doing so, is regarded as standing outside of the game of giving and asking for reasons. I stopped contributing there because I got tired of swimming up-stream all the time. Much as I tried, I just couldn’t get any of them to see that there are reasonable alternatives to the views they profess.
Reasonable by what standard, KN?
“Fairly extravagant” by what standard, KN?
I made no such insinuation. IMO, most humans are computed, Turing-machine like phenomena. That doesn’t make them “not human”, it just means they do not have the very thing they claim to not have, in many cases – libertarian free will.
William J. Murray,
Sure, whatever, dude. Regardless, your pretentious excuse for insinuating that RDFish isn’t a special, valuable, important, real person like you, not one of the “non-computed humans” (with real free will ) still makes you one of the many sad examples of how UD commenters’ behavior is skeevy. Your behavior is far less civil than the behavior of those who have the badge of honor of being banned from UD.
Sure, you can explain away your dishonest creepiness any way which allows you to stay in KF’s good graces. Any way which allows you to sleep at night. Sure, dude, beat your arm patting yourself on the back for being so humble, so reasonable, so civil.
I think the more intelligent IDers are seeing the writing on the wall. CSI and its relatives are dead as useful concepts for “design detection”. The more we find out about protein structure and function, and how they may arise, the smaller the “protein space” gets, and the more amenable to being searched exhaustively in reasonable time.
The more they try to debate scientific matters at places they cannot censor, the more they realise they simply don’t know enough, even as a collective, to be effective against groups of people who are reasonably up-to-date in their respective fields.
Can you even imagine the effect of one of KF’s rants, or his multi-coloured, multi-font, repetitious, logorrheic, self-referential blog, on anyone not already committed to a similar world-view to his?
And IDers’ pretence to be agnostic about the identity of their Intelligent Designer is so threadbare as to be risibly transparent as well as thoroughly dishonest.
Is there anyone who may reasonably be regarded as a leader of ID thought who is prepared to debate, openly and without censorship, without obfuscation, goal-post shifting, or flouncing? Very few, if any.
Test
Testing
Interesting that I’m still logged in after all that transfer of recorded information.
You wouldn’t be if there hadn’t been both a representation and a protocol.
Arrington has what can best be characterized as a demonizing of “materialists” over on UD.
After simply fabricating what “materialists” have to believe, Arrington proceeds to demean his caricature of “materialists” and makes this ridiculous sneer:
Emphasis added.
This is a tactic that has become one of the most common ploys of sectarians seeking to portray themselves as “sensitive and human” while their mortal enemies – the atheists, Darwinists, and materialists – are portrayed as subhuman creatures incapable of appreciating beauty, humor, and the “higher qualities of life” that only sectarians can appreciate.
In other words, their mortal enemies are crude automatons; lowly animals incapable of “right thinking” and “morality.”
And look at what Arrington’s assertions stimulate in the way of sneering response from his followers:
This pattern of demonizing has much of its origin in fundamentalist sectarianism. One can turn to any one of a number of religion channels on US television nearly any day of the week and observe this demonizing of secular society by fundamentalists. I can walk into a church in my community and hear all sorts of innuendo about the “enemies of Jesus” and the dangers of secular society. Our Right Wing politics has become saturated with this kind of demonizing by politicians pandering to fundamentalist fear and loathing.
One would think that Arrington should know better than to attribute thoughts and characteristics to others when those thoughts and characteristics have no basis in reality. Nevertheless he chooses to ride the path of demagoguery on his Harley “hawg.”
This is what science education is up against in many communities in the US; especially in the South.
That unhinged kairosfocus character over at UD would do well to consider what goes on over at UD before he rants about what he imagines goes on here at TSZ. Unfortunately, being that unhinged precludes such introspection.
“Materialists are obliged to believe …”
… absolutely nothing. There is no obligation. ‘Materialism’ simply makes more sense. Even if it means that there are limitations to ‘freedom’. What is, is – if there are no spirits, inside or outside the universe, then any consequent existential conundrums must be faced by the beings in that universe. Alternatively, if there are spirits, and we are such, that is still no guarantee of ultimate freedom. What forces govern spirits?
I am prepared to be wrong. But the likes of Arrington, and our own WJM, appear never to contemplate that possibility for their own position. If argument fails, they dismiss their opponents as evidently incapable of seeing that which is ‘obvious’ – which is lazy, and rather ill-mannered discourse. Sincere demurral does not compute.
There has been a disturbing trend in sectarian behavior in US politics ever since they started getting politically organized back in the 1980s. These sectarians engage in some of the most atrocious moral behavior; and then they turn right around and accuse their innocent and unsuspecting victims of committing those very crimes. It’s projection in the most extreme form; and with political consequences.
We currently have a bunch of these politicians in the US Congress sabotaging the very processes of getting work done, and then blaming their enemies of causing the problem.
The UD site exhibits a lot of this mentality; and that is pretty good evidence that the site itself is part of what is becoming a go-for-broke culture war assault on secular society. There are plenty of hints that these culture warriors are starting to copy their extremist tactics from various terrorist groups. They are attempting to set a tone in politics in which dialogue and compromise become totally hopeless and impossible, while at the same time driving moderate and rational people out of the political process altogether.
You know that this assertion will come out eventually; as articulated by a Dr. Ford over at UD.
Sectarian to the core. There is a deity that “judges” according to their sectarian dogma. There are no other deities; the assertion doesn’t acknowledge the existence of members of other religions who accept that living organisms are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics; and we know what they think of atheists and agnostics or anyone who doesn’t subscribe to a religion, especially their religion.
This shtick is a variation on the fundamentalist theme that asserts that “non-believers” are devils who wail in terror of the judgment of the sectarian deity. It places people who don’t hold particular sectarian views into the category of rebellious haters of the sectarian deity; less than human, and evil, hate-filled creatures to keep one’s children away from lest they be “taken.”
Just as has been the case with the morph of “Scientific” Creationism into “Intelligent Design” after the US Supreme Court Decision in 1987 on Edwards v. Aguillard, that UD website constantly attempts to pretend that ID is not about sectarian dogma. But it is the constant stream of assertions such as this that let us know just what these sectarians think about “others.”
It is about proselytizing; it has always been about proselytizing. The characterization of “others” is the pure type of projection that emerges from fundamentalist sectarian dogma. This is the demonizing we usually hear from their pulpits. UD wallows in it.
As usual, Mike, you miss the point. Of course Barry is not insinuating that materialists are in fact any such thing, but rather that if their worldview was true, that would be the necessary consequence of such a reality, and everyone – not just materialists – would be entities as he describes.. Barry doesn’t consider such a worldview true at all, and so doesn’t believe that materialists are in reality any different from him, other than what they believe.
His whole point is that because we all – materialists included – can and do appreciate those things, materialism cannot possibly be true, regardless of if anyone believes in it or not.
I wish someone would help me understand just why, if my materialist worldview were indeed correct and true, I would be unable to appreciate beauty, humour, and so on.
I agree, William, that that is what Barry is saying.
I think he is just simply wrong.
However, you have gone slightly further in saying that while libertarian free will exists, some of us don’t have it. If it’s a thing you think is worth having, then that is an implicit pejorative!
As usual, William, you completely miss the point. Barry’s intention was very likely as you said. But Mike’s point is that Barry is completely wrong about this “worldview” nonsense. He is attacking a ridiculous strawman, and he is willfully maligning the character of those to whom he ascribes that strawman.
That’s what’s deeply immoral about “theistic morality.”
What is a belief to me, Liz? How do I acquire beliefs? Do I claim my beliefs represent factual reality? Have I ever made the claim that anyone **is** a biological automaton? How do I use that particular belief, Liz – for what purpose do I believe it?
If you can answer those questions correctly, Liz – and it is all ground already covered in discussion here between you and I – why would you write the above about me?
Not sure, William. That’s still rather a puzzle to me.
You choose them, I think. Am I wrong?
No. Which is why I don’t personally find them offensive. But I can see why some people do.
You’ve said you think that some people don’t have libertarian free will – for which people are likely to think is equivalent to thinking that some people are “biological automatons”. In fact, I think you’ve used that expression yourself, although I could be wrong.
Oh boy, pass. Honestly, William, when you don’t understand a position (and I clearly don’t understand yours) it’s hard to remember the details.
And self-evidently I don’t, because whenever I attempt to paraphrase, you say I’ve got it wrong!
Our relationship is doomed!
Because it seems to me to follow from what I thought you were saying.
To qualify as “willfully maligning” in the way you say, Barry must be intentionally mischaracterizing what he sees as the necessary consequences of the materialist perspective. Unless you know Barry’s intent, then it is you that is maligning Barry here, whether it is willful or not. Barry’s assessment of the rational consequences of materialism, as far as I can see, are consonant with those many materialist philosophers have accepted and expressed themselves.
May I just ask, in a spirit of genuine inquiry, if there’s anyone at TSZ who believes that they could, from his or her reading of all that William has written here, give a clear and accurate summary of whatever point(s) he’s trying to make?
Buggered if I can. I’m not the sharpest knife in the box either, but my ability to comprehend written text usually suffices.
I am going to turn that around. Unless Barry knows the people he is talking about — unless he personally knows everyone who calls himself or herself a materialist — and unless he has personally examined the beliefs of those people, then he is just making up hateful stuff and ascribing to people with no supporting evidence. And, from the way he writes, we can see that he means it, so it is a willful act of ascribing.
And you, William, do the same kind of hateful stuff.
In order to understand what I am saying, you can’t take something I say and process it according to your perspective; you have to process it according to mine, as I have explained it. That requires being able to suspend your own views and put yourself in my shoes, so to speak. That means being able to hold conceptual models of the position of the other guy.
As I have said before, I choose and hold beliefs not because I claim they are factually true, but rather because they serve a purpose – because I wish to believe them. The purpose that particular belief serves is to prevent me from becoming frustrated or upset at others, or considering them stupid or evil. It has nothing to do with the concept that, whatever they are, they are actually any of those things.
The idea that they may be “biological automatons” changes my behavior and feelings in reaction to exchanges – not as a condescending idea that, whatever they are, they are “actually” without a commodity I have, but only that if I provisionally choose to see them that way, for the purpose of the debate or discussion if necessary, I can engage longer, more fruitfully, and less antagonistically. I will be less frustrated, and not (for the most part) see what they say as deceit or stupidity.
That doesn’t mean that what they say “is” stupid or “is” deceitful, but only that I react that way unless I can frame what they are saying in some creative way where I do not react to it that way.
Not I, but then I’m not convinced William is trying to make any specific point. Rather, I think he’s just questioning what some of us hold as accurate and/or useful because he doesn’t really get how we can hold those concepts.
There’s an internal contradiction here, William. Let’s see if you can spot it.
He’s not “making up” anything. He’s drawing from centuries of philosophical debate about the consequences of materialism and arguing about that. What any particular person who self-identifies as a materialist is irrelevant to that debate.
Calling it “hateful” when philosophical debate points out the potentially negative consequences of that philosophy is dangerous polemic. We all must be free to call out what we consider to be potentially dangerous or negative aspects of any philosophy – theistic and non-theistic – without people calling such debate “hateful” – wouldn’t you say?
Well, I’ve believed I could in the past, but whenever I’ve tried, it’s turned out to be wrong 🙂
But I think there’s a real issue here, and it was one of the motivations for starting this site: Clearly, William, and Barry, and others genuinely find it “obvious” that “we” (materialists, ID deniers, whatever) are wrong; just as clearly, “we” think that it is “obvious” that they are.
So there’s a temptation to think the other “side” is being unfeasibly dense, and therefore probably dishonest.
What I’m interested in is figuring out why something that seems “obvious” from one PoV is not “obvious” or even “obviously wrong” from another.
Because of course it is not obvious that what is obvious is necessarily correct. It seemed obvious at one time that if the earth was spherical, people on the other side would fall off.
It still seems pretty powerfully “obvious” that if two things travelling at light speed crash head on, they will do so at a relative speed to each other that is double light speed. But, just as Australians don’t fall off the world, colliding photons don’t collide at more than light speed. “Obvious” isn’t a good guide to reality. Or rather, “obvious” models usually have a limited range of applicability.
At the risk of treading on the rules, I think ID advocates deliberately obfuscate. It’s not just William. The whole tribe of ID advocates resist consistency and clarity. They are not consistent with each other, but resist correcting or contradicting each other.
The only thing they agree on is that materialism is evil. It’s more a tribal thing than intellectual.
It’s only an internal contradiction of you consider yourself incapable of suspending your views and looking at things from the other person’s viewpoint.
Once again: it’s not literal. I can’t “become” Liz. But I can suspend my worldview processing and look at things through the lens of her views as she’s expressed them.
For example, I can see why, and agree with, how Liz runs this blog, and how Barry runs his. Neither of them are how I run my blogs – but from the perspective of what each is trying to accomplish with their blogs, and what they believe to be good, I can understand it.
I don’t insist that my way of seeing things is the only way. For example, when I argue that certain beliefs are not rationally supportable, I never say or make the case that someone shouldn’t believe those things. I only make the case that it is not rationally supportable.
I believe many things that are not rationally justifiable. I can understand why many people are atheists, and why many are materialists. I understand their reasoning, even if I hold it to be faulty. I can see why people have such a negative view of religion, dogma and church. I can put myself in their shoes, to some degree, and understand why they make the statements they do.
I can very easily flip over my perspective and see the whole ID movement from the framework of those that consider it to be an agenda-driven creationist grab for theocratic power. But, I can also see the ID perspective that holds a similar view on athiestic physicalism.
Seeing things from another person’s perspective really isn’t that hard once you no longer have an emotional commitment to the truth of any perspective.
Yes, which is why I find much of what Kairosfocus posts to be “dangerous polemic”.
For instance here and here.
I agree with much here, William, except that I don’t seem to share your view of what is “rationally justifiable”.
I just don’t understand your methodology.
Which is why I no longer depend on what appears to be obvious for the basis of my beliefs. Many facts change. Interpretations change. Paradigms change. People far more wise and intelligent than I have believed radically different things throughout history. IMO, it’s nothing more than hubris, really, to imagine that modern man has anything any more substantively correct than any other culture, and that future cultures/civilizations won’t regard our beliefs and ideas just as ill-informed or primitive.
That frees me from believing as I think I must, and changes my fundamental springboard from “what must I believe” to “what do I wish to believe” or “what should I believe, and why?”
Then call it out without ascribing it to people or to classes of people.
OK. I think the way I would put something possibly similar (being very cautious here!) is that I have what I call “working models”, as well as “normative models”, but I distinguish between the two (although you might call them “beliefs” – however they are both provisional).
“Working models” are models that, literally, seem to work – they include scientific models, and also practical models (such as: if I leave work early, I’ll probably miss the worst of the traffic). They are evaluated by their predictive power. “Normative models” are models that I choose, not because they are true, but because assuming they are true seems to be a productive basis on which to act. For example, although it is not true that everyone is honest, I find that assuming that people are honest usually leads to better relationships – and even encourages the very thing that I have assumed.
But I think the distinction is important. Self-fulfilling assumptions may be useful in social relationships, but they are disastrous in science, where we have to be rigorous in not assuming our consequent, precisely because so doing can misleadingly bring that consequent about (as in “confirmation bias”).
[Loudspeaker in ceiling (i.e. Lizzie) inserting link to thread here where we actually discuss Barry’s post 🙂 (For the benefit of UD readers of KF’s response to this comment)]
Your clear implication, William, is that no one here knows anything about “centuries of philosophical debate.” We are not ignoramuses here. What you and Arrington attribute to “materialists” is simply false; you have no clue what “materialism” is. Here again you stumble because of your choice to remain profoundly ignorant of science while attempting to compensate for your intellectual laziness with a barrage of pseudo-philosophy.
Do you know the meaning of the word “innuendo,” William?
I can no longer count the number of times – somewhere in the thousands – I have heard sectarians use innuendo, and when called on it, make the childish, wide-eyed denial that they didn’t say what they clearly implied.
Setting up evil scenarios, using ambiguous associations and attributions, and juxtaposing words that suggest which meaning is to be applied without actually directly saying what you mean is a tactic that fundamentalist sectarians engage in routinely. The habit of stretching and bending the meanings of words to justify a preconceived conclusion is part of the routine exegesis, hermeneutics, and generalized word-gaming of sectarian wrangling and warfare.
These habits and ways of thinking about “others” have permeated the ID/creationist movement from its beginning. All the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science and scientists that ID/creationists routinely engage in, spring from that fundamentalist, sectarian mindset of self-righteousness about their own sectarian beliefs and their condemnation of “others” for being evil, by definition, because “others” are not one of them.
Whether you like it or not, your sectarian mindset and your shibboleths go with you everywhere. You have not been able to change your condescending dislike of the secular world; you have merely attempted to hide it behind pseudo-philosophical “argumentation.” ID/creationism is and always has been a sectarian war on secular society. These sectarians have simply attempted to hide their sectarian bigotry behind a façade of pseudoscience. ID/creationist denials and dissembling have simply become more strident as they have been called out on their deceptions and as the courts have continued to go against them.
The UD site has become a pity party of kvetching, self-absorbed, sour-grapes losers; losers who refuse to learn and who refuse to see “others” as intelligent human beings worthy of respect and with the right to pursue life and learn as much as they can in the short time they have.
Notice that I have not used innuendo; I have asserted exactly what I believe to be the case from something like fifty years of observation of ID/creationist attitudes and socio/political tactics. Furthermore, ID/creationist history is well-document in court transcripts and in their own writings. You can find a large portion of it over at the website of the National Center for Science Education. You will find clear, unambiguous instances of perjury by ID/creationists in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Mine is not just a personal opinion based on my observations; it is supported by objectively verifiable documentation which you yourself can easily locate and read, but won’t.
You insist on believing what you like, despite any evidence. This is why you don’t know any science. Science teaches you how to think in the presence of reality. Pseudo-philosophy teaches you how to “logically” convince yourself that reality is irrelevant. You seem to have achieved the latter; and that makes your “arguments” boring and useless.
I do agree with the boring and useless.
I would not participate in these debates if it were no for the constant efforts of ID proponents to slip their creed into science education.
I do notice that they have no stomach for inserting it into history of science classes or into “Theory of Knowledge” classes, where it’s a good fit.
I do wonder why they don’t try to have kids learn about the historical development of science and its methods. It was my favorite reading as a teenager, but I seldom encountered it in school.
Actually, no. It’s an internal contradiction based on the circularity of your own thinking. Here’s your statement again:
There’s no way to “process it according to [your perspective] if we can’t understand what your perspective actually is.