Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Science and Religion compatible? Not this Sunday.

Here's an opinion piece written by Jerry A. Coyne. It's quite interesting, lays out why religion and science don't work and it also has a great article on how morals originated (Psssst... no god needed, surprise surprise.)

And I'm still waiting for that evidence of Gods existence. You've only had four thousand (+ or -) years. I figure you'd have to have something testable by now (feeling it in your soul doesn't count as souls don't exist. And if you're going to claim they do, you'll need to show your work for that as well... ie; evidence please.)

Best,

Brett

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jerry Coyne is a pretty good evolutionist, but he is pretty much considered a buffoon by his peers when he steps into philosophy.

This article is not a logical explanation of why science and religion can't exist.

I guess it might be kindly called an opinion piece, but it doesn't even really do that well.

It is more of a rant.

But really it is a press release, disguised as an article, designed to drum up interest in Coyne's new book.

I guess if there was any one or two points you felt worth notice I could give it a bit more thought, but his basic arguments have been made by more competent writers like Hitchens. He's probably slightly better at getting facts right than Dawkins, so you have to hope maybe atheists will give his book a read, it has got to be better than the God Delusion.

Steve

Brett said...

AH Steve,

You complained about science not being able to prove history and then you bring in philosophy? Ugh.

For the verbally challenged. Science disproves the religions of the earth, at least the ones with origin stories. THAT'S why they are incompatible.

He's a regular writer for the USA today. Why are you so determined to attack HIM as a person? I think it's an excellent overview, but I'm beginning to think you didn't actually read it, Jess said you wouldn't read it all.

I noticed no comments on the morals article from you. Still convinced God HAS to order us around?

And STILL waiting on that evidence... seriously I'm supposed to listen to you when you are basically the Emperor without any cloths? All talk so substance. Don't you get a least a bit embarassed when you make these grand claims yet have NOTHING to back them up but feelings and an old book? I'm just going too keep asking you until you tell me.

Best,

Brett

Anonymous said...

Shame on Jess, I've been reading Jerry's stuff since around 2008. Why would she think I wouldn't read it? If I slosh through those Talkorigin.com articles you send me to I can read anything.

Jerry Coyne gets lambasted because of his basic ignorance of the ground rules of philosophy. He is a wonderful evolutionist biologist, he gets how to extrapolate the evolutionary theory, but philosophy is a totally different discipline. If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to better understand some of the concepts he is attacking. He has been around awhile and has different articles on the web, if you check the comments posted to his articles you will see this is a common criticism of his writings.

He routinely confuses naturalistic sciences as being the trump card over all other scientific studies. It is sort of like watching an NFL lineman play baseball. He may make it around the bases and be unstoppable, but if he hasn’t figured out that you must first hit a ball with a bat or that tackling the first baseman isn’t a good thing, he isn’t really a successful athlete.

Not to get too deep, but consider something as basic to philosophy as Aquinas' First Way or Aristotle's argument for the existence of an Unmoved Mover which it is an extension off of the hypothesis. Coyne never understands the basic argument of the transference of the potential into the active. He spends quite a large amount of time attacking a straw man which showboats his own ignorance rather than any actual weakness in the ancient premise. I don’t know, maybe he has something profound in his book to say, but it seems like a cash grab to me. Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins got rich with the new atheism, why not let Coyne give it a try. People are basically uninformed about the weaknesses of their arguments, it is a ripe market to tap.

You recently in another blog post accepted the fact that historical, anthological, geological areas of study are credible schools of thought when discussing facts. This is an enormous step forward in our discussions. I have long proposed there to be many areas with information which support Christianity as being rational. You seemed to always insist on some sort of naturalistic evidence which kind of misses the point when discussing the supernatural. God does leave a natural materialistic “footprint” but once something is physical there will always be the possibility of rejecting the supernatural. For instance if an angel showed up and gave me a little Debbie Starcrunch treat, even if it did happen there would always be a plausible reason to believe there is a natural explanation.

But if you are willing to consider other areas of study…hotdog! We are in business. So historically where do you begin to have a disconnect with Christian history as being inaccurate? You believe there are Christians today, but how far back do you go before you scream “Shenanigans,that is historically inaccurate!” Where do you see the greatest weakness? I suggest starting with the resurrection. That is the lynchpin all of Christian beliefs hinge on. It is the main point of contention with those I discuss theology with. It is the hub which all of the rest of Christian thought and practice connect to like spokes on a tire.

Steve

Anonymous said...

Jerry Coyne gets lambasted because of his basic ignorance of the ground rules of philosophy. He is a wonderful evolutionist biologist, he gets how to extrapolate the evolutionary theory, but philosophy is a totally different discipline. If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to better understand some of the concepts he is attacking. He has been around awhile and has different articles on the web, if you check the comments posted to his articles you will see this is a common criticism of his writings.

He routinely confuses naturalistic sciences as being the trump card over all other scientific studies. It is sort of like watching an NFL lineman play baseball. He may make it around the bases and be unstoppable, but if he hasn’t figured out that you must first hit a ball with a bat or that tackling the first baseman isn’t a good thing, he isn’t really a successful athlete.

Not to get too deep, but consider something as basic to philosophy as Aquinas' First Way or Aristotle's argument for the existence of an Unmoved Mover which it is an extension off of the hypothesis. Coyne never understands the basic argument of the transference of the potential into the active. He spends quite a large amount of time attacking a straw man which showboats his own ignorance rather than any actual weakness in the ancient premise. I don’t know, maybe he has something profound in his book to say, but it seems like a cash grab to me. Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins got rich with the new atheism, why not let Coyne give it a try. People are basically uninformed about the weaknesses of their arguments, it is a ripe market to tap.

You recently in another blog post accepted the fact that historical, anthological, geological areas of study are credible schools of thought when discussing facts. This is an enormous step forward in our discussions. I have long proposed there to be many areas with information which support Christianity as being rational. You seemed to always insist on some sort of naturalistic evidence which kind of misses the point when discussing the supernatural. God does leave a natural materialistic “footprint” but once something is physical there will always be the possibility of rejecting the supernatural. For instance if an angel showed up and gave me a little Debbie Starcrunch treat, even if it did happen there would always be a plausible reason to believe there is a natural explanation.

But if you are willing to consider other areas of study…hotdog! We are in business. So historically where do you begin to have a disconnect with Christian history as being inaccurate? You believe there are Christians today, but how far back do you go before you scream “Shenanigans,that is historically inaccurate!” Where do you see the greatest weakness? I suggest starting with the resurrection. That is the lynchpin all of Christian beliefs hinge on. It is the main point of contention with those I discuss theology with. It is the hub which all of the rest of Christian thought and practice connect to like spokes on a tire.

Anonymous said...

Shame on Jess for thinking I wouldn't read it. If I can slosh through those Talkorigins.com articles you send me to I'll read anything.

I've been ready Jerry's stuff since probably 2008-he has had stuff published on Time's website and a couple other places. He's one of the fun ones to pick apart.

Steve

Anonymous said...

edit "reading" not "ready"

typing too fast trying to get the kids ready for bed.

M.O.R said...

Show me the person that has lived for 4000 years, cos I certainly haven't. Tho I would like to meet him/ her and find out their secret.

Though I would like to test whether they are lying or not, especially in lieu of the guy who claimed to have not drank or eaten anything in years.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the double post. Blogger said it did not post because it was too large. I checked and it had not posted, so I reposted it in two smaller posts.

Blogger is a funny animal to work with. I do love its word verification. I like how it combines nonsense letters together, but it sometimes makes a cool looking new word. Like mine is "macts"; it sounds like a word for magic facts.

Steve

rgalwaysright said...

This is very amusing ! Science and God do go together and you can go to "answersingenesis.com" {God is needed surprise surprise } Let's discuss evolution and monkey evolving into man or I guess we would have to go with the theory of man evolving into monkey take your pick if it's possible one way than so be it the other ! Or are we going to go into the butterfly is evolution , I have an awesome response to that one , but I'll wait till next time . And last but not least if people are calling themselves christians and doing the opposite of what the bible say's than the odds are they are not christians!

Brett said...

Ugh! AiG is the WORST place to learn about science, because creation science is NOT science. I posted on your blog, Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, we evolved from and still are, apes. There is CLEAR fossil and DNA evidence for this. You have the exact same genes in your immune system that chimps do.

I read your response and it make no sense you need to actually understand how evolution works before you can discuss it.

Have you stoned a child for back talking to it's parent? No? Then you are not following the bible. Have any slaves? No again I'm guessing. I'm expecting you on my doorstep tomorrow to stone me for blasphemy, not going to do it? Not following your Bible. Not very Christian are you then? The point is you pick and choose what YOU think a Christian is, as do others, they just have a different criteria for picking and choosing. There are 38000 Christian sects, how can you be sure you picked the right one.

Best,

Brett