Religion

I see microevolution as compatible with the Bible and totally observable, but macroevolution I see as Berlinski himself said in the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary, a failed metaphysical experiment.

I've never heard Berlinski explicitly deny that macroevolution occurs. Have you? What he does do frequently is remind us all that it's the result of an inferential chain, massively removed from what can be directly observed.

Our resident Red Guards will routinely tell you that macroevolution is nothing but microevolution writ large; it's just "more of the same" extrapolated over longer time scales.

Our resident Red Guards really need to stop tuning in to only the Ministry of Propaganda broadcasts. There are plenty of distinguished scientists who take a very different stance on this.

Indeed, the whole idea that biological change -- in all its dizzying diversity and complexity -- can be pretty much captured in a glib one-liner (survival of the fittest) is almost breathtaking in its preposterousness.
 
I see microevolution as compatible with the Bible and totally observable, but macroevolution I see as Berlinski himself said in the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary, a failed metaphysical experiment.

I'll watch it later. Thanks for sharing the link.
 
I've never heard Berlinski explicitly deny that macroevolution occurs. Have you?

It's been some time since I've listened to him, I can't recall. I don't think you can listen to him in a video like the first one I posted and think it possible that he doesn't.

What he does do frequently is remind us all that it's the result of an inferential chain, massively removed from what can be directly observed.

Well, he certainly does that.

Our resident Red Guards will routinely tell you that macroevolution is nothing but microevolution writ large; it's just "more of the same" extrapolated over longer time scales.

Requiring faith which they dismiss as stupidity. They have evidence on their side. Ape skulls that look similar to human skulls, shards of pelvis and some teeth.

Our resident Red Guards really need to stop tuning in to only the Ministry of Propaganda broadcasts. There are plenty of distinguished scientists who take a very different stance on this.

I still remember the illustrations of brutish cave men gathered around the campfire and big lizard creatures in grade school. That and stories of Paul Revere riding gallantly through town shouting "The British are coming!" And visits to the planetarium.

Indeed, the whole idea that biological change -- in all its dizzying diversity and complexity -- can be pretty much captured in a glib one-liner (survival of the fittest) is almost breathtaking in its preposterousness.

They say the truth is stranger than fiction.
 
Our resident Red Guards will routinely tell you that macroevolution is nothing but microevolution writ large; it's just "more of the same" extrapolated over longer time scales.

Requiring faith which they dismiss as stupidity. They have evidence on their side. Ape skulls that look similar to human skulls, shards of pelvis and some teeth.

It's interesting that as I scan through older threads on the site I see the same mantra repeated over and over, "Macro- is nothing but lots of micro-evolution", including from those members who present themselves as being competent to speak on such matters.

There are, of course, plenty of scientists who say as much -- especially the ones who make the most noise (Dawkins et al) -- and it's standard fare from the Youtube gods who "educate" the public on science (Professor Dave, Forrest Valkai, and other deities).

But there are also plenty of distinguished scientists who say the opposite: macro- does not reduce to micro. It's not just "more of the same".

At the grass roots level of our own Red Guards, the most plausible explanation is -- no prizes for guessing -- ignorance. They've simply accepted -- obediently and unquestioningly, as always -- the Ministry of Propaganda party line on this, and never bothered to do any extra-MOP reading of their own.

At the higher levels, though, an explanation of ignorance appears far less plausible. It's hard not to suspect that the "top brass" are deliberately presenting a united front where no united front exists.

It's something Stephen Jay Gould -- an "anti-reductionist" -- complains about in a fascinating final section of his 2007 "Punctuated Equilibrium" -- the deliberate distortion of PE views.

Cause for concern? Don't be silly! Our own high priests would never deceive us!
 
Last edited:
1. What is "The Theory of Evolution"?

Ask ten different scientists and you're liable to get ten different answers. Members here themselves, for example, routinely rehash the Ministry of Propaganda slogan "There is the fact of evolution and then there is the theory of evolution. The two are different. The latter is that which explains the former." Pinball himself observes the same distinction (in the "ID Redux" thread). Is it unusual for scientists themselves to challenge "The Theory"?

If they do, they are just asking for trouble. Everyone knows this but very few would admit it.

2. Fossil record: Is it, or is it not the case that scientists themselves draw wildly divergent conclusions from the fossil record -- both in terms of the pattern (tempo or mode), and the unobservable processes and mechanisms supposedly responsible for these patterns? If so, why is it unreasonable to suggest that the fossil record is "mystifying"? Scientists themselves do not agree on what sense to make of it.

The ideologue doesn't look for refutation they look for confirmation. If the fossils appear in the wrong period, they simply move them to the "right period."

3. re anecdotes. In Pinball's view, what do all episodes of so-called natural selection have in common? Is there a common force responsible in all cases, for example, analogous to a Newtonian gravitational force which explains all its instances? If not, what is the commonality? I asked him before (same thread); he did not understand the question. If there is nothing substantive linking all cases of natural selection, much as there is nothing substantive linking all cases of human battle, why is the word "anecdote" unreasonable?

I have no idea.

4. Is it, or is it not the case that leaders in the field (Gould, Lewontin) have criticized their peers for concocting "Just So" stories, which might reasonably be described as "anecdotes"?

5. How does Pinball suggest we transcend the anecdotal and confirm putative episodes of natural selection in the distant past?

While you're at it . . .

Does Pinball know the difference between a conceptual and an empirical question? Is the possible vacuity of natural selection theory, say, an empirical or a conceptual question? Can Pinball name a discipline which devotes itself to the examination of conceptual questions? (clue: it's not science).

Maybe if he ignores you, you will go away?
 
Instrumentum Regni [Latin] - Instrument of Government

Much that was called religion has carried an unconscious attitude of hostility toward life. True religion must teach that life is filled with joys pleasing to the eye of God, that knowledge without action is empty. All men must see that the teaching of religion by rules and rote is largely a hoax. The proper teaching is recognized with ease. You can know it without fail because it awakens within you that sensation which tells you this is something you’ve always known.
- Frank Herbert, Dune

Origins of Religion
Religion, in its broadest sense, is the pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance; the alleged, or at least pretense of an alleged strict adherence to a specific set of principles. In this sense everyone is religious. As far as we can determine there have never existed any people anywhere at any time who were not in some sense of the word religious. It is only recently, however, that careful study of the origins of religion and its development has been undertaken. Throughout most of mankind's history one's religious tradition was something one was born into without choice, often without the knowledge of any alternatives. In the 19th century, with mass migration, and improved means of communication and travel, that began to change.

The arrival of scientific inquiry and especially the theory of evolution also inspired the intellectual to question established institutions including religion. Through the methodology of anthropology, sociology and psychology mankind had striven to search through the human mind as well as the ruins of ancient civilizations to find answers about his spiritual past and present yearnings.

Some of the theories that were most prominent were that religion sprang from primitive people's belief that the immortal soul remained after death, inhabiting the things around them. Dreams, hallucinations and visions of dead ancestors inspired this. Then came the idea that prehistoric people believed, not in the personal immortal soul, but rather, the impersonal supernatural force which controlled everything. This came from a fear and awe of the unknown. Another theory suggests that religion came from magic - an attempt to control the environment around our primitive ancestors by imitating nature. Sprinkling water while beating drums to sound like thunder would produce rain, for example.

It is impossible to guess, with any degree of accuracy or ability to confirm, the origins of religion. More often these theories are veiled attempts to explain religion away by dismissing early forms to have been based upon illusions, ignorance and fear, thereby undermining religion in general. No tenable explanations have been introduced and yet from a faulty premise the illusion of a sound conclusion is, somewhat ironically, based more upon ignorance and fear. Science and religion have a great deal more in common than either would care to admit.

It is also apparent that many of the concepts of the world religions, though separated geographically, traditionally, culturally, and socially, have a great deal more in common than one might think.​
It is very noticeable that you know a lot about religion throughout studies made of it.

Your situation is like those theoretical dudes who are very abundant here in these forums, they know a lot "about" science, but they really don't know nothing (I learned English in the street thanks to a black girlfriend who stayed with me for some years, so you will excuse my French)

Yup, such is the crude reality.

You think you know religion and you are in the position to criticize it negatively.

Unfortunately for you, religion is not only checking about its origin, its doctrines, etc.

Same that dudes here who have never touched a microscopic but discuss a lot about their gonorrhea infection, you have not experienced religion, then you are just a theoretical dude.

Look, live religion, put the best deodorant under your armpits , rise your hand, recognize Jesus as your savior, start to pray for others, visiting the guys in jail, buy a cup of coffee to the homeless in Winter, stop saying bad words, do not lie, do not steal, jus do all what is written in the bible that Jesus followers recommended and the Law of God says, fulfill the best you can all that sh*t and come back and criticize religion with solid base.

What about that?
 
Same that dudes here who have never touched a microscopic but discuss a lot about their gonorrhea infection, you have not experienced religion, then you are just a theoretical dude.
Theory and experiment are just as important in science. Science is fundamentally empirical and Theory is an attempt to explain what is going on, not just what is there.
 
Theory and experiment are just as important in science. Science is fundamentally empirical and Theory is an attempt to explain what is going on, not just what is there.
Well said.

Same applies when one tries to talk about religion, is not only about knowing the doctrines but also living them.
 
Well said.

Same applies when one tries to talk about religion, is not only about knowing the doctrines but also living them.
To the religious perhaps Theologians, not to scholars/Historians and non believers.
 
Last edited:
Look, live religion, put the best deodorant under your armpits , rise your hand, recognize Jesus as your savior, start to pray for others, visiting the guys in jail, buy a cup of coffee to the homeless in Winter, stop saying bad words, do not lie, do not steal, jus do all what is written in the bible that Jesus followers recommended and the Law of God says, fulfill the best you can all that sh*t and come back and criticize religion with solid base.

What about that?
Most of what you suggest is not exclusive to "living religion", though. Most is just being a decent person. Only a few of your suggestions actually require belief in a higher being (although not all religions require even that), for example. Just because a religion promotes being "good", and provides a structure for how that can be achieved (amongst other things), doesn't mean that being "good" itself is therefore "living religion". Just because A leads to B doesn't mean that A is the only route to B.

So what, to you, are examples of "living religion" that is more than just being a decent human being?
And btw, I don't necessarily dispute the idea that one can learn more by doing than simply by talking about something.
 
Most of what you suggest is not exclusive to "living religion", though. Most is just being a decent person. Only a few of your suggestions actually require belief in a higher being (although not all religions require even that), for example. Just because a religion promotes being "good", and provides a structure for how that can be achieved (amongst other things), doesn't mean that being "good" itself is therefore "living religion". Just because A leads to B doesn't mean that A is the only route to B.

So what, to you, are examples of "living religion" that is more than just being a decent human being?
And btw, I don't necessarily dispute the idea that one can learn more by doing than simply by talking about something.
Obeying your god.
 
Back
Top