RIP Jack Chick

[Eddie Teach]

Something something Ed Harris.

[alfred russel]

Oh, stop it with the postmodern drivel. There is zero similarity between Chick's views and mine. Why? My world view is subject to revision given new and better data. Error correction if you will. Chick just has a book he thinks was written by the Creator of the Universe.

Chick's worldview was also subject to revision, given further information provided from God. It is just that no such information has come up for a couple thousand years or so.

[Hamilcar]

What's fundamentally absurd and baseless about Taoism or Buddhism?

The mythological parts are clearly nonsense, but the more philosophical parts contains some kernels of interest. Not all beliefs are equally absurd -- Mormonism is orders of magnitude sillier.

[The Brain]

Something something Ed Harris.

He sounded white on the phone.

[Malthus]

hamil, your belief in rationality and science is a religion, and therefore tribes, tribes everywhere

etc., etc.

As both a religious person and an engineer I don't see how that is true. But man do I get that alot: Science is wrong because QUANTUM MECHANICS.

I'd make a slightly different point: "belief" is generally the choice of which set of mythology one ought to accept.

One ought not to "believe in science" in this sense, because science is basically a tool for winnowing out incorrect theories about how the world works. While accepting correct facts is important in one's choice of mythology, it cannot be decisive, because how one weighs the significance of those facts depends on the weight one gives to abstract, mythological concepts that cannot be disproven - such as freedom, justice, liberty, etc.

Scientific methods could, for example, presumably measure "happiness" (such as via serotonin levels in one's brain). But what to do with this knowledge? If it could be proved that society A, which required mandatory drugging of every person to enforce "happiness", actually produced more happiness per person than society B, which did not, does this "scientifically prove" society A is superior to society B?

The choice, one the actual facts are known, of how to value those facts is one of comparative mythology, not science.

Not that the mythology has to be of the theistic kind.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...."

Pretty well every word of this is mythology (not to say it is factually wrong; only that it is not disprovable). There is no way to determine "scientifically" whether or not any of these "self evident Truths" are true or false.

[The Brain]

hamil, your belief in rationality and science is a religion, and therefore tribes, tribes everywhere

etc., etc.

As both a religious person and an engineer I don't see how that is true. But man do I get that alot: Science is wrong because QUANTUM MECHANICS.

I'd make a slightly different point: "belief" is generally the choice of which set of mythology one ought to accept.

One ought not to "believe in science" in this sense, because science is basically a tool for winnowing out incorrect theories about how the world works. While accepting correct facts is important in one's choice of mythology, it cannot be decisive, because how one weighs the significance of those facts depends on the weight one gives to abstract, mythological concepts that cannot be disproven - such as freedom, justice, liberty, etc.

Scientific methods could, for example, presumably measure "happiness" (such as via serotonin levels in one's brain). But what to do with this knowledge? If it could be proved that society A, which required mandatory drugging of every person to enforce "happiness", actually produced more happiness per person than society B, which did not, does this "scientifically prove" society A is superior to society B?

The choice, one the actual facts are known, of how to value those facts is one of comparative mythology, not science.

Not that the mythology has to be of the theistic kind.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...."

Pretty well every word of this is mythology (not to say it is factually wrong; only that it is not disprovable). There is no way to determine "scientifically" whether or not any of these "self evident Truths" are true or false.

Men made of straw. Alas!

[viper37]

I on the other hand, have nothing but love and happy fielding for the rest of humanity.

even those that dream of slaughtering you?

hamil, your belief in rationality and science is a religion, and therefore tribes, tribes everywhere

etc., etc.

As both a religious person and an engineer I don't see how that is true. But man do I get that alot: Science is wrong because QUANTUM MECHANICS.

how is science wrong because a new theory proposes something different under different circumstances?

[Malthus]

What's fundamentally absurd and baseless about Taoism or Buddhism?

The mythological parts are clearly nonsense, but the more philosophical parts contains some kernels of interest. Not all beliefs are equally absurd -- Mormonism is orders of magnitude sillier.

In Buddhism of the original, Theravada kind, the "mythology" is that the Buddha left his prosperous life after witnessing human suffering and death, wandered around listening to various teachers of his era, decided they did not know how to avoid suffering, and sat under a tree until he worked out his own philosophy, which he then taught to others until he died.

In original Taoism, there appears to be no mythology at all. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were authors of the key Taoist texts, but we know practically nothing about either.

Both eventually gave their names to religions crowded with the usual gods, demons, angels ("bodhisattvas"), heavens, hells, etc. But that stuff has basically nothing to do with the original religions.

The Buddha's own alleged approach to such stuff was pretty simple - when pressed as to the existence of gods, demons, etc., he professed a sort of profound agnosticism: they may well exist, or not; but if they do, they don't know how to avoid suffering any more than people do! 

[Malthus]

how is science wrong because a new theory proposes something different under different circumstances?

I think we can all agree that those claiming 'science is wrong because X theory has been disproved' don't have a clue what science is. 

[Hamilcar]

how is science wrong because a new theory proposes something different under different circumstances?

I think we can all agree that those claiming 'science is wrong because X theory has been disproved' don't have a clue what science is. 

Speaking of which, have you seen the Fallist movement? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

[Barrister]

You know, Jack Chick felt his views were completely rational as well, and could source just about anything he said to an appropriate Bible quotation.

The real similarity between the two of you is your absolute certainty in the correctness of your world view, and the inability give any credit or sympathy to the views of others.

Oh, stop it with the postmodern drivel. There is zero similarity between Chick's views and mine. Why? My world view is subject to revision given new and better data. Error correction if you will. Chick just has a book he thinks was written by the Creator of the Universe.

Well you sure don't act like it.

I don't have the science background that you do, but I do have a science background.  And the various PhDs I worked with, both academically and in the workforce, were much more guarded in their opinions.  They rarely made absolute statements of fact - instead it was almost always 'well this is what we understand now, but that may well change with more information'.

Maybe that's just the nature of my science - geology - which inherently has you making educated guesses about stuff that happened millions or billions of years ago, or what exists thousands of metres under the ground.  But I don't think so.

And after I said nice things about Jack Chick (it is a RIP thread after all), that's what I hate about religious types like him - his absolute certainty.  You're talking about the Will of God.  Anyone who says they don't have doubts about knowing the Will of God is either a liar or has not once ever critically thought about their own faith.

[Razgovory]

I find annoying the tired argument that the sum total of religion is "some old book".

[viper37]

You know, Jack Chick felt his views were completely rational as well, and could source just about anything he said to an appropriate Bible quotation.

The real similarity between the two of you is your absolute certainty in the correctness of your world view, and the inability give any credit or sympathy to the views of others.

Oh, stop it with the postmodern drivel. There is zero similarity between Chick's views and mine. Why? My world view is subject to revision given new and better data. Error correction if you will. Chick just has a book he thinks was written by the Creator of the Universe.

Well you sure don't act like it.

I don't have the science background that you do, but I do have a science background.  And the various PhDs I worked with, both academically and in the workforce, were much more guarded in their opinions.  They rarely made absolute statements of fact - instead it was almost always 'well this is what we understand now, but that may well change with more information'.

Maybe that's just the nature of my science - geology - which inherently has you making educated guesses about stuff that happened millions or billions of years ago, or what exists thousands of metres under the ground.  But I don't think so.

And after I said nice things about Jack Chick (it is a RIP thread after all), that's what I hate about religious types like him - his absolute certainty.  You're talking about the Will of God.  Anyone who says they don't have doubts about knowing the Will of God is either a liar or has not once ever critically thought about their own faith.

If all religious people were like you, maybe I wouldn't be atheist

Imho, public policies should be decided by the level of knowledge we have today.  That's my problem with religion, were all too often, religious people are against advancing our knowledge.  No matter if it's the present, the not so distant past, or the very long forgotten past, it seems we should be stuck in time at some specific point and stop advancing because we already know everything that is important.

[garbon]

If all religious people were like you, maybe I wouldn't be atheist

Imho, public policies should be decided by the level of knowledge we have today.  That's my problem with religion, were all too often, religious people are against advancing our knowledge.  No matter if it's the present, the not so distant past, or the very long forgotten past, it seems we should be stuck in time at some specific point and stop advancing because we already know everything that is important.

Most of the Christians I know personally wouldn't say they know exactly what God wants and they've also thought critically about their faith (though, of course, to my standards not enough or they would have given it up).

I don't know any of them who want us to be stuck in a specific point of time/stop advancing.

[Barrister]

If all religious people were like you, maybe I wouldn't be atheist

Imho, public policies should be decided by the level of knowledge we have today.  That's my problem with religion, were all too often, religious people are against advancing our knowledge.  No matter if it's the present, the not so distant past, or the very long forgotten past, it seems we should be stuck in time at some specific point and stop advancing because we already know everything that is important.

Perhaps you should read a little bit more about Christianity then.

There's not a single religion I can think of that wants us "stuck in time at some specific point".  Even the notoriously technology-phobic Amish aren't opposed to all technology - they just think carefully before they decide to adopt a given piece of technology.