News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

RIP Jack Chick

Started by Martinus, October 25, 2016, 01:30:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

alfred russel

Quote from: Hamilcar on October 26, 2016, 12:13:29 PM

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.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Hamilcar

Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2016, 12:19:35 PM
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

Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Malthus

Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2016, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 26, 2016, 12:04:57 PM
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 object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

The Brain

Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2016, 12:36:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2016, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 26, 2016, 12:04:57 PM
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!
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

viper37

Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2016, 10:07:14 AM
I on the other hand, have nothing but love and happy fielding for the rest of humanity.
even those that dream of slaughtering you?
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2016, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 26, 2016, 12:04:57 PM
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?
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Malthus

Quote from: Hamilcar on October 26, 2016, 12:24:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2016, 12:19:35 PM
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!  :D
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Malthus

Quote from: viper37 on October 26, 2016, 12:43:36 PM

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.  :D
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Hamilcar

Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2016, 12:49:21 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 26, 2016, 12:43:36 PM

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.  :D

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

Barrister

Quote from: Hamilcar on October 26, 2016, 12:13:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2016, 12:10:47 PM
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.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Razgovory

I find annoying the tired argument that the sum total of religion is "some old book".
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

viper37

Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2016, 12:59:24 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 26, 2016, 12:13:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2016, 12:10:47 PM
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.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

garbon

Quote from: viper37 on October 26, 2016, 01:08:44 PM
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.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Barrister

Quote from: viper37 on October 26, 2016, 01:08:44 PM
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.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.