LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
First let's establish that you have no valid means to refute the content or conclusion of my post; if you had, you'd have employed them--so you've opted to critique my style and apply bold denial of reality instead.I know the following will challenge the attention spans of PoliticalChic and particularly koshergrl, but I will continue my practice of reinforcing my message through repetition, and using as many descriptive terms as necessary to make my points clear, and to disarm the predictably mendacious shenanigans that intellectually dishonest retards like PoliticalChic and koshergrl are so fond of engaging in when their carefully insulated stupidity is exposed. (For example, after having to refer to a dictionary every other time I use a three-syllable word, these two retards have invented the notion that I consider myself an "intellectual" evidenced by my vocabulary--which the average 10th grader should be comfortable with. koshergrl has even gone so far as to imagine that I consider myself a "word-smith." There is no doubt that these two have VERY active imaginations.) At the risk of fueling their delusions about my opinion of myself, it's clearly time to hold the chubby little hands of these two retards, who just can't accept that intellectual foundations of religion and science are entirely different things, and explain to them the facts of reality.
I will start out with small ideas that should not be unwieldly for the small minds of PoliticalChic and koshergrl. Let's talk about "belief."Belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing.This shouldn't be terribly controversial; but it doesn't speak to the strength of that conviction, the degree of certainty, the source or foundation for either the conviction or the certainty. Clearly there is room for more precise terms that describe different kinds of belief. So let me introduce "rational-belief."Rational-belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, has been established. Furthermore, rational-beliefs are validated by verifiable evidence and valid logic (i.e. objective reality).This shouldn't be terribly controversial either; it allows for the rationality of beliefs based on incomplete data or held in ignorance of pertinent information; while providing the means to sustain a rational set of beliefs through amending, or revising one's beliefs to conform with (perhaps more) valid logic applied to (perhaps better or more complete) verifiable evidence.
What then of beliefs for which support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, has NOT been established? Let me introduce the term "faith."Faith is the conviction of unqualified certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Furthermore, faith is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic; the resolute strength of that denial is the "validating" quality of faith.Again, this shouldn't be terribly controversial; among the faithful, there is no uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds He has performed. Convictions such as these are held with unconditional certainty, and are achieved by an act of will that requires no reference to, no support in, no establishment upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it requires only unwavering commitment. These convictions--these commitments--are the unquestioned foundations that the faithful evaluate every argument and evidence against.
Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. And every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty as religion does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, PoliticalChic's religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that PoliticalChic (and apparently Berlinski) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. PoliticalChic's (and apparently Berlinski's) argument collapses upon it's strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
1. First, let’s establish the kind of low-level individual you are, Lowest…these aspersion form your post:
a. “…challenge the attention spans…”
b. “…Mendacious…”
c. “…intellectually dishonest…”
d. “…retards…”
e. “…stupidity…”
f. “….having to refer to a dictionary…”
g. “…small minds…”
It's just hilarious that you're about to confirm the validity of each "aspersion" you have a need to criticize.
And now that we've achieved the end of your critique, we can see that it's only through an intentional denial of reality that you can claim that I proved, rather than refuted, your contentions in your post #23.2. When one constantly attempts to paint opponents in the above terms, with, of course, no indicia of any of it, it leads to the following conjecture: said individual must have been exposed interminably to these appellations by individuals from whom one should have received love and respect.
a. When one has grown up with love and respect, it is the way one confronts the world.
b. In your case, one can see how difficult it is to break free of one’s psychological nurture.
3. Pathetic as you are, Lowest, were I a better person, I would spend more time with you, offering to condole. Sadly, I find you abhorrent, as did others, evidenced by all of the marks you bear from ten-foot poles.
4. But, I appreciate the definitions you have provided, as, in conjunction with my post #23, they certainly prove my contentions.
See, you are good for something!