The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The emotionality of belief > Comments

The emotionality of belief : Comments

By Meredith Doig, published 1/4/2011

Confronting believers too strongly will only enhance the strength of their attachment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
Let us present a nearly hypothetical example:

If a creationist were to present the argument of Hoyle, that an enzyme with a given activity could not arise randomly due the enormous odds against one particular sequence arising, is it not dishonest of this creationist to present such an argument as telling?

"Ah" you *might* say, "that creationist is honestly unaware of counterexamples".

"but" I say, "he has made an assertion whose value lies in presuming some study, some genuine interest in knowing whether the arguiment was valid, which brief study shows it is not, see jack Szostak and so forth."

"but he was honest" you protest,

"only in his ignorance" I reply, "which he dishonestly and arrogantly presentaed as knowledgeability".

"yet still honest"

"but not *intellectually honest* and that is the point"

"that's just name calling"

"*accurate* name calling" I say.

For an example, I ask you yet again for your reference or the name of the teacher you taught you that "expodential" was a valid mathematical term. Even just the greek or latin roots in which such a linguist and mathematician as youself must surely have taken an interest. Else you relly should be silent.

There, that saves time, does it not?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 11:13:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We gave the spelling of a word a fair run on the other thread. It was off topic then (so said the OLO moderator). and it's off topic now.

As much as the creation/evolution debate goes, we could start a whole new discussion along those lines if you like, but that would also probably be off topic.

However, inasmuch as it relates to Doig's silly and unnecessary comment that. 'anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest' I would say this:

Deliberately being misleading is dishonesty. 

And complete intolerance of any belief or opinion that differs from one's own is called bigotry. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 28 April 2011 10:44:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And as an *actual example* of a breakdown in personal integrity it was just fine.

You are not to be trusted, as that thread indicated, on so humble a thing as a mathematical term. There are even stories in the Oh-so-precious "bible" about extrapolating such unfaithfulness to greater things.

Further, when you have discussed matters of molecular evolution, you have used phrases such as "it's about information content" when it becomes clear you know nothing about how natural selection influences actual acquisition of novel biochemical activities.

It is most apparant that creationists in particular are grossly and obviously dishonest about matters pertaining to the validity of biological evolution.

Do go read up. The evidence for biological evolution is far more weighty than any for the honesty of biblical compilers.

If your faith is bolstered by false arguments in such a manner, and by disseminating such misinformation, what is that *but* "intellectual dishonesty"?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 28 April 2011 10:57:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's your own fault, Dan S Merengue, for a) coming into the discussion so late - what took you so long? - and b) for the somewhat intemperate outburst that announced your arrival.

But this is quite interesting.

>>However, inasmuch as it relates to Doig's silly and unnecessary comment that. 'anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest' I would say this: Deliberately being misleading is dishonesty.<<

First and foremost - indeed, it is the core of the topic in the article - it was not "Doig's silly and unnecessary comment".

It was a quote. Somebody else's words. Which she was careful to package and preface as such:

"In summarising Hitchens's arguments about how 'religion poisons everything', I quoted one of his famously pithy and rather amusing characterisations of religious believers: 'Anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest'."

The fact that you, too, took umbrage at her quotation, and treated it as a personal insult to you and your religion, indicates that you didn't understand any part of the article that she wrote. It was not an apology for quoting Hitchens; it was an observation - quite a sensitive observation, in fact - on how easy it is to upset people who wear their religion on their sleeve.

A point that you have rather neatly underlined.

An alternative view might be that you deliberately misunderstood, or misread, what she wrote, in order to demonstrate once again the depths of your own personal piety.

But that cannot be right, because that would be deceptive. And misleading. And as you told us already, deliberately being misleading is dishonest.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 29 April 2011 8:42:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Sorry, I didn't realise you were in charge of setting time limits for closing down discussion on a thread.

Meredith Doig's article conerns emotional as opposed to rational responses (from Christians).  Some choice selections of emotional outbursts elaborating his prejudice against Christians can be found with Rusty above. I hope Dr Doig gets to read them.

The real question (that I think Dr Doig did well to raise) is when will we be able to move forward, grow up, and talk sensibly over these issues? 

It's exactly the same question which I raised in my article published on OLO last year, entitled "Truth is the first casualty of war", subitiled 'The Global Atheist Convention: why won't Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist, publically debate Carl Weiland, creationist?'
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9980&page=0  
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 29 April 2011 10:58:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't be so paranoid, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, Sorry, I didn't realise you were in charge of setting time limits for closing down discussion on a thread.<<

I was simply noting that you had taken four weeks to get around to making a comment, and that when you did, your contribution was somewhat bilious. It was just my way of asking politely "are you feeling ok?"

>>The real question (that I think Dr Doig did well to raise) is when will we be able to move forward, grow up, and talk sensibly over these issues?<<

From the manner in which you mimic the reaction of Dr Doig's friend, I'd guess your own answer would be "not yet".

>>It's exactly the same question which I raised in my article published on OLO last year, entitled "Truth is the first casualty of war"<<

Hardly "exactly the same". But close enough, if you step back and squint. You said at the time:

"Some avenues of enquiry are declared off limits; with some honest questions denounced as unanswerable, invalid, or heaven forbid, unimportant. But these won’t go away until they are properly addressed."

This was, as you remind us, in the context of 'The Global Atheist Convention: why won't Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist, publically debate Carl Weiland, creationist?'

We worked through that one quite extensively back then, and the view was formed that the principal reason was, that there would be insufficient common ground upon which to base an intelligent discussion.

You, quite naturally, disagreed, but it was clear to most that debating "science vs. faith" would be an interesting challenge for the Year Ten Debating Society, but pretty irrelevant to grownups.

To be a creationist, it is necessary to take the writings in the Bible at face value, which effectively disqualifies one from looking at geological evidence with an open mind... "what does this lump of rock tell us?". Having a discussion with a closed mind is, as you well know, pretty fruitless.

But thanks for bringing it up. I had a quick glance through the thread, and found it quite refreshing.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 29 April 2011 2:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy