Here's a couple of quotes there that set me off;
Like intelligent design, I think this nonmaterialist neuroscience is disingenuous and displays a lack of faith.
...
And shouldn't our understanding of spirituality evolve just as our understanding of our environment does?
Gah.. "understanding of spirituality" is an oxymoron. Isn't that obvious? And there is someone equating neuro science with creationism. That's just absurd, but if you read the thread, they actually defend it. It's very strange.
but (at least in theory if not in practice) science is supposed to constantly re-examine its assumptions.
And it does! Duh.. demonstrate where it does not! I'm sure there are places where some bad science is being done, but that's bad scientists.. and has no bearing on science itself.
Trite, glib, smug and utterly dogmatic. You sound like a scientistic inquisitor.
That is The classic straw man. When confronted with the fact that there is zero evidence for anything supernatural, people try to simply equate science to religion in order to bring science to the same level of guess-work that is the defining characteristic of spirituality. It annoys me to no end.
This is the best quote;
Insisting on evidence or proof [of spirituality] is ridiculous and silly.
Uhh.. LOL.. that is the LOL'est thing I've seen in ages.
Actually expecting there to be some sort of evidence for the supernatural is "ridiculous and silly", when people make arguments based on the supernatural?
Oh.. my.. god.. the malfunctioning of the neurons that it takes to say that is stunning.
HOw Dare I expect Some sort of real Fact behind an argument?!?!11
and then comes the inevitable ad homs.. /yawn
Tom, Your argument is silly and specious because is it so pretentious, presumptuous, pompous and behind the curve.
He just said that my argument fails because I'm a dick.
Okay.. you win.. I cannot compete with that sort of logic.
....
I link to "God is Not an Asshole", because he (or she, I don't know) frequently links to more out-of-the-ordinary type stories that are interesting. However, it's obvious the crowd there are just a different flavor of the Loon Brigade. They distinguish themselves from the "religious", by branding organized religion in derogatory terms. That's all well and good, and I agree with that. However, they use the exact same straw man arguments to attack science that the hard-core Loons use, and then throw tantrums when some of us simply argue that they have ZERO evidence of anything supernatural.
And at the end of the day, that's the bottom line in the entire debate. They have zero evidence, and their argument that we just can't "see" it are silly.. even while they call us "silly".. and so, as we always do with those types, we just point and laugh. It's sad really.
Or is it just me? lol
Anyway.. here's the last comment I left for them..
You're conflating "spirituality" and "science". I wonder why you do that? I don't "presume" anything, that's the whole point! You presume we're just not enlightened enough to understand the supernatural yet.. or something.
I knew you were going to do the "you view science as a religion" straw man. It's another way of conflating spirituality and science in order to place science on the same level as spirituality. By "level" I do not mean one superior to the other, but rather that science is completely different.
When PZ Myers "desecrated" the Eucharist, he wasn't abusing Christ.. he simply threw a cracker in the trash along with a page of a book and a banana peel. That's the point that you refuse to acknowledge. It's just a cracker. It's just a banana peel... and science is not a religion, but you will refuse to acknowledge what it really is.. and what it really is, is exceptionally simple.
When somebody says "Piercing a Communion wafer with a nail and throwing it in the garbage, as one crusading biologist recently did, does science no favors", they miss the point that science doesn't need favors. It's not a philosophical movement. If somebody is offended, that's their problem, and their problem alone. It makes absolutely no difference to anything beyond that because science does not have an agenda. In real terms, it cannot offend anyone, and is not affected by popular opinion. It makes no difference if somebody is emotional about it.
You cannot understand that because you cannot understand the fundamental difference between science and spirituality. It just doesn't register in your brain as evidenced by pointing out the "does science no favors" argument.
I understand that people can't understand the distinction, and the study referenced in the original post of this thread explains why that is. Your biology prevents you from understanding that. Pure physical composition leads you to the cracker argument, and you're unable to understand why that argument is completely irrelevant.
To be sure, you appear quite articulate, and this is not some sort of personal attack, it's simply an exercise at pointing you back to the very original topic of neuro science and try and get you to examine yourself and see how that very topic affects you so deeply without your even knowing it.
There is no "evolution" of man as the bushman that will ever reveal your spirituality. You can keep trying to conflate science with it, but real scientists reject that premise. "Spooky action at a distance" is not supernatural, any more that claiming "God" is just hidden until we achieve some new understanding that will reveal God to us. You can call "spooky action at a distance" as once-upon-a-day supernatural, but just because you say it, doesn't make it so. That same point of view would claim gravity as supernatural once upon a time.
God will never be revealed.. but this thread is an exceptionally important discussion because it is the door that religious lunatics are trying to use to blur the lines of science and their wacky, made up, bullshit. It ends up with a museum displaying a dinosaur with a saddle on it.
You will not find a welcome audience for such tripe in the vast majority of academic circles. You will not successfully link Spinoza, and those with more "Deist" viewpoints such as Einstein, to this idea that the supernatural exists and we're just not able to understand or comprehend it yet.
There is no evidence for the supernatural, and by it's definition, there will never be such evidence. It's important that that idea be thoroughly discredited because it is not helpful to real research and scientific examination.
That's why Myers nailed the cracker. That's exactly why he did it, and other people just see "ohhh he offended me". They don't get it at all.. but people like he and Dawkins and Dennet, as well as lesser minions like myself, will continue to make that point. Say anything you want about the personalities involved (and it's irrelevant), but at the end of the day, the institutions of science.. the scientific method.. will not care that anyone is "pompous" or whatever, because it can't.
You can trivialize that argument by claiming it another version of religion, but it's a straw man... so please.. stop with the attacks on real science with the "faith" canard.
.. and I'll be waiting for any shred of evidence of "spirituality" so I can publish it and claim my Nobel Prize. I'm just not going to hold my breath, while people throw a tantrum about my not seeing the obvious.
And the really interesting thing is the science. If that study is correct, then we truly are slaves to our neurons, and "free will" is an illusion.
Scott Adams has been arguing that for ages, in a more popular form of the same argument others have made for eons. If it's true, it's rather liberating, is it not? That's why the Loon Brigade can never accept it.
No comments:
Post a Comment