nirgrahamUK:my opinion at this point in our conversation is that looking at it from an evolutionary perspective is a red herring appraoch. why do i say this? its too much of a determinist, nature dictates position, that doesnt take into account the fact that Humans Act.
Rytz: This is a fantastic point of view - reminiscent of postmodernist relativism. When you write "It is fallacious to think everyone sees the world in the exact same light as you do" I think you are understating the differences between a naturalistic worldview and a supernatural one. It is not just a matter of opinion: I remember my old university professor bringing up the point by asking: "If Socrates got in a rowboat and just kept on rowing, would he at some point fall over the edge of the world?"
This is a fantastic point of view - reminiscent of postmodernist relativism. When you write "It is fallacious to think everyone sees the world in the exact same light as you do" I think you are understating the differences between a naturalistic worldview and a supernatural one. It is not just a matter of opinion: I remember my old university professor bringing up the point by asking: "If Socrates got in a rowboat and just kept on rowing, would he at some point fall over the edge of the world?"
I never said that there is no actual objective world, merely that people view it differently. If everyone actually saw everything in the same manner as one another, there wouldn't be any differences of opinion.
Objectivism vs relativism is not just about "exact same lights". It goes deeper than that. It touches the very core of every discourse we have with one another - if embraced, the form of relativism that you espouse in the above, does away with a common world.
Except I don't recall where I specifically said that truth is objective or any such thing. If anything I merely pointed out that it is silly to think that everyone is going to see metaphysics in the exact same way. Much like people place subjective values on things in economics, there are subjective values people place on beliefs or ideas.
Very little is "interpretation" in science; theories are system built to meet observations that can be repeated and repeated. A "flat earth theory" would need quite a bit of embroidering to meet the repeated observation (and from many converging strands of evidence) that the earth is round. The same actually goes with ID/creationism vs Evolution: Its not just that evolution as a theory has never been contradicted by the way the world works; it also enlightens us about present-time phenomena like disease, tumor growth and the effects of pesticides in farming. Socrates does not fall over the edge of the earth, no matter what he thinks.
I don't recall where I ever disputed that, or even made any assertions directly about ID/creationism vs Evolution, really.
Indeed, Socrates may not fall over the edge of the world, but what harm to other people is there if he believes he will? Of course people's opinions can be wrong, but I see no reason for people to get so aggressively bothered by other people's views on religion or whatnot.
Now, I don't have a problem with people's beliefs in general - and I agree with your implication that it is really none of my business (as a libertarian). I am in fact very fond of small church communities, and I feel strongly that this must be a great way of life. However, I also see fit to confront the form of malignant ignorance that creationism is - and to confront people who are unable to align their values and view of the world with the very world they inhabit. It is not without consequence for their children who will grow up ill-equipped to deal with the world; and it is not without consequence for me who might someday encounter a raging suicide bomber bred from the ignorance that creationism represents. Since I have no legal recourse in this matter (and I do not want it - being the freedom-lover I am), all I have left is confrontation, dialogue, and debate. In all kindness, of course. Any thoughts, sirmonty?
And that is fine. I wasn't saying people shouldn't debated it, but people should 1) be intellectually honest (avoid blanket collective generalizations of the other camp) and 2) calm down. These kind of debates often spin into a big ad hominem fest when one side starts accusing the other side of being an idiot or dellusional, etc and it usually turns to crap.
sirmonty:And that is fine. I wasn't saying people shouldn't debated it, but people should 1) be intellectually honest (avoid blanket collective generalizations of the other camp) and 2) calm down. These kind of debates often spin into a big ad hominem fest when one side starts accusing the other side of being an idiot or dellusional, etc and it usually turns to crap.
I think I agree if your comment was only on the tone of the debate. But it wasn't really, was it? Leaving aside ID/evolution, would you in general maintain that any view is as good as the next? I mean, look at it this way; there are two kinds of claims:
1) Value claims "Pigs are filthy animals"
2) Predicative proposition "My pen is blue"
You are absolutely correct concerning claims in category 1. And you are correct to the extent that ID and creationism are, in fact, value claims - and not claims about the world. They are examples, one might say, of a religious language used about the natural world to promote certain values in society and discourage other (more secular) values. The problem, though, is that proponents of ID and creationism themselves claim to make claims in category 2. Would you agree?
sirmonty:I never said that there is no actual objective world, merely that people view it differently. If everyone actually saw everything in the same manner as one another, there wouldn't be any differences of opinion.
You did not say that there is no objective world, granted - but you did imply that different views can be equally valid, thus undermining a strong concept of truth (as tied objectively to the world). Otherwise, you would have to discuss in some detail why you think that evolution and ID is mutually compatible ... and hence why they both can be true when postulated about the very same world. Of course, if all you meant was that people have different preferences and values then I grant you that.
sirmonty:I don't recall where I ever disputed that, or even made any assertions directly about ID/creationism vs Evolution, really.
I know. Sorry. And I do get your point - and I understand the sentiment that sometimes you would just like people to shut the frick up (and ID/evo is getting kind of old, perhaps).
This probably has been said before, but Evolution explains diversity in biology- not cosmology or any other natural phenomenon.
Also I never see any Atheist/Agnostic Austrians around here. Do they just keep it to themselves?
You're just not paying attention if you don't see any. Seriously.
Usually that's not discussed here... but you're probably right. Then there's the Christian avatars everywhere...
hi zach, just for the record im agnostic
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I'm one of the godless.
To darkness I condemn you...
Again, I'm an atheist.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Rytz: I think I agree if your comment was only on the tone of the debate. But it wasn't really, was it?
I think I agree if your comment was only on the tone of the debate. But it wasn't really, was it?
Yes, actually that was what I was really talking about. The tone of these kind of debates almost always degrades to crap.
Leaving aside ID/evolution, would you in general maintain that any view is as good as the next? I mean, look at it this way; there are two kinds of claims: 1) Value claims "Pigs are filthy animals" 2) Predicative proposition "My pen is blue" You are absolutely correct concerning claims in category 1. And you are correct to the extent that ID and creationism are, in fact, value claims - and not claims about the world. They are examples, one might say, of a religious language used about the natural world to promote certain values in society and discourage other (more secular) values. The problem, though, is that proponents of ID and creationism themselves claim to make claims in category 2. Would you agree?
I mean, look at it this way; there are two kinds of claims:
Yes and no. I will agree that they often do (as do many proponents of lots of things, including evolution, do as well), but I'm not going to say they all do. I know many people that believe in a God, and believe He created the world and everything in it, but they also believe in the mechanism of evolution. One could very easily say they believe in ID, evolution, and creationism and see no contradiction. To make such blanket statements tends to lead to 1) mischaracterizing people's views and 2) only go so far in their relevance with any given subject.
Well I'm sorry you got that implication. I think views must be looked at within their respective contexts. I do believe that "meaning" is self-referential. Even if the universe were ultimately subjective (which is very much possible), I don't think it neccessarily follows that all views would be equally valid, either.
It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't seem to always degrade into name calling and general mischaracterizations of each side. You know what they say: If you can't think of something nice to say about somebody........
(....then you are probably thinking of Hillary Clinton.)
Thedesolateone: JCFolsom: spontaneous order of markets orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer
JCFolsom: spontaneous order of markets orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer
spontaneous order of markets
orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer
Chopping up a quote in a misleading fashion is very naughty and disingenuous. You have forgotten the face of your father.
Thedesolateone:However, surely one has less evidence for a non-literal, but still creationist view, than a literalist view; at least a literalist has the bible directly supporting everything he says.
Clearly you didn't just chop up my quote, you ignored the rest of my statement. I, for one, am not a member of the Christian faith, nor have I ever been able to bring myself to really believe in their bible. Intellectual cowards and bigots like to categorize everyone who has ID leanings into the biblical creationist camp because this allows them to attack aspects of Christianity instead of the actual question at hand.
JCFolsom: Thedesolateone: JCFolsom: spontaneous order of markets orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer Chopping up a quote in a misleading fashion is very naughty and disingenuous. You have forgotten the face of your father.
You will notice I started the next post with "but seriously". I merely found that mildly amusing.
JCFolsom: Thedesolateone:However, surely one has less evidence for a non-literal, but still creationist view, than a literalist view; at least a literalist has the bible directly supporting everything he says. Clearly you didn't just chop up my quote, you ignored the rest of my statement. I, for one, am not a member of the Christian faith, nor have I ever been able to bring myself to really believe in their bible. Intellectual cowards and bigots like to categorize everyone who has ID leanings into the biblical creationist camp because this allows them to attack aspects of Christianity instead of the actual question at hand.
I said nothing of the sort. Intelligent design is merely creationism with bells, depending on how it is interpreted. Deism I don't scorn, but theism I do. When infinite different things could have created the world, why believe in such a specific, unlikely thing. I don't care whether you're Christian or not - for me the position of default is going for the simplest view. Creationism/ID is not the simplest view.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I think it does, but not in the manner which you might consider. As I stated earlier, the notion that humans need some sovereign or government (state) to impose order upon them is the same notion as the ID "Well, it looks like design, therefore there was a designer, and everything was designed since there is order" hidden premise.
There's a difference, humans are conscious and act purposefully, unlike DNA. In fact, I think there's a book about that by some dead Austrian economist.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
And yet humans do not require some Overall Sovereign in order to provide them a framework. I think there's a book about that by some dead Austrian economist.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And yet humans do not require some Overall Sovereign in order to provide them a framework. I think there's a book about that by some dead Austrian economist.
That's because they can act, as Giles Stratton sai, purposefuly.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
Yes, I know. The point being that requiring the outside force to provide the framework is like ID.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, I know. The point being that requiring the outside force to provide the framework is like ID.
Its not, ID is with insentient matter, while human action is with sentient individuals - the two are intirely different by their very nature.
Zach:Also I never see any Atheist/Agnostic Austrians around here. Do they just keep it to themselves?
From what I've seen the religious individuals around here are the minority. In fact I can barely think of any Christians on these forums.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap