I have not posted in these forums in a long time. However, I was asked a question and will answer it. Facts are empirical and scientific. Is that really a question that you have or rather you just have an agenda? Moving along. Your tone doesn't indicate you want to have a productive debate. It seems like you have something ready to counter whatever I say. And also as far as Hitler... anyone who calls him an atheist is a revisionist of the worst kind. What's the point of even bringing him up? Is that how low people go to discredit atheists? No, I really have nothing else to say. The statements of people on here do all the talking... and not in a good way. Maybe it's best you look beyond a 2000 year old mistranslated work of fiction... and think outside the box.
Thank you for answering. In terms of tone, I'm not sure how to answer that since tonality on internet message boards is a difficult thing to gauge—questions are useful for furthering discussion. My agenda is probably along the lines of anyone interested in contributing to the discussion on this forum. Would you mind if I ask a few more? Regarding how we define what a "fact" is and especially how it relates to the scientific domain, is really helpful in such a discussion--this is why I asked. Do you believe that there are any non-empirically verifiable facts that can exist? Is the scientific method in and of itself based on empirically verified “facts?” Or is the method based on a set of presupposed assumptions that are accepted on philosophical grounds (i.e., faith/trust)? May I also ask what you mean by a 2000 year old work of fiction? Is that indeed a “fact,” and if so what kind of biblical study have you done into the various disciplines of textual criticisms (lower and higher) to verify such a claim? Have you read the works of someone like Bruce Metzger of Princeton who would disagree with your assertion?
Writing style on internet forums is essentially what is interpreted as tone. For example, ending with "thank you, Sir" is quite unusual on a forum such as this one. Your style, with the above example and "thank you for answering", "would you mind" etc. is out of the norm for forums so it would not be unusual for a reader to remark about your "tone". Context and how your style differs from your own other posts would have to come in to make better judgments. (In other words, if this is how you usually write posts on this forum then it's likely your eccentric style has been mistaken for a non-neutral tone). You look like you're setting up a false equivalency here. To preempt it let me say that even if facts need to rely on some sort of assumption you can't go from there to "my facts are as valid as any others". Let's agree that "I exist" is a fact. ("I" in this phrase is the person behind the handle ombak). We can leave aside issues of whether the reader knows this. The issue here is whether "I" can indeed back this fact up and what is required to do so. I'll immediately concede that we want to break out of some sort of philosophical trap. We need to accept that I'm not a brain in a vat for example and that the things I see and do are "real". Easy enough. I'll make that assumption and go from there. Now what? That assumption does not send us down the slippery slope that I suspect you want it to. We can posit falsifiable hypotheses and operate under the principle that while we can't know anything for sure in a philosophical (and frankly impractical) domain we can rely on those testable things as true as long as they continue to pass their tests. I can always have the caveat in mind that "well this might one day be falsified" but it's safe to say "I exist" is a fact. Rather than continue to make assumptions about what you're thinking though I'll post this and hope you expand on your leading questions rather than just put them out there in what seems to be a bid to catch someone on a technicality.
Hitler may have identified himself as Christian, but in the operative sense, it's difficult to see how he was a follower of Jesus. My family roots are Scots, Irish, English and German. I can say that I'm a Native American, and I know a couple of people who are so enamored of Native American culture that they do all they can to be accepted as Native American, but it's not something you "convert" to. Christianity, OTOH, is entirely made up of converts. One goes from not having faith in Jesus to having faith. James letter says that "faith without works is dead", which means that we would expect someone who claims to have faith to demonstrate good works. Hitler falls a little short, unless your standards are different from Jesus'.
That's a "no true scotsman" fallacy and you use it all the time. Bottom line, reality disagrees with you (on the converts nonsense too - people are born into cultures with religion).
but the difference between the "no true Scotsman" and Hitler being a Christian isn't a matter of logical fallacy. the problem you don't seem to see is one of self-identification. a Scotsman is a Scotsman by birth. a Christian is a Christian by conversion. nobody is born a Christian. you may be born into a Christian family, but that doesn't make you a Christian. a person can say he is a Christian, but that doesn't make him a Christian, anymore than my saying i am a potato makes me a potato.
First, you're setting up a false dichotomy by responding in that way. Not everyone who doesn't share your personal religious views is an atheist. Secondly, how come you're the judge who can determine whether somebody was/is a follower of Jesus? What makes your interpretation of Jesus any more valid than that of a 10th century cleric, a current Catholic or an Orthodox Christian, a 2nd century gnostic, etc...or for that matter Hitler's interpretation? All we have is a lot of different people with different beliefs claiming that they're true followers of Jesus.
Ombak has come up with a reply far better then anything I could post. I'm a little lacking for words here. But I will give you my perspective on this. I can see tone in sentence structure and how one asks a question. I was a student assistant for a professor once, and read over some papers... I can pick up tone through words. It's not a hard thing to do. The scientific method is based on several things, such as observation and experiment. If a scientific theory cannot meet those requirements/objectives it is not a scientific theory to begin with. Ergo, take the debate of intelligent design versus evolution. Intelligent design is not scientific, nor is it a scientific theory because it fails to meet the criteria set out in the scientific method. For me, there are no non-empirical facts that can be verified, because such things aren't facts to begin with, rather mere beliefs. The bible is a work of fiction. This isn't a hard assessment to reach. There has been extensive study done on the factual inaccuracies within the bible. For example, the excerpts on homosexuality have been widely misinterpreted and even changed from version to version. The bible was also written by men, and definitely misinterpreted over the years (this is a fact). You seem to have a differing view of facts. But I go widely by the scientifically accepted standard. Also I've looked into the Metzger guy, yes... a minister really is a non-biased source... right.
That's baloney. He most certainly was a Christian. Not all Christians were great people, I hate to break it to you. And if someone doesn't believe the exact same way as you, doesn't make them atheist. You're making a very silly argument in my opinion. You most certainly are preaching here, and telling people what is the right way to follow the bible and so forth. As if I haven't heard that before. Sure, you know the right way... as do many others who make similar claims... the "holier than thou" shtick doesn't fly here.
Fascinating response, thank you for reading and replying. (Am I allowed to say that here?) I set a respectful "tone" for myself on this particular forum so as to avoid coming across as being superior--a characteristic all too common for some who frequent this part of BS. I ask questions in order to discover the assumptions of an individual I know likely differs from myself. One cannot dialog (or debate, if you will) well if one does not fully understand the underpinnings of a person's philosophy and conceptual schema. I am not looking to catch technicalities, rather the more deeper, foundational beliefs held.
Some of us don't rely on assumptions, but rather empirical evidence. That's all I will say on this matter. Anything further would be redundancy.
You have spectacularly missed the point of the analogy. "No true Scotsman" is not about the "Scotsman" it's about the person who says "oh but he's not a true Scotsman". The analogy is in moving the goalposts, not in the modifier and what justifies it. That's why it applies to "Brazil fans" or "Christians" as much as it does to "Scotsmen". The fallacy is in using a widely understood definition, having an exception pointed out to you and dismissing the exception. Of course, chances are you'll understand all of the above and move on to "but, there's a reason to dismiss this particular 'exception'", you'll then explaining the evangelical rationalization that you used above, that you have to convert to Christianity in order to be Christian. Of course, there were no evangelicals running around telling people that sort of nonsense in good old Catholic Bavaria or Protestant Germany, at least none that could get to Hitler so, according to evangelical logic, you get to say: see he wasn't really Christian. The problem with that is summed up in the idea that "reality doesn't go away when you stop believing in it". The reality is that people are Christian without converting. Religion is often passed down from parent to child and as much as evangelicals might protest, Christianity is not an exception. In fact this meme that you have to convert to become part of the religion could exist in any religion and I wouldn't be surprised if it does exist in sects of other religions. Arguably it's just a variation on the idea of submission (Islam). While I agree with the idea in the first clause, that's just a bad analogy that fails to make a salient point. One final point on the idea of Christians, converting and Scotsmen and birth. How do we know that you can't be a Christian without converting? I suppose the answer is in Christian evangelical theology and right there the whole idea falls apart because theology is nothing but speculation. There is no way to confirm the ideas it proposes and those that subscribe to them will ignore that they are falsifiable (and voila, we're stuck with always facing the no true Scotsman fallacy).
I have to say this paragraph makes me wonder if you are some sort of troll or variation of a poe. To use the first sentence you did, and especially to add the parentheses only to follow them up with a claim that you use that very tone in order not to sound superior is either complete nonsense or reveals a serious disconnect between yourself and others in the thread. In short, don't make an effort to change your style of speech or chances are you'll fall into the trap you're trying to avoid. This did not really address my concerns so hopefully we can get a little closer here (and less disconnected than in the discussion over tone). I do essentially agree with your meta-discussion about underpinnings. Since we were talking about religion and facts it was important to note the false equivalency that might result from talking about the assumptions made in order to do science versus the assumptions made in order to discuss theology. I'm surprised that you left your post as it was though, with those two paragraphs but no actual response. That too could be interpreted as condescending unless of course you address the points in the near future and do indeed engage in the discussion you claim to be engaging in. Simply throwing questions out at people and not engaging in the discussion can be an intellectually dishonest tactic.
I really do like the "reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it" idea. While that doesn't help dig into what a fact is, is certainly describes them in an accurate way.
This is addressed above. Indeed, the scientific method (there are many varying definitions for it, by the way, but we'll stick to the most common form) consists of a series of connected concepts and conceptual schemes based on observations and experiments that are then able to lead to further making observations and experiments and further refining of conceptual schemes (I am borrowing from James Conant here). Pitting ID against 'evolution' is truly a false dichotomy, since at least some forms ID involve scientists who accept macro-evolution, big bang cosmology, etc. There are also some forms of ID conceptual schemes that do posit models in explaining apparent order and information to be tested through making predictions (i.e., if said hypothesis is correct, we should then find X observation). The ID thing completely aside, what do you do with a number of high level scientists over the years who have seen no problem between their scientific understanding and an understanding in the metaphysical--a belief in a transcendent Maker? Were/are they also merely biased and deluded? Such names might include Einstein, Max Plank, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul Dirac, Francis Collins, and that list could go on and on. So, in your view is the assertion above a fact or a mere belief? Scientifically-speaking, there are no brute facts in the domain. Even the idea of proofs only exists in the domain of mathematics. This is purely theoretical, however, we all live our lives in such a way as to have no doubts about certain things (such as most of us on this board would we have no doubts about the existence atoms or that you are sitting there reading this) even though science can only demonstrably establish high probabilities for any particular conceptual schema. But this is not really the big point of emphasis. The crux of my argument would be this: there are several domains of knowledge, science is one of them but by no means has a monopoly on access to knowledge (others include metaphysical types such as philosophy and theology, for example). The discipline of science itself is defined by and based upon a set of assumptions that cannot be empirically verified, but are taken on philosophical grounds. For example, part of the scientific method is the necessity for all scientific hypotheses to have the ability to be empirically tested. However, this very assertion is not and cannot itself be empirically tested or verified. It is assumed, or if you like, a "mere belief." Science is not founded on a set of underlying "facts," as one might put it. So science, then, is rooted and grounded in philosophical-type claims to knowledge which cannot themselves be scientifically tested. Therefore, it is not an outrageous leap in logic to suggest that a scientist or a scientifically-minded person (myself included) places a measure of faith (or "trust") in the method of science itself. Therefore, I would reason a scientist in his or her scientific pursuit establishes 'factual' knowledge of the natural world based on assumed presuppositions in how to acquire that very knowledge. I'm not sure I follow how one "empirically verifies" misinterpretations. Can you explain further which parts of the Bible, specifically, that you already have studied which have caused you to conclude that they have been misinterpreted over the years? So is atheism or even hard agnosticism the only objective, unbiased, and neutral approach one can take towards these matters?
I might take offense at the crafted smugness of your response, but 1) I'm not really easily offended, and 2) I like to be charitable and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you have a problem with my approach to asking questions in order to stimulate discussion, please take me up on PM. If you want to discuss assumptions in the scientific domain versus those in the metaphysical domains, please go ahead.
Why would I PM you about approach when I've already discussed it above and when the tone of your posts has changed and is no longer condescending and you have also engaged in the discussion? I will engage in the discussion itself in a separate post, rather than continue that meta-discussion, but your tone was condescending and it was pretty silly to claim that you used it specifically to avoid sounding superior because even if that's what it meant to do it failed in a manner that should have been evident to the average poster.
Perhaps you have made false assumptions regarding motives behind my "tone," but I have changed it for the sake of avoiding being misinterpreted here as I seem to have been. Thank you for pointing that out.
I made no assumptions about your motives but I did make valid assumptions based on how you wrote and communicated your questions. I even pointed out that these assumptions could be better refined if I were to look at your history of posting and compare the language you used here to the language you generally use on these forums. These assumptions were about the ideas you were communicating, not your motives.
ID and evolution are indeed a dichotomy. ID is creationism (and I believe everyone here either sees them as incompatible or realizes that the they are seen as incompatible by our society). Now you could propose that we ignore the history of the ID movement so far and talk about "a different kind" of intelligent design but you can't simply ignore the context in which we live and say "ID and evolution" are compatible. Yes there are theistic evolutionists but the scientists that are theistic and understand evolution generally also understand what Intelligent Design means. It sucks that such a general and potentially benign label has been hijacked by the creationist movement but that's the reality of the world we live in and in which we're having this discussion. Well we know Einstein didn't believe in God so you're already being dishonest (unintentionally I assume) here. Several threads here have discussed this idea of Spinoza's god that Einstein shared and to simply throw out "Einstein believed in a transcendent Maker" is dishonest. There's also the problem that you're making an appeal to authority. Einstein is an authority on relativity and maths, but not the supernatural nor a theologian (assuming I'd even accept theologians as authorities) so it's a fallacious appeal. Similar problems apply to the other names. I personally think this is a very important part of the discussion that springs from your original post questioning Giancarlo on "what is a fact", maybe even the most important part of it. I want to take issue with your use of the word theoretical. Again you're using a term (theoretical) in a different context than some people will be reading it here. It's misleading to use it in a dismissive way when in fact "theoretical" things in science are as good as it gets. So again we're faced with the problem of different people arguing in the same thread but operating in their own contexts. The idea that theology is a domain of knowledge is just taken for granted because we've seen it that way for generations but that doesn't make it so. What has it actually figured out? What knowledge do we have today that came from theology? While I concede this idea that science requires certain assumptions in order to proceed, these assumptions are not "mere beliefs" they are pragmatic or practical tools. It is not a mere belief that I am not a brain in a vat. It is a practical assumption. I can say that I am open to being shown that indeed I am a brain in a vat but if I simply stop here and wait, where does it get me? It makes sense, philosophically and empirically, to move on to the next set of questions. (That might be: is everything I perceive real? how can I measure these things? how do I know if my sense deceive me?) I can live my life without saying "I believe I am a brain in a vat" and without dismissing "I am not a brain in a vat". I am agnostic about this - I do not have knowledge one way or the other. This does not require belief nor does it require me to stop and wait for an answer. I think it's more accurate to say that those assumptions aren't made on faith but on pragmatism. I think it would be useful to focus on these two ideas - are these assumptions matters of faith (I answer no) and what are facts (high probability and theory is as good as it gets) without moving into the other issues. Perhaps separating the other issues into a different thread (what is ID, can a scientist also believe in the metaphysical and so on). Jumping from the argument over whether or not these "facts" require faith to issues of theology and intelligent design leads to a false equivalency I earlier pointed out. I do think that theology (as we know it) can't approach these questions. All it does is guess.
An extremely obtuse response. If I have anything to say about it. You need to re-evaluate the scientific method. The scientific method has one definition. It's not varying. There is a definition that is accepted in scientific and academic circles. It involves several basic elements... including observation and experimentation. Stop trying to twist around the scientific method so it can somehow fit your mindset. It doesn't quite work that way. Intelligent design isn't scientific, nor does it have merits in the scientific arena. You can't test it, so the comparisons people make are indeed wrong. There are NO forms of ID that are testable under the scientific method. Intelligent design has absolutely nothing to do with science. Stop trying to claim it does. It's merely creationism with a sugarcoated name... and with advocates who are against science, and want it accepted in schools. The advocates of "ID" (creationism) want to force the doctrine into schools. Intelligent design is a religious belief having nothing to do with science, or anything scientific. If you look at polls, the overwhelming majority of scientists are not religious, and in fact atheist or agnostic. And Einstein was either an agnostic or atheist (this is up for debate). He did not believe in a higher power. Neither did several in that list of yours. http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm Einstein did not hold theistic viewpoints. And what did I say about anyone being deluded? Again, you're just putting words in my mouth. Again I don't make assertions. Wrong. Another obtuse response almost not inviting a response. I know what you're here for. You never wanted to engage in discussion. And that's the cold hard truth. You're here to preach and tell that others are wrong and shouldn't live a certain way. Nothing you say has any basis in science, nor in the scientific method. By the way, please don't talk about physics. We are making breakthroughs right now that Einstein would be stunned about (LHC, RHIC). The crux of your argument simply is lacking and bears no relevance. I hate to break this to you. Science is the arena of discovery (LHC, RHIC). Science isn't based upon a set of assumptions. That's a falsehood spread by those with an agenda. Science is based on empirical evidence that can be verified. It has nothing to do with metaphysical or philosophical rhetoric. Totally false. You need to do more studying of science if you really believe that. Science is founded on facts and evidence. Something you don't seem to get. It has nothing to do with philosophy. Scientists don't rely on faith or hope. You don't seem to understand what scientific pursuit and discovery means. This is documented between translations. The KJV of the Bible says one thing, while previous translations say differently. King James himself had revisions done (this is documented fact)... especially related to homosexuality. It is say that King James had relations with men himself. Yes. Theology is incapable of answering several key questions. It's not a valid school of knowledge. It's just based on conjectures. You know if you were a little more open minded, and less obtuse in your responses (and less condescending) we could engage in a real discussion. It's obvious you hold a set of religious beliefs that come into conflict with science. And your view of science is completely skewed (and absolutely wrong).