|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2004 : 14:31:12
|
I've noticed a trend among certain Christians. They take a name and steal it. I've noticed this most particularly with the terms free thinker and skeptic.
Why is that, do you suppose? Are they juste being intentionally deceitful?
I think they are. I'm convinced they believe that some unsuspecting schmuck will wander into their lair, and the "Holy Spirit" will save them in spite of themselves.
I also resent it mightily.
|
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 15:34:17 [Permalink]
|
I think deceit is a large part of it in many cases, but a lot of it is also a simple ignorance of what terms mean in specific contexts.
For instance, I can almost hear the brainstorming session which would lead a Christian to adopt a "skeptic" moniker: "Why isn't anyone skeptical of evolution? Why can't we turn it around on them? "
I think they just have no idea what skepticism and critical thinking entails. You see the same confusion on their insistance that evolution is only a scientific theory, as if the term were synonymous with "wild guess" or that a religion could ever qualify as one.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/25/2004 15:36:55 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 16:38:48 [Permalink]
|
It's an ongoing trend, one that the religious types have been using for millenia.
Can't convince them to join you? Co-opt their terminology and change the definition. Co-opt their methods, change the meaning. Co-opt their holidays, make them christian holidays....
And if you can't co-opt it, villify it. See LIBERAL in the common parlance now days. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 19:24:38 [Permalink]
|
| Actually to be a skeptic is to be undecided on what is true. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 20:35:25 [Permalink]
|
TV rot's your brain. :-)
Can't claim I am an authority on skepticism since I do most of my research on the internet. And your really need to take what you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Let's say I am skeptical of what I read...pun is intended.
The word skeptic comes from the greek word to examine. Now the ancient skeptics questioned everything. Don't know if the found any conclusions cept for that they knew nothing.
This should be the same here not just targetting religious viewpoints but also non-religious. I thought skeptics formed no judgements.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 20:53:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
I thought skeptics formed no judgements.
Yeah, that's a fair summary of ancient skepticism, but the movement has evolved over the centuries, most importantly with the inclusion of the scientific method.
This isn't necessarily the specific view of this site, but Michael Shermer, who runs www.skeptic.com (where this is taken from--click the skeptic manifesto) and has written many books on the subject of critical thinking, has this to say:
quote:
It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.
Skepticism is meant to be a practical tool for reconciling those two needs.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/25/2004 20:55:29 |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 06:08:27 [Permalink]
|
Whether or not you use the ancient definition of skeptic, or the current definition, the Christians are still being dishonest.
They already have their minds made up about Christianity. They are not questioning science in the hope of learning something new, and perhaps revising their beliefs.
On the contrary, they are questioning science in an effort to undermine the theories and prove them wrong. That's the opposite of skepticism. They also misunderstand the use of debunking.
Dude summed up what I was trying to say. I was having a brain freeze and couldn't think of the word co-opt, so I used the less accurate 'steal'.  |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 07:45:31 [Permalink]
|
The ancient philosophers did use scientific methods. They originated it or were at least a part of the process. Science was not invented in the 20th century. It just got more tools.
Theories have to be questioned and put to the test. So that they are proven or disproven. Then they become a fact or fiction.
Now if you go into questioning a theory for the sole purpose of debunking it or justifying it, your conclusions will be invalid. You will only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.
".....the Christians are still being dishonest." This is a generalization. I can only assume you mean those Christians whom you've met, or those Christians who have closed their minds. You know the type (southern accent)"All ya need to know is the Bible and make change" ---ooo shivers.
Of course Christians have made up their minds about Christianity. If they didn't they wouldn't be Christian. Muslims have made up their minds about Islam. Buddhist - Buddhism Hindus- Hinduism. Zorastrians - Zorastrianism (They are really cool!)
Can't arue with you that there are some Christians out there who won't open their minds, but the same is said of the rest of humanity. There are some close minded people out there, but such is life.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 08:20:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
Now if you go into questioning a theory for the sole purpose of debunking it or justifying it, your conclusions will be invalid
That is absolute nonsense.
If I conduct experiment {E} that falsifies theory {T}, neither the success or failure of {E}, nor the implications of that success or failure, have anything whatsoever to do with my intentions. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 09:48:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If I conduct experiment {E} that falsifies theory {T}, neither the success or failure of {E}, nor the implications of that success or failure, have anything whatsoever to do with my intentions.
I disagree. Intention does play a part in the validity of the findings. If I started to test a theory, say evolution, with the intention of proving it false and I prove it false. Is my conclusion valid or invalid?
I would say that it is invalid because I began with the conclusion already set. My findings would be suspect. I would think that the only way it would be valid would be if I was proved wrong.
It's like saying this man is guilty and I am going to get the evidence to prove it. Then I search for evidence that proves his guilt rather than what truly transpired.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 10:01:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I disagree. Intention does play a part in the validity of the findings. If I started to test a theory, say evolution, with the intention of proving it false and I prove it false. Is my conclusion valid or invalid?
I would say that it is invalid because I began with the conclusion already set. My findings would be suspect. I would think that the only way it would be valid would be if I was proved wrong.
Wouldn't your method be important here? You might have a bias going in but if you used a proper method of investigation and then were honest and submitted your results for review and were willing to accept what came of that would it still matter what your bias was going in?
Everyone has bias. Every scientist as well. Does this invalidate everything and all science? I don't think so.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 10:04:53 [Permalink]
|
Oh CA, you proved my point by only quoting part of the line from my previous post.
The line was
"Now if you go into questioning a theory for the sole purpose of debunking it or justifying it, your conclusions will be invalid. You will only see what you want to see and ignore the rest."
But you only quoted
"Now if you go into questioning a theory for the sole purpose of debunking it or justifying it, your conclusions will be invalid"
You forgot "the seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest." :-)
Cheers
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
