WARNING: This post contains language some may deem inappropriate and, as so, viewable by only a mature audience. Maturity being a highly subjective term and arguable state, you make the call.
As a disclaimer, I am not calling Paul Manata an outright racist. I am illustrating a potential example of aversive racism. That it involves Paul, is merely coincidental, though I will openly admit that his involvement is conveniently beneficial for me, as his notoriety may attract more people to the message. Indeed, in order to argue a case for aversive racism, it is essential that the subject NOT be overtly racist.
That it involves Paul adds yet another layer: providing example of aversive racism truly is the ultimate point of my post, though I will also use it as a means of addressing allegations brought against and attacks attempted on me. Honestly, I had every intention of letting these go unchallenged. I was going to eat it. Brush it off. Not sweat it. I’m not stuttin’ him (there’s more “gangsta” talk for ya, Paul *wink*).
In a comment over at Goosing the Antithesis, regarding my post involving Paul, I had this to say to Paul:
A response is expected and appreciated. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Maybe you can provide clarification. But I highly suggest you avoid popping shit about me. If that is all you're capable of, then please, by all means, keep my name out'cha mouth unless I autograph my dick. Thank you. [emphasis added]
I fully admit my choice of language and approach unnecessary. Improper? Arguable. Those familiar with Mr. Manata’s diatribes should be aware that, in this context, my approach is not at all out of line. This is not exemplar of a purely academic environment. I simply wished to cut to the point and fully convey my total lack of interest in personal attacks in an arena of debate. I intentionally eschewed formality, general social niceties, and etiquette, to stress this. This is not quite as hypocritical as it may first initially appear: Paul incorporates argumentum ad hominem to the point of excess. I have not attacked Paul personally – I have made judgments on his arguments (“borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel”). A charge of appeal to ridicule may be brought against me, but in my defense, I posit that, through my analysis and critique of his work, I have established just cause for such assertions.
As a Christian, perhaps Paul is offended by such language (I still can’t find Biblical damnation of “bad words”), particularly my sexual, and thus potentially homosexual, allusion to fellatio. I could have substituted “make my name taste like shit in ya mouth,” but that would have changed nothing.
Pauls response:
"'dumb',
Thanks for the above ammunitian [sic] as I use it to show your hypocrisy. You pick on me for being mean and rude to the poor atheists, but then use words like you did above about me? It looks like the gangsta can give but can't take.
[…]
Peace out my brotha from anotha motha" [emphasis mine]
First, as we can see, he has given me a nickname of sorts. In a moment of apparent brilliance, and unparallel wittiness, he has ingeniously, through the mere insertion of the single letter “m”, dubbed (this is a pun) me “dumb.” Total lack of originality aside, this is name calling, and as so a direct assault on me and my character.
Second, my statement has only become ammunition for a new “argument”, as he has been thoroughly disarmed and rendered weaponless on the battlefield of intellectual ballistics and logical logistics in the previous “war” of words to which he is alluding in his charge of “hypocrisy”.
Third: “being mean and rude to the poor atheists”. Note how this is just dripping in sarcasm. Also notice the addition of poor, an obvious appeal to emotion.
Fourth, and finally, here’s where the racism comes in…
My use of such colorful language (seriously - this is not a pun) may illustrate my flair for humor (crass or not). My delivery may even be arrogant. But how is my behavior in any way indicative of violent and criminal-like conduct to a degree warranting the label “gangster”?
But notice, I’m not just a “gangster,” I’m a ”gangsta”. This is an obvious play on what is widely held as a form of black vernacular. I fail to see how it could be anything else, and my point is proven with his addition of “brotha of anotha motha.”
How and why did Paul take it to this level? Even a precursory look at my site may explain. And one need not even read any of my many posts regarding race: a simple look at my sidebar will suffice. He cannot claim to have never been to my site, because elsewhere, previous to this particular remark, he had directly quoted and commented on one of my posts.
But for arguments sake, let us assume he used this particular choice of words as a direct result of what I had said. His decision to include the term “gangsta” is quite telling. He didn’t have to comment on how I said what I said at all, but once choosing to do so, he could have just come right out and made some ridiculous claim of my “talking black” – which I believe he was getting at in his sarcasm, and which in itself carries racist tones.
But he said “gangsta”. Which I think very clearly illustrates a line of thinking that closely, near synonymously, identifies black people - especially young black men - with criminals and thugs.
I can easily draw this conclusion from years of personal experience. Upon hearing language that is perceived to be typical of that used by some black people, or even just as a parody of black people in general (or any aspect of their culture, such as rap music), I have seen far too many white people immediately assume a certain posture, use exaggerated body movements and accent in mimicry, and strew forth some embarrassingly inaccurate string of words no actual black person would ever truly say: Something along the lines of, “Shiiiit, homey/gangsta! I don’t be playin’ that shit. I’mma get me a gat and pop a cap in yo’ ass!” If bold enough, or in what they assume is safe company, they’ll throw in an occasional “nigga” or two.
Most of you, I’m positive, just had a visual.
Risking exposing a bias of my own, I also find it easy to apply a label of racism because of Paul’s very status as a fundamental Protestant Christian, whom I think are merely the housemates, if not bedmates, of white supremacists. I know this assertion in particular will draw heavy criticism, but I firmly stand by it. Later, perhaps in a future post, when time and space permit, I will expound on this thought, as well as the entire topic of aversive racism itself.
My intent here was simply to provide an example.
In a post entitled Atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God made on Sunday, September 25, 2005 at Atheism Presupposes Theism (I could not find a direct link), Christian Theist attempts to even the playing field, so to speak, and show that both teams – atheists and theists – are equally biased.
That our respective positions, in the arena of debate, are intellectually, though I’m sure still not morally, essentially equal.
He gets to the heart of atheistic logic, demonstrates it as inherently and fatally flawed, and then quickly reminds us that this is all entirely inconsequential, because, not only is he right, he is so right that there is an “impossibility of the contrary.” How is this so? Because “without [his] God, you could not prove anything.”
It may appear that he is taking a great liberty here by making a momentous assumption and allowing it to be taken for granted, but remember, he is a Van Tillian presuppositionalist. Also remember that is precisely his point. He asserts this as so for both sides, but I can’t help envisioning him as putting his thumbs to his ears, revealing his palms, shaking them, and singing, “nanny-nanny boo-boo” while doing so.
He begins with a categorical syllogism purportedly demonstrating, well, atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God:
Syllogism A (“A” for Atheistic)
Premise #1: God doesn't exist
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God doesn't exist, the Bible isn't inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is not true and God does not exist
followed by the rhetorical inquiry:
Can anyone say “circular”? No? Can you say, “begging the question”?
It’s all moot, as no valid argument would be built on such a syllogism: Any interlocutor who is not masochistic or mentally Schiavo’d would never grant such a premise by the proposer, as it would be tantamount to conceding the point.
Nevertheless, I will address it.
The real issue is ascertaining Premise #1, no matter if presented in the positive or negative.
Of course, we could grant that both sides, by definition, presuppose #1 (+/-) and therefore, no arguments could even be brought about without it. This, though, isn't exactly an honest representation of the situation, which I'll examine momentarily.
As CT plainly illustrates when saying: “But of course, God does exist and His revelation about Himself in the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary”, presuppositionalism (in a generic sense, not just in Christian Apologetics) nullifies any need to even argue, as it creates a no-lose situation.
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
The syllogism he’s created here, and taken upon himself to put in our laps, is nothing more than a modification of one we've presented from day one (or at least since about 150 CE when the closest thing to a Christian canon was recognized – only to later be declared heretical. Protestant Christians like CT would have to wait until about 1647 CE when the Bible – as it is canonized, closed, and presented today – was essentially voted into existence. But I digress.)
The syllogism is as follows:
Syllogism C (“C” for Christian)
Premise #1: God exists
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God exists, the Bible is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is true and God does exist
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
But what if we reduce it one level further, and substitute “D” (deity) for “God” and “R” (revelation) for “Bible”:
Syllogism T (“T” for Theist)
Premise #1: D exists
Premise #2: The R claims to be inspired of D and therefore true
Premise #3: Since D exists, the R is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The R claims D exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The R is true and D does exist
Deity and Revelation replaced with God and Bible, Christians have no trouble with this.
But experiment replacing D and R with any OTHER belief system-appropriate substitutes (e.g. Allah/al Qu'ran, Ahura-Mazda/Vesta, Zeus/Illiad, Devi/Devi Mahatmyam, Necronomicon/Cthulhu, The Book of the Dead/Thoth, YHWH/Tanakh, et al.*) and Christian approval won't be so forthcoming.
This is another reason why, from anything other than a presuppositional perspective, this is a flawed syllogism. It relies on far too many conditions.
Alas, I present, as an objection to CT’s Syllogism A:
Atheism does not claim God does not exist - not explicitly. Atheists lack a belief in god. There is a difference, and it is pertinent enough to eradicate his syllogism.
I should also emphasize that atheists rarely attempt to disprove god “by an appeal to the Bible”, nor does one necessarily have and “axe to grind” with either the Bible or its god. The former is usually thrust upon us when the Christian introduces the Bible as defense in our argument against the existence of adequate evidence for a god, and the latter is an unfortunately common and equally false misconception, which is only perpetuated as an appeal to emotion.
The entire concept of an atheist appealing to the Bible is rather absurd. The Bible is completely irrelevant to our position until made so by parties outside our ranks (remember here that athiests existed before the Bible, and it can be argued that all humans are born atheist). Even once the Bible has been injected into the argument, an atheist's “appeal” to it is usually no more than a simple prompt for one to read it sans bias and compare its content to its adherents assigned properties of its god.
One of my personal peeves regarding Christians centers on, as I see it, an incongruence with their (modern popular) beliefs and what the Bible in fact contains. I, as an individual, may then use the Bible to argue the qualities or characteristics ascribed to their god as a preliminary to attempting to provide a case for there being no sound reason to belief in any god. But I am in no way the representative embodiment of all atheists.
I will not address CT’s vaulting of the Christian worldview's “account for universal, invariant laws of logic and morality, and the uniformity of nature” above all others. This is far too broad a statement, far too arrogant, and far too unsupported in and by world history.
Finally, I will address an issue I realize with his proclamation:
"My position is that Christian Theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. If Christian Theism were not true, you could not prove anything."
His status as a Presuppositionalist explains the “impossibility” part, but he MUST insert some prepositional phrase before that period (aside from "at all").
“Impossibility” and “anything” are absolutes to the superfluous, and this is just an unfinished statement.
CT begins presenting an argument for God, but in this statement extends that with a presupposition that Jesus existed in the most full-blown, glorified sense – complete with deification. I realize that to CT, Yoshua ben Yosef IS God, but what of every theism that existed before, parallel with, and since - completely independent of - Christianity?
If it is impossible to be false, then nothing else can be true (am I assuming here, or is everyother theistic belief also true?). So, before some people got together and decided what they were going to believe as Christians, depending on which writings they were going to accept, nothing was true?
What about Judaism before Christianity? Christians can’t just claim to be an extension or continuance of Judaism, because the bulk of their fundamental dogma completely conflicts with Judaic belief (thus non-Christian Jews remain). It’s comparable to Jews being considered Babylonians by faith. Some could argue that Islam has an equal or greater claim as such an extension.
Predestination aside, CT would be declaring the religion his is (loosely) based on – the very religion his supposed messiah would have practiced – false.
(So, God knew that everything he was “inspiring” these “prophets” to write was temporary, and could later be completely contradicted? Why not? He “knew” that Eve would fuck up and He would have to kill everybody but Noah and eventually have to kill even himself.)
The only way to fix this is with predestination, and thus CT is adding yet one more piece to his puzzle. It appears his original assumption is quite a bit more specific than “God exists”: “An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Protestant Christian God exists” seems more along the line, and such a precise supposition is QUITE different than one as broad as “god doesn’t exist.”
His field is hardly level.
*I’ll grant I took a liberty with some of these as “revelation,” but my point stands.
I posted a link to my "investigation" on the Issue of the Antitheses. Paul Manata responded:
"Thanks for the heads up, dub. I won't compalin [sic] about getting back.
In case you want to edit you may read my original piece where I claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy of process and becomming [sic]. This directly contradicts one of your criticisms, but if you want to be sloppy like Aaron then be my guest."
My impression of this statement (aside from being arrant prattle), is that he is attempting to invalidate my major premise - that he falsely states evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, as opposed to a scientific theory - in effect nullifying my entire argument and conclusion. Ah, but this ejaculation is quite premature.
In his (self-proclaimed) "refutation" of Aaron's critique of his original post, Paul quotes himself (repeatedly) to the effect of "evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, not a scientific theory." This is quite simple and I fail to see how it can be anything other than exactly what it is.
As a matter of fact, the first declaration made in the main body of his original post reads:
"First and foremost, it must be remembered that evolution is not a scientific theory."
It seems to me that he presents the foundation of his entire thought in that initial proclamation.
I then provide definitions of philosophy, religion, and theory (including as it relates to science), and, through the intrinsic meaning of the very words he chose to use, demonstrate that his assumption is incorrect. Never mind that his futile attempt at proof - essentially that the existence of evolution-like ideas predating the modern concept of evolutionary biology negates its status as a theory, confining it to philosophy/religion - borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel.
But it would appear Paul has thrown a verbal wrench in the works, as he "claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy...". Oh, but wait. Hold on one second before you disgorge that wrench.
Let's look at the definition for veneer:
- A thin surface layer, as of finely grained wood, glued to a base of inferior material.
- Any of the thin layers glued together to make plywood.
- A decorative facing, as of brick.
- A deceptive, superficial show; a façade
As I sincerely hope Paul wasn't implying that Darwin glued a thin layer of wood over his words (his manuscript maybe?), I'm quite confident in assuming Paul's usage was along the lines of definition 4. In fact, except in contractor and home decorator circles, #4 is probably the most popular connotation of the word.
In the thesaurus we find reference to only that connotation:
"A deceptive outward appearance"
So, Paul would have us believe I present a completely unfounded challenge based on a weak, possible ambivalence of connotation, all while being in complete denial of his own words.
This is all inconsequential actually, because to refute the premise that Paul clearly alleges evolutionism's non-existence as a scientific theory, he would have to proclaim evolutionism IS a scientific theory. Looking at both his original post and diatribes against Aaron Kinney, it is conspicuously obvious that this is most assuredly NOT the case.
It would appear the only "heads up" is the one in his ass, or to be less offensive, the head is down, in the sand. May I suggest that Paul be more meticulous about slinging the label "sloppy" around.
But what more should be expected from a man who spews flapdoodle, relies heavily on appeal to ridicule, and veneers his "refutations" with ad hominem attacks, ad nauseam ? I, for one, was neither surprised, nor disappointed.
(Continued from part one)
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
Paul Manata must not (can’t possibly) comprehend the difference between religion and philosophy, as he proclaims evolution to be both simultaneously, at different times:
“My point was that evolutionism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory”
Then:
“Evolutionism is a religion”
Now he has introduced two separate and different postulations, to which the burden of proof is on him, the presenter. He goes on to attack Aaron, crack jokes, and relish in his own deluded sense of superiority, but does he present any evidence verifying his position?
Well, he provides a string of quotes dated near thirty years ago (’74, ’67, ’67, ’63, ’76). I feel I must inform Paul that many scientific advances have been made since the mid ‘70s, providing us with a much more precise grasp on the subject matter at hand, and more firmly asserting, not refuting, the evolutionary theory.
I insist it is paramount to note that there is indeed a philosophy of evolution. But Paul is, most assuredly, referring to evolution in terms of biology, which is undisputedly a science. I will expound on this shortly.
The terms “evolve”, “evolution”, and “evolutionism” have been in use since before what we currently refer to as the Theory of Evolution came into existence, and have held more than one connotation.
We should note that what we currently accept as the Theory of Evolution is not a carbon copy of what Darwin was proposing in Origin of Species. This reflects the intrinsic nature of a theory.
Paul is both alleging that modern evolutionists purport that the very idea of evolution was unheard of before Darwin, and perpetuating the misconception that evolutionary biology remains exactly as it was when presented by Darwin. Both are drastically unfounded and completely out of line.
He continues to present brilliant deductions like:
“Doesn't the idea that all the flora, fauna, fish and fowl came from one (or just a few) basic stuff sound familiar? Of course it does, it's evolutionism.”
“Note: does the view that says, "From one basic type of thing many types of things came" sound familiar? Sound like evolutionism?”
“The view that from one basic "stuff" came the diversity of "stuff" (common ancestry to the diversity called life) is evolutionism. Evolutionism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.”
His argument is based solely on parallels. It is nothing more than a similarity. He presents basic ideas of thought held in days of yore that resemble the premise of a modern scientific theory. Paul surely isn’t – can’t possibly be - suggesting that these Greek philosophers expressed an identical theory. Most notably, the mechanics are quite different. If this isn’t what he’s suggesting, then well, what the hell is his point?
His argument that evolution is not scientific theory, based simply on observations that comparable ideas have existed over time, though with varying application, is not only blatantly fallacious and invalid, it is analogous to me saying that Islam is Christianity because they both mention Abraham, Israel, Moses, Jesus, etc..
The existence of ideas in antiquity that bear a resemblance to the popular conception of the basis of the present Theory of Evolution does not at all imply that the theory we refer to in modern biological evolution derives directly from them, much less that they are one in the same.
Virgin-born sacrificial redeemer figures are commonplace in the lore of ancient people. Does this mean those legends were Jesus? There are examples of ideology remarkably similar to Christian theology in more ancient belief systems, but that does not at all imply that those religions were, in fact, Christianity. I’ll take this a step further and propose that the faith system that evolved into modern Christianity (no pun intended) was not practiced by its original adherents in the same form as it is by the masses today. The accepted scripture, particular dogma (i.e. the trinity), and even essential beliefs (i.e. Jesus’ incarnation as a man) have not remained constant (thus schisms). Surely, Paul’s massive library, with its volumes on philosophy, evolution, and apologetics also includes works of theology. His fervor for attaining knowledge of the history of evolution (something I’ll assume he doesn’t subscribe to) must also manifest applied to the history of his religion (something I’ll assume carries critical consequence to him).
He quotes Michael Ruse as saying "Darwinian evolutionary biology continues to function as a kind of secular religion” [emphasis mine].
Through his choice of language (emphasized), we can deduce here that Ruse is quite clearly equating evolution(ary biology) to, but not defining it as religion. There is a difference.
Likewise, the quotes of Richard C. Vitzthum, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and UC Berkley prove absolutely nothing in his favor, as they just rehash his coincidence of similarity argument, and provide no pronouncement whatsoever that evolutionism is in fact not a scientific theory.
For instance, he states that “Sagan provided back-up, proving that these ideas of process and becoming have been around for thousands of years” and asserts that this supposed backup and proof relates to Paul’s assumption that “evolutionism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory.” How's that? If this is true, I certainly wouldn’t want Carl to have my back.
Again, what exactly is Paul’s point? Oh, it must be that Aaron is an immature, effeminate, neurotic, imbecile, because he takes plenty of cheap shots, such as implying Aaron wears panties, takes meds (presumably psychotropic or antipsychotic), and mindlessly plays Gameboy “rather than” engaging in true scholarly pursuits (it's Paul that certainly knows quite a bit about Zelda). His personal attacks on Kinney are truly not suprising at all. In the spirit of fairness, I must acknowledge that Aaron and his evil "ilk" [read: coven of atheist minions] are also guilty of ridiculing Paul, and not just his position (one of a “rear naked choke hold” – dammit, now I’ve been reduced to such juvenile tactics).
There is, though, a difference between insults and outright lies. Paul makes the following accusation:
“Kinney once ‘refuted’ Nelson Goodman's article ‘The New Riddle of Induction’ admitting that he never actually read the article!”
Utilizing an admittedly quick and simple search, I only found one instance that would fit what he’s described.
In this post and the subsequent comments, Aaron never claims to have “refuted” Goodman – he challenges Goodman with an “assertion that the PoI relies on a violation of causality.” Aaron also doesn’t “admit” to never reading the article (an anonymous commenter – hmm, wonder who? – asks "who has read Goodmans paper?”, to which Kinney replies, “I dont know. Maybe anonymous did?”
Misquotes are an underhanded tactic and sure sign of foul play. They’re also closely related to a device that is extremely pertinent to this specific discourse.
Aaron does accuse Paul of quote mining (a concept Paul is obviously ignorant of), and as the accuser, the burden of proof rests on Aaron. Of course, to do this, Aaron would have to read each work Paul quoted from, which would certainly take more time than Paul allowed before declaring Aaron defeated.
But what's this? It appears that the time required is not near as lengthy as one may have initially supposed, as I have uncovered evidence supporting the claim of quote mining.
Paul’s quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a fine example. Interesting that he chose the very first paragraph of the article, because, if one reads further, it is declared that:
"Darwin's epoch-making doctrine rested upon a vast mass of ascertained facts” [emphasis mine]
This is pivotal. Remember here, the inclusion of fact is what separates philosophy from science. It’s all mere speculation until evidence arrives to test it against. There is a procedure to this testing, and it is called the scientific method.
Interestingly, the very same article proclaims:
"The idea of evolution was not particularly dominant in patristic and scholastic theology and philosophy…on account of the generally accepted Christian theory of creation. However, evolution is not generally denied” [emphasis mine]
Evolution is then demonstrated as included in the beliefs of the likes of: early Christian church father (and saint) Augustine, theologian Erigena, prelate Nicholas of Cusa, and Giordano Bruno, who, although burned at the stake for heresy by the Inquisition, was still a theist. (For those who aren’t aware, “St. Augustine's influence on Christianity is thought by many to be second only to that of St. Paul”, and he is a crucial figure in the institution of ideas such as the Trinity, original sin and the fall of humanity as dogma for the Christian church.)
Now, I can't imagine why he left that part out.
In fact, soon after the segment Paul quoted, the article places this ancient evolutionary philosophy in the teleology vs. mechanism debate, which also shows that creationism and ID have earlier precursors than their modern manifestations. Does this somehow refute a theist’s view of creation as put forth in the Bible? Of course not.
Paul continues to load his “arguments” full of personal attacks, attempting to appeal to his base, as he really has nothing else to stand on.
He quotes Aaron as saying,“some kind of popularity or authority argument” and then offers the huffy reply that “Numbers may determine popularity but not authority arguments. So, get your ‘games’ right.” Did Paul not notice the inclusion of “or”, a comparative conjunction which is, by definition, “used to indicate an alternative”?
Paul also typically attempts to belittle his opponent’s intellect by pointing out typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
"Kinney: Wow, manata [sic] really has been pushing his 'dont[sic] play with adults' article all over the place. I must say, its an excellent study in quote mining."
(He forgot the [sic] after “its”.)
As a Christian, I would really have expected Paul to be more familiar with Matthew 7:1-5. Paul has many planks in his eye:
“Kiney [sic] is not a human.”
“leaving Kinney all ugly and disfugured [sic]”
“Kinney his inserted foot in mouth” (dyslexics of the world UNTIE!).
“What he doesn't know is that the sword he waves is paeper [sic]”
Paul also resorts to semantics (imagine that), and berates Aaron for wishy-washiness with the absolutism of the word “all”. I find this particularly humorous, as he’s already demonstrated his mastery over the precise meaning of language. I’m sure Paul has been guilty of absolutism with words. He’s definitely good at being bad with usage.
For instance, “myriad amounts of quotes” is both redundant and hyperbole.
Speaking of redundancy, there is no further need to continue. The basic point here is that Paul made a statement (evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy) which Aaron challenged, and Paul presented no evidence to support his claims. A philosophy predating a theory based on empirical, objective evidence used to investigate the thoughts brought to light by that philosophy, does not invalidate the theory, much less its nature of being a theory.
(Once again, for simplicity of reading and commenting, I’m separating one post into multiple parts)
A dispute has been brewing between Paul Manata and Aaron Kinney. Paul has written three posts and Aaron has written two (plus two on Paul’s censorship by not allowing comments). I would mind my business, but that’s just not me, nor is it a valid option. I would mind protocol and deposit my 2¢ in its proper place, but Paul doesn’t allow commenting.
Basically, Paul suggests that evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy (more on this ambiguity later).
First, some clarification (if pressed for time, one may wish to skip ahead to the direct critique of Paul’s effort).
I feel this is, in essence, a question of semantics. We are dealing with dynamic, fluid concepts: Language changes. Theories change.
Therefore, we must define religion, philosophy, and (scientific) theory. In terms of religion and theory, I believe the atheist side requires and administers a more literal (prescriptive) definition as opposed to a looser lexical (descriptive) definition; the theists are proposing a persuasive definition. Clearly, we must ascertain a precising definition for the discussion to continue any further.
Definitions of religion consistently contain reference to the supernatural. Notably, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition describes religion as:
“a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe.”
I believe this is more along the lines of what most theists are thinking when they claim that science/evolution is a religion to atheists. In its simplest form, this correlation to a religion may be an expressive use of language and not intended as informative use, even if it is declarative in nature; unfortunately, such flimsy adherence to meaning not accurate.
Philosophy is, perhaps appropriately, a little harder to pin down:
“The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs” [emphasis mine]; “study of the ultimate reality, causes, and principles underlying being and thinking”
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition affirms that philosophy is distinguished from both religion and science:
"This search for truth began, in the Western world, when the Greeks first established (c.600 B.C.) inquiry independent of theological creeds. Philosophy is distinguished from theology in that philosophy rejects dogma and deals with speculation rather than faith. Philosophy differs from science in that both the natural and the social sciences base their theories wholly on established fact, whereas philosophy also covers areas of inquiry where no facts as such are available. Originally, science as such did not exist and philosophy covered the entire field, but as facts became available and tentative certainties emerged, the sciences broke away from metaphysical speculation to pursue their different aims." [emphasis mine]
Wikipedia tells us:
"Historically most philosophy has either centered on religious beliefs, or science. Philosophers may ask critical questions about the nature of these concepts--questions typically outside the scope of science." [emphasis mine]
The essential difference between philosophy and science lies in fact. There is also an issue of the broadness of the questions asked, but once facts come into play, science takes over.
So, what is fact?
Fact: “Knowledge or information based on real occurrences”; “Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed”; “Something believed to be true or real”; “Something that has actual existence; A matter of objective reality” [emphasis mine]
I will also note that a distinguishment has been made between true facts and real facts, but this seriously muddles the situation.
So, what is truth?
Truth: “Conformity to fact or actuality”
Also, truth is an evaluation, not a state of being.
These are often debated terms and concepts, so while we’re at it, let’s look at the notion of proof…
Prove: “To test the truth, validity, or genuineness of “; “To establish as true or genuine” [emphasis mine]
Proof: “The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true”; “The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules” [emphasis mine]
Most say that absolute proof is impossible, outside of mathematics.
A noticeable trend is the room for future development. Those of us who prescribe to positivism, “support realism, materialism, philosophical naturalism, and empiricism, and favor the scientific method”, don’t really feel the need for absolutes. We’re open-minded that way. The comedy in this of course, is that theists insist we provide absolutes, and base their own belief on the complete absence of such (e.g. faith) – this is a topic for another time. I personally find it rather ironic that we, the more structured of the two, are more flexible.
A demonstration of our relative resilience is shown is our acceptance of theory for what it actually is:
“a well-substantiated explanation”; “organized system of accepted knowledge”; “a tentative theory… that is not yet verified”
Wikipedia tells us:
"In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method." [emphasis mine]
It then goes on to state:
"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data." [emphasis mine]
Once it has distinguished a theory from an hypothesis, it offers forth this interesting nugget:
"A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data and often simply a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism."
Rather than setting up straw men, attacking misconceptions, and attempting to “prove” false notions of “facts”, “proof”, and “theory”, perhaps theists should tend to the much more pertinent task of proving that their beliefs are anything more than mere conjecture.
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
(continue to part two)
