Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
Instead, I asked you whether you engage in rigid thinking, slavish adherence to paradigms, strawman constructs, and deprecating of others (equating their positions to idiocy and delusion i..e., Santa Claus).
|
I have explained why I brought up the Santa Claus example. Please read it again, it merely functions as an exercise to understand parsimony. And yes, a belief in Santa is, in that light, not that different from a belief in creation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
What IS of interest to me in this thread is how any one of us could be so tied to our imperfect and still hugely evolving knowledge base that they would aggressively cling to any particularly rigid or narrow scientific perspective. And worse, that they would label others in so many words as idiots or as delusional for taking a broader view completely within the realm of both science and reason (even if what is increasingly mainstream acceptance of the reality of these challenges is still seen as cutting edge by the old guard ). There is something personal, something personally triggering, in aggressively staking out this sort of a position. And that IMO calls for some self-reflection by you, if for no other reason than the rather aggressive behaviour seems like a serious commitment and the name-calling beneath that of a mature and reasoned individual  |
''What IS of interest to me''
There, I think how that paragraph starts just says it all. How you end the paragraph is yet another dig at me, coupled with an emoticon that indicates you find this all very amusing.
There is no ''science'' behind intelligent design, creationism, or other alternatives put forward (intelligent aliens creating life). Calling me ''rigid'' and ''aggressive'' won't help you here. That's how you choose to interpret it. I think it's good to be honest about what science has discovered and that various belief systems lack evidence. It's simple parsimony but this seems to be enough for you to start calling me all sorts of things. I don't have to do any ''self reflection'' in that. I also did not call anyone here ''idiots''. In both cases, you again accuse me of false things. You need to do self reflection here...
You have accused me of ''pacifying'' myself ''intellectually and emotionally'', lacking the ''water element'', and saying that things like justice and meaning are ''beneath'' me and that I find them ''distasteful'', ''limiting myself'', seeking to ''define myself'' and above this continues, i.e. ''aggressive'', ''slavish''.
Stop the antics and the name calling, 7L.
In my previous post I have done the courtesy of summarizing for you how this discussion in this thread developed, and I have provided arguments that were on-topic. I have also explored non-creationist spirituality so you falsely accuse me of ''creating dichotomies''.
I have repeatedly mentioned these things yet you ignore all of it, and are more interested in other things. It seems you have no interest in discussing the topic of evolution. I understand parsimony can be a tough pill to swallow [for all of us really, in different subjects/topics]. When I point out that people who suggest ''meaning'', ''creation'' and ''intelligence'' are central to the universe are committing man-made projection, I of course risk becoming a target of religious and New Age people. But teleology is what humans do, not the universe.
This isn't about me, it's an issue generally known in science.
I know you are generally into your ethical views and politics but when we seek to understand the natural world or 'do science' they are more often than not in the way. I think this is creating a conflict, and because I happen to bring that ''bad news'' in here - especially considering evolution by natural selection does not necessitate some intelligence or creator! - I am equated with that bad news and fair game, and in doing so you have called me a lot of things.
If you can discuss the topic without resorting to name calling than I am open to further conversation.