skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Christian theory that Jesus was God, as expounded by Lewis, has been refuted. The result has been deeply embarrassing attempts to prop up the discredited theory: I have in mind, for example Ed Feser’s horrible “The Last Superstition,” which pretends to justify Scholasticism by giving examples from modern science, examples which he gets horribly wrong.
Feser is a joke.
When scientifically literate people such as myself look at modern Christian apologetics, we see simply embarrassing nonsense, such as constant claims that scientists think the universe began with the Big Bang (ignoring modern inflationary cosmology, which goes back decades).
Why don’t we seriously debate the serious arguments put out by Christians? What serious arguments? All I have been able to find produced by Christians in recent decades is nonsense produced by people who are near illiterates: occasionally, someone recommends to me some supposedly intelligent Christian apologist, but the apologist turns out to be even worse than I expected (e.g., Plantinga).
Intellectually, Christianity is now the likes of Plantinga, Feser, etc.
There is no there there.
30 comments:
Dear Dave-the-non-practicing-physicist,
The beginning of your rant:
"The Christian theory that Jesus was God, as expounded by Lewis, has been refuted."
Is detached from the rest of your rant. What does Jesus being God (A Christological position I flatly reject, btw) have to do with Big Bang Cosmology?
Hi Dave. How are you? Alright I'm sorry, that was a rhetorical question. Hey can I die by your hand? I decided to ask before doing anything to deserve your actual threat. Are you confused now? Don't worry, just click your heels and say three times, by the way that would be the number after "2", There's no place like home.
Where in the world in TLS does Feser even attempt "to justify Scholasticism by giving examples from modern science"? I don't think Feser has gotten the science horribly wrong; rather, you seem to have gotten Feser horribly wrong.
(I've tried leaving a response to you on Vic's blog, but I'm having some trouble getting it posted.)
OP said: "such as constant claims that scientists think the universe began with the Big Bang (ignoring modern inflationary cosmology, which goes back decades)."
Can someone please explain this issue in detal?
thanks.
I am of the understanding that the universe did begin with the Big Bang. Keen to be corrected.
Hmmm. I'm confused - in my head modern inflationary cosmology is synonymous with the Big Bang (or, rather, that is one lay term I would use for inflationary cosmology - the Bang that just keeps on Banging!).
That aside, top class stuff. Plantinga, like CS Lewis, is vastly over-rated - fundamentalism on stilts, as Gericke pithily put it. In particular, Plantinga's work on the ontological arguments shows that Hawking probably did have it right - philosophy as a discipline is dead.
Of course, all Plantinga is doing is trying to wrap fundie belief-based religion in a philosophical smokescreen. It's not that hard to see through if one makes the effort. Here is my take on where Plantinga and others are inserting their fallacies: http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2010/07/things-do-not-possess-attributes.html
BTW, John, can you please ban or delete DM's insane comments? They are funny the first couple of times, but then they just get tiresome.
John, if you have a record of DM's remarks, you may want to forward them to the Montreal police. PZ Myers did so at one point, but I don't think they were willing to do much based upon the complaint of one blogger. More need to become involved. Zeno is planning to.
Dennis/Dave seems to go through periods of dormancy, then he erupts. This has been a particularly bad episode. It's been going on for months, and he's just everywhere now, like a cockroach, but there are a handful of bloggers whom he seems to have targeted for constant, repetitive bombardment, and you're one of them.
One should have compassion for the mentally ill (yes, Christians, I know - we have no basis for it, unlike your imaginary friend, who has so much of it that he'll torment us for all of eternity for not acknowledging him), but this has gone beyond reasonable limits. The authorities have to become involved. There must be someone who is responsible for him - family, a mental health care worker, whomever. He has to be given a choice - either go back on his meds, or have his computer taken away.
Now, watch - this will elicit a volcano of vitriol.
Incidentally I ran across Linda Ronstadt's "Whole Lot More of Jesus" and thought it should be re-written:
"You need a whole lot more of Loftus, and a lot less Josh McDowell".
Any lyricists out there who would like to take that and run with it? ;-)
Funny Shane!
Cipher I know we had a group email exchange from several bloggers on him and sent some combined comments to his server's president.
"There is no there there."
Exactly. An argument from vacuity, rather, than an argument from ignorance. I still haven't figured out what it is, that I am not suppose to believe in.
Boz wrote:
>OP said: "such as constant claims that scientists think the universe began with the Big Bang (ignoring modern inflationary cosmology, which goes back decades)."
>Can someone please explain this issue in detal?…
>I am of the understanding that the universe did begin with the Big Bang. Keen to be corrected.
Boz, I just found out John posted this here (he’s completely free to – it’s in the public domain; I just did not know).
I’ll try for a fairly short answer.
First, I do not know any physicist (I’m not saying there are absolutely none, just that I do not know him!) who has believed for a long time that the Big Bang was really a mathematical singularity and the beginning of time. The singularity thing is a mathematical consequence of general relativity (see the old book by Hawking and Ellis), but, at least since the ‘70s, physicists I know have simply taken the infinities as a sign that general relativity breaks down near the Big Bang, probably because it needs to be replaced by a quantum theory of gravity (which we still do not have).
Inflationary cosmology was invented by Alan Guth, then at Stanford, when I was a doctoral student at Stanford three decades ago, so I have been in on it “from the beginning” (I have not made any contributions to it, just an interested observer of Guth et al.’s work).
The initial idea was to explain various paradoxes in cosmology by an exponentially fast expansion for a tiny fraction of a second right after the Big Bang.
The theory has since developed so that we now think that the inflation came from an instability in a much larger pre-existing universe – i.e., one that existed before the Big Bang. One version of the theory is so-called “eternal inflation” in which the “mother universe” (my term, not Alan’s) has existed forever and has constantly been producing daughter universes such as our own for all eternity.
For some years, inflationary cosmology has been the dominant theory among cosmologists, and there is some (not conclusive) observational evidence backing it up.
Googling on various obvious terms above will turn up further info.
Let me make clear that this is *entirely* different from the fact that the universe’s expansion is accelerating: lots of Christians are quite determined falsely to conflate the two – whether from ignorance or malice, I am not sure.
Alan, by the way, was at least at one point skeptical that this could all have been going on forever, though he conceded that it could have been happening for a long time before the Big Bang. Personally, I think that tracing back before the Big Bang is hard enough, and am willing to leave eternity for some future time (pun intended).
What makes this relevant to the Great Dying Gasp of Christianity is that the Christina apologists are just *way* out of date in claiming that science claims that the Big Bang was the beginning of time. They have not bothered to consult with competent scientists. They are at least three decades behind the times.
They are also wrong to take an approximate mathematical model (the infinite singularity resulting according to General Relativity at the Big Bang) and fail to realize that we physicists have pretty much always known that this is not an actual physical event but rather a sign that our theories were breaking down and we needed better theories – i.e., such as inflationary cosmology.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Eric wrote to me:
Ummm, Eric I have just had a very unpleasant experience on Vic’s blog with people making obviously false accusations agianst me, inventing bizarre sins I have committed, inventing statements that they falsely claimed I had posted (weird since it is all public and people can check; I guess they assumed no one would), etc. in connection with Feser, so I’m a little bit tired of that right now.
Feser messes up the math and science again and again – neuroscience, geometry, etc.: I take it you either are not a scientist or were not reading the book with that in mind. In the next few months, I will post a review and comments on amazon.com with a few details. Until then, I’m afraid I will have to give a raincheck.
Dave
DiBattista wrote to some Dave, maybe to me:
>Hi Dave. How are you? Alright I'm sorry, that was a rhetorical question. Hey can I die by your hand? I decided to ask before doing anything to deserve your actual threat. Are you confused now?
>How are you? Alright I'm sorry, that was a rhetorical question. Hey can I die by your hand? I decided to ask before doing anything to deserve your actual threat.
Hmmm…. Are you another of Dennis’ sock puppets?
If you are addressing me, I have not threatened anyone, though I have indicated that I hope that some people who lied about me manage to drop dead without my help. Some of them will, just by dumb luck, and I can celebrate.
And I'm fine, and you're confused. Hope that answers all your questions.
O’Brien wrote to me:
>Dear Dave-the-non-practicing-physicist,
>The beginning of your rant:
>"The Christian theory that Jesus was God, as expounded by Lewis, has been refuted."
>Is detached from the rest of your rant. What does Jesus being God (A Christological position I flatly reject, btw) have to do with Big Bang Cosmology?
The fact that you seem to think that I would take seriously someone who actually has “A Christological position” reminds me of the discussions my kids and I used to have concerning the much more serious philosophical issue of Barneyology: of what substance is Barney the Purple Dinosaur? Is his human nature separate form his dinosaurian nature? Is he of the same substance with Jesus of Nazareth or is Barney at a higher metaphysical level than Jesus (yes, I think)?
If you can give an adequate answer to my questions, I will consider answering yours.
Sincerely,
Dave
Dave, if you ever want to contact me or have something you'd like to post here at DC let me know:
johnwloftus at verizon dot net
"I take it you either are not a scientist or were not reading the book with that in mind."
You're right, I'm not a scientist. But I did follow the discussion at Vic's blog, I am very familiar with the book in question, I did correct you there about the 'neuroscience' example, and Tim corrected you about the geometry example. I think it's clear that you misread Feser.
"Until then, I’m afraid I will have to give a raincheck."
That's fine; we've all got things to do!
diBattista,
I figured out after posting that you must be addressing one of Dennis’ sock puppets, right?
I wouldn’t: from what I hear from PZ, this may actually be dangerous.
We tend to assume all human beings have a minimal level of rationality: that is a mistake.
Dave
Eric wrote to me:
>I'm not a scientist. But I did follow the discussion at Vic's blog, I am very familiar with the book in question, I did correct you there about the 'neuroscience' example, and Tim corrected you about the geometry example.
No, that is an untruth.
Tim lied: he said that I had not addressed issues that I had very clearly and *very* carefully addressed.
Look, Eric, the game Christo-morons like you and Tim play is that when I, as a physicist, point out some error in something one of you Christo-morons says about science or math, then *I* am wrong as long as you are not convinced.
Sorry, I am not a big enough sucker to play that game: none of you guys is very bright. It is nearly a sure thing that if we get into details of science or math, you guys will not understand it. This is especially true if you guys are not motivated to understand it, which you and Tim very,very clearly were not.
Your failure to understand or agree with what I say about science or math does *not* even suggest that I am wrong.
The geometry point was about Feser’s falsehood that the premises of geometry were “indubitable.”
As I pointed out, there is a huge amount of literature, going back to Gauss, explaining in near-infinite detail that this is false, whether in physics or in math. This was one of the great, most famous, discoveries in nineteenth-century math, and the follow-up discovery in physics, based on Einstein’s work and Eddington’s 19119 observational confirmation, was so big that it was actually reported as big news in the world press.
Tim’s “correction” was simply for him to lie and say I had not discussed this.
It is not possible for me to force you or Tim to go to a decent university library and dig into this and confirm for yourself that Feser is wrong about the premises of geometry being "indubitable."
But, the fact that I cannot force you guys to actually learn about this does not prove that Tim succeeded in correcting me; it only proves that Tim lied when saying that I had not discussed a matter that I went into great detail about.
Tim is a liar. Case closed.
(CONT.)
(CONT.)
There is a gross asymmetry that you and Tim refuse to acknowledge here: I spent many years carefully studying math and physics. Tim, it seems, spent many years carefully studying philosophy.
However, the knowledge accumulated in physics has been used to create marvelous and indeed terrible things – cell phones, jet planes, the Internet itself, and, sadly, nuclear weapons.
The philosophers cannot actually agree on any significant result in philosophy among themselves in the last two millennia: there has been no accomplishment at all to come out of two millennia of philosophy.
Those obvious facts create an enormous presumption that we physicists actually have some very real, very powerful knowledge and that philosophers are just BSing pretty much all the way.
I am not just asserting that this presumption exists: almost all non-scientists/non-philosophers make this presumption with no urging at all from me.
BP dumped a huge amount of oil in the Gulf: who plugged the leak, scientifically-trained engineers or philosophers?
Global warming may be a problem: who can determine how big a problem it is, what reductions in CO2 are required to deal with it, etc.? Scientists or philosophers?
The guy on the street may politely pretend that philosophers or theologians are not complete morons for the same reason he may pretend to admire opera even though he would actually rather watch grass grow than actually go to an opera: it gives him a tiny touch of class.
But, in truth, there is no sane person in this society who doubts that we scientists have access to very powerful, very compelling knowledge.
And, equally, there is no sane person who thinks the same about theologians or philosophers – most of all other theologians or philosophers, who spend a great deal of time pointing out the egregious nonsense spouted by their colleagues!
Tim and you are not my equals.
It is not my job to convince people like you or teach people like you anything. When we disagree about science or math, the ordinary sane person may think me cruel for pointing out your ignorance, but he is not likely to seriously entertain the thought that I’m likely to be wrong and you Christo-morons are likely to be right.
My knowledge is very valuable: I expect to be paid for sharing it with others. Usually, that payment is in cold, hard cash – from industry, from students, etc. Occasionally, I will accept the currency of respect and appreciation.
But, I have no obligation to share my knowledge with jerks like you and Tim, who are neither paying cash nor extending the minimum of respect or appreciation.
You’re human scum, Eric.
Henceforward, there will be no conversation between us, but only my expressions of my contempt for you.
I suggest that you learn to show respect to your superiors if you do not want them to treat you with the contempt you so richly deserve.
Most sincerely,
Dave
Boz,
A clarification about inflation:
It occurs to me that one of the Christo-morons like O’Brien or Eric the Scum may claim that I did not prove that inflation is true:
A) I have no intention of proving anything at all to the scum. If decent people have honest questions, I will try to reply, if I have time, but I truly wish there were some way to prevent the scum from having any access to anything written by us scientists at all, or to any of the fruits of science, such as modern medical treatment.
B) My main point is not that we know inflation is true, but rather that the Christo-morons are either woefully misinformed or actually lying in claiming that scientists believe that the Big Bang was the ultimate beginning. We do not believe that, we have lots of reasons for not believing that, and eternal inflation illustrates that.
C) Inflation may turn out to be wrong: I am actually more skeptical about it than most cosmologists seem to be. However, that does not alter point B: it is wrong to claim that we scientists think time began with the Big Bang – that is an erroneous report as to our opinions.
Hope this clarifies the connection between my earlier post, which focused on the science, and the false statements made by Christo-morons.
Dave
"Your failure to understand or agree with what I say about science or math does *not* even suggest that I am wrong."
Um, the issue isn't the math or the science in Feser's book -- you're right, one's hand doesn't move without delay as the neurons fire, and you're right, the premises in "geometry, without distinguishing pure geometry from physical geometry, are not indubitable -- but whether you've properly *understood* the scientific and mathematical examples in Feser's book.
Re: the neuroscience example, Feser specifically refers to the simultaneous *dependence* of every member of the causal series, *not*
to the simultaneous *causation* of each member of the causal series. In other words, he's looking at the series *from the last effect under consideration*, and not, as you erroneously supposed, from the first cause under consideration. You're right, there is a delay from the firing of the neurons to the movement of the hand, but what Feser was saying is that when the hand moves, the neurons are firing. (Here's a quote to defend my reading of Feser from pgs. 92 -93 of TLS: "At every moment in which the *last part* of the series exists, the *earlier parts* exist as well...The series is 'essentially ordered' because *the later members* of the series, having no independent power of motion of their own, derive the fact of their motion and their ability to move other things *from the first member*...[In an essentially ordered causal series] each member *depends simultaneously* on other members with *simultaneously depend* in turn on yet others, and so on.") See the difference? Now I will concede that those passages could've been clearer; careless readers, especially those with an axe to grind, will likely misunderstand them.
Re: the geometry example, the context of the discussion in TLS makes it clear that Feser was referring to pure geometry, not physical (or applied) geometry. Pure geometry just is an a priori system, and its theorems are analytic, so most of your objections on Vic's blog, which referenced applied geometry, are irrelevant. Now you may object to his use of the term "indubitable" when applied to the premises because technically, the premises of pure geometry are not propositions (rather, they're propositional functions because the premises are composed of basic terms that are "uninterpreted"), and as such are neither true nor false, but such an objection does *nothing* to affect his main point in raising the example in the first place. (It's kinda like Jesus and the mustard seed: yes, technically the mustard seed isn't the smallest seed, but that does nothing to affect the point he was making.) In other words, you're engaging in what John calls "nitpicking."
"Look, Eric, the game Christo-morons like you and Tim play is that when I, as a physicist, point out some error in something one of you Christo-morons says about science or math, then *I* am wrong as long as you are not convinced."
First, the silly name calling just makes you look bad, so if you insist on continuing with it, be my guest.
Second, if we were discussing physics, your Ph.D would be relevant, but what you've consistently failed to understand is that what we're discussing is reading comprehension. And the fact that you're not convinced that you've misread Feser is, as you suggest, not at all important; that bit of reasoning applies to you as well, you know. (BTW, you've either misread or misrepresented Tim too: he pointed out the pure/physical distinction, and did not, as you falsely claim, merely say you failed to "discuss the matter." The fact that you failed to make this distinction is *obvious* from your first post on the matter: (quoting Dave) "Mathematicians, including some of the very best (e.g., Gauss and Riemann) have been doubting those premises for centuries, with, it turns out, good reason: we know that the premises of Euclidean geometry are not true of the *real world*." There you go. Tim didn't lie; perhaps you did.)
"Tim and you are not my equals."
Because of the ambiguity of this statement, I can honestly say I agree with one reading of it...
"You’re human scum, Eric."
Res ipsa loquitur.
Seriously, Dave, you're not human scum, and you're a smart guy, but you have a serious attitude problem. May I suggest you read Jonathan Glover's "Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century"? Categorizing people who merely disagree with you in the world of ideas as "human scum" is not as innocuous as you might think...
"Henceforward, there will be no conversation between us, but only my expressions of my contempt for you."
That's fine. I've just decisively refuted your claims -- demolished them, in fact -- as any honest reader can see. That can be the nature of our online relationship, if you want: You make a claim, I refute it, you mock me. That's fine with me. So, you've made your claim, and I've clearly refuted it, so go ahead, mock away...
Aside from Dave's patent misunderstandings of Feser, here's his "argument", as I've formalized it, from the thread he referenced on "Dangerous Idea":
(1) I, Dave, am a trained scientist (Ph.D. in physics), while most of you, and most of the people you reference, are philosophers.
(2) Scientists and philosophers approach questions about the truth of a claim about the real world differently (i.e. use different methods).
(3) The scientific approach is more effective than the philosophical approach when our aim is to determine whether a claim about the real world is true.
(4) Christianity rests on claims about the real world.
(5) Therefore, a scientific approach to determining the truth of Christianity's real world claims is more effective than a philosophical approach.
(6) I, Dave, am approaching the question of the truth of Christianity's real world claims scientifically while those who oppose me on this thread are approaching it philosophically.
(7) Therefore, my conclusions about Christianity's real world claims are more likely to be true than those reached by a philosopher.
(8) I, Dave, have concluded that Christianity's real world claims are false, while the philosophers on this thread, and the philosophers they reference, have concluded that Christianity's real world claims are true.
(9) Therefore, Christianity's real world claims are more likely false than true.
Now I've formulated these premises very charitably (Dave's claims are actually much stronger), and below I'll provide a series of quotes from Dave's numerous posts to demonstrate that this really is the argument he's making (though he'd repudiate my categorizing it as an argument; whatever).
But before we get to the quotes, let's take a quick look at the argument.
Let's suppose that Dave really has a Ph.D. in physics, and that (1) is true. Let's also brush aside any technical problems with (2) and suppose that it's true.
We run into our first problem with (3), for it supposes that philosophers and scientists are applying different methods to the same kinds of questions. In most cases, this is obviously false.
Let's grant that (4) is true if we don't limit, a priori, what the real world comprises to the world as naturalists conceive it.
I think (5) is problematic because of the problem I raised about (3), viz. it's not the case that all the questions about the truth of Christianity are scientific questions. For an couple of obvious examples, the questions of whether god's attributes are logically consistent isn't a scientific question, and neither are the questions raised by the various forms of the problem of evil.
The problem with (6) is that Dave hasn't actually presented any scientific arguments that purport to show that Christianity is false. Rather, he's asserted that it's false a number of times, and has instead focused on *examples* (not evidence used to justify a claim, but examples used to illustrate a claim) of natural phenomena and mathematical reasoning that a particular Christian philosopher has used to illustrate a particular conception of one kind of causal series and a way of thinking about how metaphysics differs from empirical science. And, as I pointed out earlier, he badly misunderstood the causation example, and as Tim has now pointed out with the distinction between pure geometry and physical geometry, he mangled the mathematics/metaphysics example.
Finally, the problem with (7), (8) and (9) is that Dave hasn't actually done any of the work necessary to establish that conclusion. It's this obvious lack of work, and the quotes below, that have led me to conclude that the argument I've formalized above is in fact his argument; needless to say, it sucks. Now for the quotes, lest Dave should attempt to say I've misrepresented him (and, as the quotes will show, I've been exceedingly charitable to him):
"I've tried several times (starting last night) to post a comment explaining why scientifically oriented people cannot take modern apologetics seriously."
"When scientifically literate people such as myself look at modern Christian apologetics, we see simply embarrassing nonsense"
"with all due respect, I do not have much respect for the community of philosophers"
"My general view is that philosophers and natural scientists have mutually exclusive functioning epistemologies, that we have run a very nice empirical test in comparing these competing epistemologies during the last few centuries, and that the philosopher’s mode of thought is now dead."
"I just think the whole philosophical approach has been discredited by experience."
"Surely, two millennia during which they could produce nothing that even their colleagues could generally agree was correct is failure enough."
"I’ll say that this is generally what I expect from philosophers – their knowledge of actual facts about reality, as opposed to verbal philosophical fantasies, tends to be close to non-existent."
"Sometimes, all one can say is, “In the name of Darwin, Hume, and all else that is holy. Get off you fat duff and learn something about reality instead of this cow manure about Christ and metaphysics.”"
"And, again, thank you oodles and oodles for proving my point that we scientists have a different mode of mental functioning than you do."
"I’m arguing my case strongly here because I think it is largely true and because I am trying to elicit counter-evidence from guys like Tim. However, I actually do leave open the possibility that someone like Tim will prove me wrong, though I doubt it, or at least point out some area where the approach of philosophers is really fruitful. I also doubt that, but the universe is a big place. Could happen."
"Oh, BY, you are priceless. You are truly, indeed, what modern Christianity is all about. Do you mind if I quote you elsewhere (book, article, whatever)? The level of ignorance combined with arrogance that you exhibit is truly wonderful."
"What happens though if some Christian actually goes to a university library and finds out that I am right? Makes Christianity look kinda bad, doesn't it?"
"I once tried to slip a bit of philosopher-style “arguing” into a paper when I was doing my thesis work. My advisor nixed it, not because he claimed it was wrong but because he indicated it was a faux pas: well-bred physicists just do not soil themselves as philosophers do, he implied."
"Again, this is the incommensurability I am arguing for: almost all “arguments” by philosophers that I have seen strike me not just as wrong but as pathetic nonsense. Conversely, I expect that when an intelligent person learns the truth about science, about Biblical scholarship, etc. he will automatically abandon Christianity without “argument”: if he does not, I draw obvious conclusions about his intelligence or honesty."
"Or, as my own mentor, Dick Feynman, put it, science is our way of trying not to fool ourselves. Of course, a lot of people dislike science and love philosophy or theology for precisely that reason: they desperately want to fool themselves."
"To anyone who wonders why I keep referring to science alone and not, say, history, the answer is that for a century or more there have been historians who have seriously and successfully used a scientific method in history. It is now the norm for many (not all) historians. The same is true for many (certainly not all!) Biblical scholars. I am not privileging the *subject* of science but rather the method of science, in the broad sense, which can be, and now has been, successfully used in various other disciplines (alas not all!) besides the natural sciences. I simply want to make that trend universal. Tim and most philosophers oppose me on that."
"As I kept saying to BY, this is classic math, well-established for nearly two hundred years. Its relevance for both logic and philosophy is of course obvious (e.g., to Kant’s claim that the axioms of Euclidean geometry are known a priori), and, of course, no one can be literate in either logic or philosophy who does not know this. (Yes, I know many philosophers do *not* know this.)"
"the point John and I keep trying to make is that this was done two centuries ago. We do not need to reinvent the wheel: intellectually, Christianity is dead. The body just still twitches occasionally."
"we are not going to be diverted by your pretense that there is actually some legitimate intellectual defense of Christianity that we should take seriously."
"The Kingdom of God is dead. The Great Satan AKA Christianity is a stinking pile of decay."
Eric,
A glance shows that you have gone to a lot of trouble writing posts that seem directed towards me.
You are free to do that, but just in case it was not already clear (I thought it was), let me state clearly that I am not reading your posts and do not intend on responding to your points (though, if I happen to catch something by you that gives me a chance to make fun of you, I may find it irresistible).
You claim to be a student, which, if true, means I am almost old enough to be your grandpa. So, I will offer you some friendly, grandfatherly advice:
If you behave towards older, professionally well-established people in a manner that they consider obnoxious, they are likely to brush you aside: they have no obligation to listen to you at all, no duty to take you seriously, and no reason to treat you as anything but slime unless you express respect towards them.
Yes, I was too polite to you: I admit that. But even I have my limits.
You would not expect to go up to a neurosurgeon and inform him that you had “corrected” him on something about neurosurgery, when you had done nothing of the sort. Yet, you did just that towards me: you informed me, quite absurdly, in your earlier post, that you and your Christo-moron pal had corrected me in comments I had made about my own field of expertise, math and science.
Very, very few professional people are going to tolerate that sort of behavior from a young, ignorant, snot-nosed student. I know that there is a widespread theory of “Netiquette” that says that we should all pretend that everyone on the Web is equal in knowledge and intelligence. Perhaps that is because the Net is dominated by ignorant, not-very-intelligent children who would like to insist that their superiors take them seriously?
In vain
You will see very few established scientists participating in Web discussions for this reason.
I am “slumming” a bit in having communicated at all with you and your Christo-moron friends, such as Tim. (Let me make clear that I am not applying this judgment to everyone here: Loftus is not a moron, nor, I am sure, are some of the others here.)
You probably will not take my advice, Eric – youth rarely does. But some day, you will look back, after you have had a number of doors slammed in your face out there in the real world, and realize that a little more deference from you towards people who are clearly your superiors in knowledge, intelligence, and professional reputation, would have made your life a lot easier.
Free advice – do with it as you wish.
Dave
P.S. It does look as if you have gathered a chrestomathy of my greatest quotes. Interesting.
"A glance shows that you have gone to a lot of trouble writing posts that seem directed towards me."
Actually, it wasn't much trouble at all.
"let me state clearly that I am not reading your posts and do not intend on responding to your points (though, if I happen to catch something by you that gives me a chance to make fun of you, I may find it irresistible)."
Right, as I said, we've already established the pattern: You make a claim, I refute it, you mock me...I've addressed this already.
"you informed me, quite absurdly, in your earlier post, that you and your Christo-moron pal had corrected me in comments I had made about my own field of expertise, math and science."
Wrong again. I never said you got the math and science wrong, but that you misread Feser. As I've repeatedly said, it's not a math or science problem, but a reading comprehension problem.
"Free advice – do with it as you wish."
Let me offer you a bit of free advice from an unlikely source: Richard Dawkins.
"I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that. In practice, not all scientists would. But all scientists pay lip service to it as an ideal--unlike, say, politicians who would probably condemn it as flip-flopping. The memory of the incident I have described still brings a lump to my throat."
The issue isn't my age or my accomplishments, but whether I'm right. In this case I am, and you should follow the example of the old Zoologist and thank me rather than calling me "human scum."
I posted the following to Dr. Reppert's blog re: Dave-the-non-practicing-physicist:
Dave Miller is no doubt one of those pathetic individuals who introduces himself as Dave Miller, PhD or Dr. Dave Miller at parties. I am not impressed with his advanced degree in physics; I know many, many people at UCSD (and elsewhere) who are better than he could ever hope to be. Moreover, his self-promotion and arrogance is especially pathetic considering that he appears to be dried up as a physicist. Lastly, and most importantly, he is apparently unaware that most mathematicians are realists. If he confronted a mathematician with his foolish little empiricism re: Euclidean geometry he'd be squashed like a bug.
Sorry Physicist Dave, this wasn't directed towards you. I just find it mildly entertaining to toy with Mabus/Markuze's fragile mind from time to time.
Eric: Your patience with this Physicist Dave fellow is impressive. The ironic thing is, scientists like that (and most I know are NOT like that)seem so eager to trash philosophy, without recognizing that their own arguments are 9/10ths philosophy, and bad philosophy at that.
All empirical study in fact depends on philosophy. Trash-talking the whole field is like cutting your own legs off.
Post a Comment