Feb. 10th, 2014

boutell: (shave)
This is a lively argument until we get to the bit about materialism versus evolution which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I understand about beliefs not having to be true to be adaptive (oh boy do I), but beliefs do have to be consistent with a system of belief to be believable by other adherents, and a particular system of belief might take some form of verifiable truth as one of its touchstones. Obviously, I think science is such a system, because of its reliance on reproducible experiment and testable hypothesis.

The binary nature of truth is also highly suspect. It is useful to know that a circle's circumference is roughly three times its diameter. It is more useful to know that it is roughly 3.14 times its diameter. And so on.

I also want to ding both of them for being so ethnocentric about what constitutes "real" theism (if his name isn't Yahweh or Allah he doesn't count). And the interviewee's response when finally asked why proof of a creator would be proof of a perfect god is to say "because Jesus," which is blatantly circular reasoning.

Then there's the whole problem of discussing events that created our universe when those events would likely not take place in time as we understand it, or indeed according to rules we understand at all.

But if I've gone to this much trouble to reply, I must've enjoyed the interview.

(This is part of a continuing series of interviews on religion topics, so don't get your knickers in a twist if you don't like this guy. The next interview should be along soon enough.)

September 2014

2122232425 2627

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2017 06:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios