I don't know that I've ever posted a link to a TV show, but this is good.
I, of course, am a believer in God and disagree with the boy's opinion. However, I am also NOT a believer in specious arguments, especially those made by religionists. Young Sheldon rightly destroys these specious arguments offered by this pastor.
Well done.
Here's another well-done snippet...
67 comments:
The argument isn't "specious" nor was young Sheldon's counter destructive at all. The reason is that Sheldon's argument was not an apples to apples example. Your pathetic grasp of analogy is likely the reason you're so confused here.
By putting all his faith in science, as most non-Christians like yourself do, he ignores evidence for God's existence altogether, while taking for granted the reliability of data gathered by scientists that seek to affirm an alternate explanation for the existence of all things. This totally skews probability in the non-Christian's favor. That is, it isn't a matter of probability at all when picking and choosing between evidences available rather than objectively considering all evidence equally. As such, it is Sheldon's argument that is specious, especially considering his example provides no evidence that could compel a legitimate belief that a large sum of money will be found when he gets home.
Also, his question regarding Darwin's belief in God making his evolutionary theory wrong is foolish as well. Darwin's theory is wrong because it has been proven so, not because of Darwin's theology.
The biggest problem here is in believing your point about specious arguments is given greater credence by a TV show created by people likely to frame the question according to their own favored world view.
Mm-hmm.
The pastor:
"Either God exists or he doesn't exist. So let's be cynical. Worst case scenario, there's a 50-50 chance, and I like those odds..."
Sheldon:
"You've confused possibilities with probabilities. According to your analogy, when I go home, I might find a million dollars on my bed or might not. In what world is that 50-50?"
Specious: superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive.
The argument he made was, by definition specious. At a very shallow, not-thought through level, given his argument, either God exists or not: 50-50. But that's not the probability, given his argument.
What needs to be kept in mind is that this is a fictional (comedy) TV show. As such, both the question and the answer were written and formulated to accomplish several things.
1. To serve the plot of the episode and the arc of the seasons ‘s story.
2. To provide “back story” for the other show.
3. To promote or reflect the worldview and biases of the writers, directors, and producers.
4. Potentially reflect what the conversation might have looked like 30 years ago.
There is no intent to provide and sort of balanced, nuanced current view of this discussion. It’s similar to the famous scene from West Wing.
Most importantly, it doesn’t seem wise to look to fictional, comedic, Hollywood produced tv shows for rational unbiased discussions of these topics.
Indeed, one shouldn't. Not usually. Nor should one look to many fundamenalist churches and parachurch organizations for rational unbiased discussions of these topics.
I'm not doing that.
Instead, I'm offering one parable that happens to come from TV on why specious arguments are not helpful. I think it makes the point quite well.
Hope that's okay with you.
Dan
There was something wrong with the second video, but watched the first.
1. The 50/50 argument was foolish, because it was written to be foolish.
2. The science/religion dichotomy is also not a solid argument.
3. The people who are responsible for what we consider modern science were, in fact and for the most part, devout Christians who’s faith was the bedrock of their commitment to science.
4. Saying Darwin believed in God isn’t precise enough to evaluate. In later life He was clearly and unambiguously anti theist. He specifically said that he believed that his theory would be the proof that God doesn’t exist.
Once again it was a contrived, exchange designed to influence people to uncritically accept a worldview without actually exploring what’s being presented. Looks like it works.
In much the same way, I ridiculed those who took their eschatological views from the Left Behind series, I’d suggest that basing scientific views on BBT or LS is equally faulty.
The problem is not that the arguments were faulty, it’s they they were intended to be faulty. It’s that they were intended to communicate something in a way that bypasses people’s critical thinking filters.
No one is suggesting that faulty arguments are good, or that they shouldn’t be analyzed. Quite the opposite, I’m suggesting that failing to analyze both faulty arguments is both foolish, as well as the goal of the scene.
One last thought. The presumption in the scene as well as in your critique, is that the 50/50 argument was an attempt to make a precise statistical probability claim as opposed to simply a figure of speech.
Clearly one would evaluate things differently depending on that bit of context.
I’m not suggesting which option is correct, just that two options exist. Also given the larger context of the Sheldon character it’s not unreasonable to acknowledge that the character has difficulty in not taking everything in a wooden literal manner.
One last thought, I’d love it if more people would ask hard questions in church and if more pastors were prepared to give good solid answeres to hard questions.
Sigh. Jesus used contrived, fictional parables explicitly to make a specific point. There's nothing wrong with that.
The point stands.
No one maybe suggesting that faulty arguments are good, but people do engage in them. If only there were something we could use to help illustrate and point out these errors!
Dan
Got it. You’re committed to your view and not willing to consider any other. The fact that the rebuttal to a specious argument was specious doesn’t seem to make a difference.
I’ve said what I need to, I’m done here.
Mm-hmm.
Dan
Once again that is a well thought out, wise, studied, and sagacious response.
mm-hmm.
Again, your wise, well reasoned, thoughtful, rational response is overwhelming.
mm-hmm.
All this wisdom and the ability to immolate straw men. You sir are truly someone to be admired.
Straw men? Are you suggesting that people don't make arguments like this pastor? Because, I have to tell you, I've sat in on the Sunday School classes and sermons, first hand. It's not a straw man if it happens.
Again, the point is that this Hollywood parable makes a legitimate point: Specious arguments (such as the one offered by the pastor in the parable, which happen in real life) are bad. And yes, I'm committed to the notion that specious arguments are bad.
Are you suggesting you are NOT committed to opposing specious arguments like that one?
I'm just agreeing with you all because you continue to fail to understand the point, so what's the point of me trying to re-clarify? But look, I just re-clarified. Demonstrate you can understand and apologize for the mistaken understanding on your part.
Otherwise, I'll just continue to humor you because, what else can I do?
To clarify, the straw man comment was more of a general observation, not specific to this.
Since you missed it, I oppose ALL specious arguments no matter who makes them. In the case of the bit of manipulative dialogue you’re so enamored with, both arguments are specious and both are worth opposing.
But, that’s just me repeating myself.
Mm-hmm.
Dan
Again, the vast wisdom.
Christ's parables were not "contrived", unless by that you simply mean "made up". But they were based on real life realities, such as light not being covered by a lampshade while expecting it to shine, or a house built on a solid foundation, or seeds falling in fertile soil rather than among weeds or on rock.
While also suggesting the writing of the show is skewed to be anti-religious, I chose to deal with the 50/50 probability as presented. Thus, the whole thing fails no matter how one looks at it. Just not as badly as Dan's attempt to use this to make his point. Even worse is that Dan actually felt the need to speak against specious arguments, as if anyone actually supports the use of them.
BEAT that straw man, Danny!
But they were based on real life realities, such as light not being covered by a lampshade while expecting it to shine
And Sheldon's parable was based on real life realities, such as pastor's making that 50/50 sort of claim. Again, I've lived it, so you can't say it hasn't happened.
But whatevs. Don't let reality get in the way of a good tantrum.
“Whatevs”, seriously? Are you secretly a 12 year old girl. No wonder no one takes you seriously.
Mm-hmm.
Mos def a tween girl.
Mm-hmm.
Craig, if you have absolutely nothing substantive to say on the topic, move on.
Ad hom attacks are worthless, from an intellectual, rational point of view.
Of course you’re right. My complimenting you on your wisdom and sagacity is worthless. Expecting you to demonstrate the grace you demand of others is worthless. Especially worthless, expecting you to answer questions or provide proof of your claims.
"And Sheldon's parable was based on real life realities, such as pastor's making that 50/50 sort of claim."
What parable did Sheldon present? That he might have a huge sum of money under his bed? Upon what has he based that in order to pretend it's the exact same type of claim as the pastor's 50/50 suggestion. There's quite a bit of evidence for the existence of God. The 50/50 probability takes that evidence into consideration. Sheldon has no such evidence to presume a 50/50 probability of cash under his bed. The pastor's claim is based on real life realities...the evidence for God's existence, whereas Sheldon's is based on nothing but his petulant refusal to accept the possibility of the God of the Bible. He's a lot like you.
There once was a preacher man who said, "Worst case scenario, either there is a God or there isn't. That's a 50/50 chance. Pretty good odds..., right?!"
But a child spoke and said, "You have misunderstood the difference between possibilities and probabilities..."
The end.
Understand?
The PASTOR is the one who reduced it down to the simplest argument (it's a 50/50 chance!) and people like THAT, in that argument, are engaging in specious arguments.
This is not a more indepth critique of the existence of God, it's an argument against specious arguments. That's all.
You all are looking for more than what is there.
And Marshall, there is not much in the way of "evidence for God's existence," not in a factual, scientific basis. There ARE arguments for God's existence, rational arguments like the ex nihilo thing. But that is not evidence, it's an argument. There's not evidence that one can look at, measure, weigh and consider for God's existence.
Or do you have some hidden that you haven't shown anyone?
~Dan
Just curious, are you saying that only evidence that can be weighed, measured and looked at is valid? Or are you saying that you personally only consider evidence that can be weighed, measured, and looked at as valid?
Art, it certainly appears that the only specious arguments Dan is against are those in favor of theism.
No. No.
Ok, you could expand on what you mean, or I can continue to try to tease bits and pieces out of you.
What kind of non, weighable, look atable, measurable evidence would you accept?
Data is measurable, observable, demonstrable.
The clues for God are not that sort of data. One can make an ARGUMENT for God, but they do so without measurable data, God is lacking that sort of evidence.
Do you disagree? Please provide some data in evidence of God.
~Dan
I’m confused, originally you said that evidence must be able to be weighed, measured, and looked at. Now you’re talking about “data” as measurable, observable, and demonstrable. Are you suggesting that those two categories and six “tests” are synonymous? Would it be possible for you to choose one set of terms, and define them for consistency’s sake?
I’ve given you an extensive bibliography which contains plenty of data for you to consider. If you choose not avail yourself of those resources, I don’t know if I can help you.
I'm clarifying, to be clear. Marshall used the word Evidence.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
or, from MW: something that furnishes proof
I'm clarifying that there is no measurable "evidence" for God, so Marshall has no evidence of that sort. No incontrovertible "proof." No authoritative "facts."
I believe in God because I think the rational case can be made for God and because I don't know how to explain Life without the rational case for God (and indeed, without the rational case for Jesus/Jesus' teachings). But I'm distinguishing between demonstrable facts and debatable reasoned opinions.
Does that help?
Your bibliography is useless without explaining what point you'd like me to consider. Something specific, concrete, as I have no idea what the point of your bibliography is.
No, not as long as you don’t connect the new terms, to the two you’ve already used. As well as introducing additional terms. Please, pick one term and one set of measuring criteria, define those and be consistent in how you use them.
The bibliography is to provide you more current resources on questions of this nature than the decades old information you know so intimately.
Something specific, concrete, as I have no idea what the point of your bibliography is. My information on science, in general, is not decades old. If you have some specific (you DO understand what I mean by specific, don't you?) concern or topic you'd like me to consider, you'll have to spell out what specifically you're talking about.
Dan
Just skimmed responses to my last. Here's the problem. Over at my blog, Dan is ready to crucify Roy Moore over what is known legally as "hearsay evidence". While it is not the strongest form of evidence, witness testimony is admissible as evidence for determining truth in a civil or criminal trial. But Dan dismisses all the witness testimony in Scripture as irrelevant or worthless as evidence for the existence of God. And that's just the testimonial evidence. When Dan can show some consistency, we can move on to other forms.
Ok, 1 guess specific definitions of specific and consistent terminology is not forthcoming.
Hey, the bibliography is there for your edification if you want to choose some information that’s not decades old then you can find that information. If your satisfied with decades old information, that’s your choice.
https://winteryknight.com/2017/11/12/michael-strauss-lectures-on-scientific-evidence-for-a-creator-at-ut-dallas-6/
Maybe you could take a listen to the video here and provide some critique and demonstrate why Michael Strauss is mistaken.
Mistaken about what?! Take a stand, man. SAY specifically what point you're dottering on about!
If you cannot do so, do not comment. Say, for instance, "Strauss, at this link, offers demonstrative proof that Adam existed as a literal first man!" or... "...that the earth can't be older than 6,050 years old..."
SAY what your specific claim or point is.
Or no more comments on this post.
Dan
Strauss is offering what he claims is scientific evidence for a creator.
You have two choices.
1. You can watch the video and engage in a specific critique or refutation of the items he’s factually wrong about.
2. You can come up with some excuse not to do so.
For example:
His credentials don’t measure up to your high standards.
You’ve hear every possible piece of evidence he could possibly offer and decided it wasn’t compelling decades ago.
You don’t have the time or inclination.
He’s not arguing from a preconceived position of naturalism/materialism and is therefore excluded for consideration.
It’s all just opinion anyway.
Or come up with your own.
The problem you are now faced with is that you’ve claimed that there is no “measurable evidence” for God, now your faced with someone claiming the opposite position. You’ve asked for evidence (or data, or whatever), now you have the possibility that evidence exists.
The only question is, will you engage with the evidentiary claims, or dismiss them out of hand and without even knowing what they are.
Who knows, you could be right.
Just in case you try to play the "it's not specific enough" card, I saved a copy of the above ommet,
It appears also that Dan is insisting on absolute proof of God's existence, as if there is any such for either the opposing position, or even for his favored age of the earth position. Until he can provide such, I don't see where he can demand that level of proof for positions opposite his own. Like the other side, he has only evidence at best, but nothing approaching proof.
The difference is, that Dan won’t actually assert that his position is true, or even that it could be true. It’s just an unproven opinion and it’s goid enough to satisfy him. Or something similar.
I’m this case he’s faced with someone who is making a specific claim, and the challenge that implies. If he does engage with Strauss’s positions, there’s the chance he’ll have to admit he is wrong, if he doesn’t then he can’t say there’s no evidence because his not looking at evidence doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist.
I have my suspicions as to how this’ll play out, but I’ll be patient and see.
So, okay, this guy has a selection of theories that the data suggests a creator.
Something I agree with.
But what he does not have. so far as I can tell in listening to his human theories, is definitive proof of a creator God.
By all means, show me a peer reviewed article (I prefer reading over listening) in a scientific journal that says this fella's theories/opinions are sufficient to be called definitively a factual proofs demonstrating an insistence upon a creator God.
I'll wait...
(Please don't return with comments without the peer-reviewed support. Thanks.)
And Marshall, I'm not insisting upon "absolute proof of God's existence." You keep forgetting, I BELIEVE IN GOD.
Repeat it after me: "Dan believes in God."
Do you understand that?
Moving on, then, I believe that there are logical arguments that support the notion of a God. What I SAID, however, is that we do not have definitive factual proof of God. We have theories, mostly based on reason, not observable data.
Now, one last time: Do you agree that we do not have definitive, observable, undebatable data that insists upon God?
You can do one of two things:
1. Agree, we don't have definitive proof, just human theories that make sense to some, but are not definitively proof of a God.
2. Disagree. If you disagree, please present the definitive, undebatable data to prove it.
No other responses, please, without one of the two.
So, when confronted with what is presented as evidence, you’ve got nothing. I threw out a bunch of possible reasons why you wouldn’t engage with the evidence, and you came up with a different excuse.
By all means, show me a peer reviewed article (I prefer reading over listening) in a scientific journal that says this fella's theories/opinions are sufficient to be called definitively a factual proofs demonstrating an insistence upon a creator God.
I'll wait...
And you won't comment here further until you do so.
"Repeat it after me: "Dan believes in God.""
I try not to repeat lies. I leave that to people like you and feo.
"...we do not have definitive factual proof of God."
My point is that we don't have definitive factual proof of an old earth or billions of years old universe. We only have data that is interpreted to mean an old earth/universe. While it may be compelling, it can't be verified. It can't be proven to be true. But as you are unable and incapable of providing proof for the science in which you put your greatest faith, you demand a much higher standard of proof for God.
As to peer review, demands for such signal desperation. The problems with peer review have been addressed more than once in the past. But I'll see what I can find when I have the time. I'm sure you've never taken such time being the science worshiper you are.
A fellow on twitter
https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein
tells us in a November 8 tweet what he considers the most important/profound paragraph ever written. It happens to be part of an article by scientist Ed Witten. It is about 120 words long. I have only a shallow understanding of it, I admit. :-)
From a Christian perspective, is it blasphemy to pick from anything other than the Bible one's most important 120 or so words?
~ Hiram
It’s an interesting question. At first glance I’d think that if one is a Christian that it would naturally follow that ones most important whatever would be from or informed by the Bible in general, specifically the words of Christ.
If necessary I’ll give you a spot for this off topic conversation.
Hiram,
It's a rhetorical flourish, I'd say, and not necessarily indicative of one's most cherished beliefs. To say such about an non-Biblical excerpt does not necessarily indicate the speaker literally believes in such a way. I don't know how easy it is to avoid such hyperbole in the course of one's life. I personally don't count it as worthy of wonder. I'd be more concerned if the speaker actually made the claim and qualified it as being above Scripture.
Academic question here. If the writers of the Old Testament really did think the earth is surrounded by a solid shell with holes in it that allow Heaven's light to shine through it to us (stars), as some scholars think they did, would that affect your estimate of the probability that they were writing God's holy word?
~ Hiram
Hiram...
From a Christian perspective, is it blasphemy to pick from anything other than the Bible one's most important 120 or so words?
Not to this Christian. Why would it? The thing is, if there's Truth out there, it's Truth. It doesn't matter where that Truth comes from or who cites it from whatever source. If this fella finds that to be the "most important," okay, he's certainly welcome to his opinion. It would not be blasphemy to me and certainly, within the pages of the Bible, there is not a verse that would call such an opinion to be blasphemy.
Indeed, Jesus says that, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and GREATER WORKS than these he will do..." If Jesus says that some may do even greater works than Jesus, then one could reason that citing something other than the Bible as a "most important" could well be some of that kind of work.
There just is no biblical or Christian basis that I can think of to call such a claim of unprovable opinion "blasphemy."
Interestingly, in the Bible, the main time that the term "blasphemy" is used is by Jesus' critics who are looking for reasons to kill him. Jesus does use the term one time, it appears (unless I'm missing something)... where he said that "Any sin or blasphemy would be forgiven, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit..." which he doesn't even define anywhere.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=blasphemy&qs_version=NASB
From this Christian's perspective, citing "blasphemy" is more a tool of religionists in the vain of the "bad guys"/Pharisees in the Bible, not God or Jesus.
Vein.
Dan
I’m assuming that the whole 120 words is intended to suggest some sort of expression of ones life philosophy. If so, then it’s reasonable for a Christian to draw from scripture. But, what if you’re quoting someone who is expressing a scriptural idea?
But, clearly it’s not blasphemy. I guess Jesus talking about blasphemy (in at least one context) is Him being a “bad guy” or a “religionist”. Interesting.
Yes, Craig. That's exactly what I said. Well read.
Jesus.
~Dan
And now Dan claims to speak for Jesus.
?
Yes, Craig. That's exactly what I said.
Good Lord, Jesus.
~Dan
Yes Dan that’s exactly how it appears, when you write Something with a signature line that says Jesus it certainly appears that you were trying to speak for him. But beyond that, the fact is that Jesus did talk about blast for me and he did talk about it as something that is an actual thing. So clearly your character something with a signature line that says Jesus it certainly appears that you were trying to speak for him. But beyond that, the fact is that Jesus did talk about blast for me and he did talk about it as something that is an actual thing. So clearly your characterization of blasphemy as something that is only or primarily limited to the Pharisees or the religious, would it not be accurate.
Yes, that makes a helluva lot of sense.
You say something crazy. I point it out, followed by
Jesus.
~Dan
and you think that I think I'm Jesus. NOT the "~DAN" at the very end, you know, where a signature usually is.
Don't be an idiot and don't look for stupid fights. It only makes you look stupid.
And enough. I let you have a chance to address Hiram's question from your point of view, but that's over.
Unless you're going to address the peer reviewed article question, don't bother commenting.
Again, I have a couple of commenters now who are posting off topic and hateful (towards others) posts on this post and i'm not allowing it. I've respectfully asked them to stop, I've reminded them that it's my blog, my rules, and that I insist that they stop. They've opted to be trolls, insult, and attack innocents, all the while defending perverts and talking about (in the case of Marshall) how sexually attractive he finds teen-aged girls to be. I will not allow that sort of perversion on this blog, Marshall, you'll have to take it elsewhere.
Be an adult and respect the rules.
Because he/they are acting as trolls, i will, unfortunately, have to close comments here. If you are someone with on topic comments to make, just let me know and I'll be glad to get your comment on her.
Post a Comment