Labour likes them young
Clare Curran at Red Alert proudly blogs how a seven year old has been indoctrinated by her parents to believe that John Key will sell our fish and treasures and toys.
The fact that Clare thinks this is a great things tells us a lot. she even boasts how this is the future – indoctrinating seven year olds.
Her commenters are less impressed. Extracts:
Your kidding right? You should know that at 7 most children mirror their parents or their teachers attitudes. You might not think it is bad, but I take special care not to pollute my son’s attitudes with my political views. Teach them right and wrong i.e. good values and leave the rest of the indoctrination stuff out of it. …
I could tell my kid what to write as well!! Doesn’t mean they comprehend what they are writing..and don’t try to tell us that a 7year old has ANY understanding of politics(most adults have enough trouble understanding it all)…you can’t be that naive surely.
Is this what Labour means by own our future?
Curran responds to the criticism:
I think at seven (it may be eight) that most kids know the difference between right and wrong.
You right wingers can write as much venom as you like. The fact is that many many kids know when their family is poor and their mums and dads are struggling. And they can see the difference between their family and other families which are well off.
This sums up to me what is all so common in Labour. I do not think those who support policies of the left are evil or wrong. I just think their policies generally won’t achieve what they want, because they have too much confidence in the Government making better decisions than individuals. But to Clare and many in Labour, politics is good vs evil and right vs wrong. She thinks that Labour’s policies are so obviously good and National’s so obviously wrong that a seven year old can judge.
A letter commenter points out:
Clare, knowing that it’s wrong to kill or steal doesn’t mean that 7 or 8 year olds have anything interesting ir worthwhile to say on the subject of economic policy. For you to suggest that asset sales are as straightforward a moral problem as murder, for instance, is every bit as infantile as the drawing by your 7-year-old acolyte.
and another:
Clare, a 7 or 8 year old can probably see the difference between their own poor family, and another better off family. But that child definitely is not capable of forming their own opinions around the main causes of that, much less identify policies (and promoters thereof) that either improve or worsen their situation.
This is digusting.
This is why Labour will have no hesitation about running a much dirtier campaign than other parties. Because if you truly truly think that your opponents are evil and wrong, then the ends justifies the means.
Finally I love this comment by Matthew Hooton:
But Clare, “Gracia” – if she exists and hasn’t been dreamed up by you as a PR exercise – doesn’t write and draw about poverty and issues of social equity, but about asset sales.
And it is very difficult to believe that, at 7, someone could have developed an informed opinion about that. Phil Goff, for example, says that he didn’t reach the correct conclusion about that topic until he was in his 40s and 50s, having participated in asset sales in his late 30s.
Heh. Yes a youthful Phil Goff from age 31 to 37 was a fervent fan of asset sales. He changed his mind he says in the 1990s yet Goff at 49 voted to sell 25% of Air New Zealand to Qantas. Goodness knows what his policy will be in his 60s.
November 22nd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Child abuse. Not uncommon among the left wing nutjobs as evidenced by regular news photographs and television recordings of very young children at damned near every whinge-walk, demonstration (of stupidity) etc. the left are involved in.
November 22nd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
We used to flat next door to Vegans.
Their kid used to sneak over to our place for a bloody good steak every now and then.
There is hope the kid in the article will rise above such stupidity, maybe reject entirely the parents drivel and become a capitalist.
November 22nd, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Warning – this thread is likely to devolve into a flame war about religious indoctrination of children.
Proceed with caution.
November 22nd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Be careful DPF. Last time I said to Clare that I didn’t support exploiting children for political gain she managed to turn it around and tell her 1500 Twitter followers I supported cuts in ECE funding (had never offered an opinion on this). Bitchy indeed.
However, I did like it when several very left-leaning followers told her to pull her head in and agreed that I’d never said anything about ECE. If I said it shut her up I’d be lying, but I think it came fairly close.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Filthy commie scum. Children have no place in politics. Just trying to raise another generation of retard uni students that think money comes out of the sky and not from taxes.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Reading the comments on her blog it seems that most (No idea if they are Labour voters) also disagree with her post.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:14 pm
She is getting a right bollicking in the comments. So expect her to go feral very shortly. She is nothing if not predictable.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Another one of Clare’s aspirations. Her & Trev’s Red Alert has become a joke. Could have been good but too much CONTROL does not allow any debate.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Paulus…. “too much CONTROL does not allow any debate.”
You’re not wrong there. On Trevs post about the mums letters. I made a very simple true statement about their flyer not having the reaction they expected and maybe they should ignore the reactions of the Nats and right wing bloggers and pay more attention to the electorate opinions…as a result, several of my posts got deleted…
I see the TRUTH is not welcome there.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:21 pm
With politicians it is always the last thing they say you should take most note of.
“I have never met her or her mum before”. I wonder what role the father of the child plays in the Labour Party, or a union…
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Daigotsu What the FUCK????
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Yes DPF, because 7 year olds always do exactly what their parents tell them to.
Those pom-poms and little blue skirt are looking really good on you
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I teach my 7 yr old the concept of democracy. I tell him politicians are on the whole decent people. He’s met some of our local M.P’s so he knows they don’t have horns. Other than witnessing the odd political discussion, any more detail is unnecessary and inappropriate. I just want to know where all the strong feminist woman in Labour went. The ones who might be more concerned about the kind of stuff that keeps me awake at night.
http://the-yeas-or-nays-have-it.blogspot.com/2011/11/behind-every-baby-that-has-dies-of.html
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Daigotsu goes full retard.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:28 pm
“An injury and she’s battling with ACC over her eligibility”
lol of course she is. Just a battler that mum!
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:28 pm
RickRowling (12:56pm) – excellent point that you raise!
Curran will have to shut her neck if she wants to criticise young kids being indoctrinated into the religious beliefs of their caregivers. But I wouldn’t hold my breath – with her track record of hypocritical double standards, she is too thick to see that it is no different from polluting the nippers with bullshit leftwing propaganda.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Red Alert shows their true hearts, they know better and we should do as we are told.
Shouldn’t be allowed to drive a bus let alone stand for parliament, either of them.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Daigotsu has a very unpopular and macabre point.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Bottom of the barrel stuff from a bottom of the barrel politician like Curran.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Didn’t Clare Curran take over from David Benson-Pope? He liked…. no; better not go there
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Manolo –
National are a mile ahead in the polls. Try smiling, once in a while.
It makes people wonder what you’ve been up to
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:49 pm
They could get the kids to wear special uniforms and arm bands and they could be called ‘Labour Youth’ they could feed information about their parents and family friends back to the labour Party proper, they could then send around senior party officals in the middle of the night for re-education programs of any parent/friend not towing the party line. Ultimately these children could then grow to become future leaders of the Labour party and so on it would go.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:50 pm
all the other kids with the pumped up kicks……
Thanks Daigotsu, going to have that tune in my head all day now.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:53 pm
hahaha, well Clare has responded…
Clare – ” Kids are smart. And honest. They call things how they see them”
NZclassicalliberal – “Clare, knowing that it’s wrong to kill or steal doesn’t mean that 7 or 8 year olds have anything interesting ir worthwhile to say on the subject of economic policy. ”
Clares response…”@NZclassicalliberal that’s just bullshit”
good to see logical debate in action from our MPs.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:54 pm
My 7yo couldn’t care less about politics. However, my 9yo son is involved in a ‘political party’ dreamt up by one of his class mates, all about more rights for the kids – not that I think that they need more rights!
I’m glad they’re showing an interest and getting involved in their OWN way…
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I get it now, now I know why Liarbore shut the mental hospitals. Liarbore was in recruiting mode.
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Had to check the headline “Labour Likes Them Young….”
For a few seconds I wondered whether this post could have been related to an incident in Miramar earlier this year…. Heh.
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:17 pm
# immigant (383) Says:
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Filthy commie scum. Children have no place in politics. Just trying to raise another generation of retard uni students that think money comes out of the sky and not from taxes.
Ah, so by “no place in politics” you mean they shouldn’t be exposed to viewpoints you dislike. Rather they should be taught the values and ideals of your preferred political ideology.
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Elaycee (2:06pm) – no, Dazza’s predilection is only for teenage boys, hopefully not 7 year olds…but I can understand your initial assumption!
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:29 pm
DPF said “This is why Labour will have no hesitation about running a much dirtier campaign than other parties. Because if you truly truly think that your opponents are evil and wrong, then the ends justifies the means.”
David, it is the fundamental difference between the left and right.
The left has no interest in finding out if so called facts are the truth that is simply “inconvenient”
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:35 pm
With respect David this is hypocritical nonsense from the political right. How many religious conservatives on your side of the fence? How many of them indoctrinate their kids in Church? Do 7 year olds have the mental faculty to be able to evaluate the pros and cons of various philosophical arguments on religion? Nope.
In fact do they even have the mental faculty to be able to evaluate the philosophical arguments on morality and basic values? No they don’t. They are spoon fed this stuff from their parents and this is just the way it is.
I have absolutely no problem with parents raising their kids according to their world view whether that be religious nonsense or political nonsense. What I do oppose is parents chastising their children for raising questions or having a disagreement and if you ask me that is much more likely with religion than politics. In any case I see no evidence of that here, just a 7 year old with an opinion likely borrowed from her mother.
This is no different to taking a child to church. In fact it’s probably better because at least it concerns things that actually exist!
[DPF: Umm on my side of the fence I have no religious conservatives. Have you not worked that out yet?]
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Weihana
Ah, so by “no place in politics” you mean they shouldn’t be exposed to viewpoints you dislike. Rather they should be taught the values and ideals of your preferred political ideology.
Uuuummmmm where exactly in my post did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth, it’s pathetic. If you’re going to Troll at least do it right.
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:46 pm
@ Weihana I’m a religious conservative and I go to the same Church as my nieces and newphews, I present them the evidence for God’s existence and the reasons why being socially conservative and economically liberal are in line with reality. I also present the other side of the arguments (mainly so they won’t be fooled by Godless lefty garbage).
The success, health and happiness I’ve enjoyed give me good grounds to do so and I make sure I inform them that ultimately they have to make up their own minds whether they want to be God fearing, liberty loving, gun owning, productive, capitalists or envious little pinko toads. Clare and the other commies don’t even inform their progeny that there is another side of the argument.
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:55 pm
I would like to call for more considerate understanding of CURRAN and the parents. It is clear that they themselves were indoctrinated with hatred as infants and they know no better. Similar to the Mongrel Mob who pass their culture down through the generations also.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:09 pm
immigant (384) Says:
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:41 pm
I made an inference based on your explanation of why it is bad to mix children and politics because they will grow up and think “money comes out of the sky and not from taxes”. Your argument, at least to me, appeared to be based on the type of views they would end up having and not on whether it was appropriate given their age and mental capabilities.
Problem here is some seem to draw this arbitrary line between what is considered “politics” and what is considered “basic values”. Consider this comment which David quoted:
“Teach them right and wrong i.e. good values and leave the rest of the indoctrination stuff out of it. …”
Yet how is teaching children right and wrong not indoctrination? Of course it’s indoctrination. Kids cannot generally appreciate the complex justifications for moral arguments. We do not reason with children about right and wrong, we tell them what is right and wrong and we impose consequences for bad behaviour.
Moreover, you cannot draw an arbitrary line between morality and politics. One’s morality often has a profound effect on one’s politics and it is not credible for conservatives to argue that their morality does not tend to also indoctrinate their kids in political ideology that is associated with those moral values.
I think we can rest assured that your kids will not (or would not) grow up and think money grows on trees precisely because they can observe how you express yourself and imitate it. The same thing is true of kids whose parents are opposed to asset sales.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Jeremy Harris (278) Says:
November 22nd, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“Godless lefty garbage”
“envious little pinko toads”
“they have to make up their own minds”
So basically you tell them “you make up your own mind… of course if you disagree with me you’re a godless piece of lefty garbage and an envious little pinko toad.”
But, yeah… totally their decision!
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
My 15-year-old daughter is watching the news, asking questions and commenting on the various political parties. My wife and I are very careful not to lead her down any one path; we simply explain the history of various politicians, how the political system works, and so on. She isn’t particularly interested in politics, but obviously needs to keep up with current affairs if for no other reason than she has to write essays at school
It’s led to some interesting discussions; for example, why some politicians have moved from one party to another, while others stay in the same party year after year. She feels some politicians are too old to do the job (I think that was Winston
). I have no idea how she would vote if she was old enough. She is quite keen on some of the Greens’ policies, being involved in an environmental group at school; has some sympathy for Maori issues but isn’t overly impressed by Hone; she believes in the value of education and knows that if you want to make it in the world you put in the hard yards. She tells her older sister off for not managing her finances properly.
So hopefully that keeps you happy Weihana. And you may be happy to know that we take her to church with us, and our attitude is similar. I have certainly never chastised her for raising questions. And I think she receives plenty of opposing opinions from her peers at school.
You think God doesn’t exist? You’re entitled to that opinion, just as I’m entitled to my opinion that He most certainly does.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:21 pm
DPF,
Well I don’t think you personally are a religious conservative. Obviously not. But I was responding to your general criticism of what is “so common” in Labour, as well as other comments made here which make this distinction between those on the left and those on the right.
This looks like partisan cheer-leading to me. Plenty of people on the right indoctrinate their kids in their political values and this is often unavoidable because, as I said just before, moral values and politics are not necessarily distinct. Moreover, there are plenty on the right, this blog is clear evidence of that, who see those on the left as basically evil and not just mistaken. “Godless lefty garbage” is a fairly typical example.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Weihana
I lost my self in that deluge of pompous academic demagogy but struggled through and came up with a reply without too many inferences.
“some seem to draw this arbitrary line between what is considered “politics” and what is considered “basic values”. ”
I think some people just think it’s wrong how Labour consistently draws children into politics in an effort to swell their rank. This is just the latest in a long line of episodes where Labour politicians are aggressively promoting politics to children.
Then a few years later these children vote stupid shit through, like interest free student loans or what ever the fuck suits Labour at the time.
Hope that’s clear enough so you don’t have to make shit up and then say that I said it first
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Very eloquently put Graham, especially the last sentence.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:29 pm
graham,
Indeed. And is there any evidence that this 7 year old has been treated any different? Is there evidence she is put in time out when she doesn’t criticize National policy? Or, more likely, is she just a typical child who is no stranger to what her parents believe and happilly adopts their view points because, like most children, she loves her parents.
The criticism I do have for Curran is trying to use a 7 year old’s picture for political mileage. That’s just pathetic. I don’t want to know a 7 year old’s opinion. To characterize this 7 year old has “highly politically aware” is laughable.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Ran out of time to edit the comment – bl**dy manager wanting me to do real work …
Just as a follow-up, we also took the older daughter to church. She moved away from the church in her teens (as many teenagers do), checked out Buddhism for a while, then moved back towards Christianity but is currently just cruising along in life without any real beliefs. Same for her political leanings.
We just tried to teach both children the core values we strongly believe in, and let them make up their own minds about other stuff. And I don’t think any of the political parties have a monopoly on upholding core values, or running them down sometimes.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:33 pm
immigant,
I agree it’s stupid to cite the opinion of a 7 year old. But I see no evidence that there is some sort of aggressive promotion of political ideology on children. 7 year olds also draw pictures of their grandparents in heaven with God. Is this aggressive promotion of religion? Or is it just 7 year olds believing what their parents believe?
Also, young people don’t support interest free student loans because of some Labour campaign to indoctrinate kids. They support it because THEY’RE STUDENTS just like the elderly support policies that benefit them.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:36 pm
This is an outrageous accusation. Everyone knows Charles Chauvel (future Labour prime minister) HATES children.
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:45 pm
I only read the headline, are you talking about this Australian ex-Labor MP?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/exmp-guilty-of-sex-with-child-prostitute-20111122-1nrg0.html#ixzz1eN8opy5W
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:56 pm
…. so does Graham Capill …
November 22nd, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I wonder if Graham Capill’s old Christian Heritage party has anything to do with Colin Craig’s Conservatives?
November 22nd, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“I don’t want to know a 7 year old’s opinion.”
We hear it all the time from Goff – “that is not fair”
November 22nd, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Weihana,
Teaching kids right from wrong is hardly indoctrination. I would call that educating them to make good choices.
To my mind indoctrination is imprinting belief structures with little room for flexibility or question.
If you use the example of what most societies consider right and wrong (including religion which you obviously derise) most have very common tenants.
Personally I think overt pushing of political ideology of any kind on kids says a lot about the parents.
November 22nd, 2011 at 4:38 pm
But only one of us has the burden of proof. And until that burden is satisfied, only one of us can claim to have the weight of evidence on our side.
November 22nd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Salacious Crumb (4) Says:
November 22nd, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Weihana,
Teaching kids right from wrong is hardly indoctrination. I would call that educating them to make good choices.
To my mind indoctrination is imprinting belief structures with little room for flexibility or question.
Do parents leave flexibility with regards the wrongness of hitting other children? Of course not. That’s not to say there also isn’t education but primarily children are indoctrinated according to common standards of acceptable behaviour insofar as it is impractical for children to make up their own mind about how to behave and what to believe.
But I would also say there are other more subtle forms of indoctrination. Children are impressionable and will look up to their parents. A parent consistently expressing overtly negative viewpoints with regards to certain political ideologies and groups will likely have the effect of indoctrinating the child so as to adopt the viewpoints of his or her parents. Questioning is dissuaded through fear of losing love and respect from the parent which makes no secret of how they feel about the group which they view negatively. A child trusts their parents and if their parents think so negatively about certain political ideologies then they must have good reason.
I imagine this is what has happened in this case. The child constantly hears her mother’s opinion on asset sales and adopts it and draws a picture. Big deal if you ask me. I don’t see this as showing how Labour is aggressively trying to indoctrinate youth.
As they grow older they’ll (hopefully) progressively start to question more and more of the assumptions which they have borrowed from their parents.
November 22nd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Yes it is. It is just a doctrine you like.
November 22nd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Labour likes them young….true, & this would go for any organisation where faith trumps reason. The saying, “give me a child for for his first seven years and I’ll give you the man”, (ascribed to the Jesuits) attests to the success of brainwashing starting from an early age.
The poor little buggers never have a chance
November 22nd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I wish WordPress allowed us to have customisable signatures at the bottom of every post.
That quote above would TOTALLY be the one I’d use
RRM – Envious little pinko toad
November 22nd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Meh, big deal. I was indoctrinated into Christianity at a much earlier age, to the extent that I was threatened with eternal torture if I didn’t comply. Still managed to shake it off.
Think the title of this post, “Labour likes them young” is pretty tacky.
November 22nd, 2011 at 5:46 pm
… and here you are Scott. Addicted to KB.
The eternal torture that you were promised.
November 22nd, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Someone at Red Alert posted about “the fury of the right when confronted with.. oh right… a piece of child’s art!!”?
So I’ve replied:
‘Tell you what, I’ll take your “fury of the right” and raise you a “fury of Darien Fenton when the Mad Butcher DARES to say something nice about John Key”.
Oh, I’ll also add in a “fury of the left (assumption on my part, I’ll admit) at seeing Maggie Barrie and spitting in front of her”.
And let’s round that off with “the nastiness of the left in telling Maggie Barrie that she’s not welcome in a cafe because it’s ‘red’”.
I would’ve thought they’d let her in because of her hair
’
.
.
.
Wonder if it’ll get past moderation?
November 22nd, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Moreover, there are plenty on the right, this blog is clear evidence of that, who see those on the left as basically evil and not just mistaken. “Godless lefty garbage” is a fairly typical example.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all leftist atheists and evil, however on the whole I don’t think those on the left are evil, just dangerous, misguided, fools who think their Robin Hood mindset somehow confers on them a morality by manner of their proxy to forced charity.
But only one of us has the burden of proof. And until that burden is satisfied, only one of us can claim to have the weight of evidence on our side.
This is illogical. The neutral position in response to the question, “Does God exist?” is agnosticism, i.e. one cannot know one way or the other. Atheism makes the definitive claim that there is no God, that position must be backed up with evidence to support it, in the same manner my belief that God does exist must be backed up with evidence in support of the proposition.
November 22nd, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Graham
Not a chance
November 22nd, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Nice work thedavincimode
November 22nd, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I agree it’s stupid to cite the opinion of a 7 year old. But I see no evidence that there is some sort of aggressive promotion of political ideology on children. 7 year olds also draw pictures of their grandparents in heaven with God.
Weihana don’t you know seven year old children don’t need the ways of the world in terms of whose evil and whose not bought home to them in any other than fantasy ways. Like Pinnochio and a thousand others ways.
It’s only if one viewed G-d as sinister that one would see something objectionable with injecting an image of G-d at that stage, for G-d is good, according to all the literature. Therefore such an image is beneficial to children at that age. Provided of course one doesn’t view G-d as sinister, but if one DOES view G-d as sinister, then what does that make one, according to conventional wisdom?
Seriously though, Liarbore step way beyond the pale and apparently don’t themselves perceive this. To the contrary they instead aggressively defend this abhorrent propaganda which is every bit as emotive as this, (yeah yeah Godwin’s Law, Schmodwin’s Law).
If you vote for Liarbore this Saturday, the people you vote for are capable of this!
It’s up to you. (Wot’s the ASCII/HTML code for one of those pointy finger symbols?_TBC)
November 22nd, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Jeremy Harris says:- “The neutral position in response to the question, “Does God exist?” is agnosticism”
That is assuming that “does God exist?” is a valid question. For starters, what is God?
>>”Atheism makes the definitive claim that there is no God, that position must be backed up with evidence to support it”
So saying fairies don’t exist must be backed up by evidence? I would have thought their non-existence is self evident.
Dav- torture? Nah I heart Kblog.
November 22nd, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Can we stick to the thread please? About what scum Liarbore activists are and listing and dissecting the many many ways in which they are basically by definition, the very very worst people in the whole world?
Can we keep doing that please?
November 22nd, 2011 at 7:38 pm
reid says:- “Can we stick to the thread please? About what scum Liarbore activists are and listing and dissecting the many many ways”
Nah that’s what you continually bang on about. The thread was originally about indoctrination, so we are trying to establish whether or not telling a 7 year old that John Key is going to sell all her fish is acceptable.
The red worm thread is more suitable for torrents of vitriolic abuse. Or why not ask Whale why he hates lefties so much. Point is, both sides are equally hateful and both blithely accuse one another of being hateful.
Might be because you hate each other.
November 22nd, 2011 at 7:59 pm
The thread was originally about indoctrination, so we are trying to establish whether or not telling a 7 year old that John Key is going to sell all her fish is acceptable.
Yes I know Scott. Normally I can just about keep up but thanks for the reminder.
Point is, both sides are equally hateful and both blithely accuse one another of being hateful. Might be because you hate each other.
But they’re not Scott this is the point. It is demonstrable the Nats don’t engage in this. Demonstrable. The last time they came even into the same ballpark was with the iwi-kiwi billboards and if you think those are anything like these then pray tell. So as far as I can see, my side is ethical, the other is not when it comes to propaganda. I’m not sure in fact why there is any disagreement over this.
You take all of them – the brochures to mums and to housing corp tenants and the worm and the timetable, timed release, so convenient, smacks of collusion. If you choose to label all of this coincidence Scott, I’m afraid in my book, you’re not neutral my friend, you’re either ignorant therefore deluded or you’re
evilon their side. Pick one and only one.November 22nd, 2011 at 8:32 pm
So saying fairies don’t exist must be backed up by evidence? I would have thought their non-existence is self evident.
If God exists, then God is the ultimate being, changeless, timeless, massless, personal and the greatest good, that is self evident and almost universally accepted among philosophers. God’s existence can be reasonably shown with evidence on the balance of probabilities, furthermore your and my existence must be explained which is where the God/no God debate usually focuses. Dawkins understand that atheism must be supported by evidence and spends a lot of time in the book The God Delusion trying to tear down the sound theistic arguments for God and then tries to replace them with atheistic ones instead.
Comparing the God debate to a debate about fairies is childish.
November 22nd, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Jeremy Harris (280) Says:
November 22nd, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Simply asserting that something is self-evident does not make it so. Appealing to the authority of “philosophers” likewise does not lend your argument any credibility or validity. Indeed, appealing to the authority of “philosophers” has got to be one of the more ridiculous appeals to authority as philosophical opinions are about as numerous as pictures drawn by 7 year old girls.
There is no evidence, whether on the balance of probabilities or otherwise, which shows that anything in the Universe is an “ultimate being” which is “changeless” or “timeless”. The only thing that appears to be “massless” is gauge bosons and there is no evidence that such particles are “personal” or take an interest in our ethical dilemmas.
Our existence should be explained, I agree, but even if we ignore the mountain of evidence for evolution our ignorance would not justify an assumption that some supernatural being did it. If we are ignorant all that can be concluded is that we are ignorant. To arbitrarily pluck an explanation out of thin air is not sound and is not likely to be correct on the balance of probabilities given that an infinite number of imaginary explanations can be conjured up to explain observations and there is no reason to pick a “God” explanation versus any other.
Atheism does not need to be supported by evidence because properly stated it is not a definite assertion about reality. Atheism is a presumption based on a lack of evidence. If confronted with evidence to the contrary a rational atheist will accept the existence of God. Rational atheism is an example of the theory that in the absence of evidence for the existence of something then that something probably doesn’t exist. In this regard “God” is very much the same as fairies. Calling people “childish” does not negate the similarity of these propositions.
November 22nd, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Jeremy Harris says:- “furthermore your and my existence must be explained which is where the God/no God debate usually focuses”
Well this may be of comfort to you, because I do have a possible explanation. It is based on the idea that in the beginning* there was “nothing”. If one assumes that “nothing” is infinite, then in an infinite probability field, anything is possible, from a Godless quantum fluctuation leading to a big bang, to an omnipotent God who looks like Zeus, and who built the world in 6 days some 6000 years ago. Or fairies for that matter. (which I was using to illustrate a point which you appear to have missed)
Problem for you though, is you appear to be in the wrong universe.
*Of course there would never be a “beginning” as such, as infinite nothingness has no beginning.
November 23rd, 2011 at 9:26 am
There is no evidence, whether on the balance of probabilities or otherwise, which shows that anything in the Universe is an “ultimate being” which is “changeless” or “timeless”.
Of course there is, the Big Bang itself is evidence for the beginning of the Universe – a creation event and by it’s nature we can determine that at that moment space, time, mass and energy began, therefore if God existed before these things began, God must be spaceless, timeless, massless and transcend energy and God must be personal in nature because 13.7 billion years ago God choose to begin our Universe’s existence. We can therefore determine God’ nature as essentially an all powerful mind who, despite your writing off of all of philoshopy, has as the dominate feature of love.
Evolution has some holes but it is generally a well formed theory and there is no reason to believe that it disproves God. You both make the mistake of believing that all Christians believe that the Universe is 6,000 years old and that all Christianity denounces the theory of evolution outright. I recently saw a presentation (online) by two (English if I remember correctly and not Christians) scientists who showed the 10 major evolutionary steps (in their opinion) from single cell to human and stated that the statistical probability of each was so remote that the sun would have expanded and consumed the Earth by the time we appeared, 600 million years just isn’t that much time. In that context the pre-Cambrian explosion and the accelerated state we are currently in are quite clear evidence for a supernatural agent at work within the process.
It is based on the idea that in the beginning* there was “nothing”. If one assumes that “nothing” is infinite, then in an infinite probability field, anything is possible, from a Godless quantum fluctuation leading to a big bang, to an omnipotent God who looks like Zeus, and who built the world in 6 days some 6000 years ago. Or fairies for that matter. (which I was using to illustrate a point which you appear to have missed)
Problem for you though, is you appear to be in the wrong universe.
*Of course there would never be a “beginning” as such, as infinite nothingness has no beginning.
I find it curious that a person is happy to believe in the eternality of nothing, yet the eternality of essentially a mind (which the person themselves possesses, although not all powerful) is considered a belief worthy of ridicule.
The problem with your argument is the recent proof provided by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.
Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
Atheism is as old as theism, however the atheists of old were a lot more brilliant than those today. It seems that the deeper we delve into the nature of the Universe, the better understanding of God we get and the explanations to attempt to explain God away get more proposterous.
November 23rd, 2011 at 11:43 am
# Jeremy Harris (281) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 9:26 am
Of course there is, the Big Bang itself is evidence for the beginning of the Universe – a creation event and by it’s nature we can determine that at that moment space, time, mass and energy began, therefore if God existed before these things began, God must be spaceless, timeless, massless and transcend energy
The so-called Big Bang is merely a theory that says since Galaxies are all retreating from one another then if the clock is wound backwards they must have all been in the same place at one time. This implies little about what that moment was actually like and nothing about what may have come “before” it. It is all speculation though tentative theories have been put forward that the “big bang” wasn’t actually the beggining of existence itself and that there are other “universes” or states of existence beyound what we can visibly see. The WMAP experiment hints at such possibilities.
But it is meaningless to conjure up entities, such as God, which have no basis in fact and then to ascribe attributes to this made up entity based on speculation about states of existence which are beyond our knowledge.
and God must be personal in nature because 13.7 billion years ago God choose to begin our Universe’s existence.
Circular logic. It is personal merely because you assume it as a premise. That is, you assume that the beggining of the Universe was a “choice” and if we define “personhood” as being able to choose then such an entity must be personal. But all you’ve done is made up the idea that such an imaginary being chose to start the Universe. This is no different to making up stories about fairies or hob goblins to explain things you don’t understand.
We can therefore determine God’ nature as essentially an all powerful mind who, despite your writing off of all of philoshopy, has as the dominate feature of love.
I haven’t written off all of philosophy. I’ve simply criticized you for using the word “philosophy” as if it somehow lends credibility to your argument. Everyone’s a philosopher.
Evolution has some holes but it is generally a well formed theory and there is no reason to believe that it disproves God. You both make the mistake of believing that all Christians believe that the Universe is 6,000 years old and that all Christianity denounces the theory of evolution outright.
I agree that the theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of a supernatural being that created the Universe. It doesn’t need to. It does disprove, however, the story of Genesis.
I recently saw a presentation (online) by two (English if I remember correctly and not Christians) scientists who showed the 10 major evolutionary steps (in their opinion) from single cell to human and stated that the statistical probability of each was so remote that the sun would have expanded and consumed the Earth by the time we appeared, 600 million years just isn’t that much time. In that context the pre-Cambrian explosion and the accelerated state we are currently in are quite clear evidence for a supernatural agent at work within the process.
This is so typical of religious people. You assume that human ignorance is proof of supernatural agents. For instance we don’t know how the Big Bang worked exactly so a religious person says “See, God did it!”. How you can entertain such ridiculous arguments is beyond me.
In this case I’m not familiar with the specifics of what you are talking about, but even assuming it is accurate that is not evidence for anything supernatural. Simply not knowing how something works is not evidence that God makes it work.
Atheism is as old as theism, however the atheists of old were a lot more brilliant than those today. It seems that the deeper we delve into the nature of the Universe, the better understanding of God we get and the explanations to attempt to explain God away get more proposterous.
Explain what away? There is nothing to explain away. You merely assume human ignorance is proof of the supernatural. It’s preposterous.
I have no problem entertaining the possibility of many things whether they be aliens, alternate universes, and even supernatural “Gods”. But it is not tenable to say that any such ideas can be believed on evidence. They are, at least at this point, imaginary and speculative.
The onus is on you to prove God, it is not on atheists to explain him away. Ignorance is not evidence of the supernatural and in the absence of any actual evidence of the existence of God then the most reasonable presumption is that such a thing doesn’t exist.
November 23rd, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Jeremy Harris says:- “I find it curious that a person is happy to believe in the eternality of nothing, yet the eternality of essentially a mind (which the person themselves possesses, although not all powerful) is considered a belief worthy of ridicule.”
I think this statement sums up our relative positions quite well, although I don’t actually believe in the eternality of nothing, or the speculative theory that I proposed. I’m not one to jump to conclusions and I don’t consider myself an atheist either. More of a pantheistic Spinozan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:44 pm
The so-called Big Bang is merely a theory that says since Galaxies are all retreating from one another then if the clock is wound backwards they must have all been in the same place at one time. This implies little about what that moment was actually like and nothing about what may have come “before” it. It is all speculation though tentative theories have been put forward that the “big bang” wasn’t actually the beggining of existence itself and that there are other “universes” or states of existence beyound what we can visibly see. The WMAP experiment hints at such possibilities.
But it is meaningless to conjure up entities, such as God, which have no basis in fact and then to ascribe attributes to this made up entity based on speculation about states of existence which are beyond our knowledge.
From memory it was Hawking himself who worked on and provided the mathematic proof for the singularity. The Big Bang is a theory in the same way the Theory of Relativity is a theory, i.e. it has a mathematic proof and fits all observable data (the recent event at CERN regarding the speed of light notwithstanding). Furthermore as I’ve already shown even if there was a state of nothingness or a “multiverse” preceeding the Big Bang the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem provided a mathematical proof that this state must have also had a beginning.
When atheists pose the “Who created God?” question, theists can now ask the exact same question, “If nothing preceeded the Universe who created the nothing?”.
I’m astounded to hear an atheist claim that the Big Bang is “merely a theory” if one is to worship science I’d expect a basic understanding of it.
I haven’t written off all of philosophy. I’ve simply criticized you for using the word “philosophy” as if it somehow lends credibility to your argument. Everyone’s a philosopher.
The overwhelming majority of professional academic philoshophers agree that if God does exist than God’s nature will be that of the greatest good. When I stated that initially (albeit unclearly) you stated that philosophy lends no credibility to an argument, in one go writing off the works Aristotle, Plato and Descarte, et. al. as irrelevant – which is of course rubbish. Saying that we all are philosophers is like saying we’re all economists because we spend money.
It does disprove, however, the story of Genesis.
Again you are incorrect, Thomas Aquinas stated in the 3rd century that if Christians attempted to portray Genesis as a scientific text they will look foolish, the age of the Universe and evolution (to a certain extent) can be reconciled with Genesis. For example it is presumed Moses wrote Genesis via revelation, the “7 days” in Genesis could refer to the days on which he recieved each revelation, there are many interpretations. Literal scientific interpretations of Genesis are a modern and largely American Evangelical phenomenon.
This is so typical of religious people. You assume that human ignorance is proof of supernatural agents. For instance we don’t know how the Big Bang worked exactly so a religious person says “See, God did it!”. How you can entertain such ridiculous arguments is beyond me.
In this case I’m not familiar with the specifics of what you are talking about, but even assuming it is accurate that is not evidence for anything supernatural. Simply not knowing how something works is not evidence that God makes it work.
First of all, I’m not religious, Christianity isn’t about religion, or following a massive number of rules to establish one’s salvation it’s about establishing a relationship with God. Secondly what you are talking about is the so called “God of the gaps” arguments of which there are many. I carefully distinguish when talking to atheists what are “God of the gaps” arguments I think are currently beyond science but could ultimately be explained by it and arguments for God based on either scientific evidence or arguments outside the scope of science. The agrue about the speed at which evolution has acted in our world is most definitely not a “God of the gaps” argument, because evolution is a known theory and is observable in our world. Scientists can measure and perform experiments to ascertain how it acts. If a set development is calculated to have taken, say, 10,000,000,000 years based on experimental data but has only taken 600,000,000 years in theories we don’t understand that would be a “God of the gaps” argument, but in the case of evolution it leads to questions outside of science’s ability to answer. In my timeframe a 1500% decrease is not a rounding error.
The onus is on you to prove God, it is not on atheists to explain him away. Ignorance is not evidence of the supernatural and in the absence of any actual evidence of the existence of God then the most reasonable presumption is that such a thing doesn’t exist.
You seem to be unable (or more likely unwilling) to grasp my initial point, that if an atheist makes the definitive statement there is no God, then they must back that up with evidence, as Dawkins in particular attempts to. He and others in the new atheists understand that without God three questions must be answered, Origin, problem, solution, i.e. Where did we come from? Why is the world not perfect? How do we fix it? For an atheist all three must be explained to the satisfaction of reason and logic in the same way the Christian must do the same. Therefore the onus of proof is on both to prove the validity behind their statements, in this case the statement around Origin. The only person who gets a holiday is the agnostic. I can provide evidence for God that on the balance of probabilities that satisfies my reason and logic and I believe should satisfy any reasonable person, I must do as I used to be an atheist, they are not “God of the gaps” arguments and fall under various categories, scientific, philosophical, historical, personal.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:51 pm
In my timeframe a 1500% decrease is not a rounding error.
That should read a 93% decrease.
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Jeremy Harris says “You seem to be unable (or more likely unwilling) to grasp my initial point, that if an atheist makes the definitive statement there is no God, then they must back that up with evidence…”
Why? If there is no evidence that something exists why should someone who doesn’t believe it exists have to prove it? I would say the onus is on you, not the other way round.
Anyway, the original discussion was about the indoctrination of children into a particular political position. It then evolved to include religious indoctrination. Whether or not God exists is not the issue. The issue is should children be brain-washed in this way? I concur with Dawkins’ opinion that there is no such thing as a Christian child, or a Muslim child, just a child with Christian or Muslim parents.
November 24th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Why? If there is no evidence that something exists why should someone who doesn’t believe it exists have to prove it? I would say the onus is on you, not the other way round.
Because, as I’ve already stated there is evidence, the most basic being your existence. The onus of proof is on both to demonstrate the validity of their definite statements. This isn’t really a hard concept to grasp.
As usual Dawkins ignores (or is unaware) of some basic research showing that children (regardless of parents) have a born belief in the existence of God.
November 24th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
# Jeremy Harris (286) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:44 pm
From memory it was Hawking himself who worked on and provided the mathematic proof for the singularity.
The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems prove that, according to General Relativity, within an event horizon a singularity must exist. But this gives us limited knowledge of what a singularity is like and what laws of physics govern its behaviour. Moreover, quantum effects at small distances and the unreliability of general relativity to describe nature on small scales raises the possibility that singularities don’t even exist.
Singularities are hideous things. They tend to represent our ignorance and the incompleteness of a theory to describe nature. We really do not know if singularites exist. You ever seen one? If they do we don’t know what physical laws they obey and it is ridiculous to talk of mystical supernatural entities which may have something to do with these things which may or may not exist and which we have limited ability to describe.
Furthermore as I’ve already shown even if there was a state of nothingness or a “multiverse” preceeding the Big Bang the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem provided a mathematical proof that this state must have also had a beginning.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is indeed a mathematical argument that, even considering higher-dimensional cosmologies, such universes must still have a past boundary which require initial conditions. However, Hawking’s “no boundary proposal” raises the possibility of “imaginary time” by converting the 4th time dimension to a spacial dimension using imaginary numbers. When one considers the time dimension in the same sense as a spacial dimension one can visualize time like a circle or a sphere. While there is a finite circumference or surface area, there is no beginning or end.
When atheists pose the “Who created God?” question, theists can now ask the exact same question, “If nothing preceeded the Universe who created the nothing?”.
Since when did nothing require creation? That would seem a contradiction in terms. By definition anything created constitutes “something” which is the opposite of “nothing”. I think the more appropriate question would be how can something eventuate from nothing.
I’m astounded to hear an atheist claim that the Big Bang is “merely a theory” if one is to worship science I’d expect a basic understanding of it.
I did not use the word “merely” in the sense that a creationist would refer to evolution as an attempt to discredit it. I was using the word “merely” to indicate that our knowledge of the “big bang” is limited and incomplete and goes nowhere near supporting your conclusion on a supposed creator and attributes such a being might have.
The overwhelming majority of professional academic philoshophers agree that if God does exist than God’s nature will be that of the greatest good.
It matters very little what they agree upon. Indeed it is a pointless proposition as it merely defines “goodness” in relation to this imaginary universe creating entity. As such the proposition is a tautology. But I would nevertheless be interested to see this survey of “professional academic philosophers” that you rely upon to make your assertion.
Saying that we all are philosophers is like saying we’re all economists because we spend money.
Fair point, but the reality is that anyone can cite a philosophy or philosopher to support just about anything.
…the age of the Universe and evolution (to a certain extent) can be reconciled with Genesis. For example it is presumed Moses wrote Genesis via revelation, the “7 days” in Genesis could refer to the days on which he recieved each revelation, there are many interpretations. Literal scientific interpretations of Genesis are a modern and largely American Evangelical phenomenon.
If it is not taken literally then it is meaningless. Distorting and reshaping the literal text to try and match scientific discoveries is intellectually dishonest. Any ridiculous fairy tale can be “reinterpreted” to match scientific data. Occam’s razor is used to eliminate these overly complex theories in favour of simpler more reasonable ones which don’t require imaginative explanations for why a story doesn’t fit with observations.
The agrue about the speed at which evolution has acted in our world is most definitely not a “God of the gaps” argument, because evolution is a known theory and is observable in our world.
The fact that we know species have evolved does not mean we know everything about exactly how they evolved and the biological and physical processes which enabled this.
Scientists can measure and perform experiments to ascertain how it acts. If a set development is calculated to have taken, say, 10,000,000,000 years based on experimental data but has only taken 600,000,000 years in theories we don’t understand that would be a “God of the gaps” argument, but in the case of evolution it leads to questions outside of science’s ability to answer.
Rubbish. The calculation, and its underlying assumptions, could simply be wrong. That we are unable to answer something does not prove that the question is unanswerable. That there is a huge discrepancy between what we expect and what we observe does not prove that science has reached its limit.
You seem to be unable (or more likely unwilling) to grasp my initial point, that if an atheist makes the definitive statement there is no God, then they must back that up with evidence
Impossible to prove that God definitely doesn’t exist. What an atheist should do is make the rational presumption that God doesn’t exist for lack of evidence. When one considers the set of things which may exist it is much more likely that most of them will not exist thus the rational presumption is that in the absence of evidence it probably doesn’t exist.
Any theory about what does exist necessarily contains within it the presumption that contradictory theories must be wrong even though they cannot be proven wrong absolutely. For instance a video tape of a crime may “prove” that person A killed person B. Yet one can conjure up an explanation that in fact the video is doctored and that in fact person C killed person B. But in the absence of evidence for such doctoring the rational presumption is that the video is accurate and that person A killed person B. This is an example of Occam’s razor. The simpler explanation is that the video is accurate as the alternative theory requires the existence of things unknown in addition to what is known.
…without God three questions must be answered, Origin, problem, solution, i.e. Where did we come from? Why is the world not perfect? How do we fix it?
God does not solve the problem of origin it simply creates a new entity for which we are prohibited from questioning its origin and must simply accept the proclamation that he is “eternal” simply because this is asserted to be the case. We are further prohibited from questioning why he is eternal, how he is eternal and what it means for such a thing to be eternal.
The question of perfection or remedy are moral questions which assume that morality represents absolute truths. I reject this. Morality, in accordance with Hume’s “is-ought problem”, is at best objective. That is, it is a tool by which people can evaluate the ability of certain principles of action to achieve desired outcomes. Thus it is an artificial construct to satisfy human desire and does not, and cannot, have a physical explanation seperate from, and independent of, our subjective values.
November 24th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
VVS1(1) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
I concur with Dawkins’ opinion that there is no such thing as a Christian child, or a Muslim child, just a child with Christian or Muslim parents.
I agree, but even with parents who are very careful not to force their religion upon their child, the reality is that children (particularly young children) tend to want to adopt the views of their parents and this is what I see in the case of a 7 year old who paints a picture about a political issue which her mother has no doubt talked about in the home. A child can take a position on asset sales just as they can take a position on the existence of God. That they do does not necessarily indicate that their parents are being overly forceful in pushing their views onto their child.
My mother was an atheist and so was I when I was a young child. Not because she labeled me as such but because I was inclined to agree with her given that she is my mother. Thankfully I still agree with her.
November 24th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Singularities are hideous things. They tend to represent our ignorance and the incompleteness of a theory to describe nature. We really do not know if singularites exist. You ever seen one? If they do we don’t know what physical laws they obey and it is ridiculous to talk of mystical supernatural entities which may have something to do with these things which may or may not exist and which we have limited ability to describe.
I must admit this is a new one on me, I haven’t yet heard of an atheist effectively denying the Big Bang, ToGR and singularities in one foul swoop, in my time studying at the UoA science department I didn’t hear one person questioning the validity of the work in these areas, although I did study in Biology and Chemistry mainly.
Nope I haven’t ever seen a singularity, have you ever seen a mind?
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is indeed a mathematical argument that, even considering higher-dimensional cosmologies, such universes must still have a past boundary which require initial conditions. However, Hawking’s “no boundary proposal” raises the possibility of “imaginary time” by converting the 4th time dimension to a spacial dimension using imaginary numbers. When one considers the time dimension in the same sense as a spacial dimension one can visualize time like a circle or a sphere. While there is a finite circumference or surface area, there is no beginning or end.
Given that one is a proof and the other is (at this stage) a figment of Hawking’s imagination, what is more reasonable to accept?
Since when did nothing require creation? That would seem a contradiction in terms. By definition anything created constitutes “something” which is the opposite of “nothing”. I think the more appropriate question would be how can something eventuate from nothing.
My point was that given the BGV theorem, atheists must face the fact that if they do not accept the Big Bang as a creation event, a state of nothingness/multiverse, et al state also requires explanation from a creation viewpoint.
I did not use the word “merely” in the sense that a creationist would refer to evolution as an attempt to discredit it. I was using the word “merely” to indicate that our knowledge of the “big bang” is limited and incomplete and goes nowhere near supporting your conclusion on a supposed creator and attributes such a being might have.
I remember a lecturer detailing what happened in the first second after the Big Bang down to thousands of a second, I’m sure I still have the lecture notes somewhere. We have an excellent knowledge of it in my opinion and CERN will fill in more of the gaps. Certainly more than enough to reasonably assume it was a real event eminating from a singularity.
But I would nevertheless be interested to see this survey of “professional academic philosophers” that you rely upon to make your assertion.
I’d have to dig through my notes, it’s a long time since I read the paper, online from memory.
If it is not taken literally then it is meaningless. Distorting and reshaping the literal text to try and match scientific discoveries is intellectually dishonest. Any ridiculous fairy tale can be “reinterpreted” to match scientific data. Occam’s razor is used to eliminate these overly complex theories in favour of simpler more reasonable ones which don’t require imaginative explanations for why a story doesn’t fit with observations.
I think you missed the point of my quote, namely the time at which Aquinas made it in the 3rd century, predating our current understanding of science. The text isn’t being reshaped to match scientific discoveries, it was taken too literally by Americans (mainly) beginning in the 1920s but at it’s heart Genesis is a book communicating deeper non scientific truths. The problem with Occam’s razor is that scientists are prone to ignore it and we often find that on the Macro and Micro scale things are massively more complex than we ever thought, i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter, the divisible parts of atoms, String theory, etc, etc. A creator God is not a complex theory or idea.
The calculation, and its underlying assumptions, could simply be wrong. That we are unable to answer something does not prove that the question is unanswerable. That there is a huge discrepancy between what we expect and what we observe does not prove that science has reached its limit.
The idea that science will discover a mechanism, at this point hidden, that increases the rate of evolution from that observable today to a rate 1500% higher is unlikely at best. It is tied in with the problem of how life arose, the test tube experiments supposedly showing the sequencing of amino acids in the early atmosphere were completely flawed, shockingly so. I take it you have faith science will answer these questions, my distinct impression from University is that science has barely scraped the surface and almost requires a “Rosetta stone” to begin to understand the processes in any more than a rudimentary form.
Impossible to prove that God definitely doesn’t exist. What an atheist should do is make the rational presumption that God doesn’t exist for lack of evidence.
The problem is there is plenty of evidence both in the natural and beyond, in my experience atheists are a closed minded group of people who do not accept any evidence except that which they deem to have derived from the natural in a manner of which they approve, also known as screwing the scrum. You’ve already demonstrated this by your attitude to philospohy and no doubt history and personal evidence. There are a multitude of things beyond science.
Ultimately as the theist has faith in that beyond the natural, you simply place your faith in the belief that one day science will provide the answers to all questions via the natural, it can’t and won’t.
Any theory about what does exist necessarily contains within it the presumption that contradictory theories must be wrong even though they cannot be proven wrong absolutely. For instance a video tape of a crime may “prove” that person A killed person B. Yet one can conjure up an explanation that in fact the video is doctored and that in fact person C killed person B. But in the absence of evidence for such doctoring the rational presumption is that the video is accurate and that person A killed person B. This is an example of Occam’s razor. The simpler explanation is that the video is accurate as the alternative theory requires the existence of things unknown in addition to what is known.
It’s a flawed analogy, it’s as if the tape is presented in court showing a crime and the Judge asks, “where did the tape come from?” and the prosecution says, “the tape exists, accept it and convict and in time we have faith our investigation will reveal how it came to be”.
The question of perfection or remedy are moral questions which assume that morality represents absolute truths. I reject this. Morality, in accordance with Hume’s “is-ought problem”, is at best objective. That is, it is a tool by which people can evaluate the ability of certain principles of action to achieve desired outcomes. Thus it is an artificial construct to satisfy human desire and does not, and cannot, have a physical explanation seperate from, and independent of, our subjective values.
And this is ultimately what atheism is all about, accepting no morality accept that which one sets for themselves. What you are arguing is that if the Nazi’s had won WW2 and wiped out anyone who opposed the holocaust, so the only people who remained thought it was a good thing, then the holocaust would have been a moral action because it did “achieve desired outcomes”. Because ultimately the universe doesn’t care what you do right?
What utter ridiculous nonsense.
November 24th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Jeremy Harris (288) Says:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
I haven’t yet heard of an atheist effectively denying the Big Bang, ToGR and singularities in one foul swoop
Nowhere did I deny such things. I agree that galaxies are moving away from one another and that in the past they were together in the same place. I agree that the cosmic background radiation is evidence for the “big bang”.
I also do not deny General Relativity. It has been enormously successful but it is not certain that the space-time singularities predicted by the theory exist in actuality. Quantum gravity is an ongoing area of research and from my understanding we know little about singularities other than the fact that General Relativity predicts their existence. But given that singularities would exist on very small scales it is rather premature to conclude their existence for certain much less the specific nature of their existence. We know very little about the laws that would govern a singularity and I don’t think we will know until General Relativity can be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics.
Given that one is a proof and the other is (at this stage) a figment of Hawking’s imagination, what is more reasonable to accept?
But what does it prove? It only proves that past time must be finite. This does not prove a beginning, you have merely assumed that finite time requires a beginning. But even if Hawking were wrong a requirement for initial conditions to spark the creation of the Universe does not imply the existence of God. Again you are simply using God as a placeholder for anything we don’t know. How did the Universe start? I don’t know. Oh, God did it then.
you simply place your faith in the belief that one day science will provide the answers to all questions via the natural, it can’t and won’t.
No I don’t. I have not said or implied such. If there is some fundamental reason why some things are unknowable to humans then so be it. What I am saying is that our ignorance of such things does not give us a logical reason to say “God did it” like you are doing.
It’s a flawed analogy, it’s as if the tape is presented in court showing a crime and the Judge asks, “where did the tape come from?” and the prosecution says, “the tape exists, accept it and convict and in time we have faith our investigation will reveal how it came to be”.
For every explanation provided by the prosecution of how the tape came to be one can offer an alternative explanation which fits all the evidence but which requires added assumptions. This is why criminal convictions are given when the evidence of guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt rather than all doubt. One can never remove all doubt which is why asserting the non existence of God as an absolute fact is irrational.
However I believe one can assert the non-existence of such beyond reasonable doubt depending on how you define God. For instance the Christian God can be dismissed beyond reasonable doubt. But if you define God in a way that conforms with all scientific knowledge and which doesn’t involve fairy tale nonsense like miracles, virgin birth and resurrection after death, then I would say that a purely agnostic stance would be the rational choice.
And this is ultimately what atheism is all about, accepting no morality accept that which one sets for themselves. What you are arguing is that if the Nazi’s had won WW2 and wiped out anyone who opposed the holocaust, so the only people who remained thought it was a good thing, then the holocaust would have been a moral action because it did “achieve desired outcomes”. Because ultimately the universe doesn’t care what you do right?
What utter ridiculous nonsense.
Lots of emotion there but precious little rational argument
I would never refer to Nazism as moral. But I consider the notion of moral absolutes to be an absurd proposition. I see no justification for morality being absolute. What is and what ought to be are two very different propositions and trying to make out like they are the same thing is meaningless. It amounts to nothing more than proof by assertion as is demonstrated by your complete lack of any rational argument and reliance on scaremongering and the suggestion that my ideas mean that Nazism is okay.
What I believe in is objective morality. This does not mean people can just set their own morality. It means that if people have certain values (such as life) then they must abide by those principles of action which history and common sense have shown uphold those values.
Also do not assume that all atheists share my view on ethics. Many believe in absolute morality because like you they want to believe in it. Truth is the Universe doesn’t care.
November 24th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Jeremy Harris says:- “Genesis is a book communicating deeper non scientific truths”
Subjective truths relevant to a desert tribe, which is now hopelessly anachronistic, although some parallels can be drawn.
>>”I take it you have faith science will answer these questions, my distinct impression from University is that science has barely scraped the surface”
Quite so, and that faith is an iron clad extrapolation based on objective measurement and rigorous scrutiny. The proof that scientific method works is literally at our fingertips. Perhaps the mechanics of the universe will prove to be akin to an eternal onion, with each successive layer revealing a new level of understanding, or we may find that the universe is underwritten by a few simple equations, the language of which we are yet to discover. Who knows?
>>”The problem with Occam’s razor is that scientists are prone to ignore it and we often find that on the Macro and Micro scale things are massively more complex than we ever thought, i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter”
You are applying Occam’s razor in the wrong way in this analogy. Occam’s razor is a probabilistic tool used to predict the most likely outcome of a series of events, not as a way of simplifying nature. Mind you, when/if dark energy and dark matter are explained, the explanation may appear convoluted and esoteric to nearly all humans, but will still be one simple step leading to another step when broken down into its individual components. The fact that one human mightn’t have the mental capacity to hold all those components in his head makes no difference. Everything is simple when viewed from the inside out.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
One final point about nothingness. ‘Nothing’ requires no creation, because it ‘isn’t’. The fact that stuff ‘is’ is really very odd, because it appears to have been derived from nothing, so if you want to, you can call the act of self creation ‘God’. But what you cannot do without proof, is ascribe it character and qualities that it doesn’t have. As far as I’m concerned, scientists and secular philosophers are in the business of attempting to accurately and objectively describe ‘God’. Those who assume they know who or what God is are overestimating their abilities and jumping to conclusions imo.
November 25th, 2011 at 10:19 am
But what does it prove? It only proves that past time must be finite. This does not prove a beginning, you have merely assumed that finite time requires a beginning.
Ha ha, well if proof of finite time does not prove a beginning I’m afraid there will never be any proof to convince you – and that is entirely unreasonable.
No I don’t. I have not said or implied such. If there is some fundamental reason why some things are unknowable to humans then so be it. What I am saying is that our ignorance of such things does not give us a logical reason to say “God did it” like you are doing.
Of course it does, if science is the exploration of the material world then anything unanswerable by it is by definition the exploration of that beyond the material.
But if you define God in a way that conforms with all scientific knowledge and which doesn’t involve fairy tale nonsense like miracles, virgin birth and resurrection after death, then I would say that a purely agnostic stance would be the rational choice.
Again this would be a misunderstanding of the nature of how God’s nature must be if God does in fact exist, this misunderstanding is typical of people who haven’t explored other lines of thought except the scientific.
Also do not assume that all atheists share my view on ethics. Many believe in absolute morality because like you they want to believe in it. Truth is the Universe doesn’t care.
Except for the last line which was emotive, it was a serious hypothetical proposition, the validity of which yourself confirm, i.e. the Universe doesn’t care. If you truly believe this then how can anything really be evil or inherently wrong?
It can’t of course, to paraphrase Dawkins, “there is no right or wrong, good or evil, just the remorseless passing of time where life exists solely as machines for the passing of DNA”.
On his, and your, worldview rape is not inherently wrong or even the murder of other people’s children, just social taboos, something we all agree just isn’t nice to do even though they may benefit our individual DNA. The majority of people can clearly define what a load of objective nonsense that is, including atheists like Sam Harris who are desperate to come up with an Godless moral code but as you seemed to have grasped that without God there is no morality so will ultimately fail.
November 25th, 2011 at 10:38 am
Jeremy Harris says:- “worldview rape is not inherently wrong or even the murder of other people’s children”
So why would God design other animals that rape? That proves that rape isn’t *inherently* wrong, according to the principles of natural law.
On the other hand, human beings are intelligent reasonable creatures, so the *principle* that rape and murder are socially unacceptable is a culturally evolved meme.