This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2timspalding
¡Uy!
4richardbsmith
: )
5rolandperkins
Welcome back, Richard, (or have
you just been in threads that I
donʻt get into?)
you just been in threads that I
donʻt get into?)
6richardbsmith
Roland,
I have been absent. Thanks for the welcome back, and it is great to see posts from you, Tim, and lilithcat.
I think this revelation from Dr Carson lead me to post here. I had seen it in some questionable sources a few days ago. And I dismissed the comment, even if true, as a comment to a specific audience, many years ago.
The significant point for me is that he apparently has confirmed still thinking this.
I think this statement brings up an important question for Christians. Consider the arguments he gives to support his conclusion.
This seems more to me than just a funny absurdity.
How does someone come to that belief? How much history and archaeology and science does one have to select to consider and how much to ignore? What thinking makes others accept this absurdity as a reasonable conclusion?
I hear this story, and just sit in disbelief that a presidential candidate and a graduate of Yale and a Director of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins can hold this belief that the pyramids are grain storage buildings constructed by Joseph.
I have been absent. Thanks for the welcome back, and it is great to see posts from you, Tim, and lilithcat.
I think this revelation from Dr Carson lead me to post here. I had seen it in some questionable sources a few days ago. And I dismissed the comment, even if true, as a comment to a specific audience, many years ago.
The significant point for me is that he apparently has confirmed still thinking this.
I think this statement brings up an important question for Christians. Consider the arguments he gives to support his conclusion.
This seems more to me than just a funny absurdity.
How does someone come to that belief? How much history and archaeology and science does one have to select to consider and how much to ignore? What thinking makes others accept this absurdity as a reasonable conclusion?
I hear this story, and just sit in disbelief that a presidential candidate and a graduate of Yale and a Director of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins can hold this belief that the pyramids are grain storage buildings constructed by Joseph.
7John5918
Likewise, welcome back, Richard. I'm reading this thread but not posting on the subject as I honestly can't think of anything to say. Gobsmacked, to use a colloquialism.
8richardbsmith
Hey John,
In your travels, have you seen the pyramids of Egypt
In your travels, have you seen the pyramids of Egypt
9John5918
>8 richardbsmith: Yes, a long time ago, probably 1983. Impressive.
10richardbsmith
>9 John5918: johnthefireman
One of those things I would really like to see before I die. I probably need to get there before ISIS finds away to destroy them.
One of those things I would really like to see before I die. I probably need to get there before ISIS finds away to destroy them.
11John5918
>10 richardbsmith: Or before the city sprawls out all around them. But Cairo as a city is very interesting, or at least was 30 years ago. Apart from the narrow streets and alleyways, and the mass of people which made me feel that my native London was small and quiet, I have an enduring memory of the national museum in Cairo. I was lucky to get a personal tour from an archaeology professor. Whereas the British Museum might display one or two examples of each god, say, Cairo had whole rooms full of hundreds of examples of the same god, of all sizes, stacked from floor to ceiling on dusty shelves. No stupid interactive interpretative displays or educational videos, just lots of real artefacts.
Meanwhile, from the BBC, Why do some people think the pyramids were grain stores?
Meanwhile, from the BBC, Why do some people think the pyramids were grain stores?
12richardbsmith
The idea that the pyramids are granary storage constructions is absurd on so many levels. Your phrase is well suited - it leaves one gobsmacked.
Yet, intelligent people apparently believe such things. The BBC article does not seem to address my questions about the source of these beliefs.
insistence of inerrancy of scriptures
rationalization of any selected piece of science or archaeology to fit into preconceived ideas
rejection of expert studies
refusal to make even the briefest critical investigation
And if I were a betting man, I would bet Dr Carson is smarter than I. Yet he has no difficulties with believing such absurdity.
Yet, intelligent people apparently believe such things. The BBC article does not seem to address my questions about the source of these beliefs.
insistence of inerrancy of scriptures
rationalization of any selected piece of science or archaeology to fit into preconceived ideas
rejection of expert studies
refusal to make even the briefest critical investigation
And if I were a betting man, I would bet Dr Carson is smarter than I. Yet he has no difficulties with believing such absurdity.
13richardbsmith
I mentioned this in a Google Plus group.
One person said she knows the Egyptians built the pyramids to sharpen razors.
Another person corrected her, that it was the aliens who had the razors and showed the Egyptians how to build pyramids to sharpen the aliens' razors.
This latter modification made sense to me, and we called it the ARSE Combined Theory of the Pyramids.
One person said she knows the Egyptians built the pyramids to sharpen razors.
Another person corrected her, that it was the aliens who had the razors and showed the Egyptians how to build pyramids to sharpen the aliens' razors.
This latter modification made sense to me, and we called it the ARSE Combined Theory of the Pyramids.
16timspalding
To me Carson illustrates a common problem—taking intelligence and mastery of some technical field as evidence of omnicompetent intellectualism.
Carson is by all accounts smart, and he was a great pediatric neurosurgeon. But this doesn't make him well-informed about history or politics, or capable of making strong arguments and good choices in fields with unfamiliar content and intellectual modes. In fact, his lack of general intellectual training, combined with his success in one field, has left him overly self-assured about matters he's not competent to speak about.
Usually we see this phenomenon with scientists, not medical doctors. See Einstein, Hawkings, Dawkins, etc.
I hear this story, and just sit in disbelief that a presidential candidate and a graduate of Yale and a Director of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins can hold this belief that the pyramids are grain storage buildings constructed by Joseph.
He should have picked it up at Yale, but presumably his psychology degree was heavily angled toward pre-med. Medical school really doesn't have anything to do with this, though. I don't exclude the stultifying nature of Seventh Day Adventism, but I don't think that's the solution here. There are a lot of people who succeed in technical fields who believe crap.
Carson is by all accounts smart, and he was a great pediatric neurosurgeon. But this doesn't make him well-informed about history or politics, or capable of making strong arguments and good choices in fields with unfamiliar content and intellectual modes. In fact, his lack of general intellectual training, combined with his success in one field, has left him overly self-assured about matters he's not competent to speak about.
Usually we see this phenomenon with scientists, not medical doctors. See Einstein, Hawkings, Dawkins, etc.
I hear this story, and just sit in disbelief that a presidential candidate and a graduate of Yale and a Director of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins can hold this belief that the pyramids are grain storage buildings constructed by Joseph.
He should have picked it up at Yale, but presumably his psychology degree was heavily angled toward pre-med. Medical school really doesn't have anything to do with this, though. I don't exclude the stultifying nature of Seventh Day Adventism, but I don't think that's the solution here. There are a lot of people who succeed in technical fields who believe crap.
17rolandperkins
"Some are referring to this as Ben-Giza". . . (3)
What!? - - NOT "Gizagate"?
What!? - - NOT "Gizagate"?
18rolandperkins
"I dismissed the comment (on pyramid
grain storage), even if true, . . ." (6)
I also dismissed it - - as boiler-plate revisionism;
Iʻm a (Greco-Roman) classsicist, not an Egyptologist.
I looked up "Grain" and "Joseph" in the index of
John Ruffleʻs The Egyptians, the only full-length
book I own on Egypt. Neither was mentioned.
(I have a great interest in revisionist history
in general and have found the majority of
the theories to be merely far-out imaginings, not
much more interesting than historical fiction.
Others have at least a hard core of truth in
them.)
grain storage), even if true, . . ." (6)
I also dismissed it - - as boiler-plate revisionism;
Iʻm a (Greco-Roman) classsicist, not an Egyptologist.
I looked up "Grain" and "Joseph" in the index of
John Ruffleʻs The Egyptians, the only full-length
book I own on Egypt. Neither was mentioned.
(I have a great interest in revisionist history
in general and have found the majority of
the theories to be merely far-out imaginings, not
much more interesting than historical fiction.
Others have at least a hard core of truth in
them.)
19southernbooklady
>16 timspalding: Carson is by all accounts smart, and he was a great pediatric neurosurgeon. But this doesn't make him well-informed about history or politics, or capable of making strong arguments and good choices in fields with unfamiliar content and intellectual modes.
It does make his stance on evolution inexplicable to me, though.
My dad, who teaches at RIT, was telling me a little while ago that his favorite course to teach is the websites for non IT people -- the English majors and Graphic Arts people, etc. He said it was because they come into the class without any preconceptions, but with what he called "the ability to see and think about a problem" -- by which I think he meant "critical thinking" or "seeing the bigger picture" skills. So they make some mistakes, but they try lots of new things because they haven't learned not to.
The higher level courses he teaches for people going into IT as a career apparently often lack this. They can regurgitate code like nobody's business but innovation often defies them.
It does make his stance on evolution inexplicable to me, though.
My dad, who teaches at RIT, was telling me a little while ago that his favorite course to teach is the websites for non IT people -- the English majors and Graphic Arts people, etc. He said it was because they come into the class without any preconceptions, but with what he called "the ability to see and think about a problem" -- by which I think he meant "critical thinking" or "seeing the bigger picture" skills. So they make some mistakes, but they try lots of new things because they haven't learned not to.
The higher level courses he teaches for people going into IT as a career apparently often lack this. They can regurgitate code like nobody's business but innovation often defies them.
20Limelite
Out-do the venerable physician. If you haven't been paying attention to what is trending on the Internet, it's this:
BenCarsonWikipedia
Some samples. . .
LTers are bright people. Make up your own BenCarsonWikipedia material; and if you tweet, put it on Twitter, too.
BenCarsonWikipedia
Some samples. . .
Diane Howell @DianeHowell11 59m59 minutes ago
Fossils are a hoax. Those bones are leftovers from the last supper. #bencarsonwikipedia
Bryan @bwguenther The term algorithm is named after Al Gore, the inventor of the internet #bencarsonwikipedia
Cee Cee @Cee_Ceelicious Nov 5
If Dinosaurs had guns they might not have gone extinct. #bencarsonwikipedia
LTers are bright people. Make up your own BenCarsonWikipedia material; and if you tweet, put it on Twitter, too.
21rolandperkins
Iʻm one of the few (I guess) Liberals who, about a
quarter century ago, didnʻt enjoy
Dan Quayle jokes. But the current spate of
purported Ben Carson revisionist history
could almost make the Quayle quips seem
hilarious.
quarter century ago, didnʻt enjoy
Dan Quayle jokes. But the current spate of
purported Ben Carson revisionist history
could almost make the Quayle quips seem
hilarious.
23margd
>19 southernbooklady: My dad, who teaches at RIT...the English majors and Graphic Arts people, etc. ... "the ability to see and think about a problem" -- by which I think he meant "critical thinking" or "seeing the bigger picture" skills.
Along the same line, my dad (Canadian military, Signals) told me that while city kids might do great solving technical problems, country boys did best in unique situations that might evolve in the field. Their skills mightn't be as specialized, but country boys were experienced in making-do and inconvenient equipment breakdowns, etc. (No women in the field back then.)
He also found some of his best NCO candidates among the almost-criminal, albeit after a long, hot summer of laying line through bug-infested swamps! (Before WI-FI.) Dad's theory was that some of these guys were just frustrated leaders.
Along the same line, my dad (Canadian military, Signals) told me that while city kids might do great solving technical problems, country boys did best in unique situations that might evolve in the field. Their skills mightn't be as specialized, but country boys were experienced in making-do and inconvenient equipment breakdowns, etc. (No women in the field back then.)
He also found some of his best NCO candidates among the almost-criminal, albeit after a long, hot summer of laying line through bug-infested swamps! (Before WI-FI.) Dad's theory was that some of these guys were just frustrated leaders.
24MarthaJeanne
On the other hand, a friend of mine, after a career as a nuclear physicist, went to study theology. She said that the professors were pleased to have her in their classes, because she brought a practical attention to details and reality to the class discussions, but they felt all the liberal arts students were often too theoretical and fuzzy about their thinking.
I think we need both sides.
To get back on topic. Just the idea of a US president who could believe this is scary. What is the next idea that he will pick up and act upon.
I think we need both sides.
To get back on topic. Just the idea of a US president who could believe this is scary. What is the next idea that he will pick up and act upon.
25rolandperkins
I believe Carsonʻs presumable foreign
policy and his "Hang on to Guantanamo"
policy are a lot scarier than anything he
believes about the pyramids.
policy and his "Hang on to Guantanamo"
policy are a lot scarier than anything he
believes about the pyramids.
26richardbsmith
It is the thought process that bothers me. Not the conclusion.
Specifically with Carson, that this thought process survives a Yale education, an MD program, years of practice and administration Johns Hopkins - is a little troubling.
But the thought process itself. I would like to discuss.
It begins with a conclusion - inerrancy.
It continues with selectivity of evidence and biased interpretation.
Specifically with Carson, that this thought process survives a Yale education, an MD program, years of practice and administration Johns Hopkins - is a little troubling.
But the thought process itself. I would like to discuss.
It begins with a conclusion - inerrancy.
It continues with selectivity of evidence and biased interpretation.
27hf22
>26 richardbsmith:
It is the thought process that bothers me. Not the conclusion.
Surely their can't have been much of a thought process? I mean the things would not even fit that much grain, given they are by necessity mostly solid#.
It begins with a conclusion - inerrancy.
Nah, it is even dumber than that. There are, presumably, plenty of actual granaries in Egypt one could attribute to Joseph if one was so minded.
The stupidities of Young Earth Creationists for example, are often designed to deal with treating their Scriptural interpretation and the physical evidence as equally valid forms of evidence, and thus at least can be logical if you accept the idiotic premises.
But this does not even have that - Even if you grant his premises it remains monumentally stupid.
# There are identifications from the pre-modern era of the Pyramids as Joseph's granaries, but they were based on the assumption the things were hollow. And these identifications were dropped once it was realised the things were solid - As can be seen by the writings of people like Bernhard von Breydenbach in his Peregrinatio in terram sanctam of 1486:
"Beyond the Nile we beheld many pyramids, which in ages past the kings of Egypt caused to be built over their tombs, of which the vulgar say that these are the granaries or storehouses which were built there by Joseph in order to store grain. However, this is clearly false, for these pyramids are not hollow inside."
It is the thought process that bothers me. Not the conclusion.
Surely their can't have been much of a thought process? I mean the things would not even fit that much grain, given they are by necessity mostly solid#.
It begins with a conclusion - inerrancy.
Nah, it is even dumber than that. There are, presumably, plenty of actual granaries in Egypt one could attribute to Joseph if one was so minded.
The stupidities of Young Earth Creationists for example, are often designed to deal with treating their Scriptural interpretation and the physical evidence as equally valid forms of evidence, and thus at least can be logical if you accept the idiotic premises.
But this does not even have that - Even if you grant his premises it remains monumentally stupid.
# There are identifications from the pre-modern era of the Pyramids as Joseph's granaries, but they were based on the assumption the things were hollow. And these identifications were dropped once it was realised the things were solid - As can be seen by the writings of people like Bernhard von Breydenbach in his Peregrinatio in terram sanctam of 1486:
"Beyond the Nile we beheld many pyramids, which in ages past the kings of Egypt caused to be built over their tombs, of which the vulgar say that these are the granaries or storehouses which were built there by Joseph in order to store grain. However, this is clearly false, for these pyramids are not hollow inside."
28richardbsmith
I linked this earlier. Not sure if you saw it. The argument is not that the pyramid burial chamber is for grain storage. I think the argument is that the steppe pyramid was built over a grain storage facility and the pyramid was constructed to honor God. Then later used as a burial memorial for Djoser.
I did read the link real closely, mostly because it is a blog and did not seem to have an end.
https://josephandisraelinegypt.wordpress.com/category/grain-silos-2/page/2/
I did read the link real closely, mostly because it is a blog and did not seem to have an end.
https://josephandisraelinegypt.wordpress.com/category/grain-silos-2/page/2/
29hf22
>28 richardbsmith:
I had not seen it, but it would seem to be a different claim than that made by Carson.
The claim a pit granary existed on a site, on which a pyramid was later built, is not on the face of as inherently and stupidly impossible. Though likely still pretty silly, given a pit granary complex would be unlikely to make the best foundation for a pyramid.
I had not seen it, but it would seem to be a different claim than that made by Carson.
The claim a pit granary existed on a site, on which a pyramid was later built, is not on the face of as inherently and stupidly impossible. Though likely still pretty silly, given a pit granary complex would be unlikely to make the best foundation for a pyramid.
30richardbsmith
Yeah. I don't know that Carson has much of a handle on the details of the claim, only one or two nuggets from it. Only that it met his requirements for an inerrant historical account in the OT.
He had amended the claim to the pyramids were granary silos because they were big.
It fits his narrative, inerrant scripture. Therefore he uncritically accepts it. Skepticism is only an approach to evidence that is against inerrant scripture.
He had amended the claim to the pyramids were granary silos because they were big.
It fits his narrative, inerrant scripture. Therefore he uncritically accepts it. Skepticism is only an approach to evidence that is against inerrant scripture.
31hf22
>30 richardbsmith:
Yeah. I don't know that Carson has much of a handle on the details of the claim, only one or two nuggets from it. Only that it met his requirements for an inerrant historical account in the OT.
Yeah, as I say, can't have thought about it much. Just heard it somewhere and repeated it without thinking. Which I supposes fits into a more general problem - Accepting things because of their "truthiness" (in the sense provided by Stephen Colbert).
Pretty stark example of it however, if that is what it is.
Yeah. I don't know that Carson has much of a handle on the details of the claim, only one or two nuggets from it. Only that it met his requirements for an inerrant historical account in the OT.
Yeah, as I say, can't have thought about it much. Just heard it somewhere and repeated it without thinking. Which I supposes fits into a more general problem - Accepting things because of their "truthiness" (in the sense provided by Stephen Colbert).
Pretty stark example of it however, if that is what it is.
33bnielsen
>32 John5918: Ancient popcorn machine gone amok?
34John5918
>33 bnielsen: Yes! That would explain the heat signature.
35richardbsmith
That theory, of popcorn machinery run amock, sounds more like aliens than Joseph.
36Limelite
>32 John5918:
As in Pyramid Movie-Plex?
As in Pyramid Movie-Plex?
37timspalding
Surveying buildings for heat signatures? Someone's growing weed in that thing!
38PossMan
As far as I can see modern farmers store grain in the cheapest structure that will do the job. OK corrugated iron wasn't available to Pharoah but I can't believe a pyramid was the answer.
>32 John5918:: That story was in the Daily Telegraph this morning but some of the suggested explanations seemed fairly mundane. As the readings were taken as the sun heated up the stones in the morning or as the stones cooled as the sun went down it could just be due to a slightly different stone, or a cavity behind. Perhaps heat is being generated by still rotating millstones turned by a nuclear reactor. Or a huge cache of decaying Pharonic mummies? I'm getting carried away but it IS very intriguing. The trouble is that as humans we (most of us) like to look for the most exciting explanation and to hell with Occam's razor.
>32 John5918:: That story was in the Daily Telegraph this morning but some of the suggested explanations seemed fairly mundane. As the readings were taken as the sun heated up the stones in the morning or as the stones cooled as the sun went down it could just be due to a slightly different stone, or a cavity behind. Perhaps heat is being generated by still rotating millstones turned by a nuclear reactor. Or a huge cache of decaying Pharonic mummies? I'm getting carried away but it IS very intriguing. The trouble is that as humans we (most of us) like to look for the most exciting explanation and to hell with Occam's razor.
39jburlinson
>24 MarthaJeanne: Just the idea of a US president who could believe this is scary.
How about Ronald Reagan and his fascination with astrology? Apparently, the Reagan-Gorbachev rapprochement was predicated on astrologist Joanne Quigley's declaration that Gorbachev's Aquarian planet was in perfect harmony with Reagan's own.
Then there's Jimmy Carter, who filed a report with the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), claiming he had seen an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) in October 1969. When he was elected President in 1976, one of his first acts was to instruct then CIA director George H.W. Bush to brief him daily on UFO sightings. Bush refused, claiming that this was top secret classified material and that, "simple curiosity on the part of the President wasn’t adequate" enough justification to break the seal of secrecy.
Benjamin Harrison was so afraid of electricity that he had an assistant whose job was to turn on and off light switches.
Calvin Coolidge had a morning ritual which required an assistant to rub Vaseline on his head while he ate breakfast in bed.
How about Ronald Reagan and his fascination with astrology? Apparently, the Reagan-Gorbachev rapprochement was predicated on astrologist Joanne Quigley's declaration that Gorbachev's Aquarian planet was in perfect harmony with Reagan's own.
Then there's Jimmy Carter, who filed a report with the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), claiming he had seen an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) in October 1969. When he was elected President in 1976, one of his first acts was to instruct then CIA director George H.W. Bush to brief him daily on UFO sightings. Bush refused, claiming that this was top secret classified material and that, "simple curiosity on the part of the President wasn’t adequate" enough justification to break the seal of secrecy.
Benjamin Harrison was so afraid of electricity that he had an assistant whose job was to turn on and off light switches.
Calvin Coolidge had a morning ritual which required an assistant to rub Vaseline on his head while he ate breakfast in bed.
40bnielsen
Crazy belief is one thing. Doing crazy things is another. (And I'm not so sure about Harrison. One of my friends likes old stuff and have a house with old-fashioned brass switches to turn light on and off. I'd like an assistent to do that for me too!)
Anyway, US Presidents are not the only ones to do weird stuff.
In 1978, Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai, a longtime practitioner of "urine therapy," spoke to Dan Rather on 60 Minutes about the benefits of drinking urine.
I think I'll go find a cup of coffee instead :-)
Anyway, US Presidents are not the only ones to do weird stuff.
In 1978, Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai, a longtime practitioner of "urine therapy," spoke to Dan Rather on 60 Minutes about the benefits of drinking urine.
I think I'll go find a cup of coffee instead :-)
41rnmackrn26
I think that this is another silly distraction in a campaign season overrun with silliness. I do not vet a candidate based on church membership or whatever label they like to use. I cannot know their heart, only their actions. I know that it seems popular to pit science against theology, but that is apples to oranges. Let's talk instead about how we handle hunger and poverty today, here in America.
42krolik
>39 jburlinson:
Calvin Coolidge had a morning ritual which required an assistant to rub Vaseline on his head while he ate breakfast in bed.
Sorry, but somehow this example makes me happy for the human race.
Calvin Coolidge had a morning ritual which required an assistant to rub Vaseline on his head while he ate breakfast in bed.
Sorry, but somehow this example makes me happy for the human race.
43inkdrinker
41: Well... for Trump or Carson or pretty much the entire republican field the answer would likely be to let them starve if they can't get food for themselves... I can't say that for sure, but most of their rhetoric seems to indicate that would be the general stance...
44southernbooklady
>41 rnmackrn26: I know that it seems popular to pit science against theology, but that is apples to oranges.
If only the candidates all thought so.
If only the candidates all thought so.
45JGL53
Ben Carson also expressed this opinion regarding the 'origin of Life' in a speech back in 1998:
“I remember once, a few years ago, there were about eight or nine panelists. They were all Nobel Prize winners. And the question came up: how did life originate? And after all their machinations, they finally came to the conclusion that life emanated as a result of a bunch of promiscuous biochemicals getting together. That was the best that they could come up with. … And see that’s the wonderful thing about having a relationship with God. God has already told us what happened, so we don’t have to come up with fanciful theories so that we can take the place of God. We don’t have to do that.”
1. Just as whacko as are his thoughts on the pyramids.
2. Yet many of the people who post here on this forum would agree with him.
3. Q.E.D. .....
4. Perhaps some of you have no standing to make fun of poor old warped Ben Carson.
“I remember once, a few years ago, there were about eight or nine panelists. They were all Nobel Prize winners. And the question came up: how did life originate? And after all their machinations, they finally came to the conclusion that life emanated as a result of a bunch of promiscuous biochemicals getting together. That was the best that they could come up with. … And see that’s the wonderful thing about having a relationship with God. God has already told us what happened, so we don’t have to come up with fanciful theories so that we can take the place of God. We don’t have to do that.”
1. Just as whacko as are his thoughts on the pyramids.
2. Yet many of the people who post here on this forum would agree with him.
3. Q.E.D. .....
4. Perhaps some of you have no standing to make fun of poor old warped Ben Carson.
46timspalding
>45 JGL53:
So, yeah, I'll take the bait. It's not as whacko.
We have exact and direct knowledge about the pyramids—when they were built, what for, etc. We know they were built before the time when Joseph might have lived. We know they're not hollow. We know they were built as funerary structures, not grain silos. The Joseph explanation is completely and utterly excluded.
We do not have direct knowledge about the origin of life on Earth. Nor do we have a universally agreed-upon theory that is as good as direct knowledge, as we have for, say, evolution. On the contrary, we have some overall theories ("promiscuous biochemicals getting together" isn't a bad description, or "arrived from outer space") and some particular proposals, none of which is a full explanation, and none of which have general scientific assent.
In other words, we have a gap. Science does not know how life originated. Logically, nothing excludes God being the cause. Such a "God of the gaps" explanation may be weak—an intellectual strategy that has failed in the past—but it is an entirely different sort of thing than Carson's Pyramids explanation, a theory which is factually excluded.
So, yeah, I'll take the bait. It's not as whacko.
We have exact and direct knowledge about the pyramids—when they were built, what for, etc. We know they were built before the time when Joseph might have lived. We know they're not hollow. We know they were built as funerary structures, not grain silos. The Joseph explanation is completely and utterly excluded.
We do not have direct knowledge about the origin of life on Earth. Nor do we have a universally agreed-upon theory that is as good as direct knowledge, as we have for, say, evolution. On the contrary, we have some overall theories ("promiscuous biochemicals getting together" isn't a bad description, or "arrived from outer space") and some particular proposals, none of which is a full explanation, and none of which have general scientific assent.
In other words, we have a gap. Science does not know how life originated. Logically, nothing excludes God being the cause. Such a "God of the gaps" explanation may be weak—an intellectual strategy that has failed in the past—but it is an entirely different sort of thing than Carson's Pyramids explanation, a theory which is factually excluded.
47southernbooklady
>46 timspalding: "promiscuous biochemicals getting together" isn't a bad description, or "arrived from outer space"
I'd be interested to know if "promiscuous biochemicals getting together" is how the Nobel prize-winning scientists phrased it, or if that was Carson's paraphrasing. What is highly disturbing in the account is not that science doesn't know how life originated, but that Carson's answer to "we don't know" is "God has already told us what happened, so we don't have to come up with fanciful theories."
(Fanciful? Not a word someone wants to throw around when their creation story includes woman being created out of a rib from a man.)
It's the not-to-subtle anti-science, anti-intellectualism that bugs me in that anecdote. God has told us what happened, so we don't have t think about it. We don't even have to ask "how did this come to be?"
Personally, what I love about science is that it is always asking.
I'd be interested to know if "promiscuous biochemicals getting together" is how the Nobel prize-winning scientists phrased it, or if that was Carson's paraphrasing. What is highly disturbing in the account is not that science doesn't know how life originated, but that Carson's answer to "we don't know" is "God has already told us what happened, so we don't have to come up with fanciful theories."
(Fanciful? Not a word someone wants to throw around when their creation story includes woman being created out of a rib from a man.)
It's the not-to-subtle anti-science, anti-intellectualism that bugs me in that anecdote. God has told us what happened, so we don't have t think about it. We don't even have to ask "how did this come to be?"
Personally, what I love about science is that it is always asking.
48JGL53
46 > "... It's not as whacko..."
IMO and in the opinion of millions of other scientifically-literate and non-brainwashed people it IS just as whacko. We will have to agree to disagree here.
46 > "....We have exact and direct knowledge about the pyramids—when they were built, what for, etc. We know they were built before the time when Joseph might have lived. We know they're not hollow. We know they were built as funerary structures, not grain silos. The Joseph explanation is completely and utterly excluded...."
Based on the facts as we know them I would agree with your stated conclusions here - BUT - I have some problem with your wording - IF we are talking science here. If we are going to be as precise as possible in stating the above, then we must be clear and say that scientific methods have given us an extremely high confidence that that is all so - to such a degree we state those facts as given now. But in science we don't receive exact knowledge, i.e., knowledge of certitude. Don't believe me? - ask any scientist.
46 > "...We do not have direct knowledge about the origin of life on Earth..."
Well, in the same sense that we do not have direct knowledge about anything, using the phrase "direct knowledge" the way you are using it. So, e.g., using your "logic", we do not have direct evidence, proof or knowledge that the dinosaurs roamed the earth 65+ million years ago. There is the theory that god put the fake fossils there to make assholes out of present day scientists. Do you have CERTAIN knowledge that such is not true and cannot be true? No.
When several lines of evidence converge, again and again, on explanation A regarding phenomenon B, scientists conclude that explanation A is beyond all reasonable doubt, to a incredible high degree of certainly, the correct explanation for phenomenon B. (This assumes no lines of evidence point to any explanation C or D or E.) That is all we can do and that is plenty good enough - David Hume to the contrary.
46 > "...we have a gap... "
Yes, we most certainly do. Do I have to open up a can of sarcasm on your ass and tell you wherein the gap actually exists? No, that's unnecessary - I think we all know - to a great degree of confidence - where the gap exists. lol.
46 > "... Logically, nothing excludes God being the cause. Such a "God of the gaps" explanation may be weak—an intellectual strategy that has failed in the past..."
You seem to be living the reality of Jessie Jackson's famous aphorism "Keep Hope Alive". I.e., the god theory has been a complete bust until now but we can always hope, right? Or maybe more so you are like Little Orphan Annie - there's always tomorrow? Or maybe philosopher David Hume - just because the sun came up a million days in a row in the east doesn't mean it won't come up in the West - tomorrow.
I think Stephen Hawking puts it best when he states that science has make god supererogatory or superfluous - or, as the British put it, redundant. God serves no purpose now due to science. Mother Nature exists just fine on her own, so to speak, and no Father God is needed - so to speak. Some invisible, immaterial, unknowable guy with the moniker "god" would just be a teat on a bull, gilding on a Lilly - an explanation searching for a problem to lean up against. Occam's Razor and the default position. Game, set and match.
- Well, religionists will always have their naked egoistic "belief" in things spectral. They are like unsinkable rubber ducks. Let that be enough. Science is the big dog here. Any religionist who pokes it with a sharp stick does so at his/her ego's peril.
lol.
IMO and in the opinion of millions of other scientifically-literate and non-brainwashed people it IS just as whacko. We will have to agree to disagree here.
46 > "....We have exact and direct knowledge about the pyramids—when they were built, what for, etc. We know they were built before the time when Joseph might have lived. We know they're not hollow. We know they were built as funerary structures, not grain silos. The Joseph explanation is completely and utterly excluded...."
Based on the facts as we know them I would agree with your stated conclusions here - BUT - I have some problem with your wording - IF we are talking science here. If we are going to be as precise as possible in stating the above, then we must be clear and say that scientific methods have given us an extremely high confidence that that is all so - to such a degree we state those facts as given now. But in science we don't receive exact knowledge, i.e., knowledge of certitude. Don't believe me? - ask any scientist.
46 > "...We do not have direct knowledge about the origin of life on Earth..."
Well, in the same sense that we do not have direct knowledge about anything, using the phrase "direct knowledge" the way you are using it. So, e.g., using your "logic", we do not have direct evidence, proof or knowledge that the dinosaurs roamed the earth 65+ million years ago. There is the theory that god put the fake fossils there to make assholes out of present day scientists. Do you have CERTAIN knowledge that such is not true and cannot be true? No.
When several lines of evidence converge, again and again, on explanation A regarding phenomenon B, scientists conclude that explanation A is beyond all reasonable doubt, to a incredible high degree of certainly, the correct explanation for phenomenon B. (This assumes no lines of evidence point to any explanation C or D or E.) That is all we can do and that is plenty good enough - David Hume to the contrary.
46 > "...we have a gap... "
Yes, we most certainly do. Do I have to open up a can of sarcasm on your ass and tell you wherein the gap actually exists? No, that's unnecessary - I think we all know - to a great degree of confidence - where the gap exists. lol.
46 > "... Logically, nothing excludes God being the cause. Such a "God of the gaps" explanation may be weak—an intellectual strategy that has failed in the past..."
You seem to be living the reality of Jessie Jackson's famous aphorism "Keep Hope Alive". I.e., the god theory has been a complete bust until now but we can always hope, right? Or maybe more so you are like Little Orphan Annie - there's always tomorrow? Or maybe philosopher David Hume - just because the sun came up a million days in a row in the east doesn't mean it won't come up in the West - tomorrow.
I think Stephen Hawking puts it best when he states that science has make god supererogatory or superfluous - or, as the British put it, redundant. God serves no purpose now due to science. Mother Nature exists just fine on her own, so to speak, and no Father God is needed - so to speak. Some invisible, immaterial, unknowable guy with the moniker "god" would just be a teat on a bull, gilding on a Lilly - an explanation searching for a problem to lean up against. Occam's Razor and the default position. Game, set and match.
- Well, religionists will always have their naked egoistic "belief" in things spectral. They are like unsinkable rubber ducks. Let that be enough. Science is the big dog here. Any religionist who pokes it with a sharp stick does so at his/her ego's peril.
lol.
49timspalding
>47 southernbooklady:
Obviously, I have no disagreement with anything you've said.
>48 JGL53:
I'm sorry that distinctions are difficult for you.
You seem to be living the reality of Jessie Jackson's famous aphorism "Keep Hope Alive"
I'm not agreeing with Carson. You seem to have a lot of trouble reading and following my post. It is not the best vantage point with which to accuse me of idiocy.
>47 southernbooklady:
Would be nice if you could agree that, yes, there is a distinction. Because it's pretty elementary, and all you risk is constant misreading and abuse.
Obviously, I have no disagreement with anything you've said.
>48 JGL53:
I'm sorry that distinctions are difficult for you.
You seem to be living the reality of Jessie Jackson's famous aphorism "Keep Hope Alive"
I'm not agreeing with Carson. You seem to have a lot of trouble reading and following my post. It is not the best vantage point with which to accuse me of idiocy.
>47 southernbooklady:
Would be nice if you could agree that, yes, there is a distinction. Because it's pretty elementary, and all you risk is constant misreading and abuse.
50JGL53
> 49
Just to clarify I am not accusing you of idiocy. I am pointing out that there is an obvious gap in your knowledge base as to what science is, what it does, what it cannot do, and how it is inherently superior to spectral beliefs inherited from our ancient ancestors who lived on a flat earth that was the center of the universe wherein good and evil spiritual forces contended for human allegiance and/or worship.
And, specifically, there seems to be quite a gap in your understanding of epistemology regarding science.
That is all.
If I thought or perceived for some reason you were as fuckbrained as a Ben Carson I would have put you on hard ignore early on in our internet meeting. Personally I have every reason to think there is hope for you. You have nothing but my sincere well wishes in your continued earthly journey. Best luck to you.
Just to clarify I am not accusing you of idiocy. I am pointing out that there is an obvious gap in your knowledge base as to what science is, what it does, what it cannot do, and how it is inherently superior to spectral beliefs inherited from our ancient ancestors who lived on a flat earth that was the center of the universe wherein good and evil spiritual forces contended for human allegiance and/or worship.
And, specifically, there seems to be quite a gap in your understanding of epistemology regarding science.
That is all.
If I thought or perceived for some reason you were as fuckbrained as a Ben Carson I would have put you on hard ignore early on in our internet meeting. Personally I have every reason to think there is hope for you. You have nothing but my sincere well wishes in your continued earthly journey. Best luck to you.
51timspalding
If we are talking science here
I'm not in any way confused about what "science" is. The date and use of the Pyramids does not actually involve "science" in any meaningful way, and it is not necessary to recast the certain knowledge of history, philology, linguistics and so forth into your "scientific" terminology. We are, in fact, quite certain that the pyramids were not built and used as Carson suggests. It adds nothing to that, to say that no sense experience, including everything knowable by science, can make us absolutely certain that we're not all living in a dream world.
The distinction is, again, quite simple. We are quite certain that the Pyramids were not built by Joseph as grain silos. We really don't know how life came about on Earth.
Is God unnecessary? Well, if God is as a theory to explain scientific phenomena, then certainly he's lost some potential ground. Strangely enough, only ignorant atheists ever think that way in the first place. Even so, certain fundamental questions remain unanswered. Some are probably unanswerable, although Hawkings has done his best to indicate what a poor philosopher he is by imagining he's actually solved "why is there something rather than nothing." In this case, however, it is merely unanswered.
I'm not in any way confused about what "science" is. The date and use of the Pyramids does not actually involve "science" in any meaningful way, and it is not necessary to recast the certain knowledge of history, philology, linguistics and so forth into your "scientific" terminology. We are, in fact, quite certain that the pyramids were not built and used as Carson suggests. It adds nothing to that, to say that no sense experience, including everything knowable by science, can make us absolutely certain that we're not all living in a dream world.
The distinction is, again, quite simple. We are quite certain that the Pyramids were not built by Joseph as grain silos. We really don't know how life came about on Earth.
Is God unnecessary? Well, if God is as a theory to explain scientific phenomena, then certainly he's lost some potential ground. Strangely enough, only ignorant atheists ever think that way in the first place. Even so, certain fundamental questions remain unanswered. Some are probably unanswerable, although Hawkings has done his best to indicate what a poor philosopher he is by imagining he's actually solved "why is there something rather than nothing." In this case, however, it is merely unanswered.
52John5918
>47 southernbooklady: Personally, what I love about science is that it is always asking.
That's what I love about both science and religion. Science asks about things that can be demonstrated scientifically, religion asks different questions.
Although I concede that there are manifestations of religion, including apparently that of your presidential candidate, who seem to get the two mixed up.
That's what I love about both science and religion. Science asks about things that can be demonstrated scientifically, religion asks different questions.
Although I concede that there are manifestations of religion, including apparently that of your presidential candidate, who seem to get the two mixed up.
53JGL53
> 52
You're a funny guy, jtf. A few liberal religious sects may be somewhat open-ended but all religion, unlike science, has unquestioned dogma - that is, questions are not allowed. Anything from being ostracized up to being murdered is the punishment for violating the "no questions" rule.
I haven't checked lately but the last I heard science has a much better record and a much better system of getting at the truth of various matters.
Science does deal with the empirical, but that is what is possible and angels and god and demons don't leave much evidence of themselves around. Subatomic particles that may exist only a thousandth of a trillionth of a second in an atom smasher are far more evident than allah or jehovah or zeus or whatever your favorite term is for your favorite imaginary being.
Religion asked questions, then gives the questions made-up answers, then persecutes or kills those who disagree with the made up answers. (societal or organized religions, that is.)
Science works. Religion sucks. And the good part is more and more people are figuring this out on their own without any help from perusing internet debates or being exposed to polemics from the "new atheists".
lol.
You're a funny guy, jtf. A few liberal religious sects may be somewhat open-ended but all religion, unlike science, has unquestioned dogma - that is, questions are not allowed. Anything from being ostracized up to being murdered is the punishment for violating the "no questions" rule.
I haven't checked lately but the last I heard science has a much better record and a much better system of getting at the truth of various matters.
Science does deal with the empirical, but that is what is possible and angels and god and demons don't leave much evidence of themselves around. Subatomic particles that may exist only a thousandth of a trillionth of a second in an atom smasher are far more evident than allah or jehovah or zeus or whatever your favorite term is for your favorite imaginary being.
Religion asked questions, then gives the questions made-up answers, then persecutes or kills those who disagree with the made up answers. (societal or organized religions, that is.)
Science works. Religion sucks. And the good part is more and more people are figuring this out on their own without any help from perusing internet debates or being exposed to polemics from the "new atheists".
lol.
55jburlinson
When asked who advises him on foreign policy, Carson pointed to retired Maj. Gen. Robert Dees and "some CIA people who know a lot of stuff."
Dees supervised U.S. troops in Korea and Europe and served as commander of the US-Israeli Joint Task Force for Missile Defense before retiring in 2003 to take a post as the head of "defense strategies" at Microsoft.
But his passion is teaching members of the armed services to actively evangelize around the world. He's got leadership roles in various military ministry organizations and currently serves as associate vice president for military outreach at Liberty University.
In a 2013 Wildfire Weekend speech, Dees painted U.S. troops—namely, US Christian troops—as the only agents of change who could save America from the fate of the Roman Empire.
"We as Christian men in this nation, some would say even a post-Christian nation, in this nation of moral demise" he said before invoking a passage about Roman senators' wives turning to prostitution from Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
"Quite a few things are upside down in our nation today and the men of Jesus Christ in this nation have got to stand up and turn them right-side up."
Dees supervised U.S. troops in Korea and Europe and served as commander of the US-Israeli Joint Task Force for Missile Defense before retiring in 2003 to take a post as the head of "defense strategies" at Microsoft.
But his passion is teaching members of the armed services to actively evangelize around the world. He's got leadership roles in various military ministry organizations and currently serves as associate vice president for military outreach at Liberty University.
In a 2013 Wildfire Weekend speech, Dees painted U.S. troops—namely, US Christian troops—as the only agents of change who could save America from the fate of the Roman Empire.
"We as Christian men in this nation, some would say even a post-Christian nation, in this nation of moral demise" he said before invoking a passage about Roman senators' wives turning to prostitution from Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
"Quite a few things are upside down in our nation today and the men of Jesus Christ in this nation have got to stand up and turn them right-side up."
56richardbsmith
How can you argue with people who know a lot of stuff?
57librorumamans
>56 richardbsmith: That's a good and rewarding challenge, but a much more difficult and frustrating challenge is to argue with people who know much less than they think they do.
58Jesse_wiedinmyer
How can you argue with people who know a lot of stuff?
This is some sort of koan, isn't it?
This is some sort of koan, isn't it?
59richardbsmith
Jesse,
I may need to brush up on my Buddhism?
It might have been better to comment of the difficulty of arguing with people who know people who know a lot of stuff?
That seem to have a little more koan substance.
I may need to brush up on my Buddhism?
It might have been better to comment of the difficulty of arguing with people who know people who know a lot of stuff?
That seem to have a little more koan substance.
60Jesse_wiedinmyer
Why would you argue with someone who knows more than you? That sounds like a better chance to learn than to argue.
61richardbsmith
Jesse,
If you are asking me that question, it might help to know that I thought that citing "people who know a lot of stuff" as the source for a stance on foreign policy just seemed a funny phrasing.
In the interest of reducing all confusion, I withdraw the statement. It apparently was not as funny as I had thought. : )
If you are asking me that question, it might help to know that I thought that citing "people who know a lot of stuff" as the source for a stance on foreign policy just seemed a funny phrasing.
In the interest of reducing all confusion, I withdraw the statement. It apparently was not as funny as I had thought. : )
