|
DaveWoo posted:Just noticed that the article's been updated with a later statement from Walker: Yeah there's that whole group that are like "Evolution and poo poo is how God does his thing". They basically use God to fill the blank for poo poo science hasn't figured out so it's more of an agnostic point of view? I generally stay away from arguing about this but if that's what they want to believe then eh.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Yeah there's that whole group that are like "Evolution and poo poo is how God does his thing". They basically use God to fill the blank for poo poo science hasn't figured out so it's more of an agnostic point of view? I generally stay away from arguing about this but if that's what they want to believe then eh. It's more of a view of God as architect of the universe rather than the hands on maker of every planet and person
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:It's more of a view of God as architect of the universe rather than the hands on maker of every planet and person Or it can be both, that God created the universe and everything in it, and science simply discovers the laws and processes He set up. It's the belief that science and faith absolutely can and should coexist, and that religion should not be anti-science or anti-intellectual.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
He's still weaseling out of the question by not specifically stating that he believes in evolution as the process by which humans came to be. His "science" could be the poo poo science that so-called Creation Scientists put in their poo poo journals, as far as we know. His answer is vague enough that people from either side of the issue could see it as supportive of their view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Axolotl posted:He's still weaseling out of the question by not specifically stating that he believes in evolution as the process by which humans came to be. His "science" could be the poo poo science that so-called Creation Scientists put in their poo poo journals, as far as we know. Yeah, he spent the night being lectured by a handler about how to get your answer to the "needs 2-3 follow up questions to reveal your idiocy" standard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Axolotl posted:He's still weaseling out of the question by not specifically stating that he believes in evolution as the process by which humans came to be. His "science" could be the poo poo science that so-called Creation Scientists put in their poo poo journals, as far as we know. It's a much better non-answer. He's still dodging the question, but in a way that I feel like he answered the question. There's hope yet for Walker 2016 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I really hate to stick up for the guy, but... yes, yes they are compatible. From a more reasonable Christian perspective, science is figuring out the rules and details of how God created the universe to run, and that includes evolution. Nothing about evolution says God didn't make it possible and plan where it would go. That's accurate, but he's still saying "both science and faith dictate that we were created by God", which is definitely only true of one of those things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
I attended a small press lunch with Walker when he was campaigning in 2010. Dude got mustard all over his tie and ordered a Miller at a local brewery. Other than that, he seemed like a decent guy, and he came off as more intelligent than he's usually painted as. He mostly talked about sports though. I also had lunch with Feingold that same week. He talked policy the entire time and was excited about the local beer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:That's accurate, but he's still saying "both science and faith dictate that we were created by God", which is definitely only true of one of those things. From a Christian perspective, I disagree, but if you're not Christian you don't consider one of my assumptions valid. Point is, taking this stance is a lot better than the usual "Evolution is a lie created by Satan!" anti-intellectual garbage so many Christians who make the news espouse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Just noticed that the article's been updated with a later statement from Walker: there are actual theists who believe in evolution but i know what you're really getting at, and i agree
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:From a Christian perspective, I disagree, but if you're not Christian you don't consider one of my assumptions valid. A christian perspective has no relevance to a discussion of what science says. It is definitely not true that science dictates we were created by God: science has nothing to say (either for or against) on the subject. The correct statement is that science is not incompatible with a belief in God and that we were created by God. Basically his second statement is true but his first is definitively not. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Everything I've ever heard about Walker makes me think he would be even higher comedy than Romney in a general election. On top of a bunch of red flags he'd have to address at the same time and a record that consists completely of bad management of a state that wasn't quite bad enough to get him pulled in the middle of his term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:A christian perspective has no relevance to a discussion of what science says. It is definitely not true that science dictates we were created by God: science has nothing to say (either for or against) on the subject. The correct statement is that science is not incompatible with a belief in God and that we were created by God. Reread his statement. It isn't "science dictates a belief in god", it's "Both science and my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God" I.e. Given science and my faith, I believe we were created by God and I see nothing in science that says otherwise. It's pretty weaselly, but it isn't "science says God exists."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Reread his statement. It isn't "science dictates a belief in god", it's "Both science and my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God" Since he says "both" you can cut out the "faith" part and you're left with "science dictate[s] my belief that we are created by God". It's not just "science is compatible with my belief in God", he's trying to assert that science not only supports but compels his belief. Maybe he misspoke, but his statement is definitely incorrect under any reasonable parsing of the statement without rewriting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Reread his statement. It isn't "science dictates a belief in god", it's "Both science and my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God" But it does say very little for his understanding or belief in science
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Everything I've ever heard about Walker makes me think he would be even higher comedy than Romney in a general election. On top of a bunch of red flags he'd have to address at the same time and a record that consists completely of bad management of a state that wasn't quite bad enough to get him pulled in the middle of his term. The funny thing is, surviving the recall will help him in the primary because he withstood the liberal agenda, but dog him in the general. Also I gotta imagine him being horridly anti-union is going to absolutely kill him in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I get that the GOP is generally quite good at getting middle class white males to vote against their interest, but when it's literally their paycheck in a very direct sense I think it'll be quite different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:But it does say very little for his understanding or belief in science There's nothing in science that's incompatible with a theistic viewpoint. There's plenty that's incompatible with biblical literalism, but there's nothing in science that really proves or disproves theism as a general concept. And weas, you can't take out faith from his statement - it's not an either or phrasing. It's "the combination of the two."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:But it does say very little for his understanding or belief in science God has never been proven to not exist. Science's answer on that one is basically "we really have no idea if there is or is not a God." It hasn't been definitively proven either way and may never be. The problem is that that is where faith takes over and people go "well I'll quit believing when you can prove me wrong." It's problematic because you can't prove that he does exist either so some people take the argument into "well if he doesn't exist and I was worshiping Him my whole life what did I really lose?" Well I don't know, how much money and time did you give to the church over your life?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:God has never been proven to not exist. Science's answer on that one is basically "we really have no idea if there is or is not a God." It hasn't been definitively proven either way and may never be. The problem is that that is where faith takes over and people go "well I'll quit believing when you can prove me wrong." It's problematic because you can't prove that he does exist either so some people take the argument into "well if he doesn't exist and I was worshiping Him my whole life what did I really lose?" Well I don't know, how much money and time did you give to the church over your life? no, I think science's answer on that one is "You can't prove a negative," evidence of absence, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And weas, you can't take out faith from his statement - it's not an either or phrasing. It's "the combination of the two." The structure "both X and Y imply Z" doesn't parse as "(X and Y) implies Z". It parses as "(X implies Z) and (Y implies Z)". To get the former reading, you need something like "together, X and Y imply Z". You can see this in, for example, the statement "both water and ice make the road slippery", which means "water makes the road slippery and ice makes the road slippery", not "water and ice together make the road slippery". Idran fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:no, I think science's answer on that one is "You can't prove a negative," evidence of absence, etc. Science's answer is "we can't know so we don't care." Science is based on empiricism. Absence of evidence matters only when that evidence should be present. There is no physical test to prove definitively the existence of God, so there is no evidence for science even to be looking for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Idran posted:The structure "both X and Y imply Z" doesn't parse as "(X and Y) implies Z". It parses as "(X implies Z) and (Y implies Z)". To get the former reading, you need something like "together, X and Y imply Z". Ignoring context, sure. But you can also phrase it as "both water and cold make ice." In context, Walker seemed to be trying to say that the combination led him to his belief, not that each did individually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Ignoring context, sure. No, that's just incorrect. Or at least we have vastly different readings of that sentence. My automatic interpretation of that sentence is still "water makes ice and cold makes ice".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Idran posted:No, that's just incorrect. Or at least we have vastly different readings of that sentence. My automatic interpretation of that sentence is still "water makes ice and cold makes ice". So you just ignore context, got it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So you just ignore context, got it. And you just ignore rules of syntax, apparently. At best, Walker misspoke. And even if so, that still doesn't mean that your interpretation is the correct interpretation of his sentence, it just means it's the intended interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
In context, Walker is toeing a line where he knows it's dangerous to say evolution is false because he'll come across as an anti-intellectual wacko but he doesn't want to lose the wingnut vote by stating that creationism is wrong. This is a lot of argument over a statement that is roughly the equivalent of "No comment".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Idran posted:And you just ignore rules of syntax, apparently. Thinking Walker was saying "science is why I believe in God" requires him to be taking a position almost no one takes (except a few weirdos who infer gods existence from the order in nature). Thinking he was saying "taking science and my faith into account, I believe in God" is consistent with quite a few people's viewpoints. So yeah, I assume that he spoke slightly oddly, rather than that he took an extremely odd position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Rush has advice on how Walker should deal with the college question. quote:Limbaugh said during his show that if Walker, a potential presidential contender, were to be asked about why he left college, he should respond this way: "I left college because I didn't want to be accused of rape someday."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Doing this would make him nigh unelectable but I'm going to talk about it anyway because this hour isn't gonna fill itself and you all live in an alternate reality where only the "PC Police" who run the nation would have a problem with it. lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Thinking Walker was saying "science is why I believe in God" requires him to be taking a position almost no one takes (except a few weirdos who infer gods existence from the order in nature). Thinking he was saying "taking science and my faith into account, I believe in God" is consistent with quite a few people's viewpoints. So based on Walker's responses, do you think he agrees with the scientific consensus with respect to evolution? And if so, why didn't he just clearly say so in the first place? Or in his followup statement?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There's nothing in science that's incompatible with a theistic viewpoint. There's plenty that's incompatible with biblical literalism, but there's nothing in science that really proves or disproves theism as a general concept. Science has nothing to offer faith. Science cannot dictate a belief in god because it has nothing to say about god. Walker either has a contorted view of science (in that he thinks it can say something to prove god isn't bullshit), or he doesn't believe in science (meaning that he literally believes scripture for something like creation over evolution). Science and faith in any of the Abrahamic religions are only compatible if you're willing to cede ground and rationalize religion or if you're willing to do mental gymnastics to force god into science. If you want them to agree, you have to assume the religious texts aren't literal. You can't believe the earth was created as is by a god unless you also assume that science is invalid. The earth can only be a few thousand years old if you think that a god created it that long ago but left it with the markers to deceive people into thinking it was older. If you believe that, you might as well give up science since it's all just divine handwavery that is apparently beyond our ability to comprehend. If you're in one of those liberal branches of these religions (Reform Judiasm, for instance) it's less of an issue because your religious demands of what you're supposed to accept as truth are pretty limited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:Science has nothing to offer faith. Science cannot dictate a belief in god because it has nothing to say about god. Walker either has a contorted view of science (in that he thinks it can say something to prove god isn't bullshit), or he doesn't believe in science (meaning that he literally believes scripture for something like creation over evolution). You should really learn about religions that aren't literalist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:Science has nothing to offer faith. Science cannot dictate a belief in god because it has nothing to say about god. Walker either has a contorted view of science (in that he thinks it can say something to prove god isn't bullshit), or he doesn't believe in science (meaning that he literally believes scripture for something like creation over evolution). This kindof assumes that Walker actually thinks about religious belief at all in any kind of depth and actually attempts to have rational personal beliefs. Dude didn't finish college and is basically just a politician, period. He believes whatever his 50.01% of his constituents tell him to believe. Logic and reason aren't part of the equation. Another way of saying this: I think Scott Walker believes only in his own bullshit. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
^^^ That's probably trueKalman posted:You should really learn about religions that aren't literalist. All of the Abrahamic religions were literalist. They've developed branches that have shifted to a stance that claims allegory and parable as time has gone on and our understanding of the world has increased because once you accept something like a heliocentric model of the solar system, you need to come up with a reason why your text is wrong. Karnegal fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:All of the Abrahamic religions were literalist. They've developed branches that have shifted to a stance that claims allegory and parable as time has gone on and our understanding of the world has increased. No, they really weren't. Literalism is a recent development.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:^^^ That's probably true Oh my god go make your own thread no one cares. Hieronymous Alloy posted:This kindof assumes that Walker actually thinks about religious belief at all in any kind of depth and actually attempts to have rational personal beliefs. Dude didn't finish college and is basically just a politician, period. He believes whatever his 50.01% of his constituents tell him to believe. Logic and reason aren't part of the equation. Hey that's not fair he also believes in more money for Scott Walker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, they really weren't. Literalism is a recent development. If you look at accounts from common people in the dark and medieval ages, at least in Europe, they are not discussing the the bible as allegorical. Now, they have some really strange assumptions that aren't actually in the text "the soul is a bone in your body," but they don't have the sort of ideas that contemporary Christians do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:If you look at accounts from common people in the dark and medieval ages, at least in Europe, they are not discussing the the bible as allegorical. Now, they have some really strange assumptions that aren't actually in the text "the soul is a bone in your body," but they don't have the sort of ideas that contemporary Christians do. what accounts do you have from common people in the "dark and medieval" (the hell does this even mean) in europe on this note 'cos it sure as hell wasn't any major heresy or mainstream theology, let me tell you that like, the "dark ages" are "dark" because people didn't leave much in the way of writing, especially not "common" people
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:If you look at accounts from common people in the dark and medieval ages, at least in Europe, they are not discussing the the bible as allegorical. Now, they have some really strange assumptions that aren't actually in the text "the soul is a bone in your body," but they don't have the sort of ideas that contemporary Christians do. No one in this thread cares and you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Kalman posted:No, they really weren't. Literalism is a recent development. What were all those burnt sacrifices for then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:19
|
|
