Reality Crowd

Sometimes reality is hard to define. At Reality Crowd we look at the issue from all sorts of perspectives and angles. Sometimes we have to break out quantum mechanics or theology to make a point. But what hope do we really have of defining reality if we can’t even agree on what an ad is telling us to do? This ad from Checkers is an enigma wrapped in a mystery. What am I supposed to purchase? What do I get when I purchase it? I have read over this many times and I can’t for the life of me figure it out. Posters on this photo’s Flickr page have been trying to discern it’s mystery as well and it’s not going too well. Here are some choice selections:

i would say that the “2 for” deal is a two for one deal and thus i think the add really means. buy two sandwiches for the price of one and get a third item for free…
i think

“So essentially you get two double deals, and 1 double value for the price of 1 double deal.” So, that’s five sandwiches for the price of two, correct? Except that one of them (”value”) is smaller?

So if I order the “2 for $3 Double Cheeseburger Deal”….I get a FREE SINGLE DEAL, which is what, a single cheeseburger? No, can’t be, because it’s from the DOUBLE VALUE menu, which I assume only has things like Double Cheeseburgers. But then is one double cheeseburger a “SINGLE DEAL”?

The debate rages on several different websites…for some choice comments (and a few good laughs) check out the Flickr page, the post on boing boing, and the post on Without Warning for more.

So what do you think? As a lover of reality how do you explain this?

“During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world… The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes… In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests.”

Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium

Biblical “science” or creation “science” or “intelligent” design all attempt to put forth the same idea. That somehow despite total lack of evidence for their claims and complete disregard for the scientific method that they are somehow more scientific than science itself. We at Reality Crowd intend to examine this issue extensively as it is at the heart of what we are discussing here. Creationists, not content to have everyone accept their claims “on faith” (a rather dubious proposal) have now turned to the language of science to try to promote their ideas. The only problem is they occasionally run into real scientists:

For those who don’t recognize the voice, that is creationist Kent Hovind. The main point that we can get from this exchange is that creationists seem to have no concrete examples of what their “science” is for. It doesn’t make any reliable predictions about anything, nor does it describe in a useful way the way the physical systems of the universe work. Creationist’s version of science is merely attempting to shoehorn biblical passages into compatibility with what we know about the physical universe (but mostly the other way around).

One tactic that has been increasingly used by the religious in debates (both online and out in the “real” world) is to attempt to show that their claims are in fact backed up by science and reason. This has been the tactic of the “Intelligent” design movement and is often used by one of it’s leading proponents Kent Hovind. Essentially, their arguments are stated in a manor that makes them sound scientific. If I as a listener wanted to believe what these people are saying I would come away with the sense that they had somehow proven something to me, through reason and science.

However, when people that make arguments like these come across actual scientists, or even just people who are listening closely, their arguments are usually demonstrated to be much less solid then they would have you believe. Take Shawn (aka VenomFangX) on Youtube. Shawn has posted many videos that try to prove the existence of god, or jesus, or that dinosaurs and people were around at the same time 6000 years ago. If you don’t listen closely you might think that he makes some good points…but luckily for us a lot of people listen closely!

Here is an example of the type of argument Shawn tends to use, as well as some rational responses to it:

Sounds pretty good right? From the comments on YouTube you would think that Shawn had stumbled onto some ultimate line of reasoning that forever ended the Reality / Religion debate. After all, he even states at the end that there is no way to disprove him. I guess we can all go home and prepare for the apocalypse right? But wait:

That would seem to call into question Shawn’s rock solid “proof” of god’s existence. It also pretty much shoots down his (and all creation “scientists”) style of argument. By proclaiming that you are absolutely right without question you leave yourself wide open to being taken down, because if you are then wrong about one thing what does that indicate for everything else?

Or how about this response?

In fact, Youtube is FULL of videos of people debunking Shawn’s argument. Shawn is hiding all the negative comments on his videos (why the need if you are absolutely without question correct?). Read on for more videos addressing Shawn’s claims.

Read the rest of this entry »