Subject:
|
Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:13:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1614 times
|
| |
|
|
<37CD2A57.50CEFE70@eclipse.net> <37CD66C3.8C44BCAF@io.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sproaticus wrote:
>
> > I can see how it might appear this way to a religious person not very
> > well acquainted with science, but I disagree. That Q and those As are
When I reread this, it sounded like I meant to be suggesting that you
don't know jack about science, and that was kind-of opposite of my
point. But anyway...
> Yes, but you still have to take quite a lot on faith. Barring *personal*
> experimentation, how do you know that:
The faith that I have in most of those items isn't the same as the faith
you have in God's existence. Several people have tested those items and
provided their experimental data for review. If others had doubted the
work, they would have worked to disprove it. Faith in God is untestable
and thus not really subject to review or verification. That is, unless
you suggest that those 'scientific ideas,' for instance
> ...chromosomes carry the stuff that tells your body how to build itself?
are part of some large world-wide conspiracy. I doubt it.
> We accept various scientific models which work well with these phenomena.
> Few people, if any, have personally scientifically concluded all answers.
So? Everyone who believe in science as an appropriate paradigm for the
search theoretically plays by the rules and just as you can trust my
findings, I can trust yours. I don't have to personally conclude _everything_.
> Ergo, few people, if any, are true scientists.
It sounds as if you are saying that 'true scientists' have concluded all
answers. I'll assume unless you correct me that you mean something
else. A true scientist is one who uses TSM to search for truth. Right?
> The greatest gift science has given us is proof of the effectiveness of the
> written record. Everything else, effectively, is hearsay.
Hunh? We had written record before science was invented.
> > > But back to God. There will always be fundamental questions to which no one
> > > can give an answer.
> > Which questions are those?
>
> Um, well, you know, (confer confer), things like: Why do we think? Why
> does life exist? Why do some people hurt others, while some people help
> others? Metaphysics stuff.
I think those are perfect questions for science. Just because they're
detailed examinations of a very complex system doesn't mean that they're undoable.
> Science is okay for explaining "how", but really crappy at they "why" part.
I think we're just not very mature WRT to psychology. Give it fifty years.
> > > What's wrong with answering, then, "Because God did
> > > this" or "Because God allowed this"?
> > As I see it, accepting a question as unanswerable causes you to not try
> > to answer it.
>
> Erm, so you stop in your quest when you get an answer? What happened to
> trying to disprove it?
I totally miss what you mean. I'm saying that attributing phenomenon X
to God's will (defined as un-understandable) leads us away from trying
to explain X. I think that's bad.
> > We should try to answer everything. Accumulation
> > of knowledge is all that differentiates us from the other animals and to
> > reject that is to embrace being other (some would say less) than human.
> This argument holds no water.
OK, let's take it step by step:
> By this definition of human, we're all living
> (and blood-related to) large communities of organisms, some of whom are
> human and some of whom are animal.
OK, to the best of my knowledge, we are all living. Right? And we are
all related to (not sure what you mean blood-related) lots of critters
(probably everything that we count as life), human and otherwise. Right?
> My autistic brother looks like me, eats
> like me, and speaks like me, and I can personally vouch that he's human.
Personally? Do you mean genetically human. I would expect that's true
too :-)
> Yet, while I'm a knowledge-retaining problem-solver (engineer) by training
> and profession, he's no great accumulator of knowledge.
Right, some humans are broken such that some of their essential humanity
are lost. It's a shame, but doesn't effect my claim as far as I can see.
> So, by that definition, he is an animal and I am a human.
No, you're both animals. In addition, you're both physically human.
But this brother (real or not - I'm guessing real) is missing something
important and makes his behavior less human and more alien of some kind.
> What a heap of absolute Victorian bullshit.
Well, that's not how I think of it. I also don't think that your
autistic brother should have fewer rights, or has less innate value,
than the rest of us. (Unless he's incapable of caring for himself, maybe
and sort-of.)
> > We will answer what was there before the BB, just like we answered "why
> > do bird wings allow flight?"
>
> That's assuming there was a BB for something to happen before. (1)
Right, and I'm certainly not married to the idea that there was.
> BTW, the bird flight answer is by no means flawless. We've been alternating
Right, I could have picked something else, the point is still valid.
--Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
