Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:59:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1685 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> My brain hurts just reading that! :-)
>
> I was agreeing with you.
Ok, phew!
> Both seek to explain the world around us, but approach it at different
> levels. Ultimately, one is taken as a matter of faith, the other isn't.
Ah. Maybe this is the semantic that we've been missing. I'm dealing with
religion in the theoretical sense. In my mind, I'm referring to what
religion COULD be, not necessarily what it IS.
My implication is that IF one judged metaphysical events as consistant, and
applied the scientific theory to them to conclude the existence of God,
absoluteness of morality, etc, then religion wouldn't be arguing the absurd
to conclude so. Hence, religion isn't NECESSARILY wrong. But the plain and
simple of it is just that that's not what most religions have done. And to
that extent, I agree with you. Unless that's how a Christian has derived
their version of their religion, then I don't think they have the 'right' to
proclaim such a version of religion as potentially valid.
That change it up at all? I'm expecting so...
> > Not necessarily. One big thing I'm getting at here isn't that science is
> > wrong, but that many people tote around science as being necessarily right.
> > Science in and of itself has NEVER (nor will) 'proven' ANYTHING. It's only
> > showed that which is probable.
>
> That is correct. Well, maybe mathematical proofs.
Hmm... I kinda wonder whether I'd call mathematics as being explored by
mathematical principles... Hmm.. actually, no, I don't think so-- I think
math is more of a tautology. It defines itself. It's not really based on
evidence, it's based on definitions... Basically, we didn't take 1 and 1, do
something with them, get 2 a bunch of times, then derive the idea of 'plus',
but rather defined plus and discovered that 2 comes out of it. At least
that's my thought on the matter. Tough call though... Not sure I'm grounded
in that yet...
> > Why? Because you've seen evidence to believe so.
>
> That's evidence, not faith.
I guess here's perhaps another difference semantically. I've heard things
like "Why do you have faith in X?", etc. And to say such a thing denotes a
reasoning behind faith, not to say that their definition of faith is
incorrect. But really, I think it's a trust of your own power to reason. Why
did you pick physical over metaphysical? Because it's consistant. Why do you
think it's consistant? You have faith in your ability to judge consistancy.
Basically, what if you judged the metaphysical to be consistant? Would you
be wrong to apply the scientific method to those consistant perceptions? I'd
hope not.
> Yup, we just gotta disagree. But you were fun to read! :-)
Gettin' awful close, I think...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
| (...) I agree that religion isn't necessarily wrong - though it would seem the conflicting claims of the religions, not to mention the sects within the religions would indicate that somebody *is* wrong somewhere! But then again, maybe every one of (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) My brain hurts just reading that! :-) I was agreeing with you. (...) Both seek to explain the world around us, but approach it at different levels. Ultimately, one is taken as a matter of faith, the other isn't. (...) That is correct. Well, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
