Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:04:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1922 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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...
Er... oops. Meant to say: "I kinda wonder whether I'd call mathematics as
being explored by the scientific method..."
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ok, phew! (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
