[cauthon]

jitsukerr, on Aug 18 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

cauthon, on Aug 18 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

jitsukerr, on Aug 18 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

Evolution, together with Occam's Razor, eliminates the necessity for a designer. Evolution is the vehicle for change, and Occam's Razor prevents us from invoking any unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.

Well, turn it the other way around. Having a creator + occam's razor makes evolution unnecessary :-)

lol -- unfortunately, Occam's razor doesn't permit the elimination of necessary and sufficient causes. In the case of nature, evolution is all we need to explain natural phenomena. The addition of a creator is unnecessary, and can therefore be eliminated. Eliminating evolution leaves you with a slew of logical problems.

But of course, my assumption there is that logic is important. You may choose to differ.

I fail to see your point. A creator is a sufficient and necessary cause, by my pov. So OR does not allow erasing it ;-)

[stone monkey]

Obdigore, on Aug 18 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

SM never said there was no free will. Why you think that I have no idea. I did not say there was no free will either.

What he is saying that any god that will give you free will and rational thought, then attempts to muddy or hide the truth as a 'test' is not a god he is interested in worshipping.

Or maybe that is from me and I have SM's position wrong.

Nah... You've hit the nail on the head.

[cauthon]

Illuyankas, on Aug 18 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

You are saying the Earth is, though.

No. I am saying it was made, somehow, by somebody intelligent. Personally, I like the big bang theory, even though some would argue we've a series of bangs and crushes and such. And it does not contradict any biblical statements. Genesis starts with an earth that exists and a sun that exists. There's just no physical life on it.

Stone Monkey said:

The creator is an unnecessary postulate imo; he begs far more questions than he answers and is therefore useless as any kind of explanation for anything... Philosophically speaking, I would also regard him as an admission of defeat; why bother to even ask any questions about the origins of life and the universe if you believe every answer is going to be "God did it"?

Why would we have to stop at God did it? Nothing wrong with figuring out how (if we are able to comprehend it), or when, or what. I'd like to think we were made to with the ability to grow to understand our complex environment. We're curious beings, and if we were made, that curiosity would be a trait that was deemed to be favorable. Indeed, understanding how we work, how our cells, work, how we procreate, how we can cure diseases ... has no conflict with stating that we were created, I think. I only have a problem with people stating that because they have a theory, all other options/opinions are suddenly invalid. I work on a daily basis with people who believe evolutionary theory, yet there's no conflict on a scientific level in what we do and what we'd like to know.

I agree that OR is handy, but it's not because theory A fits facts F1 ... Fn, that A is valid whereas B is not, if B also fits the facts.

Are you claiming that it is impossible that there is a creator? I think you cannot make such a claim. Rather, people claim he is not necessary to explain the world. Does not mean he's non-existent. It simply means that people prefer A over B.

[cauthon]

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

Obdigore, on Aug 18 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

SM never said there was no free will. Why you think that I have no idea. I did not say there was no free will either.

What he is saying that any god that will give you free will and rational thought, then attempts to muddy or hide the truth as a 'test' is not a god he is interested in worshipping.

Or maybe that is from me and I have SM's position wrong.

Nah... You've hit the nail on the head.

Ok. Fair enough. But what makes you think he muddied or attempted to hide the truth?

[stone monkey]

Well, it certainly looks like he's unnecessary. Which logically, of course, doesn't preclude that he exists, it just makes it highly unlikely. So I choose not to believe in God for much the same reason that I don't take out Alien Abduction Insurance...

Actually, we don't have to stop at "God did it", I agree, but when we get to the perfectly obvious next question i.e. What made God? - the religious would insist we stop saying there isn't an answer to that one. Which makes "God did it" a singularly useless answer.

Small point; Genesis starts with the Earth being created and then the Sun, which we have very good reason to believe isn't the way things went down. So Genesis fails the astrophysical test...

Also, even if the facts (as they appear to us now) were different, your conception of God would fit them. That tells us nothing. Geocentric universe: God made it that way. Heliocentric universe: God made it that way. Static universe: God made it that way. Expanding universe: God made it that way. Accelerating universe: God made it that way. The hypothesis in no way changes to take into account the vastly more accurate evidence available to us about the structure of the universe that we've gathered since we started looking (arguably it doesn't need to because it doesn't actually succeed in explaining anything, but that's just my opinion) that imo, makes it a bad hypothesis.

You might well throw your hands up and simply say that God is unknowable by humans. Well I would argue that God is unknowable by humans in exactly the same way as the last digit of pi is unknowable by humans. Because it doesn't exist.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

Obdigore, on Aug 18 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

SM never said there was no free will. Why you think that I have no idea. I did not say there was no free will either.

What he is saying that any god that will give you free will and rational thought, then attempts to muddy or hide the truth as a 'test' is not a god he is interested in worshipping.

Or maybe that is from me and I have SM's position wrong.

Nah... You've hit the nail on the head.

Obdi, it was you that said there was no free will - go back and look at your post, you'll see what I mean.

Obviously it's a matter if opinion. If God really was like you two seems to think, then I would most likely agree. However I strongly disagree. In fact, I don't get at all why you think there are attempts at 'muddy or hide the truth' as you put it. From my perspective God has done more than enough to give us a second chance. Well in fact it's more like an unlimited amount of chances.

So back to my initial question. Why do you distrust God so much. Because to me it seems he is trying to show you the truth, but you stubbornly disregard it as 'hiding', when it is in fact you that are turning away, for the sake of some obscure reward that I can't figure out what it is.

Neither of you seems to even consider the effects that being turned away from God have on us humans. And I don't understand why you blame God for that, clearly it's your choice, you don't even have to do very much. I don't get it. Man this feels like talking to a wall. And now I'm sad too. That's what I get for wanting to discuss again.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

Well, it certainly looks like he's unnecessary. Which logically, of course, doesn't preclude that he exists, it just makes it highly unlikely. So I choose not to believe in God for much the same reason that I don't take out Alien Abduction Insurance...

Again, I am fascinated by your way of thinking. It's like trying to understand another culture, with a strange language, which it just as well could be, for all I am getting through here.

There is no logical step between appearances and any calculations of the likelihood of God's existence. For the same reason that we don't know much of the universe - just because we have a limited understanding of it, doesn't mean it's not endless - because for us it might aswell be. Allright I know I am not exactly being clear here, but please bear with me.

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

Actually, we don't have to stop at "God did it", I agree, but when we get to the perfectly obvious next question i.e. What made God? - the religious would insist we stop saying there isn't an answer to that one. Which makes "God did it" a singularly useless answer.

Of course there's an answer - God made himself. In any case, the question is not relevant. You might aswell ask, 'who made the universe'. This is why linear questions don't work with things we don't understand. It's like trying to see the flows of time when you're but one dot in the time stream. The perspective doesn't help.

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

Small point; Genesis starts with the Earth being created and then the Sun, which we have very good reason to believe isn't the way things went down. So Genesis fails the astrophysical test...

Are you saying you are sure the sequence really matters? I am not so sure. And you're still disregarding the power of God - that can make something by just speaking a word. It wouldn't matter in what sequence he made it, he could alter their structure at each phase. After the alterations was made, one set of rules would apply that in the previous didn't exist - and before the alterations was made, another set of rules apply. So we could in fact be looking at two separate timelines, with two separate set of rules, and hence two separate universes. But because we have knowledge of both, our perspective is different - we in fact see a tiny bit of another possible perspective, from a creators point of view. But I digress.

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

Also, even if the facts (as they appear to us now) were different, your conception of God would fit them. That tells us nothing. Geocentric universe: God made it that way. Heliocentric universe: God made it that way. Static universe: God made it that way. Expanding universe: God made it that way. Accelerating universe: God made it that way. The hypothesis in no way changes to take into account the vastly more accurate evidence available to us about the structure of the universe that we've gathered since we started looking (arguably it doesn't need to because it doesn't actually succeed in explaining anything, but that's just my opinion) that imo, makes it a bad hypothesis.

But your answer 'god made it' doesn't say anything about the actual rules. Why do you suppose the question of how something works suddenly doesn't matter just because we know the origin of it? You're not making any sense. The fact that we have been looking at stuff for a long time shows that we should, that it is what we are. It doesn't say anything about our relationship with God, so us being curious is about something else altogether.

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

You might well throw your hands up and simply say that God is unknowable by humans. Well I would argue that God is unknowable by humans in exactly the same way as the last digit of pi is unknowable by humans. Because it doesn't exist.

You give up too easily. Or should I say, you haven't even tried. Come back in a thousand years or so. Oh, and I promise I'll actually check in on you by then, and see how you're doing. I bet we'll have a very different conversation.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 19 August 2009 - 12:31 AM

[Cold Iron]

While we're all at it again...

This is a language problem. During the 20th century there was a scientific revolution sparked by the likes of Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, formalised by the works of Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger and leading to the modern status quo. This revolution reveals reality to be different to what our language allows us to describe. Many people wonder why they and so many others struggle to understand quantum mechanics and string theory, this is the answer - our language is unsuited to discussing it. Our language is based by necessity on the rules of classical logic and reason like causality and materialism as these are the rules that appear to govern the everyday world. Quantum mechanics reveals these foundations, however, to be false conclusions of a mind situated in a body that is incapable of detailed observation.

What does this mean? It means that unlike Newtonian mechanics, we are not able to simply teach quantum mechanics to school children. In order to understand it you must begin studying the entire history of the modern revolution from a foundation of a very high level of understanding of the previous scientific status quo. Classical physics is intuitive, it is able to be followed without a deep understanding of the progression of discoveries or the calculations with which they were made because it follows the same rules as language. Modern physics is not.

Ok here's where I get back on topic: Religion is to philosophy as classical mechanics is to physics. Religion and religious terminology is a familiar and convenient starting point from which to discuss ethical and existential concerns for the majority due to the language used to describe everyday experiences with concepts of this nature. Modern philosophy has moved beyond the use of this terminology, however, and in order to understand the position of modern philosophers, a high level of understanding of classical philosophy is required.

One can be reasonably certain that as both modern physics and modern philosophy permeate the general lay consciousness, language - and culture - will adapt, taking on these new ideas and allowing quick and easy dissemination to younger and younger minds, setting the stage for further progress.

In point of fact, the internet is a perfect platform for this dissemination and it is precisely what seems to be happening in this thread - and indeed in this entire debate! Fascinating.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 19 August 2009 - 03:14 AM

[Obdigore]

Obdigore, on Aug 18 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

No, Gem,

SM is saying:

'God gave us free will and rational thought, then told us not to use either, but believe without questions in what he tells us.'

Gem, read this again and tell me where I am saying there is no free will? I'm not.

[cauthon]

stone monkey, on Aug 19 2009, 12:14 AM, said:

Well, it certainly looks like he's unnecessary. Which logically, of course, doesn't preclude that he exists, it just makes it highly unlikely. So I choose not to believe in God for much the same reason that I don't take out Alien Abduction Insurance...

Actually, we don't have to stop at "God did it", I agree, but when we get to the perfectly obvious next question i.e. What made God? - the religious would insist we stop saying there isn't an answer to that one. Which makes "God did it" a singularly useless answer.

True, we cannot explain what made God. That's an axiom we must accept, just as we must accept mathematical axioms. I concur this might be a problem for some people. I think there are three possible answers:

1) Nothing made God, i.e., there is one God.
2) Another God made God, i.e., there are infinitely many Gods (countable though :-)
3) There is no God.

A lot of you side with (3), I'm sticking at (1).

stone monkey, on Aug 19 2009, 12:14 AM, said:

Small point; Genesis starts with the Earth being created and then the Sun, which we have very good reason to believe isn't the way things went down. So Genesis fails the astrophysical test...

That is not how I understand the text. Imagine you being an observer on earth.

Quote

1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light.
4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness.
5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.

Verse 1 states that the universe was created at some point. It does not state that God put each and every atom in its place individually (it does not state he didn't do just that, but I think it's safer to assume he did not). So, the sun and the earth and the entire mumbo jumbo existed. This point can be anywhere between 7K years and 4B years ago. Verse 2 states that there was no light reaching the earth surface, again, from an observer on earth his POV. There was water though. Verses 3-5 explains that God made the skies clear to some extend such that the sunlight could be observed and one could see what happened on the surface. Again, this might have been instantanious or it might have taken some time. I go with the latter, if you don't mind :-)

Quote

14 And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.
15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so.
16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.
17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,
18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good.
19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.

Here we come to the point where the observer can actually distinguish the sun and the moon, and the stars. From an observer's POV the sun could not be seen until this point, yet the light could penetrate the atmosphere.

stone monkey, on Aug 19 2009, 12:14 AM, said:

]
Also, even if the facts (as they appear to us now) were different, your conception of God would fit them. That tells us nothing. Geocentric universe: God made it that way. Heliocentric universe: God made it that way. Static universe: God made it that way. Expanding universe: God made it that way. Accelerating universe: God made it that way. The hypothesis in no way changes to take into account the vastly more accurate evidence available to us about the structure of the universe that we've gathered since we started looking (arguably it doesn't need to because it doesn't actually succeed in explaining anything, but that's just my opinion) that imo, makes it a bad hypothesis.

Where in the bible does it state that the universe is geocentric? Or heliocentric? Nowhere. That was thought up by man. I'm not saying how God made it, I'm just saying he did. We have some theory explaining to some extend what might have happened, and imho this theory is not contradictory to biblical texts. Evolutionary theory, however is contradictory. The bible says that each species procreates according to its kind. And specifically that God creates the species. Maybe you should take a look at it from another POV. God made the universe in way X and we're thinking it happened in way Y1 ... Yn ... If lim_{n->inf} moves to X, I'm fine with that. We seek to understand. To me, the search is more worthwhile than the final answer. But it does not make any point in the search any more true. Maybe we'll discover some evidence that lets us believe it did happen in an altogether different way, we cannot fathom just yet.

For example, people thought for a long time that the earth was a discworld. Yet the bible stated it hung up on nothing (Isaiah, irrc). It told the earth was a sphere, not flat. So, claiming that the bible caused man to have the wrong image is simple not true. It is true that religious zealots killed scientists because they could not handle truths that were said.

I acknowledge there are many things one cannot explain from biblical texts alone, but the point of the bible is not to be a scientific guide to creation, no matter how much (some) creationists
would like it to be. It does not tell us how we get sick, but it did tell people how to avoid spreading diseases, how to have good hygienic practices, etc.

But keep the argument going. As long as it stays polite, I'm fine with it

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore, on Aug 19 2009, 02:15 AM, said:

Obdigore, on Aug 18 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

No, Gem,

SM is saying:

'God gave us free will and rational thought, then told us not to use either, but believe without questions in what he tells us.'

Gem, read this again and tell me where I am saying there is no free will? I'm not.

Bolded it for you. I interpreted it as you meant God prevents us from using free will, that's why I answered your post as I did. I should have said in my previous post addressed to you that I see my mistake - I wanted to explain why I answered as I did. No biggie. This is just semantics anyway. The point of my argument in any case was that God doesn't tell us to not use free will.

I am still trying to understand what it is exactly that you guys are saying, I've made some guesses and speculations, but only you yourselves can describe it, so that's why I keep asking. Am I correct in assuming you are saying God wants you to believe in him without you gaining anything, or maybe that God somehow prevents us from understanding something important.

Anyway, I've been trying to explain that the differences here are about difference in philosophical viewpoint on what it means to be human, where we come from and all that jazz. In my world, the fall of man constitutes the greatest loss mankind has ever faced. We lost our purpose for which we were created, we lost access to God's knowledge and alot of other things. Through God's plan with Jesus Christ we can gain that back, but only if we want to. We can still accomplish alot of things - God declares that nothing will be impossible for humans to accomplish. So we're free to use our brains, our free will, and our 'rationality', whatever your definition is of that. What God gives us humans is Chocie, where there previously were none. The Fall of man hindered free will, because those that wanted to be with God could not. That's what Jesus is about. He restored the choices, so everyone could get what they wanted.

Man, I'm so tired, I'll maybe continue this later.

[stone monkey]

The Bible is an allegorical text written by a bunch of middle-easterners, over a period of centuries, a few thousand years ago; that collects a previous oral tradition and has since been redacted several times; for various reasons and by various authors. What it absolutely is not is any kind of accurate guide to the origin, history and structure of the universe. It's even inaccurate about the history of the people who wrote it... (which is only to be expected as one of the redactions was a spin job to aggrandize the Kingdom of Judea and its kings...)

I'd find a certain demographic within the contemporary Christian community somewhat less disturbing were they to understand all of the above.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on Aug 19 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

The Bible is an allegorical text written by a bunch of middle-easterners, over a period of centuries, a few thousand years ago; that collects a previous oral tradition and has since been redacted several times; for various reasons and by various authors. What it absolutely is not is any kind of accurate guide to the origin, history and structure of the universe. It's even inaccurate about the history of the people who wrote it... (which is only to be expected as one of the redactions was a spin job to aggrandize the Kingdom of Judea and its kings...)

I'd find a certain demographic within the contemporary Christian community somewhat less disturbing were they to understand all of the above.

I agree that the Bible isn't very specific as regards to how things work generally. As to its accuracy on the things it do is specific about, it's an ongoing debate. However, you cannot discuss Christian beliefs without at some point referencing it. I find the notion of discussing God solely through scientific philosophy, or whatever you would call it, ridiculously shallow; particularly in a thread like this, whose alleged purpose is to discuss and compare Creation and Evolution.

As a Christian whatever the Bible says, or not say, is an intricate part of the image, or lack of image, of the origin and structure of the universe I will end up with. But mostly the image is affected by my opinion and image I have of God.

Likewise, I would say anyone that doesn't believe in God - their image or lack of image of the origin and structure of the universe is affected by their belief that God doesn't exist. And furthermore, the nonbeliever's image of how a person that believes in God perceives the universe is affected by how the nonbeliever perceives, or not perceives, the idea of God.

Contrary to what you may think, it is not by default more or less rational to not believe in God than believing in God, i.e. rationality is not relative to the amount of belief, but instead relative to other factors, like self awareness, practicality, compartmentalization, critical thought, geometric thinking, integrity etc.

As the difference in philosophy is vast on core level, one has to find common ground in the fact that there is not a 'correct perception', but rather correct data; but also especially that the data itself is never completely distinguishable from the point of view from where it was gathered. This is not more strange than describing the same events in different languages renders different meanings. However if one is caught up in the differences instead of seeing the similarities, one cannot hope to understand the events at all; instead the perception of the event is distorted. Instead the differences should be seen as a means to understand different aspects of the same events, and will eventually increase the understanding of the events. So in fact the different accounts serves as two possible scenarios, and intersected those scenarios will be the conduit to understanding the events. However, to intersect the various scenarios, one has to learn the languages and concepts used in them, that much should be apparent.

To summarize, to believe or not believe is not by default more or less rational than the counterpart - it is directly dependent on what the correct data is. And since the interpretation of data is rarely, if never, completely objective, the intersection of viewpoints are necessary.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 19 August 2009 - 02:02 PM

[cauthon]

stone monkey, on Aug 19 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

which is only to be expected as one of the redactions was a spin job to aggrandize the Kingdom of Judea and its kings...)

Well, actually, if you take a closer look, you will find that only 4 kings or so come out positively, the rest are clearly a bunch of suckers who failed.

[Terez]

cauthon, on Aug 19 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

stone monkey, on Aug 19 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

which is only to be expected as one of the redactions was a spin job to aggrandize the Kingdom of Judea and its kings...)

Well, actually, if you take a closer look, you will find that only 4 kings or so come out positively, the rest are clearly a bunch of suckers who failed.

Hell, even the ones that come out 'positively' are also portrayed as failures in many ways. Saul especially. Even Solomon is said to have been wise in his younger years and a failure in his later years. Even David's sins are highlighted. The kings after the split...most Christians don't even know their names, but I'm sure the Jews do...

But none of that changes the fact that the books detailing the years of the kingdom are meant to make said 'kingdom' out to be much more important than it actually was. If it weren't for Christianity, no one would remember the kingdom at all, except the Jews (who would likely be much smaller in number).

[cauthon]

Terez, on Aug 20 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

But none of that changes the fact that the books detailing the years of the kingdom are meant to make said 'kingdom' out to be much more important than it actually was. If it weren't for Christianity, no one would remember the kingdom at all, except the Jews (who would likely be much smaller in number).

I was important in the sense that it contains valuable lessons. And at that point, those people were the descentants of Abe, with whom God had a covenant, namely, that the one who would allow the restoring of the original sinless state of humankind to happen would be born into that nation (this should ring familiar to you lot 'a life (given) for a life (taken)' . Does not mean God tolerated all their mumbo jumbo.

[Use Of Weapons]

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 19 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

As the difference in philosophy is vast on core level, one has to find common ground in the fact that there is not a 'correct perception', but rather correct data; but also especially that the data itself is never completely distinguishable from the point of view from where it was gathered. This is not more strange than describing the same events in different languages renders different meanings. However if one is caught up in the differences instead of seeing the similarities, one cannot hope to understand the events at all; instead the perception of the event is distorted. Instead the differences should be seen as a means to understand different aspects of the same events, and will eventually increase the understanding of the events. So in fact the different accounts serves as two possible scenarios, and intersected those scenarios will be the conduit to understanding the events. However, to intersect the various scenarios, one has to learn the languages and concepts used in them, that much should be apparent.

This smacks of the worst sort of post-modernist liberalism (a wider debate than this one). The search for objective truth is emphatically _not_ the province of navel-gazing philosophers or effete English graduates deconstructing texts in an attempt to fit them around their own preconceptions and prejudices. Science cannot be deconstructed in this way (and attempts to do so are completely laughable: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archiv...okal-hoax.html)

"Sokal" said:

"What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities,"

[Gem Windcaster]

jitsukerr, on Aug 20 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 19 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

As the difference in philosophy is vast on core level, one has to find common ground in the fact that there is not a 'correct perception', but rather correct data; but also especially that the data itself is never completely distinguishable from the point of view from where it was gathered. This is not more strange than describing the same events in different languages renders different meanings. However if one is caught up in the differences instead of seeing the similarities, one cannot hope to understand the events at all; instead the perception of the event is distorted. Instead the differences should be seen as a means to understand different aspects of the same events, and will eventually increase the understanding of the events. So in fact the different accounts serves as two possible scenarios, and intersected those scenarios will be the conduit to understanding the events. However, to intersect the various scenarios, one has to learn the languages and concepts used in them, that much should be apparent.

This smacks of the worst sort of post-modernist liberalism (a wider debate than this one). The search for objective truth is emphatically _not_ the province of navel-gazing philosophers or effete English graduates deconstructing texts in an attempt to fit them around their own preconceptions and prejudices. Science cannot be deconstructed in this way (and attempts to do so are completely laughable: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archiv...okal-hoax.html)

"Sokal" said:

"What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities,"

WTF! Where did I say you can deconstruct science by searching for objective truth. If anything my above post agrees that science is not objective. Instead your criticism could be pointed at my counterparts in this debate. My use of objectiveness in my previous post was simply as a concept in the mind with which to compare the different viewpoints. Nor do I mean that intersecting the different scenarios would render an absolute truth, but rather the understanding of each other, so we can coexist. I'm not even sure I believe there are such a thing as objective truth, but if there is, we most likely won't find it right here and now, on this Earth.

For crying out loud, I know I can be pretty hard to get sometimes, but jeez, at least try.

[Cold Iron]

jitsukerr, on Aug 20 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 19 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

As the difference in philosophy is vast on core level, one has to find common ground in the fact that there is not a 'correct perception', but rather correct data; but also especially that the data itself is never completely distinguishable from the point of view from where it was gathered. This is not more strange than describing the same events in different languages renders different meanings. However if one is caught up in the differences instead of seeing the similarities, one cannot hope to understand the events at all; instead the perception of the event is distorted. Instead the differences should be seen as a means to understand different aspects of the same events, and will eventually increase the understanding of the events. So in fact the different accounts serves as two possible scenarios, and intersected those scenarios will be the conduit to understanding the events. However, to intersect the various scenarios, one has to learn the languages and concepts used in them, that much should be apparent.

This smacks of the worst sort of post-modernist liberalism (a wider debate than this one). The search for objective truth is emphatically _not_ the province of navel-gazing philosophers or effete English graduates deconstructing texts in an attempt to fit them around their own preconceptions and prejudices. Science cannot be deconstructed in this way (and attempts to do so are completely laughable: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archiv...okal-hoax.html)

"Sokal" said:

"What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities,"

Good article, but it's in a different league to this discussion. Where is this data that supports a religious account of reality - presumably gathered by the religious community and thus coloured by it's preconceptions - that stands in opposition to the scientific data? The bible? This is a far cry from the debate about humanity's capacity to interpret objective truth.

The bible and religious texts in general are important tools for understanding the universe only insofar as they are tools with which one can dissect the way in which understanding is coloured by our irrational nature. It does not stand in direct conflict with scientific observations. The claim is misguided and the attempt at justification confused.

[cauthon]

Cold Iron, on Aug 20 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Good article, but it's in a different league to this discussion. Where is this data that supports a religious account of reality - presumably gathered by the religious community and thus coloured by it's preconceptions - that stands in opposition to the scientific data? The bible? This is a far cry from the debate about humanity's capacity to interpret objective truth.

The bible and religious texts in general are important tools for understanding the universe only insofar as they are tools with which one can dissect the way in which understanding is coloured by our irrational nature. It does not stand in direct conflict with scientific observations. The claim is misguided and the attempt at justification confused.

Of course, 'scientific' data is not always objective. In fact, mostly it is not. People make a claim, find arguments that support it, and publish. Rarely do they look for arguments that do not support the claim.

Without going into the 'it's not necesssary to have a god stuff' ... does the 'evidence' refute the existence of a creator? Imho, it does not. Saying that it is not necessary is a step too far for me. I do understand why science will not have a god in the equation, but I fail to see why we cannot do the research and state our theories, without make claims that can only be supported by an OR mechanism. Which, essentially, is a human invention to scale down the # of options.

What would it take for you to accept that there is a creator? If a divine being stepped up and showed you how it was done, would you accept it? Or would you say, well, no, sorry, but, you see, this theory can explain what we see, so you did not do this, and we do not accept that you might have?