Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

Ooooo, scary :rotfl:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker,

Yes, isn't it?

MichaelCadry

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

Well look at that. Victory over the atheists!! Shut them up pretty good and FOR GOOD!! Get on your knees tonite and pray that God will enter back into your life and consider forgiving you for your grave sins and He may give you another chance. You've been bad, bad boys. So be humble when you pray to Him. Ask Jesus to come into your heart. It works incredibly well. That's how I did it.

In God's Love,

Michael

 

[Selaphiel]

What it does indicate, if there is but one truth, is that the overwhelming number of religionists are in some aspects wrong if not completely wrong compared to some religions. I'd go one further, they're probably all very wrong indeed.
It doesn't invalidate a possible deity of some kind which if true imo remains simply unknown.

Maybe some of them are completely wrong. I've not said that all religions are all correct. What I stated was a general principle, that if there are differences of opinion, it does not invalidate the subject matter as such.
And I'm not particularly interested in what you think is possible unless you can make an argument for it. The general idea of God as it was developed in Abrahamic religions as well as within the Hindu tradition (The necessary, eternal and unlimited ground of all things) is completely different from that of a god in paganism (very powerful, but contingent and limited beings) . And no, that is no modern distinction. Xenophanes made that distinction, in 500 BC.

Well done for bringing in quantum physics btw, always worth an outing to impress. It is however an indication of something not as yet fully understood and how science doesn't then invent conclusions it simply lets them remain as unknown.

Really? Did you read what I wrote? Seems to me that Niels Bohr came up with philosophical conclusions, namely that of complementarity, a view that has been dominating quantum mechanics and general physics for a long time in how they interpret the theory.
And I like the not so subtle attempt at ad hominem by the way. Trying to ridicule me for bringing up quantum physics instead of actually addressing what I've said. If you believe what I say is wrong, I expect you to make an argument instead of talking about me. Who wrote the text you are commenting is not particularly important. Believe it or not, philosophy of science and the borderlands between science and philosophical theology/philosophy of religion is a field that I love, and it is the topic I'm writing my thesis on, so I have read a fair amount about these topics.

You made a comment where you ridiculed an idea, implying that it was dumb and non-scientific. I showed you why that was not necessarily the case.

If we suppose that one religion is after all true, then all the others indicate just how readily invented alternatives are fashioned by humans, as supposed answers for what they don't actually know but like to pretend they do.

And I guess with all your deep and serious study of this subject qualifies you to make such judgments? It does not folllow that all they did was to merely invent things. I think there are very few that would deny that religion is affected by culture and vice versa. It is entirely possible that some propositions of a religion are true, while others are not. It is simply not the case that something as complex as religion is either completely correct or completely wrong in all aspects and propositions. Secondly, you speak as if religions are static entities, defined for all eternity at one specific point in time. They are not. Religion participates in and reflects on the knowledge of the day (generally speaking): The most superifical knowledge of something like the history of theology within Christianity would be sufficient to show that this is the case. Of course there are always those that resist such development, but that does not invalidate it as an exercise and it certainly does not invalidate it as a historical fact.

As long as I can ridicule most religions I'll be happy.

Ridicule all you like, but what I've actually seen of your criticism of religions, you should be careful with ridiculing. Good criticism requires actual knowledge about the topic.

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear hedshaker,

Yes, isn't it?

MichaelCadry

Well, on one hand I feel I should forgive you. We should never put down to malice what can be explained by stupidity. On the other hand, being under the spell of a religion is no more an excuse for repugnant dialogue than is ignorance of the law an excuse for criminality.

Best you carry on with your victory dance. May it fair you better than your intellect ever can.

 

[noguru]

Dear All,

Well look at that. Victory over the atheists!! Shut them up pretty good and FOR GOOD!! Get on your knees tonite and pray that God will enter back into your life and consider forgiving you for your grave sins and He may give you another chance. You've been bad, bad boys. So be humble when you pray to Him. Ask Jesus to come into your heart. It works incredibly well. That's how I did it.

In God's Love,

Michael

Is this really the goal you are seeking here? Or should I say; methodology you have chosen?

 

[noguru]

It is not just more life. It is life in its truest form. And it is not just because life is everlasting in a Christian context, it is because life and existence itself was the will of an everlasting, perfect and absolute transcedent reality, which everything participates in. In a Christian context the essence of life is defined by participating in such a greater reality. I would claim that the "essence of life" at least partially defined by the greater reality in which it is a part of. And that is my point, life is meaningful because the essence of life as I see it is defined by its participation in this greater reality.

OK it's "Mo Better Life (without the blues)"

I really don't think adding quality to quantity changes my point at all.

How would you argue for meaning in an atheistic ontology (understood as a complete lack of any transcendent reality)?

I do not say all atheist ontologies are completely lacking in any kind of transcendant raelity. That is your mischaracterization of the issue.

But I certainly can argue for how "life is both the goal of either a theist or atheist ontology that is not nihilistic". Let's look at the reform of Hinduism, which is Buddhism, since in a later post you do express an appreciation for that theology as well.

Why? Absent any greater context, with a purely materialistic reality with no transcendent reality, how is life any more meaningful than any other process? And by "any more" I mean more than absolutely nothing. Sure, we could come up with subjective meaning, but I would argue that such meaning is ultimately meaningless, since its greater context is absolutely meaningless and thus is ultimately futile.

Life itself, not each individual existence, is the greater context to which I refer. Do you inderstand yet?

You can argue that a life holds a subjective meaning for some time after death, due to subsequent generations remembering you and is affected by your choices and so forth. But ultimately, how did it have any meaning? When the universe reaches a state of absolute entropy, what difference did life make? Would it be any different if there were no life at all? I would say no, nobody cared and nobody even noticed.

Nonsense. You are missing my point.

I of course agree that life has meaning, but only due to being part of a greater reality which makes it meaningful. Without that, I just do not see why life, as one process among many, is anymore privileged with retgards to meaning than for example dune wave formations.

Refer to my previous statements.

Feel free to elaborate.

Life in the here and now, rather than the unreality of the future which does not exist yet. There is a saying, as a caution it is hyperbole for those who might find such forms of speech too challenging;

"If you have one foot in yesterday, and one foot in tomorrow, then you are urinating on today."

 

[alwight]

What it does indicate, if there is but one truth, is that the overwhelming number of religionists are in some aspects wrong if not completely wrong compared to some religions. I'd go one further, they're probably all very wrong indeed.
It doesn't invalidate a possible deity of some kind which if true imo remains simply unknown.

Maybe some of them are completely wrong. I've not said that all religions are all correct. What I stated was a general principle, that if there are differences of opinion, it does not invalidate the subject matter as such.
And I'm not particularly interested in what you think is possible unless you can make an argument for it. The general idea of God as it was developed in Abrahamic religions as well as within the Hindu tradition (The necessary, eternal and unlimited ground of all things) is completely different from that of a god in paganism (very powerful, but contingent and limited beings) . And no, that is no modern distinction. Xenophanes made that distinction, in 500 BC.

For my part I’m not particularly interested in who it is that you personally look up to as figures of authority, since science generally makes its conclusions by peer review and from the evidence, not by how esteemed any particular individual my indeed be, which is perhaps why we get on so well.

I don’t have any problem with the “general idea of God”. Of course humans tend to think in such terms, which is why regional religions and customs have always evolved and usually fade away at some point, probably depending on whose army is more powerful rather than any powerful real deity.
Human beings have perhaps evolved this way for whatever reason, maybe just for the benefit of forming better armies, not for a better theistic understanding?

Sorry but I have no opinion on how limited say Zeus was thought to be as a god, such deities are simply different human supernatural imaginings afaik. But I don’t need to argue the details or have any great knowledge of any particular religion since you don’t seem to dispute that (apart from your own particular religion of course) all the others, to some degree are quite wrong about the specific details. This again does not rule out a possible true god, it simply suggests that any such extant god is probably just unknowable.

Well done for bringing in quantum physics btw, always worth an outing to impress. It is however an indication of something not as yet fully understood and how science doesn't then invent conclusions it simply lets them remain as unknown.

Really? Did you read what I wrote? Seems to me that Niels Bohr came up with philosophical conclusions, namely that of complementarity, a view that has been dominating quantum mechanics and general physics for a long time in how they interpret the theory.

You name dropper you, your hero?

And I like the not so subtle attempt at ad hominem by the way. Trying to ridicule me for bringing up quantum physics instead of actually addressing what I've said. If you believe what I say is wrong, I expect you to make an argument instead of talking about me. Who wrote the text you are commenting is not particularly important. Believe it or not, philosophy of science and the borderlands between science and philosophical theology/philosophy of religion is a field that I love, and it is the topic I'm writing my thesis on, so I have read a fair amount about these topics.

C’mon Sel you just couldn’t wait to engineer a philosophical debate with two “complimentary views” that great minds may argue over, right up your street I notice. I however am not such a “great mind” sadly or a philosopher and wouldn’t want to attempt to pontificate on it even if I did feel stupid enough to, nor do I intend to be belittled by you on it. After all, this thread is simply about creation versus evolution, fiction or fact, not philosophy and creationism is a religious idea.

You made a comment where you ridiculed an idea, implying that it was dumb and non-scientific. I showed you why that was not necessarily the case.

Really? Only I was talking about religionists and their less than scientific conclusions if you check, not those of theoretical physicists or of quantum mechanics.

If we suppose that one religion is after all true, then all the others indicate just how readily invented alternatives are fashioned by humans, as supposed answers for what they don't actually know but like to pretend they do.

And I guess with all your deep and serious study of this subject qualifies you to make such judgments? It does not folllow that all they did was to merely invent things. I think there are very few that would deny that religion is affected by culture and vice versa. It is entirely possible that some propositions of a religion are true, while others are not. It is simply not the case that something as complex as religion is either completely correct or completely wrong in all aspects and propositions. Secondly, you speak as if religions are static entities, defined for all eternity at one specific point in time. They are not. Religion participates in and reflects on the knowledge of the day (generally speaking): The most superifical knowledge of something like the history of theology within Christianity would be sufficient to show that this is the case. Of course there are always those that resist such development, but that does not invalidate it as an exercise and it certainly does not invalidate it as a historical fact.

Nevertheless despite your sneering about my “deep and serious study of this subject” my argument is a logical one, in the atomic world anyway, that no two contrary things will be true at the same time. If you really think it an answer to explain it away by leading me to the apparently contradictory nature of quantum mechanics then I suggest you think again, that’s rubbish.
Where did I say that religions were “static entities”? Straw man, clearly Christianity and Islam at least are anything but that.

As long as I can ridicule most religions I'll be happy.

Ridicule all you like, but what I've actually seen of your criticism of religions, you should be careful with ridiculing. Good criticism requires actual knowledge about the topic.

So just how many conflicting religious beliefs can logically be true at the same time then? :think:

 

[Selaphiel]

I do not say all atheist ontologies are completely lacking in any kind of transcendant raelity. That is your mischaracterization of the issue.

But I certainly can argue for how "life is both the goal of either a theist or atheist ontology that is not nihilistic". Let's look at the reform of Hinduism, which is Buddhism, since in a later post you do express an appreciation for that theology as well.

I do not exclude Buddhism from meaning. I could have been more accurate, but that is why I, for the purpose of this topic, defined atheism as lack of any form of transcendent reality. I would argue that Buddhism, even if it is definitely not theistic, has a concept of a transcendent reality. That said, that transcendent reality is notoriously difficult to describe since by definition it is beyond description. So to define Buddhism as nihilism would be a gross miscaricature of the religion, and as such I do oppose such a characterization. I have great respect for Buddhism, I believe Buddhist philosophy can teach Christians a fair deal (and there are claims that they directly have, it is not impossible that the mystical hesychast tradition emerged from an encounter with Buddhist meditators).

Life in the here and now, rather than the unreality of the future which does not exist yet. There is a saying, as a caution it is hyperbole for those who might find such forms of speech too challenging;

I do not disagree with this per se. But I would supplement it with the saying of "the kingdom of God is in your midst". The eschaton is both now and in the future, its reality illumines and enriches the present. I would deny a form of Christianity that postulates that this life is a mere waiting room for the real life. But I also claim that the promise of the kingdom of God is important for the now in that it illumines it and puts it in perspective.
I have much fascination for Gregory of Nyssa, for him there is no real distinction between the two. His understanding of the afterlife is that it simply continues, as if death has become unreal in light of the resurrection and in it our journey continues, the journey being the infinite growing/stretching into God's love, beauty and goodness.

 

[Selaphiel]

For my part I’m not particularly interested in who it is that you personally look up to as figures of authority, since science generally makes its conclusions by peer review and from the evidence, not by how esteemed any particular individual my indeed be, which is perhaps why we get on so well

Yes, because me citing a person, while at the same time noting that I disagree with his conclusions is an appeal to authority? Explain to me how that works.
I did not in any way say that Bohr was right because he was an authority, I said his views have been very influential, that is simply a historical fact and nothing more than that.

I don’t have any problem with the “general idea of God”. Of course humans tend to think in such terms, which is why regional religions and customs have always evolved and usually fade away at some point, probably depending on whose army is more powerful rather than any powerful real deity.
Human beings have perhaps evolved this way for whatever reason, maybe just for the benefit of forming better armies, not for a better theistic understanding?

Yes, because theological disputes have always been resolved by warfare...There is a great deal that all of those religions agree about when it comes to God.

You name dropper you, your hero?

It is name dropping to cite the source of an idea? As I said above, how can you accuse me of having him as a hero when I explicitly disagee with his view? You seriously need to read the posts you are responding to, I simply stated that the idea that you ridiculed was not a ridiculous idea, in fact it is a rather important and influential idea (although in a less crude form).

C’mon Sel you just couldn’t wait to engineer a philosophical debate with two “complimentary views” that great minds may argue over, right up your street I notice. I however am not such a “great mind” sadly or a philosopher and wouldn’t want to attempt to pontificate on it even if I did feel stupid enough to, nor do I intend to be belittled by you on it. After all, this thread is simply about creation versus evolution, fiction or fact, not philosophy and creationism is a religious idea.

There is one complementary view, complementary as in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics representing two contradictory ways of our experience ordering reality. And I do not mind that you are not interested in the discussion, what I do mind is when you see it fit to ridicule positions that fall within that debate and then afterwards claim that you have no interest in it. Because then I have to ask, on what grounds are you ridiculing the idea?

Really? Only I was talking about religionists and their less than scientific conclusions if you check, not those of theoretical physicists or of quantum mechanics.

I do not care who it is that promotes a proposition, that is irrelevant, I care about the content of the proposition. It is not just an idea promoted by these eminent physicists, it is a famous philsophical view. Immanuel Kant being perhaps the best known representative of a similar view (his idea that we do not have direct access to reality, but that reality is structured through categories of understanding).

Nevertheless despite your sneering about my “deep and serious study of this subject” my argument is a logical one, in the atomic world anyway, that no two contrary things will be true at the same time. If you really think it an answer to explain it away by leading me to the apparently contradictory nature of quantum mechanics then I suggest you think again, that’s rubbish.
Where did I say that religions were “static entities”? Straw man, clearly Christianity and Islam at least are anything but that.

Bit hypocritical to complain about sneering when you address parts of my post with a mocking tone. Drop that and I will answer without the sneering.
I do not disagree with the law of the excluded middle. Then again, I have not said otherwise. What I said was that multiple religions may have true claims, obviously two conflicting claims about the same thing cannot be true at once. It is however a false dichotomy to claim that all religions are either completely right or completely wrong. So if a religion has errors in it, which they do, it does not follow that it is all invented and absolute nonsense. That is too simplistic.

So just how many conflicting religious beliefs can logically be true at the same time then?

See above, you are assuming a strawman. I did not say that two conflicting claims about the same thing could both be correct. One religions does not equal one proposition, religions are vast sets of a variety of propositions.

 

[Selaphiel]

An addendum: I realize this is slightly off topic and that the topic is Creation vs Evolution. I believe my position on creationism is clear, I absolutely reject it.

And alwight: It would probably save us both some times if we both drop the rude/mocking/sneering (whatever you prefer) tone. There really is no need. I may disagree with atheism, but I really have little interest in antagonizing atheists. You do realize that we do agree on a fair amount of issues? Creationism versus Evolution being one of them.

 

[alwight]

For my part I’m not particularly interested in who it is that you personally look up to as figures of authority, since science generally makes its conclusions by peer review and from the evidence, not by how esteemed any particular individual my indeed be, which is perhaps why we get on so well

Yes, because me citing a person, while at the same time noting that I disagree with his conclusions is an appeal to authority? Explain to me how that works.
I did not in any way say that Bohr was right because he was an authority, I said his views have been very influential, that is simply a historical fact and nothing more than that.

My mistake then, you nevertheless seem to be impressed enough by him to wave him at me for no particularly obvious reason, a way into the philosophy of the sub-atomic perhaps?

I don’t have any problem with the “general idea of God”. Of course humans tend to think in such terms, which is why regional religions and customs have always evolved and usually fade away at some point, probably depending on whose army is more powerful rather than any powerful real deity.
Human beings have perhaps evolved this way for whatever reason, maybe just for the benefit of forming better armies, not for a better theistic understanding?

Yes, because theological disputes have always been resolved by warfare...You expect me to take this stuff seriously? There is a great deal that all of those religions agree about when it comes to God.

Then I think that in your ivory tower the more realistic side of religions are perhaps ignored? Yes of course theological disputes are often finally “resolved” ultimately by wars or jihads.

You name dropper you, your hero?

It is name dropping to cite the source of an idea? As I said above, how can you accuse me of having him as a hero when I explicitly disagee with his view? You seriously need to read the posts you are responding to, I simply stated that the idea that you ridiculed was not a ridiculous idea, in fact it is a rather important and influential idea (although in a less crude form).

Er yes but your own ideas would be rather better received by me, I presume you have some?

C’mon Sel you just couldn’t wait to engineer a philosophical debate with two “complimentary views” that great minds may argue over, right up your street I notice. I however am not such a “great mind” sadly or a philosopher and wouldn’t want to attempt to pontificate on it even if I did feel stupid enough to, nor do I intend to be belittled by you on it. After all, this thread is simply about creation versus evolution, fiction or fact, not philosophy and creationism is a religious idea.

There is one complementary view, complementary as in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics representing two contradictory ways of our experience ordering reality. And I do not mind that you are not interested in the discussion, what I do mind is when you see it fit to ridicule positions that fall within that debate and then afterwards claim that you have no interest in it. Because then I have to ask, on what grounds are you ridiculing the idea?

What I have ridiculed is some religious beliefs based on their contradictory doctrines and you wanting to bring in philosophy at every opportunity while in this case the addition of quantum physics simply because arguably two contradictory things might be able to co-exist after all?

Really? Only I was talking about religionists and their less than scientific conclusions if you check, not those of theoretical physicists or of quantum mechanics.

I do not care who it is that promotes a proposition, that is irrelevant, I care about the content of the proposition. It is not just an idea promoted by these eminent physicists, it is a famous philsophical view. Immanuel Kant being perhaps the best known representative of a similar view (his idea that we do not have direct access to reality, but that reality is structured through categories of understanding).

:yawn:

Nevertheless despite your sneering about my “deep and serious study of this subject” my argument is a logical one, in the atomic world anyway, that no two contrary things will be true at the same time. If you really think it an answer to explain it away by leading me to the apparently contradictory nature of quantum mechanics then I suggest you think again, that’s rubbish.
Where did I say that religions were “static entities”? Straw man, clearly Christianity and Islam at least are anything but that.

Bit hypocritical to complain about sneering when you address parts of my post with a mocking tone. Drop that and I will answer without the sneering.
I do not disagree with the law of the excluded middle. Then again, I have not said otherwise. What I said was that multiple religions may have true claims, obviously two conflicting claims about the same thing cannot be true at once. It is however a false dichotomy to claim that all religions are either completely right or completely wrong. So if a religion has errors in it, which they do, it does not follow that it is all invented and absolute nonsense. That is too simplistic.

I’ve already explained my mocking tone above.
I’m sure that the Golden Rule rather explains most of any religious concord.
Do religions agree on creation or evolution, say? I don’t think so btw.

Nevertheless So just how many conflicting religious beliefs can logically be true at the same time then?

See above, you are assuming a strawman. I did not say that two conflicting claims about the same thing could both be correct. One religions does not equal one proposition, religions are vast sets of a variety of propositions.

How would we know if any religion is a guide to their claimed god(s) or the true god from none are?

 

[Selaphiel]

My mistake then, you nevertheless seem to be impressed enough by him to wave him at me for no particularly obvious reason, a way into the philosophy of the sub-atomic perhaps?

Niels Bohr was physicist, not a philosopher. And yes, I do believe quantum physics is as relevant to philosophy as any other knowledge.

hen I think that in your ivory tower the more realistic side of religions are perhaps ignored? Yes of course theological disputes are often finally “resolved” ultimately by wars or jihads.

I would dispute that claim. There are plenty of examples of cross-cultural interaction of ideas, without any form of violence involved. But more importantly, even if violence does occur, it does not itself invalidate the discourse any more than violence with regards to politics invalidates political discussions.

Er yes but your own ideas would be rather better received by me, I presume you have some?

As I said, I do not agree with the man (on that issue). The fact that I utilize great thinkers does not mean that I have no ideas of my own, it simply means that I realize that I can reach further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

What I have ridiculed is some religious beliefs based on their contradictory doctrines and you wanting to bring in philosophy at every opportunity while in this case the addition of quantum physics simply because arguably two contradictory things might be able to co-exist after all?

I think you may have misunderstood me here, because I'm really not sure what you are trying to say or think that I've claimed here. My claim was simply that the idea that the things we measure may not be real in the sense of referring to actual reality is a respectable view, and I will say again that I disagree with it. I think the pragmatist/instrumentalist view of science is highly problematic. And I bring up philosophy because I think it is a relevant and often overlooked aspect of many discussions. People tend to use philosophical assumptions even if they are not explicit about it, so I would rather discuss those assumptions as well.

Do religions agree on creation or evolution, say? I don’t think so btw.

No they do not. But so what? I'm not claiming that both creationism and evolution can be correct.

How would we know if any religion is a guide to their claimed god(s) from none are?

Evaluate their propositions according to the principals of rationality.

:yawn:

? What was wrong with what I said. You disagree that the content of the actual proposition put forth is more important than who is putting it forth?

 

[alwight]

My mistake then, you nevertheless seem to be impressed enough by him to wave him at me for no particularly obvious reason, a way into the philosophy of the sub-atomic perhaps?

Niels Bohr was physicist, not a philosopher. And yes, I do believe quantum physics is as relevant to philosophy as any other knowledge.

OK but I don’t think I referred to him as an actual philosopher though he probably was to some extent and seems to have thought of himself as such, more as your way into a philosophical argument perhaps?

[T]hen I think that in your ivory tower the more realistic side of religions are perhaps ignored? Yes of course theological disputes are often finally “resolved” ultimately by wars or jihads.

I would dispute that claim. There are plenty of examples of cross-cultural interaction of ideas, without any form of violence involved. But more importantly, even if violence does occur, it does not itself invalidate the discourse any more than violence with regards to politics invalidates political discussions.

I didn’t say there was no cross-cultural intercourse. However I still think that religions are cultural totems and obviously a major cause of wars and hatred.

Er yes but your own ideas would be rather better received by me, I presume you have some?

As I said, I do not agree with the man (on that issue). The fact that I utilize great thinkers does not mean that I have no ideas of my own, it simply means that I realize that I can reach further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Sorry but I can’t pretend to be interested in your own internal argument with a philosophical matter with a person that you brought in for whatever reason.

What I have ridiculed is some religious beliefs based on their contradictory doctrines and you wanting to bring in philosophy at every opportunity while in this case the addition of quantum physics simply because arguably two contradictory things might be able to co-exist after all?

I think you may have misunderstood me here, because I'm really not sure what you are trying to say or think that I've claimed here. My claim was simply that the idea that the things we measure may not be real in the sense of referring to actual reality is a respectable view, and I will say again that I disagree with it. I think the pragmatist/instrumentalist view of science is highly problematic. And I bring up philosophy because I think it is a relevant and often overlooked aspect of many discussions. People tend to use philosophical assumptions even if they are not explicit about it, so I would rather discuss those assumptions as well.

Then you seem to be arguing for a possible supernatural while I simply refer to the material as it seems to me, not exactly original then.

Do religions agree on creation or evolution, say? I don’t think so btw.

No they do not. But so what? I'm not claiming that both creationism and evolution can be correct.

What use are they then beyond being a comfort to some people perhaps?

How would we know if any religion is a guide to their claimed god(s) from none are?

Evaluate their propositions according to the principals of rationality.

If it applies to physical reality, then yes. When religion’s doctrines conflict then they can’t often be tested and falsified such as science can it seems.

:yawn:

? What was wrong with what I said. You disagree that the content of the actual proposition put forth is more important than who is putting it forth?

Probably nothing I’m just easily bored by philosophy and philosophers.

 

[alwight]

An addendum: I realize this is slightly off topic and that the topic is Creation vs Evolution. I believe my position on creationism is clear, I absolutely reject it.

And alwight: It would probably save us both some times if we both drop the rude/mocking/sneering (whatever you prefer) tone. There really is no need. I may disagree with atheism, but I really have little interest in antagonizing atheists. You do realize that we do agree on a fair amount of issues? Creationism versus Evolution being one of them.

Yes, and I have tried to be more pleasant in my last post. I will try to build on it.

 

[Selaphiel]

OK but I don’t think I referred to him as an actual philosopher though he probably was to some extent and seems to have thought of himself as such, more as your way into a philosophical argument perhaps?

Keep in mind that Bohr was a key scientist in the discovery of quantum mechanics. A theory that utterly shocked physics to the degree that it was almost unthinkable to not reflect on it philosophically, so you have a fair amount of people that are primary physicists that start making comments on philosophy using their new insights. Bohr was not alone in doing this, you see it in the other pioneers as well, be it Heisenberg, Mayr, Neumann or Bohm.
To give a taste of how big Bohr is in science, Bohr was from Copenhagen, the "Copenhagen interpreation" of quantum physics is named that based on Bohr, since it was his (and Heisenberg) views and concepts that defined that interpretation.

I didn’t say there was no cross-cultural intercourse. However I still think that religions are cultural totems and obviously a major cause of wars and hatred.

There may have been cases of that. But I think that wars were religion is central, it is often because religion is a very clear cultural marker, so religion becomes a banner under which you can unite people. But I do not think religion alone is a very strong force for warfare.

Sorry but I can’t pretend to be interested in your own internal argument with a philosophical matter with a person that you brought in for whatever reason.

I simply brought it up as an example. I would have used Kant if I was going for a purely philosophical starting point. I actually chose Bohr because I know you do not have a great interest for philosophers, so I chose a famous scientist who shared that view. It was simply to demonstrate that the core idea of wincam's (If I remember correctly) statement was not as unreasonable as some may think. I personally think that view is wrong, I'm a realist when it comes to scientific knowledge.

What use are they then beyond being a comfort to some people perhaps?

Well, I happen to think that there are true religious propositions.That is not to say that I can prove God, it means that I think that there are sufficient arguments that are strong enough to justify a belief in God, it does not mean that I belive I'm absolutely and undoubtedly correct and that all atheists are morons. I believe you can argue that there is a reality which conforms to what we traditionally refer to as God with capital G. Namely an utterly transcendent, absolute reality that is the necessary (metaphysical necessity) ground of all contingent beings.

If it applies to physical reality, then yes. When religion’s doctrines conflict then they can’t often be tested and falsified such as science can it seems.

They can be falsified actually, although not in the same way as science. A religious proposition can be falsified by demonstrating that the proposition is internally incoherent, incoherent with other essential part of the system, that it does not follow from the premises of the arguments or that one or more of the premises themselves are false.

 

[alwight]

OK but I don’t think I referred to him as an actual philosopher though he probably was to some extent and seems to have thought of himself as such, more as your way into a philosophical argument perhaps?

Keep in mind that Bohr was a key scientist in the discovery of quantum mechanics. A theory that utterly shocked physics to the degree that it was almost unthinkable to not reflect on it philosophically, so you have a fair amount of people that are primary physicists that start making comments on philosophy using their new insights. Bohr was not alone in doing this, you see it in the other pioneers as well, be it Heisenberg, Mayr, Neumann or Bohm.
To give a taste of how big Bohr is in science, Bohr was from Copenhagen, the "Copenhagen interpreation" of quantum physics is named that based on Bohr, since it was his (and Heisenberg) views and concepts that defined that interpretation.

Seems to tally with what I’ve just been reading, but I’d take your word anyway.

I didn’t say there was no cross-cultural intercourse. However I still think that religions are cultural totems and obviously a major cause of wars and hatred.

There may have been cases of that. But I think that wars were religion is central, it is often because religion is a very clear cultural marker, so religion becomes a banner under which you can unite people. But I do not think religion alone is a very strong force for warfare.

I was thinking that cultures and religious beliefs rather go hand in hand perhaps more so sometimes than nationalities and monarchs. Islam and Christianity have been at it for many years of course. The English civil war was about a particular Christianity that was stronger than Monarchy etc. I could drone on but my grandfather was a staunch protestant in Northern Ireland who hated the Pope with a vengeance.

Sorry but I can’t pretend to be interested in your own internal argument with a philosophical matter with a person that you brought in for whatever reason.

I simply brought it up as an example. I would have used Kant if I was going for a purely philosophical starting point. I actually chose Bohr because I know you do not have a great interest for philosophers, so I chose a famous scientist who shared that view. It was simply to demonstrate that the core idea of wincam's (If I remember correctly) statement was not as unreasonable as some may think. I personally think that view is wrong, I'm a realist when it comes to scientific knowledge.

OK I’ve never quibbled with you on evolution or science anyway.

What use are they then beyond being a comfort to some people perhaps?

Well, I happen to think that there are true religious propositions.That is not to say that I can prove God, it means that I think that there are sufficient arguments that are strong enough to justify a belief in God, it does not mean that I belive I'm absolutely and undoubtedly correct and that all atheists are morons. I believe you can argue that there is a reality which conforms to what we traditionally refer to as God with capital G. Namely an utterly transcendent, absolute reality that is the necessary (metaphysical necessity) ground of all contingent beings.

I won’t discount gods entirely but I really can’t believe that any omnipotent caring involved God who actually takes any part in our Earthly reality with all of its often cruel and tragic, apparently only natural events.

If it applies to physical reality, then yes. When religion’s doctrines conflict then they can’t often be tested and falsified such as science can it seems.

They can be falsified actually, although not in the same way as science. A religious proposition can be falsified by demonstrating that the proposition is internally incoherent, incoherent with other essential part of the system, that it does not follow from the premises of the arguments or that one or more of the premises themselves are false.

Philosophy? :think: The proof of the pudding is in the eating imo.

 

[freelight]

cosmic sunshine.........

cosmic sunshine.........

I just love Seraphiel. What a great person. A Christian who realizes there is a God. And freelight, who also believes in a God and much more. What a wonderful person indeed. As far as the rest of you, you just bother us Christians with your disbelief in God, or Jesus. The Lord told me that He made it so a spirit does not die. It lives eternally with Him and He has a glorious life for those who choose Him. Or it lives eternally in the Lake of Fire, and wood for the fire and burns forever, tormented by accusations and flames. That's it. We are on earth to learn good from evil. Just as simple as the story of Adam and Eve. We chose God and Jesus, or we chose atheism. Glorious life or lake of fire. Which will you choose. Tune in tomorrow for further results!!

Much Love To Those Christians Who Made This More Interesting!!

Michael

As we open our attention to the wonder of creation, we see it appearing and evolving before us, as a beautiful unfolding of nature, a play of energy, light, consciousness. The reality of Life is Self-evident as Being. Just Be...and let your 'light' shine



pj

 

[noguru]

I do not exclude Buddhism from meaning. I could have been more accurate, but that is why I, for the purpose of this topic, defined atheism as lack of any form of transcendent reality. I would argue that Buddhism, even if it is definitely not theistic, has a concept of a transcendent reality. That said, that transcendent reality is notoriously difficult to describe since by definition it is beyond description. So to define Buddhism as nihilism would be a gross miscaricature of the religion, and as such I do oppose such a characterization. I have great respect for Buddhism, I believe Buddhist philosophy can teach Christians a fair deal (and there are claims that they directly have, it is not impossible that the mystical hesychast tradition emerged from an encounter with Buddhist meditators).

I was not saying Buddhism is nihilistic. Where did you get that idea? I was trying to distinguish between atheistic ontologies that see meaning in the workings of the universe, and those that see it as all for naught. Though many might misinterpet nirvana to be exactly that.

 

[noguru]

I do not disagree with this per se. But I would supplement it with the saying of "the kingdom of God is in your midst". The eschaton is both now and in the future, its reality illumines and enriches the present. I would deny a form of Christianity that postulates that this life is a mere waiting room for the real life. But I also claim that the promise of the kingdom of God is important for the now in that it illumines it and puts it in perspective.

I have much fascination for Gregory of Nyssa, for him there is no real distinction between the two. His understanding of the afterlife is that it simply continues, as if death has become unreal in light of the resurrection and in it our journey continues, the journey being the infinite growing/stretching into God's love, beauty and goodness.

Agreed.