|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 2:00AM
#164
|
|
|
jim: But it is true. As Einstein said everything is relative; and to their parents their kids are cuter/smarter/better than average. We call that bias on the parents part. It isn't true; necessary, perhaps, for the survival of the species, but obviously not true.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 12:31AM
#163
|
|
|
upsala: Can you think of anything that the majority of humanity believes in true, yet it isn't?
That their kids are cuter/smarter/better than average. 
But it is true. As Einstein said everything is relative; and to their parents their kids are cuter/smarter/better than average.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2012 - 9:18PM
#162
|
|
|
upsala: Can you think of anything that the majority of humanity believes in true, yet it isn't? That their kids are cuter/smarter/better than average.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2012 - 5:20PM
#161
|
|
|
The belief that the sun orbits the earth was around for a long time too. Nevertheless, it proved to be wrong. The argument from antiquity is no better than the argument from popularity. It merely demonstrates that a belief is tenacious, not that it is correct.
Ken, I understand your point here. But I think for practical matters I am closer to what really goes on.
Besides the existence of God, which we of course differ. Can you think of anything that the majority of humanity believes in true, yet it isn't? And I think I mean substantial things, not trivial. The caveat here is that by true, we mean as is understood today.
That exposure to cold will give you a cold.
That the values of their own community are the best. That atoms really look like the Bohr model that they learned in high school.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2012 - 2:57PM
#160
|
|
|
Ok, perhaps I am stupid and am missing it.
You ain't stupid!
He's presenting things in a unique way I think. I got to go for a while, but I'll get back to it.
No is disputing it is unique. It's just not accurate knowledge. It is what I pointed out before: the intent for some theists to impose their religious beliefs onto science to make their beleifs seem to attain a validity they don't have on their own. These sort of distorted views of "science" is no more helpful than a literal reading of Genesis.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2012 - 2:45PM
#159
|
|
|
F1fan
The Jews have the notion of the ruach or breath / spirit of Yahweh, which is very like the Christian notion of the Holy Ghost if you leave out the Trinity bit.
That Trinity gets very complicated.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2012 - 1:50PM
#158
|
|
|
Ok, perhaps I am stupid and am missing it. You ain't stupid! He's presenting things in a unique way I think. I got to go for a while, but I'll get back to it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2012 - 1:45PM
#157
|
|
|
2. The massive amounts of species that have evolved, thrived, and then gone extinct (dinosaurs, sabre tooth cats, neanderthals) would suggest that either:
a) God doesn't really know what he wants and is just screwing around.
b) God knows what he wants but is not very efficient or capable in getting there.
If life is precious to God and dinosaurs lasted for millions of years - what is the problem? Just because they're not here now? Also you assume somehow that this is the end. If evolution is still going on, something else is on the way. We might only be in the middle of the process. Humans may be in a height of creation, but the process does go on.
I don't assume this is the end at all. And thats the point. Humans are not the purpose or goal of evolution. There is no goal other than for life to reproduce. How can someone say God's plan is to create humans, when humans have been around for maybe a couply 10s of thousands of years. A relative grain of sand in terms of the timespan of life on earth. An honest look at the history of life on earth without a preconcieved idea of God, would not lead you to the conclusion that the earth was created for man to live on and praise God. That would be the last place that honest open inquiry would lead you to. Honestly, how can you infer from looking at the history of life on earth that humans as we are at this point in history was the plan from the beginning (big bang or whatever). How do you see directed purpose towards this stage? How does that conclusion ARISE from observation of the evidence? Don't start with 'God must exist' and try to fit the history INTO it. That is not science. Frankly, that's like looking at the new York Skyline and saying it was built to house centepedes in the corners of basements. heck, centepedes exist in basements after all!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2012 - 1:32PM
#156
|
|
|
Yet the one course which evolution actually took constitutes an immense creative achievement, an achievement which suggests the patient working of a transcendent purpose through the hidden operation of an immanent creative energy working through the chances and accidents of history.
That is not what you assume he said. What you are describing is really closer to Intelligent Design.
I see his use of hidden operation as something very different than steering nor is a creative energy something personal enough to fiddle around from time to time with the process.
Also working through the chances and accidents of history, still implies a naturalist kind of evolution. If God is manipulating the process there are no chances or accidents.
He is saying something that is much more subtle.
Ok, perhaps I am stupid and am missing it. I'm reading the quote you re-provided in this post (thankyou) and I can't help but understand it as intervention. Look at the words he uses 'Creative' - must be a creator then 'Achievement' - implies a goal that has been 'achieved' 'patient working of a transcendent purpose' - intervention (working) to a goal (purpose) or as a result of a plan (purpose) 'creative energy working through the chances and accidents' - so......is he saying that God works "through" as in around or adapting to, or "through" as in the accidents are how He accomplishes his purpose, in which case, how can they be accidents. He tries to use subtle language, but that doesn't change the ultimate implications of what he is saying. And what he is saying is fully contrary to the scientific definition of evolution.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2012 - 1:11PM
#155
|
|
|
2. The massive amounts of species that have evolved, thrived, and then gone extinct (dinosaurs, sabre tooth cats, neanderthals) would suggest that either: a) God doesn't really know what he wants and is just screwing around. b) God knows what he wants but is not very efficient or capable in getting there. If life is precious to God and dinosaurs lasted for millions of years - what is the problem? Just because they're not here now? Also you assume somehow that this is the end. If evolution is still going on, something else is on the way. We might only be in the middle of the process. Humans may be in a height of creation, but the process does go on.
|
|
|
