[inquiry]

Not sure this is off topic here, but I say let intellegent design into schools... but then of course, you have to let my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster in too... http://www.venganza.org/

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 6 2006, 10:22 PM, said:

In a previous post you asserted the following

"in your present post you revert to referring to 'evolutionary theory', and i have no argument with that... while a theory falls in the realm of the philosophy of science, it isn't science..."

Note: You are asserting that evolution can't be considered science because its a "theory"...

I was merely attempting to determine whether you're playing the same silly semantic games with respect to other well known theories...

one man's "silly semantic games" is another's attempt at communication, i guess... read this section again from wikipedia, "... In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory..." and tell me if you see it as i do... also, you didn't answer popper's "Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case."

does the *theory* of evolution admit to contrary case(s)? of course popper's views on this might be in the minority (hell, he might be the only one who holds them)

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 7 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case."

does the *theory* of evolution admit to contrary case(s)? of course popper's views on this might be in the minority (hell, he might be the only one who holds them)

Popper's definition focuses on falsification.

At one point, Popper suggested that evolution should be considered at a branch of metaphysics because it could not be tested. (Indeed, Popper suggested that Natural Selection was tautological in nature). Popper later recanted this position in light of new evidence

The following URL provides a decent summary: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._28/ai_n6194235

From my own perspective, I believe that scientists do admit to the possibility that the theory of evolution could be falsified. I suspect that any number of them of LOVE the fame and fortune that would come from discovering anything this revolutionary. However, this is very different from believing that there is any validity to "Intelligent Design".

Intelligent Design is a classic example of a "God in the Gaps" argument. We can not yet explain how the flaggelum evolved, therefore it must have been created... (Interesting to note that this an example of an "argumentum ad ignorantia" or argument from ignorance)

Many people argue that the Christian right's continued reliance on "God in the Gaps" arguments leads people to start questioning Christianity as a whole... Time and time again, the fundamentalists advance an argument that "XYZ could not have been created through the process of evolution, therefore there must be a god". Time and time again, their example gets discredited...

[bearmum]

Would NOT affect me ONE bit !!!

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

here is a short story from Bertolt Brecht.

Mister K was asked by a friend: "Does god exist?".
K replied: "Before I answer, let me ask you a question.
Does the answer matter to you?
If not, why do you waste my time? If yes, you already
have decided that you need god."

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 7 2006, 11:57 AM, said:

Hi,

here is a short story from Bertolt Brecht.

Mister K was asked by a friend: "Does god exist?".
K replied: "Before I answer, let me ask you a question.
Does the answer matter to you?
If not, why do you waste my time? If yes, you already
have decided that you need god."

With kind regards
Marlowe

Brilliant!!

The most succint summary of why religion exists... need.. arising from fear.

[mike777]

Must admit when I read this story my reaction was the exact opposite of MikeH.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Aug 7 2006, 02:06 PM, said:

Must admit when I read this story my reaction was the exact opposite of MikeH.

so was mine and so, i suspect, was brecht's

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 8 2006, 12:25 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 7 2006, 02:06 PM, said:

Must admit when I read this story my reaction was the exact opposite of MikeH.

so was mine and so, i suspect, was brecht's

You are, of course, aware that Bertolt Brecht was extremely well know for his atheist beliefs.

Brecht wrote about religion a great deal, however, he didn't show much respect for it and certainly wasn't a believer.

[luke warm]

yes, but i took those words quite differently than did mikeh... i don't see how he gets "need arising from fear" from that, but in spite of my closemindedness, i'm willing to learn

[Winstonm]

Jimmy - first and foremost I wish to express my sincere belief that you are entitled to your beliefs as surely as anyone else writing here. When I express anger, frustration, doubts, increduality and such, it is not directed to you as a person but to a larger collective mindset.

One of the problems I have with an organized religion - any religion - is that it is based on handed down teachings representing the truth. This means that acceptance of the validity of the teachings relies on the validity of all who came before - somewhat like a giant pyramid scheme - the first guy had best be right or else all that follows is false.

In so serious a matter as how to live one's life and by who's belief system, it would seem prudent to me to not accept blindly on faith but to examine the underlying truthfulness of the doctrine as best I could. But I also realize when this indoctrination policy begins in childhood with fear and reward it is extremely difficult emotionally to challenge those teachers.

But truth is truth.

Let me make one comparison on why I think as I do - you may not wish to think this way and that is your right.

Whale of a Tale I.
The origin of the whale is an interesting story in evolution. By working backwards, scientists were able to predict what mutations should have occurred and how a land animal such as a hippopotamus or cow evolved to become a whale. This led to a concept of what this so-called "missing link" would have looked like. The religious world scoffed at this concept until 1994, when the fossil remains of a massive animal were uncovered - and it was virtually identical to what scientific prediction of evolutionary changes would find.

Whale of a Tale II.
The bible states that the nation of Israel built a great temple in the region that is south of Jeruselem. However, all excavations and archaeological digs have produced no evidence of either a temple or even a great city where the bible said one stood - in fact, the evidence shows that at best this area was no more than a smattering of small villages inhabited by shephard and nomadic types. Neither the Assyrians nor Egyptians in any of their writing of this time mention a nation of Israel.

I only asked myself which of these is the taller tale?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 7 2006, 08:06 PM, said:

When I express anger, frustration, doubts, increduality and such, it is not directed to you as a person but to a larger collective mindset.

i understand

Quote

One of the problems I have with an organized religion - any religion - is that it is based on handed down teachings representing the truth.  This means that acceptance of the validity of the teachings relies on the validity of all who came before - somewhat like a giant pyramid scheme - the first guy had best be right or else all that follows is false.

i have lots of problems myself with organized religion... since we were talking about evolution (when i speak of evolution i pretty much always mean in the macro sense) earlier i'll use that in my example... some (all?) who believe evolution to be true are convinced by what they feel to be sufficient evidence of it... some of us who believe that God created all there is do so for exactly the same reason... the apostle paul said that God has given us two evidences that he is who he says he is - creation itself and an internal (the concious, some think) voice... he also says that man has to deny his senses, has to lie to himself, to disbelieve... whether true or not, some of us believe it

Quote

In so serious a matter as how to live one's life and by who's belief system, it would seem prudent to me to not accept blindly on faith but to examine the underlying truthfulness of the doctrine as best I could.

very prudent.. just know that the same organized religions you (and, in some cases, i) have problems with might not be the ones to ask

Quote

But I also realize when this indoctrination policy begins in childhood with fear and reward it is extremely difficult emotionally to challenge those teachers.

sad to say, that does happen... the bible says fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom... it doesn't *say* what the end of wisdom is, in so many words, but i happen to believe paul when he said "... but perfect love casts out fear".. in christianity, the way i understand it, there is no place for fear or guilt or shame... but you're right if you think that it isn't taught that way by very many folks

Quote

Whale of a Tale I.

... The religious world scoffed at this concept until 1994, when the fossil remains of a massive animal were uncovered - and it was virtually identical to what scientific prediction of evolutionary changes would find.

i know i don't need to point out to you that, in a logical sense, the finding of those remains carries with it no necessary precedent... it's just another case of what i referred to above - those who believe (in christ and in evolution) do so because they feel there is sufficient evidence... just because a person has faith doesn't mean that person is incapable of objective reasoning, regardless of the object of that faith

Quote

Whale of a Tale II.

The bible states that the nation of Israel built a great temple in the region that is south of Jeruselem.  However, all excavations and archaeological digs have produced no evidence of either a temple or even a great city where the bible said one stood - in fact, the evidence shows that at best this area was no more than a smattering of small villages inhabited by shephard and nomadic types.

are you familiar with the history of the hitties? i should say the *denial* of any such history, for hundreds of years... the bible says they existed, archaeology denied it was so, until a few pieces of pottery were found... that led to more finds, texts, etc... i don't think we can take as proof of anything the fact that something said to exist has yet to be discovered

Quote

Neither the Assyrians nor Egyptians in any of their writing of this time mention a nation of Israel.

i'm afraid you lost me here... are you speaking of the exodus?

[Winstonm]

I'm no expert in this area and might mistate. And besides, I like you no matter what you believe.

I believer this: we are all in this life together and each one of us has to do the best he can to get through; for those that need to believe to have a better life, I do them a disservice by challenging those beliefs and causing any degree of doubt; for those that do not need to believe, trying to force belief on them is an equal disservice.

Maybe it is best to simply drop this subject? Neither of us has need to instruct; the information is available to anyone who wants to dig it out. It is not for me to tell someone else what matters and what does not. Agreed?

[luke warm]

i like you too, and the evenhandedness of your posts... as for teaching, it's what i do ... but i'll agree to only do it if someone asks...