The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

Well coming back after 3 days doesn't prove he was dead. There are accounts of people coming back after 3 days or so. There was a book about that I read years ago called THE ROMEO ERROR as in Romeo mistaking that Juliet was dead. I'm not saying that was what happened or not, but 3 days is doable. But just for an example, buried and after 100 days? No way.Well, if you want to check the Jesus Puzzle site, Earl Doherty makes a very interesting case that Christianity was influenced by Greek mystery religions such as Mithrasism.I don't accept the Bible as literally true or inerrant. I also am not even sure if Jesus was a historical person or a myth. My brother does believe there was a historical enlightened teacher. But hey, my little brother has always been younger than me so what does he know!lfen

Thanks for the explanation; that's interesting. Actually, it is mysterious to me. Since you brought it I've been thinking about it a lot, but can't comprehend it at all. However, I can explain it. Sort of like a fourth dimension; it is a fairly easy concept to think about, but nearly impossible to actually imagine. Does that make sense? Ok. By "interested," what exactly do you mean? I don't know if you meant that to be humourous, but I thought it was funny for some reason. Anyway, I can understand your problem about the "God told us to kill you" part of christian history; I'm not fully settled with that category of problems.

[deleted repeat post]This message has been edited by JT, 08-17-2004 01:31 AM

The ressurection/existence of Jesus is a seperate, long, involved debate for a different thread. My little brother has always been younger than me, too! What are the chances of that...

Organsim? singular? Sas, or others better versed in genetics can correct me on this, but the way I think about it is that mutation and reproduction are done by individuals, evolution is what happens to populations.Way back when I studied biology the effect of the environment put selection pressure on populations such that different members might reproduce more or less or not at all. There was a whole arguement that sometimes sexual reproduction wasn't as good because of the less than fit individuals produced, but that over the long haul with changes in environment it's better to have some individuals who aren't as well adapted who carry genes that might prove advantages if the environment changes.That 6000 year old earth thing gets you into geology and astro physics, etc. All I can do is shake my head and say "good luck", for you will surely need it, as they've got lots of numbers over there in that group.lfen

Organism, as in type of organism; a whole population, not an individual. Sorry for the mis-clarity. Thanks for the best wishes, even if offered in a less than completely sincere manner...

"I don't know if you meant that to be humourous, but I thought it was funny for some reason."Yeah I did. I threw that in cause I didn't want to come across as heavy. Though I must admit I have my rabid moments. I thought your take on discovering you weren't "omniscient" was well done.I don't know a lot about Christian contemplatives which is why I wrote "seemed". I have read Bernadette Roberts' books and am so impressed with her. They are in the libraries around here. She is a contemporary woman, raised Catholic and spent some years in a convent. She felt she reached a stage that St. John the Divine described as unitary, which is where a person has accepted the will of God and is at peace with it.Now what she calls the will of God, I would just call "What Is". But then years later married and raising children she entered a new state. Reading it I recognized she was describing an awakening like the Buddha's. She understands this in a christian sense but this probably wouldn't fit into the way fundamentalist Christians define the religion. I think about it so in that sense it's easy. And it's so slippery and difficult I haven't begun to figure it out. But it is the crux of the nondual approach in which the answer in not "out there" but the answer is what or who is asking the question. The mystery is that intimate, it's right there in the very act of being our self. But it is not what we take to be ourselves because anything we can conceive of as our "self" is an object to us. So who is this "I" for whom all the rest is an object? This answer is not verbal though it can be pointed at with words.I don't accept the notion of "supernatural". I do think that there maybe a transcendent aspect to the universe to wit: consciousness. It could be that consciousness is an emergent property of the universe like life. Or it could be the fundamental mystery closest to the source. I don't have a problem accepting evolution. I will be honest and admit I can't yet grasp how nerves releasing neurtransmitter in arrays of complex interactions can create consciousness. But that may just be a personal limitation on my part. I tend to think of consciousness as fundamental to the universe.lfen

btw, I'm in Oregon are you by chance in Washington State?Now to quickly CMA. I do think it's easier to argue evolution than to argue with geologists and even harder astrophysists. The astro guys particulary because of all the physics means they have got lots of hard numbers and their theories are like mathamatical proofs and all. Not that they are always right but the standards of argument are mathamatically challenging. A least to me.And as soon as you say 6000 year old earth you don't only get into geology, you get into the stars and speed of light and all those calculations. But you gotta do what you gotta do. Take care. I myself gotta get some sleep.lfen

By definition, though, a hypothesis/conjecture that includes God isn't the simplest explanation. In fact including God is the textbook example of violating the principle of parsimony.I guess I have to say that if you believe creationism is the "simplest" explanation, then you don't truly understand what "simplest" means, or what sort of untestable baggage "God" brings to the table.

Thanks, that is the highest compliment you could give in a forum such as this. You seem quite bright and open-minded - hopefully you will stick with science and continue to learn.

I have that same limitation. Also, the programming I have done has furthered my opinion that conciousness cannot just be due to a complex computing device. There is nothing fundamental which seperates a ten line program from a billion line program; an aphid's nervous system from ours. What do you mean by that?

Yep - rain and trees all the way!! The issue of stars being a problem for a young earth keeps cropping up - when I get time I'll open a thread on this. You too.

In that case I disagree with you definition. In case of "simplest" replace "most likely" and you will have a more accurate picture of my opinion. I think it is pretty simple, too, but "most likely" is a better criterion. If there are sentient fish in a lake, and one of them bites a hook and is pulled out of the lake, the remaining fish will be unable to find the reason within the lake. They will come up with some hypotheses, maybe, but none of them will explain it very well, and all of them will be wrong. Even though the idea that something existed outside the lake and was responsable would not be falsifiable, it would be the most reasonable, and the only true, explanation.It does not matter what baggage an idea brings to the table, as long as it has less baggage than the other ideas.

The fish analogue is not particularly strong, it's basically saying god lives in space.

I disagree Charles, you are taking it too literally. One can hardly construct any really good analogy for something that is unknown. But it isn't bad.(added by edit)
I was just visiting friends with two new koi in a fish pond. We were teaching them that food appears in one place in the pond. And in a day they seemed to be getting it.Comparing the relative distance between us and the koi and God and us may not capture it perfectly but it gives something useful I think. And I do like the superaquatic idea of JT's.But notice the difference, the koi where fed when they came to "worship" at the one spot in the pond no matter what. They didn't have to "believe" they simply had to show up. All the fish got food there. It isn't pick and choose.It is easier for the fish to believe I exist under those circumstances than for me to believe God exists since God isn't as consistant as I am. Of course, to the fish, I am "unknowable" in any sense that I would understand. But they can tell that something is out there or not and when something is food is produced.That's one heck of a lot more than you can say for God. In that case only some of the fish get anything, it isn't food cause they will all starve just as fast whether they think that God is there or not. So the other fish have no reason to hang around since they don't get anything or see anything.There is not lure bobbing the water. There is no shadowy form on the surface of the water. In fact, we can't even see, touch or anything the boundary of our water. The fish can and use it to get air.(mmmm, come to think of it the analogy does have a hole it it. The fish are "superaquatic" too. They can, and do get oxygen from outside the lake.)This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-18-2004 03:28 AM