Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   International Aspects of Creationism/ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 79 (208249)
05-14-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Limbo
05-14-2005 10:25 PM


Re: A second thought experiment
there are several versions. I tend to prefer god becoming the universe, emulating self in the process and exhaling the words "surprise me" ... but I was a deist before I knew what it meant
the predominant theme is that what we can know is from natural means and that there is no revealed truth.
wikipedia has a fairly good article (and lists some famous deists) and you can also google to find some websites for some different flavors.
the zen part is the path: zen as an approach originally to buddhism, but now to 'motocycle repair' etc.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 10:25 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 11:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 79 (208259)
05-14-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
05-14-2005 10:37 PM


Re: A second thought experiment
quote:
tend to prefer god becoming the universe, emulating self in the process and exhaling the words "surprise me" ...
Very interesting. We have something in common then, the belief that something could have at one time been outside of nature i.e. supernatural in the purest sence of the word.
It seems inconsistant with a Darwinian worldview so far.
This is the root of the problem. The average person on the street has little idea of the full philosophical implications of Darwinism, and how they lead to inconsistant philosophical worldviews for Americans.
Religious people sence these inconsistancies easily...they just have a hard time separting their religious views from their philosophical views...add on top of that the difficulty separating the theories of science from the philosophical implications of these theories and its easy to see why there is so much inconsistancy and contradiction in American culture.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-14-2005 11:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2005 10:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 05-15-2005 9:44 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2005 5:32 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2005 5:37 PM Limbo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 79 (208267)
05-14-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Limbo
05-14-2005 10:25 PM


back to ID?
it appears you have added this in your edit (or I missed it the first time):
I mean, you say "I don't believe you can know." but I would expect to hear that from an agnostic.
I answered that in greater detail on the {Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem}
http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
thread (now closed, but you could ask to have it opened)
I can believe that the only evidence we will see is the natural evidence of the universe and all that is in it, while still believing that it was created. I can also recognize that the logical position is agnostic but still choose to believe.
to bring this back to the topic more or less, I would say that I consider ID to be a poorly considered form of deism, and that deism had it's roots in the age of enlightenment, as much in europe as here in the USof(N)A.
I pursue this theme in greater detail in my {Is ID properly pursued?} thread
EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?
and we can take this discussion there if you are interested.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 10:25 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 11:43 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 79 (208268)
05-14-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
05-14-2005 11:36 PM


Re: back to ID?
Love to!
Ill check the links out and get back to you tomorrow!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2005 11:36 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 50 of 79 (208297)
05-15-2005 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Limbo
05-14-2005 4:58 PM


Re: to no one in particular
Hume would find it ridiculous and skewered much of the philosophy behind ID and Creationism centuries ago. He'd probably ask why people are still considering such philosophizing as valid. I'd agree.
Besides Hume and me, who are the world's greatest thinkers? Heheheh. Hijack my thread will ya?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 4:58 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 79 (208313)
05-15-2005 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Alasdair
05-14-2005 5:55 PM


Ok I get it.
That was me dropping acid drops where it belongs not at first. I understand now.I retract the context. I can make the transition thing clearer. We can do it in another thread. Yes collecting forms and trying to relate them sequentially is the first stage in any good taxanomic tool book. I dont think it is ignorance, but at least you gave something to go off of however I dont think my eyes were deceiveing me last night as I dont recall your postinterdigitated between Limbo's and Mick's perhaps it came in on delay.
----------------------------
May the loom do the prunning.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2005 07:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Alasdair, posted 05-14-2005 5:55 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 52 of 79 (208327)
05-15-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Alasdair
05-13-2005 3:10 PM


quote:
Does anybody know why this is the case in the US and nowhere else in the industrialised world?
Poor education in science and critical thinking and logic among the entire populace +
lots of protections for lots of crazy religions +
tradition of Christian religious extremeism ever since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock =
prominent Creationist movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Alasdair, posted 05-13-2005 3:10 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 79 (208333)
05-15-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Limbo
05-14-2005 10:03 PM


Re: A second thought experiment
quote:
Maybe not, but they could eventually be ruled out by pure unchallenged philosophical naturalism...the father of secular religions and dogma. So which will it be? Naturalism, in which we have no soul, no destiny, no cosmic karma, no essence, no spark?
As I have explained to you once or twice before, Methodological Naturalism is not the same as Ontological Naturalism.
ON is the philosophy that "nature is all there is".
MN is the way scientific investigations are carried out, and it requires that we can only use naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.
MN neither confirms not denies the existence of the supernatural in general. No scientist is ever required to believe or embrace the philosophy of ON in order to do good science.
This is why we have scientists of many diverse religions, and no religion, able to work together and speak a common language in order to uncover how natural phenomena work.
If ON becomes the overriding philosophy of everyday people, however, then them's the breaks for those who wish the whole world was religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 10:03 PM Limbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2005 7:31 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 79 (208334)
05-15-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Limbo
05-14-2005 11:09 PM


Re: A second thought experiment
quote:
Very interesting. We have something in common then, the belief that something could have at one time been outside of nature i.e. supernatural in the purest sence of the word.
It seems inconsistant with a Darwinian worldview so far.
And just what is this "Darwinian worldview" you refer to?
quote:
This is the root of the problem. The average person on the street has little idea of the full philosophical implications of Darwinism, and how they lead to inconsistant philosophical worldviews for Americans.
The average person on the street has little idea of any basic Biology at all.
Also, what are the "full philosophical implications" of "the change in allele frequencies in populations over time"?
quote:
Religious people sence these inconsistancies easily...they just have a hard time separting their religious views from their philosophical views...add on top of that the difficulty separating the theories of science from the philosophical implications of these theories and its easy to see why there is so much inconsistancy and contradiction in American culture.
Scientific theories are wholly separate from any philosophical implications that people choose to construct from them.
Do you blame Astronomy for the Heaven's Gate mass suicide?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 11:09 PM Limbo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 79 (208434)
05-15-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Limbo
05-14-2005 11:09 PM


"a Darwinian worldview" ???
It seems inconsistant with a Darwinian worldview so far.
um, what is " "a Darwinian worldview" in your worldview?
I rather look at {the whole enchilada} as a universe that was created as diverse as possible and primed for the {abiogensis} of life in as many places as it can find a toehold to live and {evolve} and become more complex and diversified with the passage of time.
We just happen to be one species on one planet. One privileged to look at the stars with wonder and excitement, but not necessarily a planned outcome (unless evolution with sufficient time and resources tends to result in conscious thought, in which case we should not be alone).
And this certainly is not inconsistent with evolution.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*15*2005 05:34 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 11:09 PM Limbo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 79 (208437)
05-15-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Limbo
05-14-2005 11:09 PM


is the problem science?
Religious people sence these inconsistancies easily...they just have a hard time separting their religious views from their philosophical views...add on top of that the difficulty separating the theories of science from the philosophical implications of these theories and its easy to see why there is so much inconsistancy and contradiction in American culture.
Perhaps the problem is that the religions are inconsistent with reality.
{{added by edit}}
I have no problem with inconsistencies between my religious views and science and I know of many christians that also do not have such conflicts. I think you are conflating the problems of certain sects into a bigger {worldview} issue than it is.
I certainly can understand that people who believe in a flat earth at the center of the universe would have problems with inconsistencies between their views and science.
I can also understand that people who believe in a young earth have similar problems.
But these are problems of inconsistency between the beliefs and reality, not with science per se, just the results that have been discovered through science.
People are welcome to their beliefs, but they do not get to say their beliefs are more valid than reality, regardless of what the belief involves.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*15*2005 05:57 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 11:09 PM Limbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2005 11:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6444 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 57 of 79 (208454)
05-15-2005 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
05-13-2005 4:54 AM


quote:
Unfortunately there were growing signs of an evangelical seige of Europe (and Netherlands in specific) over the last few years, and finally it appears the ramparts have been breached.
  —Holmes
Yes there are creationists in Holland. Peter Scheele wrote a book and put the whole thing online. It suffers a little as english is his second language but is an improvement on US stuff
http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/
This message has been edited by judge, 05-15-2005 06:57 PM
This message has been edited by judge, 05-15-2005 06:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 05-13-2005 4:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by judge, posted 05-15-2005 7:06 PM judge has not replied
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 05-16-2005 5:20 AM judge has replied
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 05-16-2005 7:33 AM judge has replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6444 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 58 of 79 (208458)
05-15-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by judge
05-15-2005 6:56 PM


While we are on the subject of dutchmen, who here could forget the evil Dr Borger. }(
Sure he lives here in Australia now but we all know he was from....Holland :-)
EvC Forum: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome
EvC Forum: Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB
This message has been edited by judge, 05-15-2005 07:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by judge, posted 05-15-2005 6:56 PM judge has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 59 of 79 (208465)
05-15-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by nator
05-15-2005 9:38 AM


Re: A second thought experiment
Yes. Strange isn't it how religions seek to grow and propagate themselves at the expense of competing dogmas.
It's almost Darwinian...
Not hard to see why their biggest threat is science that espouses no dogma at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 05-15-2005 9:38 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2005 8:23 PM EZscience has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 79 (208485)
05-15-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by EZscience
05-15-2005 7:31 PM


Re: A second thought experiment
how religions seek to grow and propagate themselves at the expense of competing dogmas.
It's almost Darwinian...
it's because they have unprotected sects.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2005 7:31 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024