For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview

What you said initially is... What you say now is that those particular individuals hold a position, a belief.I have no problem with them holding a position or belief. Their belief has nothing to do with reality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

that looks to me very much like he begins talking directly to and about them:
"Both of you as scientists... "and then continues in the same vein asking if they can reconcile a divine creator with their scientific beliefs..
"...that there`s no way you can reconcile a divine creator...."

But their belief has universality to it. They believe this is simply logically impossible, period. They are saying that this applies to ALL who grasp the problem, to all who recognize the tenets of science. Therefore, they are saying that ANYONE who believes in God does so in contradiction with the tenets of science. They certainly aren't confining themselves to the idea that they personally don't believe while allowing that it could be logically possible for someone else to believe. Hardly. If it's logically impossible for themselves, then it's logically impossible for everyone.And they are logically correct too.I'm beginning to think the problem here is simply this nutty idea post-modernism has dumped on us all, that something can be true for just one human being and something else true for another. Institutionalized, officialized, pedagogically enforced craziness and ultimate decerebration. How long can civilization survive such craziness?This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 05:06 PM

No.they are saying that THEY cannot reconcile these differences.
That has no implication as to whether anyone else can or cannot.For instance I think that there are those on this forum who believe in biblical creation, while at the same time accepting evolution (of a form) to be true.THEY CAN reconcile their creationist belief with their Scientific understanding of Evolution.I (for instance) CANNOT reconcile these two things.I do not speak for everybody.

You are exemplifying the very post-modern irrationality I was just describing.They can't reconcile these differences and they know they are stating a universal principle, so they know that nobody else can reconcile these differences either -- LOGICALLY OR RATIONALLY. But of course anybody can believe whatever they like ILLOGICALLY OR IRRATIONALLY.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 05:11 PM

That is exactly what they are saying... it is possible for someone else to BELIEVE thais, however that does not make it true.I don't believe in the literallity of the bible.. does this mean it is impossible for you to believe in it?
no.

If you believe as they do that there is a fundamental irreconcilable contradiction between science and religion as they do, then you can only believe that I believe this irrationally. This is the whole point. They are saying that it cannot be reconciled RATIONALLY. For heaven's sake modern education has just fried everybody's brain. This is sad.

Unfortunately you are impressing upon scientist the sort of closed minded projectionist behaviour that we see in preachers.i.e. "I believe this to be true, therefore I am right..., there for this must be right, no argument, you are wrong."whereas I think scientists do not have this absoluteness about their opinions or theories. anyscientist who would take this track would soon learn that it is incorrect, as I think someone here already mentioned, science is constantly evolving. I think any good scientist generally thinks (of course... i paraphrase)"I believe this to be correct, all the evidence tells me this is correct, I have tested this evidence and all signs show that it is correct, more evidence may come to light which may change my stance but given the evidence available. i feel this is right.... what do you think?"(I apologise if I have misrepresented scientists in this forum)

I don't think there's any need for insultsYou are interpreting what they said differently than i am, that is all.funny how humans can interpret things so differently isn't it?
SHOULD make you think. but somehow this passes you by.

I'm afraid that you are misreading that, Faith.Let's look at the quote again. Look at the large "you". Does that "you" refer to everybody, or just to the two scientists being interviewed?If the "you" refers to everybody, then you are correct that they are saying that nobody can reconcile God with evolution. But if that "you" refers only to the two of them, then they are stating only that the two of them are unable to reconcile God with evolution.The last sentence, asking about Darwin, makes it clear that the "you" was only referring to the two scientists. For otherwise Darwin would be automatically include in the "you" and would not require separate mention.In summary, Watson is agreeing only that he (Watson), Wilson, and Darwin are unable to reconcile God with evolution. He is not asserting that about anyone else. They are presumably correct, but not "logically correct". Logic isn't involved here. It is not a logic question. They are presumably correct, because they are presumably the best judges of their own ability to reconcile.

"Impressing?" This is the way the sane world ALL thought until the last few decades started dismantling our very ability to think. You are apparently talking about us absolutists. You are absolutely wrong about an absolutist's not being willing to argue for their belief. In fact it is the relativists who don't believe in arguing -- they just say oh well you believe one thing but I believe another and it's all valid, there's no such thing as objective truth, so there's no point in arguing. But that is NOT the case with absolutists. WE KNOW we must argue our case because there is an objective Truth we are arguing FOR, against a blizzard of beliefs we are certain are false. This doesn't mean we can't be wrong, but it does mean that we believe there is such a thing as absolute truth and we are embracing it to the best of our knowledge, and it is NOT relative and it is NOT hypothetical. It is TRULY TRUE.This is normal logical rational sanity. If I believe something to be true, then I believe that it IS true, and if it IS true, then damn it, IT IS TRUE for you as well as for me and for the entire world.You are as I said talking postmodernist gobbledygook. What you are saying makes no sense. Depends on the subject. Some things are facts, some things are hypotheses. You treat facts as facts, as simply true, and absolutely true. You do not treat hypotheses the same way because you don't know for sure if they are true. See above. Yes, this is about hypotheses and theory-testing. It is in the nature of their work that they cannot know if a particular theory is absolutely true or not. But that doesn't mean there is nothing in this world that is absolutely true. Every day you take for granted a thousand absolute truths. You just don't stop and think about them.

I have already answered this. I'm at a loss to say it any clearer. I didn't ignore the reference to Darwin. That just makes three of them instead of two. The logic is the same. It refers to everyone. They are saying that nobody can reconcile religion with science LOGICALLY, RATIONALLY REASONABLY. That is the statement. It is a universal statement. The "you" is the generic "one" in this context. He is definitely asserting it about everybody else. And the idea that he is not is stupefyingly ridiculous.

had absolutely nothing to do with Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.If you read on in the interview, Darwin rejected Christianity on the very reasonable position of its intolerance as it was practiced at the time. Frankly, IMHO that is a very reasonable position.BUT...it had absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.Later in the interview they return to the question of reconciling religion and science, and there they both admit that they know at least one scientist who believes in a personal God. So...the idea that even a scientist cannot reconcile religion and science has been refuted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nobody said they can't reconcile it. What has been said is that according to Watson's view of science, they cannot do it LOGICALLY OR RATIONALLY OR REASONABLY. They can only hold both views irrationally according to their view.

He specifically states science cannot be reconciled with the idea of a personal God. He earlier states Darwin showed there is no Designer, and additionally specifically agrees that science shows there is no Creator. There are several instances where they clearly indicate variations of their beleif science is incompatible with the idea of God.Why you guys are denying this is beyond me. Read the whole interview and listen to it.