Not been around quite as long as you guys, but I do feel that tug of the stories and events I remember - and being a part of them, so to speak - and to feel kinda satisfied for having been there.
I suspect the evidence, itself, supports both The Logic of Chance and Intelligent Design. Dawkins says this world's biology expresses an appearance of design. I'm not sure why, then, the conclusion of actual design is simply thrown out. If someone pursues Truth and then categorically throws out the other half of the premises because of the philosophical belief that science is the only path to Truth (a statement that cannot be empirically tested), then that person seems to be interested in truth if the conclusions are what was expected a priori. Contrary evidence is simply ignored.
Conservatives don't trust the Republican party. And I love your pointing out that reality doesn't care. That's perfect.
And, you know, there are a whole bunch of us religious folk who want to develop well thought out positions using the evidence that science provides.
On both sides of this specific argument, the religious as well as the liberal, it seems it's the wackos are used as strawmen to strengthen the opposing position. Science is interpreted. A scientist may have a healthy skepticism with respect to their personal interpretation. An adherent to scientism, or someone who reasons circularly from the materialist worldview that you have to start with matter and any other starting point is apriori dismissed, will dogmatically hold to their position generally without thinking through the implications and developing a logical argument. This is just as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church showing up at the funeral of a soldier.
Granted, many religious people don't think through their own positions and could not provide evidence, let alone a logical argument supporting their position on any number of fundamental matters, e.g. for Christianity take the evidence for Jesus' rising from the dead. This is no better than the adherent to scientism who claims that only science can provide answers. Why? Because that statement is not scientifically testable. It's a philosophical statement. There is no empirical method to determine if science, in fact, is the only discipline that can provide truth statements. Yet, if you can move away from the wackos I think we'd find many religious people willing to engage in rational discussion about scientific matters, and that many of them are gainfully employed in the scientific disciplines.
"Why can't religious people see this as a much, much greater feat of creation, resulting in God being infinitely more omnipotent?"
Mmmmm, because there is no evidence for a multiverse?
It's not testable. It's an idea. An idea that seems to explain away the problems of God found in our universe. The problem is that an idea does not equal truth. When faced with multiple ideas the weight of the evidence should be the basis of some rational line of thinking. And the evidence does not support a multiverse.
I also suspect religious people don't see the physical creation, or more specifically God's omnipotence, as the whole character of God. There's the omnibenevolent and omniscient aspects (etc.) as well. Just because God can do something doesn't mean he should or did or does do something. And despite his omnipotence, God cannot create a square circle. His omnipotence is bounded by logic.
I think your statement is interesting because you have systematically predetermined that we should not explore the worldview and have an opportunity to increase our knowledge.
I would venture to say that evidence exists to support or discredit any claim about anything. Because evidence exists does not make the claim true or not true. While this is one explanation it should be viewed with respect to other explanations with the evidence lending support to the conclusion.
The claim you make rests on an assertion that "the Genesis myths were allegory because those desert nomads didn't know how the world began." I think this one needs substantiation. Similarly, we can assert that the only true knowledge is that which science verifies. Well, that statement is not testable and becomes self-refuting. So if you say the nomads didn't know how the world began but we do now because of science, unfortunately that is not the end of the story.
Furthermore, the evidence that Paul made the whole thing up has a hard time standing up to the preponderance of evidence supporting a risen Jesus among other things. A "fatal flaw" in this case seems more akin to a line of reasoning that simply needs to be explored and weighed against other evidence.
“We are aware of no prior case holding that a teacher violated the establishment clause by appearing critical of religion during class lectures, nor any case with sufficiently similar facts to give a teacher ‘fair warning’ that such conduct was unlawful"
I am not a judge, but I'm thinking it's their opportunity and their job to be the first ruling in a case like this. Someone has to establish precedent.
It seems that when scaled up, the spirit of communism devolves into the communism in name only that we all know so well. I believe this devolution is a factor of human nature to screw up a good thing. And that's making an assumption that communism is a good thing - an entirely different subject.
Interesting. I'd agree on a number of levels with this position. I've had to help a 60-something woman (who recently lost her husband who did all the computer work) to get her wireless mouse working. Because the USB nub wireless receiver fit perfectly into her mouse for storage, she assumed that is where the nub was supposed to go. She didn't understand why her mouse didn't work. She laughed when I "fixed" her problem in about 12 seconds.
I guess the appropriate response is know your audience. How do they work? What do they want to see and how do they want to see it? Perhaps the eG8 knows their audience. Perhaps we hangers-out on slashdot are not the primary audience.
I suppose an intellectual is neither of these. Perhaps as dogmatixpsych states, an intellectual may be segregated from the real world behind the walls of academia. I'd like to think that an intellectual neither memorizes nor learns but synthesizes and develops alternatives based on what is already known. If an intellectual happens to be grounded in the real world then those alternatives may also be relevant and productive.
Yeah, this is a tough one, too. Since no evidence exists for alternative universes, either preceding or parallel, these things cannot be tested. Just because a parent universe could exist doesn't mean it did exist. The only evidence available is that the universe we live in is the only universe that does or has ever existed. So when ordering possibilities, the parent universe and a lineage of universes falls lower in likelihood than the current universe is the only one, ever.
This is a tough one. Theory is a strong word. It's not even a hypothesis as it simply can't be tested. No evidence exists. Multiverse seems to be more a postulation of a possibility, even if the idea sounds scientific enough to be a reality. I believe in realm of the possible, possibilities need to be ordered in terms of likeliness based on the evidence we have. So your disclaimer IANAS is appropriate. I appreciate your candor!
A bit late to the party here but it seems this isn't an argument about whether or not God exists but where this whole universe came from. To date, neither religion nor science can prove any hypothesis about where the universe came from. And to say that science will figure that out eventually seems like scientism, or putting the same kind of religious faith in science that the religious place in God.
I don't think it belongs in the theology department, either. Probably better suited in the rigors and frameworks of philosophy than any other discipline. The same goes for scientists who believe that science will eventually answer all the questions. Why? Because science cannot empirically test whether or not science will answer all questions. It's a philosophical statement.
Here, here. Freakin' sensitive. I suppose the word is tolerant. Tolerant of other people's views. When I tolerate something I tend to hold my nose, grimace, then chew it up. I don't have to tolerate things that I don't care about or that I agree with.
Biochemist and Ohio U Ph.D. Fuz Rana in Creating Life in the Lab makes a strong case that a basic life form created by scientists is approximately a decade away.
MS admits that pushing the content creation envelope is not the strength of office as this is now commodity behavior. The value of office is that it integrates with the MS stack of collaboration products across the back-end that allows enterprise productivity -- not enterprise content creation.
If you want content creation that approaches MS Office use OpenOffice or any other office suite. You can add this one to that list.
Slashdot Mirror
Not been around quite as long as you guys, but I do feel that tug of the stories and events I remember - and being a part of them, so to speak - and to feel kinda satisfied for having been there.
And louder.
Like protection and deterrence? I think yes.
I suspect the evidence, itself, supports both The Logic of Chance and Intelligent Design. Dawkins says this world's biology expresses an appearance of design. I'm not sure why, then, the conclusion of actual design is simply thrown out. If someone pursues Truth and then categorically throws out the other half of the premises because of the philosophical belief that science is the only path to Truth (a statement that cannot be empirically tested), then that person seems to be interested in truth if the conclusions are what was expected a priori. Contrary evidence is simply ignored.
Conservatives don't trust the Republican party. And I love your pointing out that reality doesn't care. That's perfect.
And, you know, there are a whole bunch of us religious folk who want to develop well thought out positions using the evidence that science provides.
On both sides of this specific argument, the religious as well as the liberal, it seems it's the wackos are used as strawmen to strengthen the opposing position. Science is interpreted. A scientist may have a healthy skepticism with respect to their personal interpretation. An adherent to scientism, or someone who reasons circularly from the materialist worldview that you have to start with matter and any other starting point is apriori dismissed, will dogmatically hold to their position generally without thinking through the implications and developing a logical argument. This is just as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church showing up at the funeral of a soldier.
Granted, many religious people don't think through their own positions and could not provide evidence, let alone a logical argument supporting their position on any number of fundamental matters, e.g. for Christianity take the evidence for Jesus' rising from the dead. This is no better than the adherent to scientism who claims that only science can provide answers. Why? Because that statement is not scientifically testable. It's a philosophical statement. There is no empirical method to determine if science, in fact, is the only discipline that can provide truth statements. Yet, if you can move away from the wackos I think we'd find many religious people willing to engage in rational discussion about scientific matters, and that many of them are gainfully employed in the scientific disciplines.
"Why can't religious people see this as a much, much greater feat of creation, resulting in God being infinitely more omnipotent?"
Mmmmm, because there is no evidence for a multiverse?
It's not testable. It's an idea. An idea that seems to explain away the problems of God found in our universe. The problem is that an idea does not equal truth. When faced with multiple ideas the weight of the evidence should be the basis of some rational line of thinking. And the evidence does not support a multiverse.
I also suspect religious people don't see the physical creation, or more specifically God's omnipotence, as the whole character of God. There's the omnibenevolent and omniscient aspects (etc.) as well. Just because God can do something doesn't mean he should or did or does do something. And despite his omnipotence, God cannot create a square circle. His omnipotence is bounded by logic.
I think your statement is interesting because you have systematically predetermined that we should not explore the worldview and have an opportunity to increase our knowledge.
I would venture to say that evidence exists to support or discredit any claim about anything. Because evidence exists does not make the claim true or not true. While this is one explanation it should be viewed with respect to other explanations with the evidence lending support to the conclusion.
The claim you make rests on an assertion that "the Genesis myths were allegory because those desert nomads didn't know how the world began." I think this one needs substantiation. Similarly, we can assert that the only true knowledge is that which science verifies. Well, that statement is not testable and becomes self-refuting. So if you say the nomads didn't know how the world began but we do now because of science, unfortunately that is not the end of the story.
Furthermore, the evidence that Paul made the whole thing up has a hard time standing up to the preponderance of evidence supporting a risen Jesus among other things. A "fatal flaw" in this case seems more akin to a line of reasoning that simply needs to be explored and weighed against other evidence.
Wow, exclusion is a form of bullying. Post-modernity gone amuck.
here, here. Me too, but not too long. Congrats on affecting the world. Seriously.
Yes, this passage surprised me:
“We are aware of no prior case holding that a teacher violated the establishment clause by appearing critical of religion during class lectures, nor any case with sufficiently similar facts to give a teacher ‘fair warning’ that such conduct was unlawful"
I am not a judge, but I'm thinking it's their opportunity and their job to be the first ruling in a case like this. Someone has to establish precedent.
"Clearly and obviously?" Not trying to sound obstinate here. How do you know that?
analogy can be illogical.
It seems that when scaled up, the spirit of communism devolves into the communism in name only that we all know so well. I believe this devolution is a factor of human nature to screw up a good thing. And that's making an assumption that communism is a good thing - an entirely different subject.
Interesting. I'd agree on a number of levels with this position. I've had to help a 60-something woman (who recently lost her husband who did all the computer work) to get her wireless mouse working. Because the USB nub wireless receiver fit perfectly into her mouse for storage, she assumed that is where the nub was supposed to go. She didn't understand why her mouse didn't work. She laughed when I "fixed" her problem in about 12 seconds.
I guess the appropriate response is know your audience. How do they work? What do they want to see and how do they want to see it? Perhaps the eG8 knows their audience. Perhaps we hangers-out on slashdot are not the primary audience.
I suppose an intellectual is neither of these. Perhaps as dogmatixpsych states, an intellectual may be segregated from the real world behind the walls of academia. I'd like to think that an intellectual neither memorizes nor learns but synthesizes and develops alternatives based on what is already known. If an intellectual happens to be grounded in the real world then those alternatives may also be relevant and productive.
Yeah, this is a tough one, too. Since no evidence exists for alternative universes, either preceding or parallel, these things cannot be tested. Just because a parent universe could exist doesn't mean it did exist. The only evidence available is that the universe we live in is the only universe that does or has ever existed. So when ordering possibilities, the parent universe and a lineage of universes falls lower in likelihood than the current universe is the only one, ever.
This is a tough one. Theory is a strong word. It's not even a hypothesis as it simply can't be tested. No evidence exists. Multiverse seems to be more a postulation of a possibility, even if the idea sounds scientific enough to be a reality. I believe in realm of the possible, possibilities need to be ordered in terms of likeliness based on the evidence we have. So your disclaimer IANAS is appropriate. I appreciate your candor!
A bit late to the party here but it seems this isn't an argument about whether or not God exists but where this whole universe came from. To date, neither religion nor science can prove any hypothesis about where the universe came from. And to say that science will figure that out eventually seems like scientism, or putting the same kind of religious faith in science that the religious place in God.
I don't think it belongs in the theology department, either. Probably better suited in the rigors and frameworks of philosophy than any other discipline. The same goes for scientists who believe that science will eventually answer all the questions. Why? Because science cannot empirically test whether or not science will answer all questions. It's a philosophical statement.
Here, here. Freakin' sensitive. I suppose the word is tolerant. Tolerant of other people's views. When I tolerate something I tend to hold my nose, grimace, then chew it up. I don't have to tolerate things that I don't care about or that I agree with.
Biochemist and Ohio U Ph.D. Fuz Rana in Creating Life in the Lab makes a strong case that a basic life form created by scientists is approximately a decade away.
http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Life-Lab-Discoveries-Synthetic/dp/0801072093
...we're above average.
and see if we can find analogous evolutionary behavior to substantiate carbon-based macro hypotheses
If you want content creation that approaches MS Office use OpenOffice or any other office suite. You can add this one to that list.
Doesn't that make them non-innovative? i.e. adding secure features because someone else already did?