Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
That is true. I think it will take just one brave soul to nail a new thesis to the wall. For it should be apparent to all now, that when you kill or silence one rebel, two other rebels learn a lesson.
Well, then, the question must arise, who translated the text. Agendas are everywhere. Were the translators christian, or Jewish, Islamic or athiest? It would help to know. The Dead Sea scrolls are under the control of one group of people, who release very little of what they know. You have to be wondering why.
Given a.) the filter of your own reason, b.) your own selectivity as to which propositions to accept or reject, c.) the similar assumptions made by the authors whom you've read, d.) those authors' own filters and assumptions, and e.) a general lack of testimony regarding the formation of the canon, I'd say there is some wiggle room.
I would be hesitant to conclude or assert that the Apostle Paul's experience with the risen Christ is adequately described as a "3 year-old" vision. Direct revelation (as it has been reported throughout church history), for good reason, is not only selective but also multitudinal in form. The Apostle Paul would probably be the first to join you in questioning why he, of all people, should be counted worthy to have "so much real estate" where the Scriptures are concerned.
Methinks they've run across evidence speaking against the divinity of Jesus. That alone would ruin any number of agendas if it leaked out.
I reckon there may be a few elementary science books out there that suggest as much. My daughter's Jr. High textbook does.
It's also obvious now how little intellectual content there is behind all the ballyhoo for ID.
Since my intellectual fulfillment is something only I can directly perceive, it seems I have an unfair advantage over you. I can proclaim myself fulfilled, and you'd have a hard time contradicting me. After all, if you said you were hungry, I'd be at a simillar disadvantage to prove you un-hungry.
I guess one could look at a representative sample of atheists, to see if they're showing behavior that would indicate intellectual unfulfillment. It brings to mind Weinberg's observation that most scientists care so little about religion, they don't even bother to call themselves atheists. That does not seem to indicate a yawning pit of intellectual angst. In contrast, I know many people who've drifted from religion to sect to denomination, out of dissatisfaction with each successive one.
What Dawkins meant, I think, was the evolution gives one a credible explanation for most of the world as we observe it. It gives us the 'how'. 'How?' is almost always a good question. Many people are looking for an answer to 'why?'; most atheists, I think, think the 'why' is meaningful only if there is a volition; and if you deny a deity, then there is no volition to puzzle about.
Likewise good to hear from you.
Ping to the immediately preceding post. (Sorry! read your request after I replied to BB)
Begs so many questions. If one applied the same standard of proof to the existence of God one uses for other purposes - UFOs, fabulous offers through the internet, etc., one would surely conclude there is no evidence for a deity. One might be on stronger ground is arguing there must be an 'uncaused cause', an origin; but it's implausible that the mere existence of a deity as origin can be used to distinguish between the validity of all the various systems of religion out there. As for obedience; even if a supreme being exists, one asks why the being would want a particular pattern of behavior from us, or why we should comply? As for the idea of a moral code which we are doomed to fail to satisfy, and therefore we need to throw ourselves on the mercy of the court, what a truly twisted way to look at the universe! Wouldn't a benign deity set realistic expectations for his underlings, as any good human manager would?
All of it is irrationality heaped upon irrationality. It's the kind of thing a small tribe adrift in a hostile and inexplicable world would dream up as a cosmology; come to think of it, it's the kind of cosmology such a tribe did dream up.
Actually, it was the Bush administration.
As to your other questions. Yes, the philosophies behind Newton's and Einstein's theories are very similar.
Really? A time-space invariant fixed-frame universe has about the same philosophical implications as a relativistic universe?--or a QM entangled universe?
For example, they are both fully deterministic.
Nothing has ever been demonstrated to be "fully deterministic", except in some formal mathematical studies whose domains of discourse are highly restricted. And even in this case, there is no lock-down guarantee implicit in the exercise, except by general agreement.
I think the general adequacy of Newton's theory is well explained and that is because it is not only not massively wrong, but is a very, very good approximation of reality within a wide range of conditions.
When it comes to the observable net behavior of the universe at large scale, there is nothing wronger, ever, than Newton's law. It is not in the least a good approximation of the universe, except for a tiny subset of that universe, located near you. Would you characterize this discussion we are having right here, in this paragraph, as more technical, or more philosophical in nature? Are we engaged in correcting a technical mis-understanding, or are we engaged in an ontological/epistemological discussion about the interpretation, limits, meaning, and implications of what we observe?
As I understand it, gravity plays a role, or at least must be taken into account, in atom traps so evidently even at that small scale it works the way we expect. Are you concerned that we don't have the equipment to measure the gravitational attraction between, say, two atoms?
So...I take it you adhere to one of the earlier models of the atom, wherein electrons are in smooth orbit around nuclei, in obedience to Newton's or Einstein's laws of motion?
I believe it is the Catholic Church that controls access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Any scholars wanting access to study them has to be vetted by the Church.
Science can and should, IMHO, like mathematics, address the non-corporeal.
We are leaving now to go visit the graves, but I look forward to discussing this further with you this evening or tomorrow. Hugs, my friend!
Bless you, A-Girl.
When new instruments are invented, science uses them. Examples: the compass, the telescope, the microscope, etc. I know of not a single instance of science refusing to investigate when it had the tools for conducting an investigation. There are, unfortunately, historical (and current) examples of areas of research being closed to science by political or ecclesiastical authorities.
As I said back in post 1,779 (and everal times in the past): A scientist, using scientific methods, can't do deity-research in the lab -- or anywhere else. There's no DeoScope, no DeoMeter, no deity scales or tools of any kind for a scientist to work with. But if you can come up with a DeoScope, you may be certain that scientists will use it.
You and Betty are complaining about the peer review process, but I haven't seen you produce a paper that was rejected, along with the review. Did I miss something?
Sure would be, AlamoGirl! I really do wish I could post what I have, but it doesn't belong to me. In any case, the article is some 30 pages in length -- a tad long to post here. (The review itself is six teensy paragraphs.)
I have a feeling this work will be published in some form soon. When that happens, I can be more forthcoming. :^)
Nature has space to publish only 10% or so of the 170 papers submitted each week, hence its selection criteria are rigorous. Many submissions are declined without being sent for review.Sounds rough. They provide statistics for the years 1997 though 2003, and their acceptance rate varies from 10.74% in 1997 to only 8.9% in 2003 (in which year 9,581 papers were submitted, and only 853 were published). Source: Getting published in Nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.