Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Is this the Twins paradox or the quantum entanglement between the two of you ;-)
Cheers!
...careful with the definitions there, betty...
e.g. 'Darwinian' evolution refers to distributions of alleles within populations, where by the interplay of a number of factors (random drift, selection / deselection due to fitness, changes in environment) these distributions (*and the populations* themselves) change over time.(*)
You appear to be using the word in terms of development or progression of individuals, or of communities of individuals in association or communication with each other. And presumably, under the guidance or tutelage of divine inspiration and grace. Whether this would be concerned with 'memes' is beyond the scope of the current post ;-)
(*) Is there 'Spiritual' selection ?? -- "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"; "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" etc. Probably beyond the state of the art to inquire...and no "reset" button on history to test it empirically [with a nod to Coyoteman].
In sum, without an infinite past, no one can rationalize denying God the Creator. And there can be no existence - spiritual or physical - apart from God's will.
Beautifully stated. "Without an infinite past, no one can rationalize denying God..."
The imponderable proves the existence of God.
And if you reject science, just what method are you going to use to differentiate between these sources of "knowledge?"
Couldn't have said it better myself.
The answer is that in doing so, you are moving away from 'all ideas treated equally' where the proof is external, empirical validation, and into the realm (usually) of the personal--where *trust* and *belief* are the currency of the realm.
Three points follow:
1. yes, Yes, YES~~!! It is *TRUE* that people have made and continue to make all KINDS of mistakes by relying on such intuitions, fancies, and the like. However, it is not correct that relying on these rules *MUST* uniformly be false.
2. It is true that for discovering uniformities and trends in physical operations, such insights tend to SUCK. But many of the, umm, err, questions or quandries addressed by those types of knowledge are not primarily insight into regularities in the physical world which may be exploited, but insight into control of one's own impulses or of moral suasion.
3. Both of the points above are something of red herrings. The OTHER objection to using other types of knowledge in preference to the scientific method is that "how do you determine which fairy-tale to believe? Just choosing to play favorites is not logically consistent. So there, QED, neener neener, etc." But the other forms of knowledge never claimed to be based on savoir, but instead on connaître -- they weren't claiming to be logical in the FIRST place.
Long-winded mode off.
Cheers!
Will bookmark; depending on when /if I move back to Minnesota (hooray!!!!!) will determine when I get to it.
Cheers!
The capacity for abstraction, planning, and empiricism enter in to; we are able (as a society) to create our own food gradients.
(Even if we've outsourced too much of it to China, grumble, grumble.)
Cheers!
Another thing: Plotinus seems to favor the idea that the Soul does not move into the body, but that the body occupies the Soul. That is, there is only the one Soul. But, I have read only the first three Enneads, so three to go and who knows what other insights lurk.
Ontology recapitulates philology.
Or is that oenology...?
In vino veritas.
Cheers!
Thans for your scrupulosity grey_whiskers!
Yes, it seems so. That makes it difficult to think about these things. But everything we know is what we observed in nature, which would include other people and what they appear to do and what they claim they thought up, as well as what our own brains suggest to do which they would do right now if we didn’t sit at the gate and say no! most of the time. It’s neither free will nor determinism: there is this new thing, a third choice. It gets very complex instantly, but we should not imagine complexity means anything special since that is what nature does.
Connaître implies a sort of native or innate knowledge, which I do believe that human beings just naturally possess. A very common form of it is called "common sense." Try measuring that! :^)
I do not embrace science as the most certain source of knowledge.And to make it worse, we can add two other important questions:Why stop with divine revelation? When you reject science and the scientific method there are so many other sources of "knowledge" to choose from: magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, aching bunions, Ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, hoodoo, voodoo, and all sorts of other weird stuff.
And if you reject science, just what method are you going to use to differentiate between these sources of "knowledge?"
How do I know your divine revelation is worth anything? Jim Jones and David Koresh both claimed divine revelation and look where it got them. Sounds like a case of "my divine revelations are always true, but anyone else's divine revelations, if they contradict mine, must be false." (Nice work if you can get it.)
How does one objectively distinguish between a "genuine" revelation and an ordinary hallucination/mental illness? Charles Manson, for instance?
When you abandon rational thinking and objective, measurable reality in favor of "divine revelation," you also abandon any rational way of differentiating between multiple sources of "divine revelation." You are left with opinion and unsubstantiated belief.
And, you are far from science and the scientific method. As I noted above, when you abandon the scientific method and accept divine revelation as your highest authority, you have no business doing science, or even offering opinions on scientific matters.
A most excellent post...I would add this...aside from the most horrid of those folks, as you mentioned, Jim Jones, and David Koresh, claiming to have special divine revelation, there are others not so odious who claim to have special divine revelation, which they claim has directed them to start another religion...
Didn’t Joseph Smith claim divine revelation, when he began the Mormon faith?...I would assume, that all those who started various Christian religions, also claimed that they received some sort of divine revelation...I am quite sure that the folks who began the Christian Science Religion, Jehovahs Witnesses, the 7th Day Adventists, and just about every other religion that calls its ‘Christian’ began, because its founder claimed that they had a ‘divine revelation’ to break with existing traditional religions, and start their own religon...even religions that do not consider themselves Christian, believe in divine revelation...does not the Moslem religion believe that they too, receive divine revelation...what about those of the Bahai Faith...what about all Native Americans who still practice their tradtional religion...I am sure that they believe in divine revelation as well..
Anyone can claim that they have received a ‘divine revelation’...I am sure millions of folks feel that this has happened to them...yet they all have differing conclusions as to what those divine revelations actually mean...
I am sure that they believe these revelations to be true and relevant to their own personal lives...but since these revelations are personal, and known only by the one claiming to have received them, they are irrelevant to anyone else, who may have their own divine relevation, which directly contradicts someone elses revelation..
Receiving a divine revelation is purely a subjective experience, one that cannot be shared by anyone else, nor for that matter proven to anyone else...
So ones experience of a divine relevation is relevant for them, relevant for their lives, relevant for the way they think and perceive things...but for the rest of us, someone elses ‘divine revelation’ is irrelevant...
I replied in post #364. I agreed with the essence of your point and amplified it a bit, before replying.
Am I on your ignore list?
Of course, if I am, you won't see that question, either... ;-)
Cheers!
Connais-tu Minneapolis? :: "Are you acquainted with the Twin Cities?"
Sais-tu les polynomials Legendre? :: "Can you recite the Legendre polynomials?"
One is personal knowledge, acquaintance, "getting to know".
The other is factual, "book-learning", data.
Cheers!
I am going to reiterate a good essay on this topic...
In an hour or so, that is.
Cue to sound of can opener and grey_whiskers sauntering towards the kitchen in hopes of tuna fish...
Cheers!
I replied in post #364. I agreed with the essence of your point and amplified it a bit, before replying.
Am I on your ignore list?
No, no ignore list, but your response was too agreeable!
I was waiting for somebody to make fun of my long list of dubious "knowledge" ("magic, superstition, wishful thinking..., etc.") while defending divine revelation, and then to provide a rational method of differentiating among all of those various sources of "knowledge" -- all the while denigrating science as too uncertain and too limited in scope.
That would have been entertaining to say the least.
From Dorothy L. Sayers, in her essay Creative Mind:
It is fascinating to watch the never-ending struggle as language and scientific method develop side by side. The process is always the same. The scientist seizes upon a word originally made by the common poet and endeavors to restrict it to a single, definite meaning that shall be the same in every context. The physicist, for instance, takes a word such as force or energy and uses it to denote a particular factor in physics that can be mathematically expressed. To his horror, the general public refuses to restrict the word in this manner, and innumerable misunderstandings occur. Not only does the common man continue to use the words in metaphorical meanings which they cannot bear in scientific contexts, he also reads those meanings into the scientist's exposition of physics, deducing from them all kinds of metaphysical conclusions quite foreign to the physicist's intentions. Or, if the scientist does succeed in capturing a word and restricting its meaning, some other word will arrive and take over all the former meanings of the original word, so that the same pair of words may be used in successive centuries to mean totally different things and may even become substituted for each other, without anybody's noticing what has happened.
She goes on to consider the words reason, imagination, and reality -- all very relevant to the discussion at hand, btw.
Cheers!
Divine revelations are the most certain knowledge for me because I have known God personally for nearly a half century.
We who have experienced the power of God in His revelations - especially the Word of God - also know that the wisdom of men is foolishness by comparison.
When you equate God's words with your litany of absurdities you are insulting Him, not me.
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.