Posted on 07/05/2003 4:20:08 PM PDT by betty boop
Hank, the "danger" of my faith being "overthrown" is not the issue here. (I am certainly in no danger of that from your direction.) May I point out that the above italics demonstrate yet another "pot shot" at a Christian?
The issue is not whether I agree with you or otherwise; the issue is your sheer bad manners, incivility, and penchant for bomb-throwing. Your discourse (with rare exceptions) is "all heat and no light," irrelevant distraction. The issue is whether you are contributing anything of substance to this discussion, or whether you're just wasting bandwidth, for the purpose of "muddying up the waters," to interject irrelevancies and thus interfere with the rational flow of the conversation, and to take pot shots at people you disagree with.
What is it that you fear about Christians (and God?) that drives you to make them the main issue of every post you write, regardless of the topic of the thread?
Kindly put a sock in it! Thank you very much.
With regard to the other subject, I wish to observe that most atheists merely do not believe in God whereas the spirit of anti-Christ believes and hates God. Devils on the other hand, believe and tremble.
If you cannot grasp how irrational, anti-rational such a position is, then I wonder about the state of your own "reasonableness," or rationality.
What Prof. Lewontin is saying is that the use of reason is acceptable up to the point where reason conflicts with doctrine; and you're sayiing that Prof. Lewontin's position is irrational and anti-rational.
I agree with your assessment as to Prof. Lewontin's irrationality; but you don't seem to be connecting the dots showing positive correlation between Prof. Lewontin's position and theological positions; correlations that tell me their positions are one and the same when it comes to intentionally avoiding reason whenever reason conflicts with doctrine.
I find your last rather perplexing. The topic of this thread is science, in particular integrative science, not metaphysics.
I can't figure out any way to make mediaeval/scholastic realism into a basis for scientific inquiry. Science is principally about describing the universe in terms of its fundamental organizational principles. The subjective qualities of what it is like to live in the universe are not immediate concerns. Science has to find a way of seeing when direct observation of what it hopes to describe is not possible. Science has to imagine things that are simply impossible, in principle, to see (in the sense of direct perception of objects). We never see the "entire" universe, most of which is thought to lie "beyond" our visible horizon. But we can try to imagine it: Science must proceed on the basis of testable ideas. That is its method; and some would say that is its glory.
But at the end of the day, science is about a description of reality, not a substitute for reality. The same analogy applies (I think) to man's penchant for describing God, although God can never be an object of direct perception/cognition for the human mind. Given the "category problem," God is "not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived"; but also "greater than what can be conceived." God simply "outruns" the human mind, so to speak. But I don't think the same thing can be said about the creation He made.
If you can figure out a way to make scholastic realism serve as a basis for scientific investigation, I'd love to hear it. Meanwhile, we may be stuck with Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes.... (You know very well by now that I consider what Hegel did with/to "idealism" -- logic and reason -- to be a total inversion of what these principles stand for.)
This is off-topic, thinktwice. This thread is not about "theological positions." Please take the hint.
Divine geometers notwithstanding, I think you've discovered the crux of your mistake and the reason for part of my criticism. You are doing metaphysics with science.
It may appear so, cornelis. But I thought I was doing science with an "assist" from metaphysics! I know that one is "beyond" the other in substance and by definition.
It seems to me that one of the things integrative science is trying to do is to find a way to do science that does not depend on the unsupported, untested assumption that one can successfully infer the structure and functions of an organic whole just by investigating its parts. Especially when that whole is a "higher-order infinity" than any of its parts and all of them put together.
The whole is more than just the simple sum of its parts. To think otherwise is a grave mistake, IMHO FWIW. I think it is precisely that assumption that is arresting further scientific progress, and causing an undue focus on matter to the exclusion of spiritual things -- you know, such "little things" as consciousness, freedom, experience, feelings, thought, ideas, etc., etc.
So you try to figure out what the higher-order structure may "look like." Then the parts might become explicable.
Yeah, as in self-evident!
Madam BB: "Indeed, they so resemble each other, that many people today still believe that God made man "in His image." Just think about that
Or is it off-topic theology? All forgivable, I suppose.
Madam AG: "at this level, the phrase representing all such mathematical structure, which shows unity of transcendent intelligence, could be replaced with the word God.
(I'll definitely take your caution "under advisement.")
May I ask you a question, just so I can get these issues clear in my mind?
If one were to say: "The structure of mathematics may possibly shed light on the structure of the universe" -- would you consider this a metaphysical statement?
Would you kindly advise me (without the who did it) what the deliberate, repeated lies are? You can send them by Freep mail if you'd prefer.
Frankly I do not see where my paragraphs at #82 excerpted by cornelis would be inappropriate or over-reaching considering the title of this thread: "Integrative Science: Death Knewll of Scientific Materialism?"
For Lurkers, I said:
B) The structural science is not sufficient, and is incomplete for explaining all existence,... life, mind and consciousness...
We predict that science will renounce principle A for principle B due primarily to the difficulties enountered in the explanation of mind and consciousness.... The problem of consciousness leads...not only to the last frontier, mostly unexplored, of science, but also to perhaps the most important frontier for mankind in the 21st century....
Metaphysical naturalism could not defend against this determination – because, at this level, the phrase representing all such mathematical structure, which shows unity of transcendent intelligence, could be replaced with the word God.
Oh, A-G, I do agree this is so (this statement from Kafatos & Draganescu). Either we get clear on the problem of consciousness in all its ramifications, or we can just kiss the "human project" good-bye.
The materialists out there -- who really do prefer absurdity to the clear, God-given light of reason any day of the week -- have already laid plans to reduce us/replace us with digital machines. [Lurkers please do try to envision this statement as metaphoric, not as evidence of paranoia.] Indeed, in terms of thinking and feeling, they have so far achieved considerable success in converting humans now alive into virtual machines.
And while they're at it, they also plan to deify Utility -- a project that seems to be achieving a certain critical mass in certain sectors of the West by now.
All of which to be conducted under the auspices of a tiny minority of "progressively committed" intellectuals with an ingrained "grudge" against nature and the general "unforgivingness" of Truth, against its seemingly intractible bias in one direction only: Upward, into the Light of God's grace and spirit. This is a special caste of self-selected and self-appointed "high priests" who desire to rule over the rest of us, "for our own good."
Are we -- the "rest of us" -- really prepared to accept life under such a regime? How's that for a little late-night "sci-fi," A-G!!!
Good night, and God bless!
Sleep well and may God abundantly bless you! Hugs!!!
Exactly. Zealous macroevolutionists find themselves talking about the miraculous designs of evolution! The constraints of intention (including the dutiful but sly Mr. Parsimony) are there to behold, by theologians, philosophers, and scentists alike.
"Makes one go 'hmm....'"
(But, you don't suppose a plum is happy to be eaten by a good person, do you? Is that why it gushes?)
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.