Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
I guess that all depends on whose standard we are using. I personally had rather talk with a lothario who will tell me they disagree with me but treat me with respect than a religious person whose every statement drips with disdain for me becaue I fail some test of his. I am a fervent Christian, by the way.
Of course, there is also the distinction between being a "bad" person and being an enjoyable person. I have known many people whose moral standards were quite different than mine, in fact, I found their standards quite frightening, who I found utterly delightful to be around, and there are people whose views I consider "bad" who are nevertheless agreeable enough in the way they present them.
Then again, sometimes you will find someone like Dawkins who manages to be both utterly reprehensible in his personal life (a lab tech of my acquaintance who once worked for him found him an absolutely ruthless, dishonest, hateful boor), hatefully vicious in his interaction with those with whom he disagrees, and just plain wicked in his hatred of religion itself. I believe that with Dawkins we have hit the trifecta.
Evolution is a fact. It is observable in extant species, and can be logically extrapolated from fossil evidence and current DNA studies. The explanation for these observations is a theory. It is called the Theory of Evolution. One is an observation, the other an explanation, or a model if you prefer.
"And common sense always looks rambling to those who lack it.
You assume common sense is always valid, appropriate and true.
Much later in his life Darwin would refer to this as, IIRC, "a damnable doctrine". But as for this early period I'm absolutely certain that your recall is faulty.
Darwin never "left" divinity school in the sense of abandoning it. At the time he left on the Beagle, and throughout the journey, he maintained every expectation that he would take up orders and become an Anglican cleric on his return. It was often referred to in his correspondence, even if the focus was more on the leisure that a quiet pastorate would afford for pursuing private natural history studies than on the prospect of saving souls!
What happened was that Darwin, on returning from his voyage, immediately became fully immersed in analyzing, sorting and/or distributing his numerous specimens, writing up his findings, etc, and the issue of entering the church simply became irrelevant. Darwin found that his assiduous collecting, letters, and his geological reports had already developed for him a nascent but respectable scientific reputation, and that he was able to manage his stipend from his father sufficiently well (Darwin was an excellent manager of money) to operate as a gentleman scientist without an income or rectorage from the church.
That's the great thing about being a guy... there are no consequences if you are careful, so you don't need high standards. (that is not to say I didn't hit a high note on occasion) Evolutionary psychology dictates a different strategy for women. The funny thing is that I consider myself deprived. I know guys who've done much better with the ladies, if you believe their stories.
As a scientist, am I discovering how God rules his universe, or am I determining the behavior of this object which is inanimate and has no reference point outside itself? Both answers permit me to use the scientific method (indeed,the philosophical substrate of Xty launched modern science itself), but the assumptions I draw about the nature of the universe I am in are vastly different.
That is the problem I have with Dawkins. Both "starting" points are equally valid in science proper. There is NO intrinsic reason why an empirical basis should be the starting point for scientific endeavor, much less the mewling nonsense that one viewpoint is not science and is in fact anti-scientific.
(Actually, I have been out of the lab for well over 15 years, so it is technically not correct to predicate my first sentence with "As a scientist.")
Wrong. Darwin never at any point affirmatively "declined to become a minister". The issue was simply dropped without looking back when Darwin returned from his voyage. (See my previous message.)
Darwin had to explicity agree to the 39 Articles, and did, simply to be admitted to Cambridge in the first place.
Theft is only considered wrong in cultures that have the concept of ownership. It is hardly universal.
In the cases where there is a putative universally held 'human' law, practicality, and shared genes, are a more compelling explanation than some 'timeless moral authority'.
"The laws of grammar correspond to universally recognized first principles of reason, such as the law of non-contradiction. Only minds can reason, so the source of eternal principles of reason must be an eternal mind.
Is that why grammar is different in different language groups and changes over time?
Try programming in a number of different computer languages to see how liquid grammar and the representation of logic can be.
This is another case of anthropomorphization.
Which creationist source did you get this from?
Such wonderfully composed clarity of thought.
Do you know that the lack of argument against is not an argument for?
After having spent two sessions in Edinburgh, my father perceived, or he heard from my sisters, that I did not like the thought of being a physician, so he proposed that I should become a clergyman. He was very properly vehement against my turning into an idle sporting man, which then seemed my probable destination. I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard or thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care 'Pearson on the Creed,' and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted.
Immediately following this Darwin affirms that there was never an explicit decision against entering the clergy, but that it was simply given up:
Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father's wish ever formerly given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving Cambridge, I joined the "Beagle" as naturalist.
His quote on his views while on the HMS Beagle (from his autobiography): " But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose, before my mind and would not be banished,--is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible"
If that is "orthodox," then I am a pink gerbil.
"" But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839"
He came back from the Beagle voyage on October 2, 1836. The views you quoted were from AFTER his return.
The first starting point is scientific only if it comes with no consequences (God would have/would not have done X). And if it comes with no consequences, then it's a somewhat pointless assumption, isn't it? It's the ultimate violation of Occam's razor: assuming an entity that makes no difference at all.
It is asked all the time. However at this point we simply do not know. You'll have to talk to the BB theorists and the Multiverse theorists to answer that one.
Our current inability to explain it is hardly an argument *for* ID. Or is there a specific date we need to know everything by?
"He's happy enough to start, not from the beginning, but from Step 2....
As do creationists.
I knew of a guy who kept an inner tube in the back of his car with his fishing rod. When he passed a likely looking pond, he would just pull out the tube and the tackle box and fish the afternoon away. His "sermon preparation" consisted of figuring out what he would say on the way up to the pulpit on Sunday a.m. Didn't have much to say, but at least he didn't take long to say it. His "job for the week" was over in 15 mins, 12 if he lost his train of thought.
Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
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.