Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Doesn’t disqualify me either.
"Rejection of the living God Who dwells outside the time-space universe with special antipathy directed against Jesus Christ"
That is what you must do to qualify as "humanist", according to the list presented. If you don't do that, then you are disqualified. Are you sure that doesn't disqualify you?
That is what you must do to qualify as “humanist”, according to the list presented.
If you don’t do that, then you are disqualified.
Are you sure that doesn’t disqualify you?
“Humanist” is a misnomer... a mask... a diversion..
Looking at things as they “really are” seems to be a “skill”..
A skill not all possess... Reality may not be able to be seen..
The “Cargo Cults” are varied and diverse..
The cargos are amazingly uniform.. stylized.. with designer packaging..
I didn't post it, I just commented on it.
just the same....
Why didn’t you take exception to it back at #1213?
Why didn’t you take exception to it back at #1213?
Because I liked Linda Kimbals screed...
and C.S. Lewis was and is thought provoking...
So it’s about the people, not the argument.
Hello. Since when did I ever present myself as a humanist?
I’ve clearly made my stand as a Christian known and I KNOW you’ve been around enough to see that on the crevo threads.
I know. A list of the distinguishing qualities of humanism was presented, with the implication that it was representative of some "correspondents" on the thread. I simply noted that the very first item on the list would disqualify everyone on the thread (including you) as being "humanist". Nobody here is denying the existence of God.
I see how you’re looking at that now.
I read it wrong initially.
So it’s about the people, not the argument.
Arguments are made by people..
Sometimes tacticalogic you’re neither tactical or logical..
but nobody’s perfect..
And you choose the arguments you'll take exception to according to who's making them. I understand.
And you choose the arguments you’ll take exception to according to who’s making them. I understand.
Thats a relief.......... AT least you’re not stupid..
Actually like you... I choose what arguments to take exception to by tactics and logic..
made by people... personally..
I don't make it personal. If "humanism" is a diversion, then it's a diversion no matter who's injecting it into the thread.
I don’t make it personal.
I do.... you deserve no less...
Cause I KNOW there is a “Crank” at the other end of that internet “handle”..
Well I suppose it's easier for you to redirect me to the reexamination of our past back-and-forth statements than it is to simply answer a simple question: What is the foundation of science itself?
Then there is the problem of: What "allegations" have I made? Can you recite them back to me?
I have tried six-ways-to-Sunday to show you the epistemic root of our apparent difference, inviting you to reflect on it; and have tried to demonstrate it, to show it to you, from several points of view. And for all my trouble, I get back — every time, without fail — the simple statement: "The definition — and purpose — of science is finding 'natural explanations for natural processes.'"
As ever, I would like to know: WHO defined "science" in this way? (Would you just tell me???)
Certainly we can't blame Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the universal Church. He never artificially divided the spiritual from the natural world; it was not he who proposed them as somehow mutually exclusive categories, such that "science" has to choose between them in order to do its business.
Rather, St. Thomas saw the natural world as an epiphany of God. To put it another way, the "material" universe is a process created, designed, and constantly sustained by the creative Will, Logos, and Living Sacrifice of God.
Thomas saw "natural law" as emergent in human consciousness from "divine law." The former is "nested" in the latter; the latter is the former's very "environment," in which it is doing its "scientific" work.
Thomas never indicated the two realms were mutually exclusive. Why do you, dear BroJoeK?
And I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the universe and everything in it "evolves." What else could you possibly expect a cosmic-scale spatio-temporal process to do?
Also I have no problem whatsoever with the scientifically-assessed age of the universe: 13.7 billion years (or maybe ~15 billion years). I don't see this as invalidating Genesis 1 or John 1:1–5 in any way shape or form.
When you asked me, "So please tell us how such a simple concept can be so difficult for you to grasp?" I definitely got the impression that you were trying to stage me as some kind of stoopid religious fanatic who, being "religious," is necessarily "stoopid."
Would you like to tell that to, e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, LeMaitre, et al.???
Gotta run for now. Am looking forward to your next. Thank you ever so much for writing, dear BroJoeK!
Would you like to tell that to, e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, LeMaitre, et al.???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LoL.. Indeed,, Reminds me of some genius's I met at a few academic instutions that related.. "You have your truth I have mine".. as if truth was an just an "opinion"..
The pity being...... "to them" truth was just an opinion..
They did not know what to trust SOoo they trusted NOTHING..
to wit: Designer Paranoia..
Heck; Even the EVO's believed something, even if it was claptrap...
And that's why it's posted in News and Activism, so you can do that.
I wouldn’t agree that the reason we “cannot find agreement on the questions to be asked” is because we “are not working on the same problem.” Rather, I believe the difficulty arises because we are not standing on the same “ground of being.”
You may be asking different questions than I ask; but in the end, you still have the problem of qualifying and validating the answers you receive, just as I do. You cannot divorce science from Truth — of which God, not man, is the Measure.
In an earlier post, you wondered why anyone would want to “construct” a scientific model in which everything bottoms out in atoms. I alleged that this is precisely what materialist/mechanist/naturalist presuppositions logically lead to.
But then, maybe we need to agree on exactly what it is that “naturalism” involves. It seems to me there are “natural” phenomena which have non-observable causes. Such causes are typically denied as "realizable" in Nature by persons of materialist/mechanist/naturalist persuasion in principle, which placies them outside the scientific method entirely. But the point is, they’d still be natural phenomena — despite the fact that science is prohibited from investigating them.
Which so far is probably all as clear as mud to you, dear tacticalogic. Please allow me to clarify.
What is striking about your and BroJoeK’s arguments is the evident agreement between you regarding the absolute separability of the “super-natural” from the “natural” world. You see these “worlds” as mutually-exclusive domains according to the logic of Aristotle’s Third Law, and classical (i.e., Newtonian) physics. Then you maintain that science has to pick one and reject the other in order to do its work. So the “super-natural” gets dumped, never to be seen again....
From my perch, I see the supernatural and the natural not as separable, mutually exclusive categories, but as the ultimate complementarity constituting the natural world of which human beings are “parts and participants.”
The idea of complementarity arises from Niels Bohr’s uncertainty principle. I honor Bohr as one of the greatest epistemologists of all time IMHO and as founding father of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Investigators of quantum phenomena early on were confronted with a horrifying, mystifying dilemma: They found it impossible, under experimental conditions, to simultaneously quantify both the position and the velocity of a sub-atomic particle (usually a photon). Thus the experimental observer was confronted with a choice: “Respecting this particle, do I want to find out its position or its velocity? ’Cause I can't quantify these two principal variables at the same time.”
Thus the human subjective observer was ineluctably inserted into the very heart of science. (It is to be noted that Einstein had done the same in his General Relativity theory not too long before.)
Here’s something I regard as very important: Bohr himself did not like the term, “uncertainty principle.” He reasoned: A condition of “uncertainty” could be resolved by the acquisition of further relevant knowledge.
But that would not describe what Bohr found: The “condition” we are trying to describe here cannot in principle be resolved by any further acquisition of knowledge. We are speaking of a limitation on human perception (and thus apperception) itself. Bohr thought the problem is not one of “uncertainty”; it is a problem of undecidability.
An insight further supported by Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem….
A condition of “undecidability” is one in which no matter how much additional knowledge of the world one acquires, one will never be able to answer an “undecidable” question.
So Bohr preferred the term, “undecidability principle.” It did not stick.
But I digress. At the very heart of the idea of complementarity is this: The two sides of the complementarity are only mutually-exclusive in an experimental situation, as conceived by an observer. This is not a question begging for a “true–false,” “yes–no” answer, á la Aristotle’s Third Law. For complementarity regards both “sides” as potentially true — under the given experimental conditions. Though you can’t have “both at once,” you need both to describe the total system which they together comprise.
So that’s why I suggested a while back, dear tacticalogic, that although machines and computers may thrive on maximal “computability” — which Aristotle’s Third definitely maximally promotes — this may not be a good model for biology.
Well I suppose to you, dear friend, this thread has been about the defense of Darwin and of modern science itself.
For me, it’s been a plea for the restoration of sanity to modern science.
Darwin definitely needs “updating”: It’s as if his evolutionary theory rationalizes Nature into some kind of biological machine. Plus its Achilles Heel has always been its total silence on origin issues….
But I continue to suspect there may be something good and worthwhile in the theory. I am sure that what is "true" about it will survive forever more.
What is not true, will perish in time.
I’ll just leave matters there for now, dear tacticalogic. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts.
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.