Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 12:15 PM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2 A worthwhile book to read that, I think, sheds light on this tension between the material as ultimate reality and an immaterial Creator as ultimate reality is by the philosopher & theologian Francis Shaeffer, "Escape From Reason". The question that I am addressing is one of presuppositions, i.e. from what philosophical ground someone is viewing the world. Everyone thinks and argues from a philosophical presuppostional ground (whether they are aware of it or not). Two individuals holding opposing sets of presuppositions will naturally exclaim to each other, "That doesn't make sense!" By definition one's presupposition cannot be definitively proven. So one must examine the path of implications of each in order to test its consistency. That is merely what I was trying to do, albeit with limitation. An excerpt from "Escape From Reason": "The early scientists believed in the uniformity of natural causes. What they did not believe in was the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. That little phrase makes all the difference in the world. It makes the difference between natural science and a science that is rooted in 'naturalistic philosophy'. It makes all the difference between what I would call modern science and what I would call modern modern science. It is important to notice that this is not a failing of science as science, but rather that the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system has become the dominant philosophy among scientists." (Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, Ch. 3) I'm not going to try and respond to some of the points proffered, as I think we end up talking past one another. But this is a topic (ultimate truth or reality) that has engaged better minds than ours over the centuries and certainly worthwhile to pursue. Thanks for indulging my thoughts. D

Certainly. I am always interested in pursuing different angles. I did some research on the book and author you mention and I am curious. For my part, I find that when I get down to it, I notice that I can read different arguments that on the surface appear to be "opposing" but when I remove the few restrictive parts I find that in terms of a percentage of agreement, I agree with much more than I have friction with. The friction points are focal points, for obvious reasons. But I find it constructive to keep in mind that these small friction points are really generally minor deviations from central agreements that most people DO NOT have friction about. Focusing on the few small differences breeds an unnecessary contempt. I try not to do that. Yet, points of friction do need to be tested, investigated. I try to do so with caution and consideration.

* Post Removed *
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 12:56 PM CDT

* This message has been removed *

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 02:30 PM CDT

Very nicely said Rich - a very well wrought sentiment!

We are all fallible. Therefore, while I have the right to hold absolute beliefs I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on others. In the end, we need to find a way to accommodate and respect one another - to give each among us the maximum possible space to find meaning in life.

I like to have my ideas challenged. I like to challenge the ideas of others. I think its a sign of respect when we engage each other on this level. Such debate won't ever end and I for one am glad for it.

To all my religious friends I say, "peace and blessings upon you!"

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 02:50 PM CDT

It takes a grand leap of faith to believe strictly in "science", as it has scientifically often and repeatedly been proven to be wrong.

Compassion? If I follow Brian's evolutionist logic correctly, microbial sea life up to and including fishes should be the most compassionate beings on this planet.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 02:53 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi Very nicely said Rich - a very well wrought sentiment! We are all fallible. Therefore, while I have the right to hold absolute beliefs I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on others. In the end, we need to find a way to accommodate and respect one another - to give each among us the maximum possible space to find meaning in life. I like to have my ideas challenged. I like to challenge the ideas of others. I think its a sign of respect when we engage each other on this level. Such debate won't ever end and I for one am glad for it. To all my religious friends I say, "peace and blessings upon you!"

Yes we all have different thoughts/believes, something we need to respect, so we can love and care about all living things on earth, not only humans, everything that give us that life we all take for granted...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

Peace, Love & Respect
Kenta

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 02:55 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi Very nicely said Rich - a very well wrought sentiment! We are all fallible. Therefore, while I have the right to hold absolute beliefs I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on others. In the end, we need to find a way to accommodate and respect one another - to give each among us the maximum possible space to find meaning in life. I like to have my ideas challenged. I like to challenge the ideas of others. I think its a sign of respect when we engage each other on this level. Such debate won't ever end and I for one am glad for it. To all my religious friends I say, "peace and blessings upon you!"

Well, that was quite well said.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 03:03 PM CDT

Quote by: Rocha Malhada It takes a grand leap of faith to believe strictly in "science", as it has scientifically often and repeatedly been proven to be wrong.

This sort of statement irks me to no end.

Of course science has been proven to be often and repeatedly wrong.

Of course of course of course.

But that is the vary nature of science -- the synthesis of observation, combined with hypothesis (and sometimes speculation and conjecture), combined with testing of these hypotheses -- forming an iterative process whereby each successive version gets closer and closer to the truth.

The universal science of 0 BC was less accurate than the universal science of 1000 AD which was less accurate than the universal science of 1500 AD which which was less accurate than the universal science of 1800 AD which was less accurate than the universal science of 2000 AD which was less accurate than the universal science of 2009 AD which will be less accurate than the universal science of 2010.

and so on and so forth...

Viewing "science" as a static entity is folly.

This reminds me of a book on Creation vs. Evolution I read recently which was written in 1985. So much of the book was grounded on viewing archeology and biology as static and unchanging. While some of the arguments presented in the book were historically accurate 24 years ago, they are no longer accurate today. Oooops.

Mason

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 03:08 PM CDT

Quote by: Rocha Malhada Compassion? If I follow Brian's evolutionist logic correctly, microbial sea life up to and including fishes should be the most compassionate beings on this planet.

Well, no. I don't think you followed my logic correctly.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 03:32 PM CDT

Quote by: Tiny_Man_Inside Quote by: Rocha Malhada It takes a grand leap of faith to believe strictly in "science", as it has scientifically often and repeatedly been proven to be wrong. This sort of statement irks me to no end.

So, you think it's an inaccurate statement?

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 05:36 PM CDT

Quote by: Rocha Malhada Quote by: Tiny_Man_Inside Quote by: Rocha Malhada It takes a grand leap of faith to believe strictly in "science", as it has scientifically often and repeatedly been proven to be wrong. This sort of statement irks me to no end. So, you think it's an inaccurate statement?

Harold, did you bother to read my post after this first line?