Re: Complete proof against evolution

On Mar 13, 7:20 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:10:45 -0400, "Steve P." <smarshallp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I was poking Eb with the stick that says you can have a god belief and
accept the outcome of science at the same time. Without this philosophical
capability of dealing with the apparent dichotomy in the two, you're
basically going to remain permanently stuck in the ignorance that your
belief system perpetuates. There will be no growth either intellectually, or
spiritually.

I agree that you can believe in a god without violating science. The two
are separate things. I don't think you can believe in a god if you are
completely rational, but that's a separate issue. I don't think
spiritual growth requires either a belief in a god or a belief in
anything supernatural.

Aside:
In the absence of philosophy, what is the meaning of life, and the value in
caring?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "philosophy". If it's just an
expression of a world view, then "the meaning of life" and "value in
caring" are, of course, parts of that. In that sense, everybody has a
philosophy, and everybody asks questions that science isn't equipped to
answer. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not saying there's
anything wrong with philosophy, just that much of it can't be addressed
scientifically. I do have a problem with any spiritual or philosophical
beliefs that are actually at odds with science, however.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Here is your religion -

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?" Orwell 1984

The heresy of common sense over astrological pretension.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ken Miller interviewed regarding atheism, ID
    ... often his writing gives the impression that he is speaking for science ... And he's not, because, if God is defined as a force outside of ... science make religion obsolete? ... point science cannot touch theism (philosophy still can, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ken Miller interviewed regarding atheism, ID
    ... often his writing gives the impression that he is speaking for science ... And he's not, because, if God is defined as a force outside of ... science make religion obsolete? ... point science cannot touch theism (philosophy still can, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)