 |
 |
 |
Let the people choose. He looks porcine to me.
Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
|
|
|
Let the people choose. He looks porcine to me.
Naturalism (even "metaphysical" naturalism) hasn't been materialistic for centuries. Get over your shallow "new age" strawmen.
Jeepers. Talk about "stacking the deck!" And then having the temerity to call it a "method!"
Jeepers. Talk about equivocation. The folks you're criticizing consistently distinguish between "metaphysical" (or philosophical) naturalism and "methodological" naturalism.
" Let the people choose. He looks porcine to me."
I think we may be picking nits. :)
Let the people decide! :) "“And we all know what needs to be done…you re-elect old Kennedy to the Senate. We’re gonna start on the 96 campaign and re-elect Bill Clinton as our (garbled).” Garbled is properly translated as *Hippo Hurricane Hollar!!! Gobble Gobble Gobble!!!!!*
Go for it.
"You assert that morality was selected for. Presumably you have some proof other than sociobiologic hypotheses or evolutionary psychobabble?
Comparitive studies of the social structure of other social animals, primarily apes. Dawkin's concept of the 'Selfish Gene' goes a long way towards explaining why we observe altruistic behavior in other animals and humans.
"Certainly. Winnowing of the gene pool by immoral acts of man. Expanding the gene pool by moral acts of man providing and caring for those who would be naturally selected out. Unintelligent design and intelligent design.
Those that do not protect their family can be sure their particular gene set will not survive for long. Those that protect their family have a much better chance of passing on their genes. In most cases this protection will encompass the entire social group. Kin selection is a complex and involved theory that explains among other things: altruistic actions, sibling bonds, sexual promiscuity, and variant degrees of estrus signaling in different ape species.
(At least somebody does ;))
As far as backing up my assertions goes, if I suggest readings to you will you read them?
Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (Drake, p. 186; Rohr, p. 13 )
"...Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy. In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests.
One of the most important aspects of Galileo's "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution.
In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles.
In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened.
In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their "traditional" theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged. The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions.
The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound biblical teachings must be abandoned. This is the Believer's goal. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness." MORE
Tell me about the global flood and why it is necessary to twist geology, sedimentology, archaeology and half a dozen other sciences all out of shape to try to make it fit with observed fact and established theory.
You'll have to question someone who embraces YEC if you want that answered. I don't subscribe to it, myself.
Fair enough. We'll cross sabers on some other issue down thread. ;-)
The contention is that methodological naturalism does NOT implication philosophical naturalism. The former does not assert that only natural factors exist, but rather assumes that only natural factors are relevant for the restricted purpose of doing science.
You are entitled to argue that this distinction is flawed, or disingenuous, or whatever, but you're not entitled to pretend through equivocation that it has not been made.
You're confusing things. We know primitive whales and hippos are closely related.
If you read Milton, you read Hitchings, Gish, snd Morris. Because those were the people he cribbed from.
You shoulda clicked on my screenname and went to my profile page first - you'd have known better than to ask me that question. :)
Way too much stuff (its late and I haven't shaved). Do you have a cliff notes version?
I was responding to your "The Bible is the only infallible..." comment in a previous post. Based on my studies, I do not think the global flood is an example of infallibility.
I may have to answer tomorrow.
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.