|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 26, 2012 12:32:47 GMT
It's unlikely the sceintific revolution would have developed as it did without the widespread adoption of one form or another of deism in this country, and North America... I'm well aware of that, Nick. You have made the point before and I have never denied it. (I am not so sure about your asssertion of the inevitability of Muslim inflexibility here, but I'd rather not get into that as i don't know enough to counter the overconfident and unsupported statements you'll almost certainly make.) That's quite a charge. I would almost certainly support any statements I made about Islamic inflexibility by quoting abundant passages in the Koran, or the other sources of Sharia. I have no idea where else one is supposed to look if one is talking about what Muslims believe - or say they believe. On the one hand we have their Koran, and the legal codes they're sworn to believe. On the other we have your testimony of what the few Muslims you know believe - by your estimation. Whose assertions are the overconfident ones here? Seconds out.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 26, 2012 15:55:25 GMT
I know about 'theists' and 'deists' too, but they'll have to wait. I was surprised to see these words used in a modern context, since I associate them particularly with seventeenth-century religious controversy, ( deism usually implying the rejection of revelation,) and I am not sure how well the distinction between them is understood today - or whether the distinction the present author makes is quite what those who first used the terms would be making. It is difficult to avoid being annoyed by the words, much as some people get annoyed by homophobia or antisemitism (which etymologically should not mean what they ostensibly do mean), because theos and deus are simply the Greek and Latin words for god, and there is no reason why theism and deism should mean anything different from each other. But we have the words, and must do the best we can with them. I'll look up some examples when I've got time, but it's interesting to note that while neither is used much for present-day controversies (I'm open to correction here, but only with actual examples, please) the word atheism is used a great deal. The question then is If an atheist denies the existence of the entity adumbrated in the word theist, what should someone call herself who denies the existence of a deus? Or (to put it another way) Is the God so provocatively addressed in the marchesa's SOD GOD theos, or deus? Or either? Or both?I really wish that you and the marchesa had not been so horribly rude to visitor, as I doubt if she will post again now since what she predicted has indeed come to pass. And note that even the Archbishop of Canterbury recites the Nicene Creed.(To be continued, possibly.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 26, 2012 17:44:00 GMT
On the Contrary, jean, visitor is the one who has been "rude" to me! S/he has personally opened three threads here deliberately to accuse me of Homophobia and of being an Anders Beivik supporter and being some sort of all-purpose "denier"! thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=702thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=702thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=forexperimenting&action=display&thread=710One would not mind visitor posting his/her opinions on any matter at all if he were not also blatantly also taking a swipe at me for some reason known only to him? I do not behave in this way. I try to stick to the subject and would suggest others do so too instead of perennially trailing their ancient vendettas and dogging ME from board to board. It's all so counterproductive, too, because as Nick commented, it's like they are getting into the ring with Mike Tyson. Not only can I defend myself effortlessly using the written word I also know tons more about the stuff under discussion than THEY do. Win- win, as they say. Still, keep 'em coming, eh, jean? Mental sparring can't be bad for keeping the ol' brain cells ticking over, can it? They just gotta remember if you want to give it out be prepared to take it without squealing, eh, pipoop, eh, visitor, eh, jean, cos Big Girls Don't Cry, do they?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 26, 2012 19:01:24 GMT
I know about 'theists' and 'deists' too, but they'll have to wait. I was surprised to see these words used in a modern context, since I associate them particularly with seventeenth-century religious controversy, ( deism usually implying the rejection of revelation,) and I am not sure how well the distinction between them is understood today You're referring to a very obscure dispute in religious history, I'd say. That's certainly not how "deism" was understood in the 18th and 19th centuries, when it was an extremely common standpoint. Revelation had nothing to do with it - the issue there was primarily an epistemic distinction: between physical naturalism, demanding a scientific attitude for the discovery and articulation of truth, and a Platonic rationalism, allowing for a divine plan, and supervision, but without miraculous intervention in the natural order. I'm not aware of any radical changes since then in the meaning of the term. No, it certainly isn't - or what those who came to be familiar users of the philosophy, either. "Immanence" means something entirely different. I suspect he/she was going back to your original genesis too - Spinoza. However, Spinoza most definitely wasn't a deist in the sense the wirter haas defined, if the immanence of the deity is the defining criterion, but the archetypal theist. As with most wiki articles, it would seem to need drastic editing. It's no longer a controversy to speak of, no - a radical change in the last century. The Great War killed it off, I'd guess. Eccles is (was) the only modern proponent I can think of. Though Alvin Plantinga would, in the 19th Century, have been readily termed a deist, I think - I can't think how he'd wriggle out of that one. Atheist would serve, I think, should such a peculiar need be felt. Who're you talking to? Me? I wasn't rude to visitor in the least! How was I rude? If I was, it was entirely inadvertent, and of course I'll warmly apologise. As far as my awareness goes - and it's rather dim in this area, I admit, though not through any fault of mine - "visitor" is "Louise" from the science board: someone I had considerable respect for. That was the impression I was under, anyway. I've never been anything but scrupulously polite to either, as far as I'm aware. His argument is quite a sophisticated one (for many people anyway, we must suppose), concerning the nature of belief. His point, in a crude nutshell, is that such creeds can not and should not be seen as statements of fact, to be "believed" in as, say, one would "believe" that our chromosomes contain DNA. Such "beliefs" are not allegiances to facts, and don't have the same evidential requirements. They're more in the nature of Frank Ramsay's "maps to guide rational action".
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2012 0:49:11 GMT
Thanks for confirming that visitor is Louise/Lambchop/Listener, Nick. I always suspected that, myself. Why do these folk name-change? Their behaviour and pre-occupations remain unmistakeable.
Well, what a tight little circle we prove to be when you cancel out all the sock puppets!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 27, 2012 7:19:38 GMT
His argument is quite a sophisticated one (for many people anyway, we must suppose), concerning the nature of belief. His point, in a crude nutshell, is that such creeds can not and should not be seen as statements of fact, to be "believed" in as, say, one would "believe" that our chromosomes contain DNA. Such "beliefs" are not allegiances to facts, and don't have the same evidential requirements. They're more in the nature of Frank Ramsay's "maps to guide rational action". If the marchesa was paying any attention at all, she'd know that was the point I was making, and would apologise to visitor for being so ready to label her a creationist.(No time for any more now.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2012 10:32:56 GMT
Why should it be rude to call someone a creationist? Lots of folk have weird beliefs which the generous of spirit can easily overlook. Visitor seems to have encountered a bit of a contradiction between her Political Correctness, her palpable anti-Americanism and her faith in God. She should either live with the contradiction or let go some of her irreconcilable beliefs. You cannot run with the fox and hunt with the hounds in a rational universe.
Anyone who is daft enough to believe God is the creator (as per the Nicene Creed, with which Visitor is intimately acquainted) is as irrational as anyone else who thinks God is the creator. To distinguish between these varieties of "faith" is equivalent to arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. The only safe position is agnosticism.
Visitor is a self-confessed God botherer. Ergo, she is in no position to lecture others on their irrationality. Dawkins would find her partisanship for her own preferred brand of irrationality laughable, and so do I. In supporting her fantasy you are tarring yourself with the same brush, jean.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Oct 27, 2012 10:53:50 GMT
Why should it be rude to call someone a creationist? Lots of folk have weird beliefs which the generous of spirit can easily overlook. Visitor seems to have encountered a bit of a contradiction between her Political Correctness, her palpable anti-Americanism and her faith in God. She should either live with the contradiction or let go some of her irreconcilable beliefs. You cannot run with the fox and hunt with the hounds in a rational universe. Anyone who is daft enough to believe God is the creator (as per the Nicene Creed, with which Visitor is intimately acquainted) is as irrational as anyone else who thinks God is the creator. To distinguish between these varieties of "faith" is equivalent to arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. The only safe position is agnosticism. Visitor is a self-confessed God botherer. Ergo, she is in no position to lecture others on their irrationality. Dawkins would find her partisanship for her own preferred brand of irrationality laughable, and so do I. In supporting her fantasy you are tarring yourself with the same brush, jean. I am sure you'll find a way. In fact you make a very good stab at it in the rest of the same post!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 27, 2012 11:18:25 GMT
Why should it be rude to call someone a creationist? It is, if you go on and so on, and on, blithely ignoring the definition of creationist I have given you.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 27, 2012 11:59:58 GMT
Thanks for confirming that visitor is Louise/Lambchop/Listener, Nick. I always suspected that, myself. Why do these folk name-change? Their behaviour and pre-occupations remain unmistakeable. Hell no, I'm in no position to confirm anything of the sort. It's merely the impression I've been pleasantly labouring under.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2012 12:00:01 GMT
You can define "creationism" any way you like, jean. Sensible folk know it boils down to the same thing - supernatural agency. Once you have admitted that the rest is just detail.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2012 12:01:20 GMT
Well, thanks anyway, Nick, because I was under the same impression as you.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 27, 2012 12:10:49 GMT
It is now theoretically possible for scientists in the lab to construct the genes in the correct order to "create" a nematode worm - and, theoretically, any other living creature, given the time and a bit of jiggery-pokery, all within the scope of present knowledge and technical ability. We're not yet able to "create" the necessary earlier steps to "create" the required ingredients for those genes, but there's seemingly no insurmountable barrier, merely one of time and clarity on exactly the field conditions required.
So, theoretically, there's no reason men won't fairly soon be able to create a fully functioning human being, ab initio, starting with a pot of chemicals. A superior human being, even.
Why shouldn't the same sort of evolved "bootystrap" creationism have been possible for "God"? Nothing whatever irrational about such a view.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 27, 2012 12:25:43 GMT
You can define "creationism" any way you like, jean... It's not my definition though, marchesa - that's the point.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2012 12:37:57 GMT
It's the firmly held "super"-natural beliefs of some of the religiose that I find "daft", Nick. As for the mystery of creation (not just of life, but of everything), I take this as, almost by definition, "natural", i.e. occurring both as a result of a series of somewhat random (but not necessary so) "accidents" and in conformity with what we know of the laws of physics.
I am not the sort of atheist who claims her view is correct. I am not militantly atheistic. It is simply my opinion that the "God" (the Creator) of the monotheistic religions who passed down rules of conduct to mankind does not exist. I could, of course, be wrong. I do not reject agnosticism.
You see, I am eminently reasonable.
|
|