tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post914519152009961962..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Is Your Irony Meter Working?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86394072468883877732009-05-14T14:18:00.000-04:002009-05-14T14:18:00.000-04:00Imagine asking publishers to add a disclaimer to t...Imagine asking publishers to add a disclaimer to the religious books they publish. For example, <br /><br />"The Book of Genesis is only one explanation for the existence of man. There is an alternate explanation: evolution." <br /><br />Marc said<br /><br />"if you can't see a difference between the position of Collins or Miller and someone who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old . . ."<br /><br />Yesterday I saw a sign on a church that said, "If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it." <br /><br />That implies a belief in a personal god. Collins believes in a personal God; please explain the difference between Collins and members of a church that posts the message I saw yesterday.Veronica Abbasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037599323472646996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52078387635576983492009-05-14T13:40:00.000-04:002009-05-14T13:40:00.000-04:00Quote Marc:
"I can't understand why you fail to gr...Quote Marc:<br />"I can't understand why you fail to grasp that science has limits, and many crucial and rational endeavors (such as ethics, logic, math, etc.) are outside the realm of science. That includes ultimate questions such as meaning, or the existence of God."*<br /><br />I see no such failure. Instead, the failures are yours with respect to reading comprehension and logic. The logical extension of your statements is that an organization representing science and the scientific viewpoint should take no stance whatsoever on religion. Therefore, they should ignore the religious views of individual scientists and not comment on them beyond stating that such views are outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. That is closer, I think to what Prof. Moran suggests. I don't think he advocates that AAAS and NAS should declare that science proves that gods don't exist or are unlikely to exist.<br /><br />Hand-waving about gods interfering in the natural evolution of life on earth without any way of evaluating such ideas scientifically, which is the theistic evolutionist schtick, is demonstrably not science and science organizations should not be promoting such things. It is nothing more than pandering to ignorant fence-sitters that we aren't out to destroy religion.<br /><br />Of course, there are some religious claims that science can address, such as the age of the earth, human parthenogenesis, the value of pi (ok, so that's for the mathematicians), global flood, resurrection of the dead, and so on.<br /><br />*By the way, I dispute that the subject of any god's existence is accessible to rational discourse. It is an irrational exercise whose practice merely gives the illusion of rationality because the philosophers engaged in it use lofty words and serious tones.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91575992065917717952009-05-14T13:26:00.000-04:002009-05-14T13:26:00.000-04:00There is a big difference between saying that reli...There is a big difference between saying that religion and science can be compatible and trying to pass off religionus apologetics AS science. Come on now, this is not a subtle distinction.umkomasiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05290176139202972524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8503313016276137072009-05-14T12:52:00.000-04:002009-05-14T12:52:00.000-04:00But it seems that you'd rather prefer that AAAS st...<I>But it seems that you'd rather prefer that AAAS stepped outside of what science CAN say and promote the idea that science proves that God does not exist (or that he is very unlikely), which to me is sorely naive.</I><BR>I don't remember reading that part. Anyway, there's a difference between your high fallutin' straw man god and the, oh, couple thousand or so other gods we already know about.386sxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82887335965930076342009-05-14T12:34:00.000-04:002009-05-14T12:34:00.000-04:00Well Larry, if you can't see a difference between ...Well Larry, if you can't see a difference between the position of Collins or Miller and someone who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old, there's not much we could discuss, is there?<br /><br />I can't understand why you fail to grasp that science has limits, and many crucial and rational endeavors (such as ethics, logic, math, etc.) are outside the realm of science. That includes ultimate questions such as meaning, or the existence of God. But it seems that you'd rather prefer that AAAS stepped outside of what science CAN say and promote the idea that science proves that God does not exist (or that he is very unlikely), which to me is sorely naive.<br /><br />Why should the exhibit cite Dawkins? Is he a scientist? I can't remember a single original paper in the past 30 years. Or do you see ANY science in his latest book?Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40262892069229543842009-05-14T12:08:00.000-04:002009-05-14T12:08:00.000-04:00http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3304/3523733970_8c8...http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3304/3523733970_8c8c7a87fb_o.gif<br />:)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06505657060702975723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24441985917190648412009-05-14T11:35:00.000-04:002009-05-14T11:35:00.000-04:00...and what does it say about me that I immediatel......and what does it say about me that I immediately started trying to figure out what that circuit really does? ;-)Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.com