Hey Robin, Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel. I am doing some research for my reply. This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my POV.
Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about > evolutionhe a determined and committed atheist: > > My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid > consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims > of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of > life. The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, which remains > a complete scientific mystery at this point. Opponents of ID, however, > normally assume that that too must have a purely chemical explanation. The > idea is that life arose and evolved to its present form solely because of the > laws of chemistry, and ultimately of particle physics. In the prevailing > naturalistic worldview, evolutionary theory plays the crucial role in showing > how physics can be the theory of everything. > Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly > indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary > reductionism defies common sense. > > A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth > should be sup- pressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence. > > I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I have no > other candidates. Yet I recognize that this is because of an aspect of my > overall worldview that does not rest on empirical grounds or any other kind > of rational grounds. I do not think the existence of God can be disproved. So > someone who can offer serious scientific reasons to doubt the adequacy of the > theory of evolution, and who believes in God, in the same immediate way that > I believe there is no god, can quite reasonably conclude that the hypothesis > of design should be taken seriously. If reasons to doubt the adequacy of > evolutionary theory can be legitimately admitted to the curriculum, it is > hard to see why they cannot legitimately be described as reasons in support > of design, for those who believe in God, and reasons to believe that some as > yet undiscovered, purely naturalistic theory must account for the evidence, > for those who do not. That, after all, is the real epistemological situation. > > Thomas Nagel > > P.S. I have urged him to run for office in Alexandria. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Loved it, thanks. Backacha! > > > > > > > > Jesus and Vishnu on Christmas eve. > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7x-DHKHW0 > > > > > > > > RESPONSE: Somebody secretly is fighting off doubts about evolution > > > > here. Too worked up metabolically. Serenity, irony, quiet confidence, > > > > respecting what makes it hard for some people to take the idea of > > > > macroevolution as proven: much better. > > > > Agreed. It needed a final edit and cooler delivery to be more effective > > communication. But that said, I know plenty of guys like this and it > > doesn't really mean anything about the content of what he is saying. It is > > our emotional reaction to to a person being too self indulgent that makes > > it poor communication. He went to far into the dickish lane for me too. > > > > < If someone was holding out for flat earth theory, how would be treat that > > person? Not like this. Brilliant as it is. Some people want macroevolution > > to be true so much they become much too aggressive and abusive in their > > denunciation of the persons (like John Lennon) who balked at the sweeping > > claims of Darwin. This is evidence of metaphysical anxiety: You mean > > macroevolution might not be true? I don't think it has been proven beyond > > the right to ask question about it. Although microevolution is a no-brainer. > > > > There are questions within the thoery that are still being discussed. And > > the understanding has advanced far beyond Darwin's initial formulation due > > to the spirit of questioning. In this year's election this is gunna be a > > lowest bar litmus test for me. If you understand science, you understand > > how the theory of evolution is the basis for our whole understanding of > > biology. It is is more than key. > > > > > > > > As for the Christmas boast of Christ, I think Jesus prevails here. He has > > > all the cards. However facetiously presented, his arguments against > > > Krishna win out for me. It's a bloody good argument. Besides where does > > > your irresistible love of Christmas come from, Curtis? > > > > Well we have to be realistic that most of what I love about Christmas is > > not Christan but Druid and Mithra worship. My neurons got bribed into it > > pretty early. But I still enjoy the nativity myth perhaps even more so now > > that I know some of the sources it was cannibalized from historically. > > These are archetypes to be enjoyed. > > > > > > > > Me: I say it comes from the fact that it is true. God became a tiny > > > infant. > > > > I would go with: God becomes every tiny infant. Jesus was really not so > > unique in his time. There were other messianic guys whose philosophies > > were less able to be turned into an empire builder for Constantine, but who > > in their time were as popular as Jesus during his life. > > > > > > > > If only he was around somewhere now. > > > > > > I'd like to hear his response to Rick's post. Smugnessabout anythingit > > > is a dangerous thing. Sounds a little like an Oral Roberts prayer tent > > > with the ritual denunciation of the evils of atheismalthough Oral never > > > got that good of course. And didn't know the first thing about irony. Or > > > beauty. Jesus, you there? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > But we still celebrate your birthday. Krishna, you could have done a lot > > > better. What happened? > > > > > > Hey, Curtis. I like that you like Christmas. > > > > > > No neurobiological explanation there. > > > > Neuron bribing pure and simple! My folks took the Santa thing seriously > > and we were very spoiled at Christmas. > > > > A purer form of Christmas spirit is the feeling I get when I hear, walking > > along crunching on new snow, in my Pocono mountain hometown, the clear song > > of a Chickadee through the pine trees. It is my version of a Christmas > > carol and always means Joy to the World to me. > > > > Oh yeah, and German Lebkuchen Christmas cookies washed down with a little > > Balvenie doublewood single malt. (the fist aging is in oak bourbon casks, > > the second in port wine casks) Now THAT is the body and blood of Christ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LJYLT9TbRew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
