I think I grok clog...so, about what you quoted above: "Physical theories alone do not define, predict or explain the emergence of life in the universe."... to you is NOT the case? And, you find that physical theories *alone* DO define, predict or explain the emergence of life in the universe?
On Sep 17, 2:44 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - quite the reverse, I disagree with the statement. > Scientific (physical) theories do define the emergence of life in the > universe. I'm happy with Dawkins' Goldilocks planet and Dennett's > description of the beginnings of life on this planet in "Darwin's > Dangerous Idea." These scientifice theories need no assistance. > > On Sep 17, 4:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > clog, not sure I understand your point. As best as I can tell, you are > > agreeing that physical theories alone do not define, predict or > > explain...if you want to expand some it would help me. > > > On Sep 17, 8:22 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - yes that is an interesting article. I don't fully agree by > > > any means and I choose one of the main themes to nit pick: "Physical > > > theories alone do not define, predict or explain the emergence of life > > > in the > > > universe." If we are searching for absolutes, then of course, I agree > > > with the preceding statement, but given overwhelming evidence > > > accompanying a scientific theory, I feel that the emergence of life in > > > the universe is defined (its in the bible!) > > > > On Sep 16, 3:40 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > For what I see as a rather balanced view of 'gaps', I strongly suggest > > > > this short article by Alan Wallace, "Materialism of the Gaps." > > > > >http://www.sbinstitute.com/PDF%20AW.org/sctheo.pdf > > > > > It is in pdf format. If you have to use html use this > > > > link.http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Ye8StlnCWlsJ:www.sbinstitute.com... > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:56 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:19 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote > > > > > > > That reference on p. 28 is calling out the pseudo-science in New Age > > > > > > religions. > > > > > > I agree that it is common for proponnents of New Age ideas, practices, > > > > > religions and so forth to use gaps in scientific understanding as > > > > > "proof" of their opinions. In this they resemble many other > > > > > dogmatists. However the second part of that statment does not negate > > > > > the first half, which reads, "These conundrums, which ought indeed to > > > > > make us reexamine any scientific dogmas we may embrace.” Jason, do you > > > > > suppose that Price is saying science has dogmas or do you think that I > > > > > have interpreted correctly by saying that he really means scientistic > > > > > dogmas? > > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:19 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Most of the books that I read are science and philosophy--only a few > > > > > > are mostly skeptical. > > > > > > > Price is more in line with the way I look at these alternative > > > > > > religions. > > > > > > > That reference on p. 28 is calling out the pseudo-science in New Age > > > > > > religions. > > > > > > > I wasn't calling you out either but I did remember our debates about > > > > > > Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, CSICOPs and so forth and thought that > > > > > > Price might be in that category. > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 11:07 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:27 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >I thought that Michael would be turned > > > > > > > > off by book because it goes after "New Thought" and "New Age" > > > > > > > > religions. > > > > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > > > I thought that you might not like the book because it is more > > > > > > > philosophically oriented, rather than just being skeptical. In > > > > > > > addition to just challenging idealistic monistic metaphysics, new > > > > > > > age > > > > > > > interpretations of quantum mechanics and other physics, new age > > > > > > > extrapolations from quantum mechanics and other poor examples of > > > > > > > reasoning by new age/new thought adherents, the author also > > > > > > > challenges > > > > > > > scientistic dogmas (he calls them scientific dogmas). He says, in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > middle of the first paragraph of on page twenty eight, in > > > > > > > reference to > > > > > > > the mysteries of quantum mechanics,” These conundrums, which ought > > > > > > > indeed to make us reexamine any scientific dogmas we may embrace.” > > > > > > > > On the other hand, I have noticed that as I have become more > > > > > > > realistic > > > > > > > about new age nonsense, you also have seemed to recognize the > > > > > > > limits > > > > > > > of scientism and pseudo skepticism. For that reason you may like a > > > > > > > book that rightly points out there is often some good in new age > > > > > > > religions. The author even likes the Bible, though he is an > > > > > > > atheist. I > > > > > > > can understand his feeling since I like the Bible and don’t > > > > > > > believe in > > > > > > > its crazy bully of a god either. Actually I do believe that I AM > > > > > > > exists, but I AM is not God, a god, a goddess an angel or anything > > > > > > > else like that. What I Am is, in my opinion, is so obvious that we > > > > > > > most people miss it. The secret is hidden in plain sight, where > > > > > > > no one > > > > > > > dares to look > > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:27 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > the book that we are reading for book club (Top Secret by Robert > > > > > > > > Price) > > > > > > > > > The first chapter was good. I thought that Michael would be > > > > > > > > turned > > > > > > > > off by book because it goes after "New Thought" and "New Age" > > > > > > > > religions. In some of these alternative religions, your mental > > > > > > > > powers > > > > > > > > or mind influences the environment around you by vibrating your > > > > > > > > surrounding with sort mind beam that helps you control your > > > > > > > > surrounding (or some other mind control of your surroundings). > > > > > > > > Most > > > > > > > > people would just think that positive thinking and persistance > > > > > > > > helps > > > > > > > > you "do" or "say" the right things to get what you want--not > > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > some sort of mystical mental energy on your surroundings to > > > > > > > > control > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > Regardless, the book "The Secret" (not Top Secret) and New > > > > > > > > Thought/New > > > > > > > > Age religions are very popular in some circles and parts of the > > > > > > > > country. > > > > > > > > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
