Thursday, October 21, 2004
Making Philosophical Progress
On the flip side of everything... I'm not saying that I don't respect creationism - respect isn't the correct term here - because I do respect it immensely as an important viewpoint. I'm merely poking gentle fun at the man in the funny t-shirt. But in all honesty, I discuss this debate issue regularly because it is so very intellectually stimulating, whichever side you tend to agree with more. For those of you like myself who cannot accept something because it's TOLD to you (it has to make sense logically as a stand-alone) - it's a debate that you can still carry, either way.
Philosophically, the question of God is an interesting one, and it's something that we have discussed thoroughly in philosophy class. I'm not calling this a Christian God, just a generic perfect being that has created the universe, and is infinite. I talked earlier about how I was not satisfied with Descartes, because the ontological argument, although it wavers between truth and false, is not wholly very satisfying. While the logic is sound, the premises are in question (at least, they do not resolve well in my mind at the present time).
Descartes... why don't they smile in portraits?
As one who is a student of evolutionary biology, I am not in personal doubt that it is the strongest explanation of life. Those who don't agree either give an answer based on someone else's word, historical documents such as the Bible (which may or may not have been accurately translated - this remains unknown), or blind faith that either of these two sources is accurate. I cannot accept that. What I do accept on faith ultimately comes from something that absolutely makes sense to me even if I take away its source - and not just sense, but it needs to have no other logical explanations. I would be a poor natural philosopher if I thought otherwise. (I already am a poor one - but I try...) I need to be in the position where I can modify what I believe to be, based on forecoming evidence and debate. Thus, I always am open minded, to the possibility that something may offer more evidence.
I made huge progress in this sense. After a lengthly discussion of Leibniz, I hereby accept that my staunch atheism was far too short-sighted, and there remains a very logical possibility of a God. I won't re-cap the entire debate here - it was intense and lasted for about 3 hours. I understand now that there are two possibilities - God (which encompasses this infinite), or that existence (and thus nature itself) is this infinite. One could even say that this nature, or existence, is God itself - something I am promised we will discuss later with Hume.
Leibniz's head - Goldified.
Following Leibniz's mode of thought along the lines that God created this "imperfect but best world" - his universe (world, or existence) is seen as being infinitely large. Due to its infinite nature, it is possible that as long as something can happen, it likely has happened elsewhere.
If you don't open your mind to other options, and bother to take the time to learn about thought, you run the risk of becoming ignorant.
So much has been thought of by great philosophers that we ignore and don't recognize - and we make so many errors in our own thought processes without realizing them.
I don't want to be ignorant - therefore I reject atheism to a more accepting religious view of agnostic, which acknowledges that the possibility that God can exist.
Interesting article here to illustrate something.
Please note that the goal is to teach all viewpoints (Creationism as a philosophical/religious aspect) Teaching the weaknesses in evolutionary theory is important - since falsification is vital in science, but teaching something untestable as scientific is completely false.
Philosophically, the question of God is an interesting one, and it's something that we have discussed thoroughly in philosophy class. I'm not calling this a Christian God, just a generic perfect being that has created the universe, and is infinite. I talked earlier about how I was not satisfied with Descartes, because the ontological argument, although it wavers between truth and false, is not wholly very satisfying. While the logic is sound, the premises are in question (at least, they do not resolve well in my mind at the present time).
Descartes... why don't they smile in portraits?
As one who is a student of evolutionary biology, I am not in personal doubt that it is the strongest explanation of life. Those who don't agree either give an answer based on someone else's word, historical documents such as the Bible (which may or may not have been accurately translated - this remains unknown), or blind faith that either of these two sources is accurate. I cannot accept that. What I do accept on faith ultimately comes from something that absolutely makes sense to me even if I take away its source - and not just sense, but it needs to have no other logical explanations. I would be a poor natural philosopher if I thought otherwise. (I already am a poor one - but I try...) I need to be in the position where I can modify what I believe to be, based on forecoming evidence and debate. Thus, I always am open minded, to the possibility that something may offer more evidence.
I made huge progress in this sense. After a lengthly discussion of Leibniz, I hereby accept that my staunch atheism was far too short-sighted, and there remains a very logical possibility of a God. I won't re-cap the entire debate here - it was intense and lasted for about 3 hours. I understand now that there are two possibilities - God (which encompasses this infinite), or that existence (and thus nature itself) is this infinite. One could even say that this nature, or existence, is God itself - something I am promised we will discuss later with Hume.
Leibniz's head - Goldified.
Following Leibniz's mode of thought along the lines that God created this "imperfect but best world" - his universe (world, or existence) is seen as being infinitely large. Due to its infinite nature, it is possible that as long as something can happen, it likely has happened elsewhere.
If you don't open your mind to other options, and bother to take the time to learn about thought, you run the risk of becoming ignorant.
So much has been thought of by great philosophers that we ignore and don't recognize - and we make so many errors in our own thought processes without realizing them.
I don't want to be ignorant - therefore I reject atheism to a more accepting religious view of agnostic, which acknowledges that the possibility that God can exist.
Interesting article here to illustrate something.
Please note that the goal is to teach all viewpoints (Creationism as a philosophical/religious aspect) Teaching the weaknesses in evolutionary theory is important - since falsification is vital in science, but teaching something untestable as scientific is completely false.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Evolution is a witch, burn her!
The caption reads: "This man's shirt thinks evolution is a lie."
There's a huge article in National Geographic entitled "Was Darwin Wrong?" Check it out here. It's a good feature if you pick it up.
Interesting sidenote: I visited Darwin, in Westminster Abbey.
Following one of the links to a creationist website, I noticed this:
15 September 2004
At the Creation Museum special effects theater, you’ll see true stories. What better source for action-packed, drama-filled movies than the Bible?
I'm not sure, but I can think of several things...
Sunday, October 17, 2004
and it's a clean sweep with these quizzes...
You're Canada!
People make fun of you a lot, but they're stupid because you've
got a much better life than they do. In fact, they're probably just jealous.
You believe in crazy things like human rights and health care and not
dying in the streets, and you end up securing these rights for yourself and
others. If it weren't for your weird affection for ice hockey, you'd be
the perfect person.
Take
the Country Quiz at the href="http://bluepyramid.org">Blue Pyramid
hehe of course...
You're The Fellowship of the Ring!
by J.R.R. Tolkien
Facing great adversity, you have decided that your only choice is to
unite with your friends and neighbors. You have been subject to a ton of squabbling and
ultimately decided that someone humble is your best candidate for a dangerous mission.
You're quite good with languages and convinced that not all who wander are lost. If you
see anyone in black robes on horseback, just run. That's just common sense.
Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.
