Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Spiral of Violence - Page 54







Post#1326 at 09-02-2010 04:39 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-02-2010, 04:39 AM #1326
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
To both Ted and Justin,

The people of that time were religious, it is just a fact of colonial life. If you cant understand that you have aserted the wisdom of "nature" as your "creator" then you need to take a second and think about what you really do believe.

Now I am not religious I don't believe in invisible people in the sky. If their were truly higher beings we could no more comprehend them, then a fruit fly could comprehend us.

But, to assert that the founding fathers were not religious is just inaccurate. Needlessly inaccurate because it does not hurt what they accomplished in the slightest.

At the time, the existence of a God would have actually helped their case on human rights. It is not even an oppinion it is a fact.
I think it's impossible to look at the world around you, at nature, at human beings, or to look at yourself in the mirror and believe that it all came about by accident. I think that takes a lot more faith and invention than believing in God. But that's just me.







Post#1327 at 09-02-2010 08:49 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-02-2010, 08:49 AM #1327
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Paranoid Schizophrenia. NEXT!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1328 at 09-02-2010 08:52 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-02-2010, 08:52 AM #1328
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think it's impossible to look at the world around you, at nature, at human beings, or to look at yourself in the mirror and believe that it all came about by accident. I think that takes a lot more faith and invention than believing in God. But that's just me.
You just showed your scientific ignorance in the bolded part, buddy. That's Creationist claptap with no basis in reality.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1329 at 09-02-2010 09:24 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-02-2010, 09:24 AM #1329
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
You just showed your scientific ignorance in the bolded part, buddy. That's Creationist claptap with no basis in reality.
The Argument from Design (the fancy name for what JPT said) is not "creationist claptrap" and has a long history in human thought. It is not an argument against evolution. "Creationist claptrap" would be saying the world was 5000 years old or that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans.

Wondering how and why the world came into being is an activity every intellectually curious person will engage in at some point. Simply saying it is all a great accident is possibly true, but does not comport with human experience of the causes of things. It is not intellectually or emotionally satisfying.

James50
Last edited by James50; 09-02-2010 at 09:28 AM.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1330 at 09-02-2010 09:57 AM by Weave [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 909]
---
09-02-2010, 09:57 AM #1330
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
909

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Paranoid Schizophrenia. NEXT!
Of course you would say next....of course, if he was a right winger you'd be blaming Beck, Limbaugh or some other talk show host for fanning the flames of hate and ginning up a guy like this.

I wont blame MSLSD, Kieth Unterman, Rachel Madcow and the rest as we conservatives usually place the blame where it beongs....with the criminal...







Post#1331 at 09-02-2010 10:03 AM by Xer H [at Chicago and Indiana joined Dec 2009 #posts 1,212]
---
09-02-2010, 10:03 AM #1331
Join Date
Dec 2009
Location
Chicago and Indiana
Posts
1,212

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think it's impossible to look at the world around you, at nature, at human beings, or to look at yourself in the mirror and believe that it all came about by accident. I think that takes a lot more faith and invention than believing in God. But that's just me.
Ummm... if you READ what he said, he's essentially saying that everything developed with an order that's difficult to deny. Creation, evolution, call it what you will, he's just saying it's impossible to believe it all happened by accident. James is right, intelligent design better describes JPT's point.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." —Albert Einstein

"The road to perdition has ever been accompanied by lip service to an ideal." —Albert Einstein

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” —Albert Einstein







Post#1332 at 09-02-2010 11:07 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-02-2010, 11:07 AM #1332
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think it's impossible to look at the world around you, at nature, at human beings, or to look at yourself in the mirror and believe that it all came about by accident.
I'd have to agree with the above sentence. Fortunately, since 'accident' implies an outcome which inexplicably confounds the intentions of a actor, evolutionary biology doesn't claim that life as we know it is anything even remotely resembling an accident.

Now "chance"? Oh yeah; we all know that even low, low, low-odds event will occur, given enough spins of the wheel (or rolls of the dice, or pick-your-metaphor). That's even a provable assertion. What's more, the fact of life as an ongoing, self-replicating, competitive process means the dice are going to be loaded in something like our favor, once that first roll goes the way of 'life'. It makes non-directed a pretty coherent model.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ŕ moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1333 at 09-02-2010 02:07 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
09-02-2010, 02:07 PM #1333
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
The Argument from Design (the fancy name for what JPT said) is not "creationist claptrap" and has a long history in human thought. It is not an argument against evolution. "Creationist claptrap" would be saying the world was 5000 years old or that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans.

Wondering how and why the world came into being is an activity every intellectually curious person will engage in at some point. Simply saying it is all a great accident is possibly true, but does not comport with human experience of the causes of things. It is not intellectually or emotionally satisfying.

James50
Actually, the strongest argument for some sort of creative impetus is the one that precedes life, mainly: why is there something rather than nothing? Matter matters.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1334 at 09-02-2010 02:14 PM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
09-02-2010, 02:14 PM #1334
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

Honestly, what difference does it make? We'll never know for sure anyway.







Post#1335 at 09-02-2010 05:08 PM by Tone70 [at Omaha joined Apr 2010 #posts 1,473]
---
09-02-2010, 05:08 PM #1335
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Omaha
Posts
1,473

Quote Originally Posted by jamesdglick View Post
I stand corrected. My comparison was inapt. You were right. I'm wrong. Jeremiah Scudder? I have that book, might have to read it now.
"Freedom is not something that the rulers "give" the population...people have immense power potential. It is ultimately their attitudes, behavior, cooperation, and obedience that supply the power to all rulers and hierarchical systems..." - Gene Sharp

"The Occupy protesters are acting like citizens, believing they have the power to change things...that humble people can acquire power when they convince themselves they can." - William Greider







Post#1336 at 09-02-2010 05:12 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-02-2010, 05:12 PM #1336
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
The Argument from Design (the fancy name for what JPT said) is not "creationist claptrap" and has a long history in human thought. It is not an argument against evolution. "Creationist claptrap" would be saying the world was 5000 years old or that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans.

Wondering how and why the world came into being is an activity every intellectually curious person will engage in at some point. Simply saying it is all a great accident is possibly true, but does not comport with human experience of the causes of things. It is not intellectually or emotionally satisfying.

James50
Argument from Design is simply not necessary, there is little evidence for it (and no evidence in Biology) and a lot of evidence against it, and most of the "fine-tuning" arguments in physics and cosmology have plenty of hypothesized explanations that do not rely on appeals to a designer. IMO it's a variation of the "God-in-the-Gaps" argument mixed in with our own prejudices as a tool-making species that designs things.

I myself believe in a cyclic, eternal universe with no beginning and no end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe
Last edited by Odin; 09-02-2010 at 05:14 PM.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1337 at 09-02-2010 06:28 PM by Kurt Horner [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1,656]
---
09-02-2010, 06:28 PM #1337
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1,656

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Simply saying it is all a great accident is possibly true, but does not comport with human experience of the causes of things.
Sure, but that's not evidence in its favor. Humans ascribe intention to things that don't have intention all the time. It's a common cognitive error. Witness animism.

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
It is not intellectually or emotionally satisfying.
Emotional satisfaction is not the goal of knowledge. Intellectually, there's no problem with life on Earth being a great accident -- especially since, as Justin pointed out, the term "accident" is misleading. What the science really says is that advanced life is fairly unlikely on any given planet, but since there are ~300 billion stars in this galaxy those dice are getting rolled quite a bit. It had to happen somewhere, and has likely happened many times in our galaxy alone.

Could you not derive emotional satisfaction from being lucky to live on Earth?







Post#1338 at 09-02-2010 08:29 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-02-2010, 08:29 PM #1338
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Argument from Design is simply not necessary, there is little evidence for it (and no evidence in Biology) and a lot of evidence against it, and most of the "fine-tuning" arguments in physics and cosmology have plenty of hypothesized explanations that do not rely on appeals to a designer. IMO it's a variation of the "God-in-the-Gaps" argument mixed in with our own prejudices as a tool-making species that designs things.

I myself believe in a cyclic, eternal universe with no beginning and no end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe
You are correct. It is not necessary. However, I don't understand how you can say there is no evidence in Biology. People who explain evolution often say that evolution gives the appearance of design. They explain the appearance of design using evolution. But of course, evolution itself is evidence of design if you think about it.

No one can talk you out of a philosophy based on materialism if that is the way you want to explain the world. I would not even try. All I can say is that I think there is more to our world than the material. There are things which are real that are not actual.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1339 at 09-02-2010 08:42 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
09-02-2010, 08:42 PM #1339
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
Emotional satisfaction is not the goal of knowledge.
No, but we are not computers. I don't know about you, but I am not satisfied with mere knowledge if it is not also accompanied by a sense that it is right. (I am a boomer after all.).

Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics because he could not abide the idea of a universe based on chance. You probably remember his famous statement about how God did not play dice with the universe. From all we know right now, it looks like he was wrong and that we do indeed live in a probabilistic universe. Whether he was right or wrong is not my point. My point is that we are never satisfied with knowledge that leaves us unsatisfied. I hope that makes sense.

As I mentioned to Odin, you can explain all of the world, including the actions of human beings, from a purely material view. In that view, free will itself may be an illusion. But I am not satisfied with that view. You can discard my feelings and emotions as mere irrationality if you want. All I can say is that my gut, my soul, my being- whatever you want to call it - rebels at a materialistic view of the universe.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1340 at 09-02-2010 10:24 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
09-02-2010, 10:24 PM #1340
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by Tone70 View Post
I stand corrected. My comparison was inapt. You were right. I'm wrong. Jeremiah Scudder? I have that book, might have to read it now.
I think you mean Nehemiah Scudder, don't you?







Post#1341 at 09-02-2010 10:28 PM by Tone70 [at Omaha joined Apr 2010 #posts 1,473]
---
09-02-2010, 10:28 PM #1341
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Omaha
Posts
1,473

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
I think you mean Nehemiah Scudder, don't you?
I really don't know. I was referencing something Glick said. He said Scudder was an insurgent, which pricked up my ears. Was he in some Heinlein short stories? I found a reference to the name I had being in "the past through tomorrow", which I happen to own but have not read. Do you know any names of the stories?
"Freedom is not something that the rulers "give" the population...people have immense power potential. It is ultimately their attitudes, behavior, cooperation, and obedience that supply the power to all rulers and hierarchical systems..." - Gene Sharp

"The Occupy protesters are acting like citizens, believing they have the power to change things...that humble people can acquire power when they convince themselves they can." - William Greider







Post#1342 at 09-02-2010 11:57 PM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
09-02-2010, 11:57 PM #1342
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

As I mentioned to Odin, you can explain all of the world, including the actions of human beings, from a purely material view.
Yes, that's exactly what we should do. If it can't be proven without very convincing proof, we ought not to believe something. Fantastic claims require fantastic proof.







Post#1343 at 09-02-2010 11:58 PM by Xer H [at Chicago and Indiana joined Dec 2009 #posts 1,212]
---
09-02-2010, 11:58 PM #1343
Join Date
Dec 2009
Location
Chicago and Indiana
Posts
1,212

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Actually, the strongest argument for some sort of creative impetus is the one that precedes life, mainly: why is there something rather than nothing? Matter matters.
Steven Hawking has apparently changed his view and now believes that a law such as gravity could be the reason matter exists in the form we know.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.
More here.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." —Albert Einstein

"The road to perdition has ever been accompanied by lip service to an ideal." —Albert Einstein

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” —Albert Einstein







Post#1344 at 09-03-2010 12:05 AM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
09-03-2010, 12:05 AM #1344
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

That is very intriguing.







Post#1345 at 09-03-2010 02:19 AM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
09-03-2010, 02:19 AM #1345
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
I fixed your first sentence so that it is actually true.

I think we've both laid out pretty clearly what the concept of 'natural law' means. But you still seem to be missing comprehension. I'll repeat it for you.

"Nature" is not above, below, different, or other than man. Man is nature. Man is of nature. As a thing can not be in any meaningful sense its own creator, "nature" cannot be the "creator" of man.
Only insofar as you assume that some of them were liars in what they said and wrote. I wouldn't presume to make such a claim about someone without some sort of indication that it might actually be the case. Barring that, I've found it best to go with the presumption that what someone claims to be his beliefs are actually his beliefs.
I presume you mean, "...their having believed in the existence of a God...". In which case, you misunderstand their positions just as badly as you misunderstand the explanations we laid out for you. The existence or absence of a god is, at best, irrelevant to the philosophy of natural law as they laid out. At worst, the existence of an omnipotent god would imply the impossibility of a natural law, since god would be able to break or change it at whim -- meaning that there could be none of the permanence and universality that formed the epistemological basis of discovery-of-Truth through natural inquiry.

Whether or not you agree with their position, it's really quite a straightforward one. The attempt to shoehorn religion into it is neither necessary, valid, nor helpful.
I guess you just dont like the word "higher" because it makes you uncomfortable. Ok, we will use omniscient because that is neither higher nor lower, its all at once. Better?

You obviously cannot separate yourself from modern secular beliefs. Thomas Jefferson was a "diest" which ,even by your description, puts the rights of man into omniscient "Nature" (hmmm sort of like omniscient "god") You act as if the founding fathers were some sort of atheistic group because of Jefferson. It's not accurate.

To say the founding fathers were not religious is just untrue, and it had a major impact on the way they went about the revolution and the founding of the country.

All men are created equal and our endowed by their creator the inalienable rights of....

It is the very basis of American Liberty. That all men were created by something, whether that be God or Nature (omniscient of course). We are all born equal. And we have human rights that are in-alienable because they were given to us by said "omniscient entity", not Man(government or king).

It has very religious undertones that are apparent and expected because they were religious men, after all. And as I stated before the idea of a "higher power" helped them to their ends because they are asserting that "God" gave you these rights (coming from above King George) and nobody has the ability to deny you those rights.

The point isn't that their is an invisible man that tells you what to do, or some sort of karma or spiritual energy guides you through life. Only that there is something, beyond the whims of man, that gave you these rights thus they are in-alienable.

So, what is the problem with religious founding fathers? specifically Christianity because you don't mind "deism" (essentially replacing god with nature). The only thing I can come up with is that you must have a strange and weak ideology that will crumble as soon as any form of Catholicism rears it's ugly head? what if instead of "creator" my rights came from the "ancestral spirits" or "Pantheon of Greek Gods". Hell what about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" his noodly appendages do touch us all you know!

What is it specifically, that prohibits religion in the founding of the country? The answer is nothing, because it was an important part of the culture at the time, and continued to be a large part of American Culture until mid 20th century.







Post#1346 at 09-03-2010 03:54 AM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
09-03-2010, 03:54 AM #1346
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
No, but we are not computers. I don't know about you, but I am not satisfied with mere knowledge if it is not also accompanied by a sense that it is right. (I am a boomer after all.).

Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics because he could not abide the idea of a universe based on chance. You probably remember his famous statement about how God did not play dice with the universe. From all we know right now, it looks like he was wrong and that we do indeed live in a probabilistic universe. Whether he was right or wrong is not my point. My point is that we are never satisfied with knowledge that leaves us unsatisfied. I hope that makes sense.

As I mentioned to Odin, you can explain all of the world, including the actions of human beings, from a purely material view. In that view, free will itself may be an illusion. But I am not satisfied with that view. You can discard my feelings and emotions as mere irrationality if you want. All I can say is that my gut, my soul, my being- whatever you want to call it - rebels at a materialistic view of the universe.

James50
There are some philosophical theories that argue you may indeed be a computer, or rather merely a small algorithim inside of a computer simulation. Interestingly, quantum physics and mathmatics may indeed add to the likelyhood that the observable universe is a simulation.







Post#1347 at 09-03-2010 08:35 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
09-03-2010, 08:35 AM #1347
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Xer H View Post
Steven Hawking has apparently changed his view and now believes that a law such as gravity could be the reason matter exists in the form we know...
Thus, even the strongest argument isn't bullet proof. There is one point where conjecture stops, at least for now, and that's the instant prior to the Big Bang. No one can really know what lay in that region of space-time, though there is no shortage of hypotheses. A word to the wise: if you plan on life as a theoretical physicist, operating in an untestable region has its advantages.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 09-03-2010 at 08:52 AM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1348 at 09-03-2010 08:50 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
09-03-2010, 08:50 AM #1348
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
... To say the founding fathers were not religious is just untrue, and it had a major impact on the way they went about the revolution and the founding of the country.

All men are created equal and our endowed by their creator the inalienable rights of....

It is the very basis of American Liberty. That all men were created by something, ...
Remember the context. The Founders had access to the knowledge of the enlightenment, but that was limited to the observable at the time. Physics was Newtonian physics. The concept of electricity was just being explored, though little was understood. Chemistry was an infant. Biology was actually more advanced, but Darwin was still well in the future as was Mendel. This was the end of the pre-technology era ... before the steam engine, even before manufactured machinery.

Yet for all of that, the brightest thinkers were already seeing over the horizon. Jefferson and Franklin were both Deists, as were many of the other Founders. Certainly Virginia had more than its share, because it never was a religious colony in the first place. It's not by chance that the doctrines of religious freedom originated there ... or here, since I'm a resident (albeit, never a true Virginian).
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1349 at 09-03-2010 02:03 PM by Kurt Horner [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1,656]
---
09-03-2010, 02:03 PM #1349
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1,656

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
I don't know about you, but I am not satisfied with mere knowledge if it is not also accompanied by a sense that it is right.
Ideally, what we know based on evidence and reason should also harmonize with older knowledge that we experience intuitively. But when it doesn't the best course of action is to assume the intuitive sense is wrong.

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics because he could not abide the idea of a universe based on chance.
False. Einstein suspected that the probabilistic elements of quantum theory would vanish when more a detailed and precise theory was developed. However, he accepted that the theory fit observation and was a good model of very small parts of our universe.

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
My point is that we are never satisfied with knowledge that leaves us unsatisfied. I hope that makes sense.
Sure, and this conflict is useful in that it drives us to try out new avenues of inquiry. However, acting contrary to the evidence that you have in the present is just foolish. It's entirely reasonable to try out alternate explanations for a phenomenon (and test them), but saying that the current explanation must be wrong because it just makes you uncomfortable is not reasonable.

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
As I mentioned to Odin, you can explain all of the world, including the actions of human beings, from a purely material view. In that view, free will itself may be an illusion. But I am not satisfied with that view. You can discard my feelings and emotions as mere irrationality if you want.
As long as all you've got to support your positions are feelings, yes, that's exactly what I'm going to do -- and that's what everyone should do. Personal discomfort is not evidence. But, as noted above, personal discomfort is not bad. After all, it could drive you to find evidence. The problem with IDers and especially Young Earthers is that they don't want to look for evidence because of the serious danger that they might find some.







Post#1350 at 09-03-2010 03:37 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-03-2010, 03:37 PM #1350
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
What is it specifically, that prohibits religion in the founding of the country? The answer is nothing, because it was an important part of the culture at the time, and continued to be a large part of American Culture until mid 20th century.
It still is. Just not among the elite.
-----------------------------------------