” What man can understand woman? Only God could have …

Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by George.

” What man can understand woman? Only God could have come up with that one”

Shakespeare?

George Also Commented

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
@ Sage ‘Brush’

Yep, its good to have a look yonder beyond the confines of the Big Tent upon that vast prairie. Copernicus and Galileo did that and found the celestial tent to be a tad different than the Educate Truthers of that age. The Tumbleweed of knowledge keeps rolin’ along …..


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
@ Wes

“He merrily unearthed uncertainties many and airy, but nuggets nary.”

The uncertainties are the nuggets my Adventist paradigm friend. Certainty is the realm of intellectual despots, especially those that refuse to challenge their theological beliefs but bend the mind of youth to a disingenuous inquiry of reality.

So, do you honestly know your biblical god exists, or do you simply take the your gestalt moment you felt under the klieg lights in the carnival tent at age 10 and circumscribe all your inquires therein? Take a good, hard look in the mirror Dr. Kime rather than just disparage those that have honest doubts about how religious belief comes about? Great souls like Mother Thersa- and yes she was a great human being- had profound doubts about the existence of God, notwithstanding earlier gestalt experiences. Underneath your blithe bromides I suspect you do as well but your life long faith insulates you from the emptiness of the high prarie.

Nothing I have seen, experienced, read about or thought about has brought me to the conclusion that the biblical god exists. Theodicy – based upon eating a forbidden apple – makes Harry Potter look like a historical figure.

Faith is very important; especially in one’s own ability to make inquires with objective tools available devoid of paternalistic influence. It is not women that have created God in their image. Perhaps that is why you don’t understand them, rather than concluding that the biological duality is a product of
design? Odd how some species can reproduce asexually or hermaphroditically eh? Design Dr. Kime, or adaption to a changing environment?

But what of ole existence itself, not merely of concious, self reflecting, constantly inquiring – unique? – human life; but of self organizing matter governed by laws of physics that has led to such
conscious reverence of same? What of that? Certainly appears to be prima facie proof of design, notwithstanding the continuous discovery of more cause and effect phenomena that operate independent of a designing hand? Is Stephen Hawking an atheist or is he trying to play God when he writes about a grand design not yet understood? What created the ether or potential for universes that can arise spontaneously from nothing? And if not yet understood, is it premature to assign such understanding to such an anthropomorphic Designer as depicted in the bible? A designer that had no guilt with drowning innocent children in a flood. I ha’e me doubts on that one laddie!

So, beneath the whimsy and doggerel lies more serious matter. A pest with a purpose Dr. Kime, not merely not undermine, but to inquire sublime, a better approximation of the divine.

Oh, by the way, I’ve become very fond of you and Sean over the years. High integrity and intelligence – and in your case a Puck like and sardonic wit that causes much mirth. Not just grounded on the AstroTurf is he – but in stand up cyber religious forums does he give us glee ๐Ÿ™‚ You are a treasure Wes and for that I give the universe thanks.


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
@ Gene

“I agree about conscience.

But, you didn’t answer the question.

WUWT?”

I actually did answer your question but perhaps in an expanded form that you did not understand. The answer is I base my morality on my conscience ( which has many influences).

Conscience is unique and subjective for each individual. Sean opines in comes from God. Kant argues it comes from reason (categorical imperative). I think it comes from a variety of influences, including inherited characteristics, culture, upbringing, reflection and education. I do not think it comes from God, or reason alone, as conscience has such a wide variance from individual to individual.

The fact that babies may exhibit an early sense of right or wrong ( empathy for toys?) may be just as likely indicate an inherited characteristic as being per se from God.

I hope that provides a more fulsome response.


Recent Comments by George

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Bob

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though ๐Ÿ™‚
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. ๐Ÿ™‚