Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: "Jim Upchurch"
Date: 22 Nov 1996 16:48:37 GMT
>
> The evangelical types who wander over into talk.origins tend to be
> be this way. From my (admitedly limited) experience, they are more
> interested in espousing creationism-as-science than listen to
> counterarguments.
>
> >Instead of assuming that they've read or have at least
> >familiarized themselves with the competing ideas and found them wanting
you
> >assume that they've never looked at them.
>
> The assumption follows from the notion that evolution is supported
> by the massed weight of biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Arguments
> against evolution are akin to arguments against the earth being round
> and revolving around the sun. It is difficult to assume that one
> is familiar with science when making creationist arguments. I believe
> this is what the other poster implied by noting that accepting
> creationism is tantamount to rejecting science. They are simply not
> compatible.
>
> Richard Dawkins is the author of "The Selfish Gene" among other books,
> most recenlty "Climbing Mount Improbable". He, with Stephen Jay Gould,
> is the premier exponent of evolution in the popular press. Dawkins
> differs from Gould slightly in that he argues a more strictly Darwinian
> viewpoint, whereas Gould is more likely to include contingency and chance
> in his arguments. How is it possible to miss Dawkins and be familiar
> with modern evolutionary theory? Further, he writes his books with
> a general audience in mind, so it's not as if he were some obscure-but-
> brilliant theorist in the ivory tower.
> Yes, but the people who push creationism are pushing it as science,
> so as to have it included in school curricula. It is not science.
> Their faith is their own, but it should not be inflicted on other
> people under the pretense that it is logical and rational.
Creationism is not a science, however science is the study of what was
created. Unfortunantly many in the field of science have an agenda. It
is unscientific to hold a theory true then set out to prove it. This is
exactly
the case with evolution.
As the various fields in mathematics, biology, chemistry, etc. grows,
the
argument for evolution looks dimmer and dimmer, not the other way around.
Let's look at the comments of Dr.Harold Urey, a Nobel prize winner in the
field of chemistry. "We believe as an article of faith that life evolved
from
dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it
is hard
for us to imagine that it did." This illustrates the prevailing thinking in
the
scientific community.
The simplest life form contains over 500 amino acids. For these to link
up by chance has been calculated to be about 10 to the 123rd power. A
staggering figure. However, amino acids is not all that is required to have
life.
The proteins in the amino acids must link up in a presice sequence in order
for the life form to live. This pairing up has a chance out of 10 to the
200th
power.
The formation of life requires even yet more. DNA creates a genetic code
to form the building blocks of life itself. Scientist have calculated the
odds
of a single DNA gene forming by chance to be about 10 to the 155th power.
No wonder scientist have still been unable to duplicate life, trying all
the
known elements! These are TREMENDOUSLY huge odds to overcome. And
it doesn't even begin to address the more complex life forms or conscience.
So you see it isn't so unreasonable to question the lack of a devine
creator.
jim
Subject: Re: If earth stopped spinning, what would happen to us?
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:14:01 -0600
Dave Kallin wrote:
>
> Patrick van Esch wrote:
> > A vortex is SPINNING ALREADY. I've posted a simple calculation of the
> > magnitude of the effect of the coriolis force on the draining of a
> > bath tub and you clearly see that the effect is minuscule.
> > But don't worry, you're in good company, my boss (prof. in particle
> > physics) also thinks that it is true... :-)
>
> But if the Coriolis effect is miniscule, why is it that every time I
> drain the sink or flush the toilet here in PA it drains with a
> counterclockwise spin?
First of all, it is worth making fresh observations. Not to doubt your past
observations, but a fresh set is a good idea.
Next, assuming that they do all spin counterclockwise, check out whether there
is anything obvious about the designs of the sinks and toilets. There is the
possibility that they are designed to have a spin.
When I lived in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, a few years ago, I had a bathtub which
drained counterclockwise when full, but the spin would reverse direction 3
times as the tub drained.
There was also a great amusing little time filler on the news a few years ago.
A reporter stopped at a cafe near the equator advertising "eat on the
equator". They had a line drawn E-W with tables along it. He asked how he
could know that this truly was the equator. The waiter says "let me show you
with a bowl (with a hole in the bottom) and some water". On one side of the
line, the water spins in one direction, on the other side it spins in the
other direction, and on the line it doesn't spin. So he drives south for an
hour and comes across another cafe with the same sign. He informs them that
he has just had it proven to him that the equator is 1 hour north. The waiter
says, "but let me prove it to you with a bowl of water ...".
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
| http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 19:12:09 GMT
glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long):
> I wasn't trying to be deliberately insulting, although I was speaking
>from frustration. But it was mostly a comment on rhetorical style: if
>you go back and reread your end of the discussion, you'll find that
>mostly what you have to say is in the nature of "That's irrelevant to the
>point at hand", and nothing more. No explanation of what you thought the
>point at hand actually was. And every time Mati tried to explain what
>*he* thought the point at hand was, you'd keep responding by saying it
>was irrelevant, with again no further explanation. I was simply saying
>that I do not find this kind of response very convincing or very useful,
>and I was asking you to come up with something more.
> Of course, you may disagree with my interpretation, which is your
>right. And since this discussion also seems to be leading nowhere,
>I don't see much point in continuing it further.
Naturally I disagree -- the issues were clearly spelled out in the
beginning, and I repeated my position several times, as per Usenet
convention. If that wasn't enough for you, you could just have asked.
Alternatively, you could have looked elsewhere for reading matter.
Instead, you decided that you had to make accusations, which earned
you the response you deserved.
In case you or anyone else is still interested, Mati stated that no
important part of physics was based on "religious mysticism." I
disagreed, citing Newton's studies in hermeticism. To make a long
story short, Mati claimed he was only saying that the results of
scientific theories aren't measured by religious criteria (a banal
idea I never disputed).
Along the way, Lew suggested that I was overstating the relation
between Newton's physics and his interest in hermeticism -- in
fact, it was more than just a suggestion. He knows the subject, and
it's entirely possible that he's right -- I don't have enough of the
details to be sure.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Judson McClendon
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:03:47 -0600
Xcott Craver wrote:
>
> In article <3293CF3D.67CD@ix.netcom.com>,
> Judson McClendon wrote:
> >Xcott Craver wrote:
> >>
> >> >My point exactly. Generally the reason men don't believe in God is that
> >> >they don't WANT to. It is an affront to their pride. Men want to
> >> >believe everything is relative, there aren't any absolutes of morality,
> >> >law, etc. That's because then men can believe they are not accountable
> >> >to an absolute authority: God.
> >>
> >> I said "intellectual capacities of humankind," not "pride."
> >
> >You said "an affront to the intellectual capacities of humankind."
> > -------
>
> SO?! I don't jump to conclusions about the limits of the human
> intellect. Pride? Perhaps. But how is that the kind of pride that makes
> "men" not want to believe in God?
It is the pride that says "my mind (or 'my anything else') is enough, I
don't need faith (or God)".
> First of all, a Christian may argue that since humans are one
> of God's greatest masterpieces, to assume arbitrary limits on their
> potential is to snub the fine craftmanship of God. That is, one *may*
> argue this --- I have in fact seen some people argue along these lines.
> The point: there is nothing about this kind of "pride" in the
> human intellectual capacity that is inherently anti-christian.
God made man with the ability to know Him. Adam and Eve knew God
imtimately before the fall. But man sinned and lost his spiritual
ability to know God intimately. This ability is restored when one
receives Jesus ans is 'born again'.
> Secondly, many creationists consider evolution theories
> "an affront to their pride" as well. According to evolutionists,
> people are just another animal, not the keystone of God's creation,
> put here for a higher purpose than those of animals, plants, or
> fungi. Pride, Mr. McClendon, works both ways from both camps.
This is true. But my objection isn't based on that argument. The Bible
says about the heart of man: "The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jer 17:9) And that there is
not one good man: "Every one of them has turned aside; they have
together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one."
(Psalm 53:3) Prideful man has a problem with this.
> >> I am particularly peeved at this because I am a math student.
> >> Do you know how many times I've been told that I (and everyone else)
> >> am incapable of comprehending infinity? Mr. Jud, from day to day
> >> I encounter and must contemplate concepts of which there exist no
> >> counterparts in the physical universe. To say that people cannot
> >> comphrehend what is outside the physical world is ludicrous: where
> >> in the physical world do you find space where there is no such thing
> >> as distance? Or with an infinite number of dimensions?
> >
> >I hope you can see the pride I mentioned earlier being displayed in the
> >above paragraph? Understand, I am not criticising your intellect. You
> >could be much smarter than I, but that's not the point.
>
> Sure, I can see the pride. But again, I don't see how you
> can associate this kind of pride with the tendency to reject God;
> What if I decide that having the ability to contemplate the infinite
> and the otherworldly implies that humans are put on Earth for some
> kind of higher purpose than animals, and then conclude that there must
> be a God? Pride, as I said, can be used both ways. It is neither
> Christian nor anti-Christian.
Let me try to show the problem of pride by using Satan's fall as an
example:
(Isaiah 14:12-14)
12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How
you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart: `I will ascend into heaven, I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of
the congregation on the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the
Most High.'
(Ezekial 28:17)
17 "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted
your
wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I
laid
you before kings, that they might gaze at you."
And: "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the
evil way and the perverse mouth I hate." (Proverbs 8:13)
The Bible is repleat with references to God's hatred of pride. When man
says "My (intellect, wealth, goodness, anything) is enough, I don't need
God" he is placing himself in the same position as Satan.
> >I'm saying that
> >intellect is not sufficient. Falling in love is not an intellectual
> >exercise, it is of the heart. Until you've done it, you don't know it.
> >Well, spiritual things are not comprehended by the intellect either, or
> >by the emotions, but by the spirit.
>
> Again, this is your assumption. There are those who find the
> study of mathematics to be entirely spiritual (Ramanujan springs to
> mind)
People can CALL things spiritual, but that does not make them so. As I
said, if you haven't been in love you don't know love. But you don't
KNOW that until you've been there! ;)
> The idea of the separation of intellect and spirit is interesting,
> but I personally don't buy it. Part of intelligence is awareness of the
> elementary relations behind things, a breathtakingly spiritual feeling
> when taken to the extreme. To some, contemplating the structures and
> symmetries of the universe (I hate to say "universe," as that implies
> to some a restriction to the physical universe) is a form of worship.
I did not say that intelligence was not involved. How could there be
understanding without any intelligence? I am saying that spiritual
understanding is DIFFERENT from intelligence, and cannot be understood
only through the inttllect.
> >> Apparently subject to interpretation by people like you.
> >> How did you decide that 'carnal' mind refers to 'intellectual' mind?
> >
> >I didn't 'decide'. If you read and understood the Bible you would see
> >that it is.
>
> No, no, no. The Bible (at least, your translation) says
> "carnal." Not "intellecual." Period. That is the literal translation
> (at least, in English). Deciding that when God said "carnal," God
> meant "intellectual" is an *interpretation*. My personal interp. is
> the one which requires far less hand-waving: that to have a "carnal mind"
> refers to concerning oneself merely with the base needs and desires of
> the body, rather than more spiritual avenues. That is, after all, what
> the word "carnal" _means_. Again, how did you decide that "carnal"
> refers to the intellect?
You're quibling over inconsequentials here. 'Carnal' used in the bible
means 'of this earth'; specificly: not of the spirit. Not necessarily
bad, just 'earth based'. Unless you have been 'born of the Spirit' you
cannot know God:
(John 3:6-8)
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.'
8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but
cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who
is
born of the Spirit."
Everything we are naturally born with is of this earth (v6). If you
haven't been 'born again' then (v8) you can see what people who are
'born of the spirit' do, but you can't tell why (like the wind). This
is a picture of what is happening right now with these messages, no? :)
> Oh, and who are you, really, to tell me that I haven't
> "read and understood the Bible?"
Because you are arguing against what the Bible clearly says. If I tried
to tell you that the area of a circle was always 4 would you not rightly
conclude that I had not read and understood mathematics? ;)
> >> You are confusing what the Bible says with what God says. The
> >
> >Hardly. The Bible IS the Word of God.
>
> Your Bible says that Moses parted the "Red" sea. This is
> a mistake in translation. You already insisted that God is incapable
> of lying, yes? Well, then clearly there's a difference between what
> the Bible says and what God says.
You are confusing what a translator might do with what the Holy Spirit
did: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness," (2Tim 3:16). Sure, there are translational errors.
That's why we use multiple translations and compare with the original
language.
> This "Word of God" is, as I said before, autological.
> Everything you use to conclude that it is true is somewhere in its
> own content. I would hardly call this something you could know
> to be objectively true.
No, I have the witness of the Holy Spirit in me, as well as confirmation
of the world I see around me. But I believe in Jesus Christ through
faith. "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
(Romans 10:17) "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he
who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of
those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)
It's our choice. Be sure you make the right one.
--
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 19:21:41 GMT
Michael S. Morris (msmorris@inetdirect.net) wrote:
: Friday, the 22nd of November, 1996
: Ah, I see a reply was posted, though as often seems to be
: the case, the original hasn't shown up hereabouts yet.
: Silke first said:
: You have to distinguish between two statements.
: a) science doesn't provide value
: b) science doesn't provide anything valuable.
: They are not the same.
: I agreed:
: They are not the same.
: But they are both also not true.
: I can think of three distinct normative requirements
: for the flourishment of science and the scientific method,
: each devoutly to be wished in any ethics worthy of the
: name:
: 1) Thou shalt be always open to argument (trust in the
: freest possible exchange of ideas to dissipate bad ones);
: 2) Honour and pursue the life of the mind;
: and the greatest (because the most basic) of these is
: 3) Thou shalt not be credulous.
: Of course, this is incomplete for an ethics, and I wouldn't
: pretend it otherwise, but these are at the very root of science
: and they adumbrate a whole lot more besides. I would
: highly recommend in this context Jacob Bronowski's _Science
: and Human Values_.
: (The sins of Herophilus of Chalcedon and Erasistratus of
: Cos---perhaps throwing those of Miguel de Santiago for
: balance---notwithstanding.)
: And Silke replied:
: Michael, it's not science itself that makes these things good;
: science evolved the way it did because the evaluations were in place.
: Hey, I just jumped on what I thought was a good opportunity
: to plug a very beautiful little book.
: But, careful. Look, I understand and agree with what I think
: was your point: There is metaphysical assumption in back of
: science. I even think scientists gloss this over (though not
: as much as many would seem to think). But I am personally
: willing grant to them a certain independence of their disciplines
: from metaphysical worries exactly insofar as and up to the point
: that their theories succesfully predict natural behaviour to
: so many decimal places and equally insofar as and up to the point
: that no other metaphysical assumptions demonstrate a similar
: effective independence.
So am I; I merely made the very modest claim that science does not
establish the values that make it valuable. I have no stake in scientists
shivering at the sight of the metaphysical abyss, either.
: If you say that there are assumptions, I agree, but I add that
: they miracoulously work to make aeroplanes fly. If you say that
: there could be other assumptions equally valid, I say fine,
: they might be worth looking at when and if you build an aeroplane
: with them (or something equally as wonder-full).
I'm not quibbling with any of this; to repeat (sigh), I like science just
fine, the remark above was not meant to be critical of science in the
least; I was just explaining to Anton, I think, why philosophy will most
likely continue to disagree whereas consensus can be reached in science.
: There is, however, one place in the academy where the question
: of possible alternative metaphysical assumptions becomes very
: important, I think. It is not in the physics department, thank
: you, but it is with the bundle of the so-called "human sciences"
: ---sociology, certain parts of psychology, political science,
: economics, and certain versions of history.
: But, before I broach this point, let me agree with you
: about the fact/value distinction as far at it goes. I may
: scientifically answer the question of whether such-and-such a design
: of aeroplane flies or not. I cannot scientifically answer
: the question of whether building the thing and flying it is
: a good or evil endeavour (except perhaps in terms of other
: value-assumptions, such as that reducing fuel consumption
: per passenger miles is good, say, because it conserves
: natural resources and then I can scientifically ask and
: answer whether or not this aeroplane design in fact reduces fuel
: consumption).
We're on the same page, so I'll snip a bit.
: I went at it from the other side. That is, whether "science" produces
: value or not kind of depends on what you mean by "science". If you
: mean by it (as I trust you did) merely the procedure of science
: that comes after the metaphysical assumptions have been made, then
: sure. But, if you mean the procedure of science *together
: with the metaphysical assumptions behind it* then I think some
: pretty strong value-judgments are in there right at the beginning,
Absolutely -- as you say, judgments.
: and it's perfectly correct to say that science does provide value,
: as in the exercise of science requires certain value-judgments to
: be made and not others. Now granted that these judgments probably
: won't have much to say about sexual ethics, or table manners, or
: even just war, but this doesn't mean that science makes no ethical
: pronouncements whatsoever.
Oh hell, all the time -- they are ultimately just as arbitrary as
the value judgments philosophy makes -- the stress is on ultimately.
I think the discipline we want to look at in this context is sociobiology
-- they are trying to establih themselves as both ethical and scientific
discourse, and it's a bit troubling (imo).
Silke
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:34:21 GMT
In article <571nsu$uei@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: In article <56vucm$lgl@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>: >Hi Jeff.
>: >
>: >Jeff Candy (candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: >
>: >: Robert Vienneau:
>: >:
>: >: |> : > Finally, and most interesting, *philosophically we are completely
>: >: |> : > wrong* with the approximate law.
>: >
>: >: |> : > -- _The Feymann Lectures on Physics_, Volume I, pp. 1-1 - 1-2,
>: >
>: >: Feynman ... one trailing 'n'.
>: >
>: >
>: >: lbsys@aol.com:
>: >:
>: >: |> : Hmm, I thought those lectures where by a physicist about physics, no? It's
>: >: |> : a nice quote, and F. sure was a great man, but a lousy philosopher
>: >: |> : (IMHO).
>: >[...}
>: >: Silke-Maria Weineck:
>: >
>: >: |> I'm flabbergasted... May I call _this_ one a desperate rhetorical gesture?
>: >
>: >: Well, no; Lorenz was expressing hesitation to accept pronouncements
>: >: by a scientist which lie outside of the scientist's accepted area of
>: >: expertise.
>: >
>: >No; Lorenz expressed, without argument, his conviction that Feynman is a
>: >lousy philosopher. The desperation I perceive would be due to the
>: >fact
>: >that after all that talk about how philosophers don't have a clue about
>: >physics, someone who's in physics comes along and says the same thing --
>
>: Apparently you didn't read the rest of it.
>
>It's hard to control appearances, but could I see some evidence for that
>claim, please?
>
Well, looking through the the rest of Feynman's quotes (or reading
some of his popular books) you'll find that he cared very little for
those "philosophical" notions of "wrongness". What he did care for
was "does it work", which is the notion some people here find so
odious. Still, you shouldn't take it as gospel, as I've said many
times, opinions of scientists are just opinions, Feynman included.
As a side notion, regarding the "someone who's in physics comes along
and says the same thing" bit, I trust you can see the slight
difference between "wrong" and "philosophically we are wrong".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 06:39:15 GMT
Thanks. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
I was thinking of the passage in Mme Bovary in the context of this
thread... the one about beating out clumsy rhythms for bears to dance
to while trying to make music to move the stars (my copy is in the
office, so this will have to do). Perhaps it would be a good idea to
distinguish between representative intention and perlocutionary
intention.
Silke
brian
artese (b-artese@nwu.edu) wrote: : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
: > Brian Artese, did you claim that postmodernism claims
: > that writers and speakers have no intentions? If you
: > did, you are probably wrong. I doubt that you did,
: > though.
: Well, I don't like to speak for 'postmodernism' simply
: because I don't really believe in such a beast. But
: that's another thread entirely. I do tend to 'speak for'
: poststructuralism, which is a bad habit because the thing
: i'm referring to -- a collection of writers -- isn't
: really an 'ism' or a method, or even, dare I say it, a
: philosophy. And I'm certianly not familiar with all the
: writers that might be appropriate to the category.
: Anyway, to answer your question: my take on it is that
: intent exists only in a given articulation. And to the
: extent that people think unspoken articulations, I would
: grant that intent exists in those unspoken articulations.
: But the important point for this thread's argument is
: that there is no such thing as a non-articulatable intent
: that 'gives birth' to articulations, which is the
: traditional conception of intent. The only thing that
: gives birth to intent are other signifiers.
: When somebody says, "I didn't understand what your last
: message. What did you intend to say?" -- that is simply a
: request for a re-statement of the message in another way,
: with a different articulation. You will notice that
: 'intent' is invoked *exclusively* to help us out with
: these scenarios in which an initial articulation 'didn't
: work,' or when an initial articulation is thought to act
: as a 'code' -- like the way we think of literature. You
: always end up talking about 'intent' when you talk about
: literature because the text seems to want to say more than
: it *does* say.
: It is irrefutable that *something* has to let us know that
: there is something *to be said* in the first place; that
: something -- even if it's only a raised eyebrow -- is a
: signifier. Intent *is* that very signifier that 'reaches
: out to' or 'calls for' a (possibly) better signifier, a
: better articulation. When the listener in my scenario is
: finally satisfied with one of your paraphrases, your
: clarifying articulations, then you can point to that
: statement and say, '*that* is what I intended to say.'
: Notice that 'intended' in this statement simply means
: 'wanted'. You might also point to the statement and say
: 'That is what I intended,' which simply means, 'That is
: what I wanted,' or 'that statement is what I wanted.' In
: other words, 'that statement is what I lacked.' And even
: if you both discover other paraphrases that 'work' just as
: well, all decisions about intent began and ended with
: actual signifiers.
: *What* you want to say, in other words, are words, not an
: 'intent.' The only thing you 'intend' to say are words.
: The reason that articulation X is 'correct' for your
: purposes, but Y is not, is that X 'fits' better into the
: context that makes your statement 'make sense.' Another
: way to say it: because X effectively orients one's
: thinking in the direction of that context (a context that,
: as Fish says, must be learned first before such
: orientation can take place). There are many factors that
: make X more appropriate (that is, appropriable) to (by)
: the correct context than Y, the most influential one
: involving the metonymic links between the words in X and
: those that tend to be found in that discursive context.
: -- brian
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 18:57:30 GMT
John Wojdylo (infidel@cyllene.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >Jim Carr (jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: >[...]
: >I'm amazed. Truly. This late in the game! Thank you.
: >: But what is the argument, then? About the generalization? ;-) It is
: >: clear to me that Silke is essentially correct that, besides a specific
: >: point about Einstein's "constant" and its role in the game, Derrida
: >: is also drawing a specific contrast between concepts which can be
: >: centers and concepts which are variable and thus part of the game.
: >: Is this really what you folks have been arguing about in this thread
: >: for months? If so, my observation is that the *real* game is not
: >: this one, but the game concerning how to change the center, and when.
: >Absolutely; the final game then is to abandon the center altogether, and
: >the ultimate question whether this is indeed possible.
: Funny thing is, while the player is focussed on the Game and finds he is
: to abandon the centre altogether, the writer/reader lives out the
: delusion, neglecting to note the total picture of their lives, which
: most certainly possesses a centre , a spouse or such like. These
: stabilities in their lives are the forgotten crutches that empower them
: to engage in delusory undertakings.
Absolutely; and if we can stop comparing literary criticism to taking
nuptial vows, we might actually start talking about the merits of the former.
Silke
: You'll also learn what Derrida meant by the Einstein constant remark.
Since you bring it up, here's something from the Duke Faculty Forum:
"The phrase may not mean -- and does not seem to mean -=- a numerical
constant, as virtualy all the physicists who commented on it in print
appear to assume. Instead it appears to mean _the Einsteinian (or
Einsteinian-Minkokwskian) concept of space-time itself_, since Hyppolite
speaks of "_a constant which is a combination of space-time_" (emphasis
added). Given the text, such an interpreation is more plausible than
seeing this phrase as referring to anumerical constant. This alternative
interpretation is not definitive, and perhaps no definitive
interpretation is possible here, in view of the status of the text as the
transcription of extemporaneous remarks given orally. Similar problems
may also arise in regard to Derrida's statement. That said, however, it
is more productive to take these complexities into account, to sort them
out to the degee possible, and to give these statements the most
sensible, rather than the most senseless, interpretation.
[...] The moment one accepts this possibility and reads the Einsteinian
constant as meaning the Einsteinian concept of space-time, Derrida's
statement begins to sound quite a bit less strange. It acquires an even
greater congruence with relativity theory once one understands the term
"play/game" as connoting, in this context, the impossibility, within
Einstein's framework of space-time, of a unique or uniquely privileged
frame of reference -- a "center starting from which an observer could
master the field" (i.e. the whole of space-time). [...]
With these considerations in mind, on emight see Derrida's statement as
suggesting that, in contgrast to classical physics, the space-time of
special (and even more so of general) relativity disallows either a
(Newtonian) uniersal background or a uniquely privileged frame of
reference for physical events (which become contingent upon the frame of
reference from which they are seen). In short, one might see Derrida's
statement as alluding to standard features and questions at issue in
Einstein's relativity -- admittedly, in an idiom that is nonstandard,
especially for physicists.
[...] Obviously, most scientists are not familiar with the ideas and
contexts that would enable them to offer the kind of reading of Derrida's
statement that is suggested here. One might, however, regret a certain
lack of intellectual curiosity on their part and their evident
unwillingness to consult scholars familiar with Derrida's thought, or
indeed --why not? -- Derrida himself. At issue here is not only the
citation of Hyppolite's and Derrida's remarks out of context but the
ignoring of even the minimal relevant norms of intellectual and,
especially, scholarly exchange.
[...]
Scholars in the humanities should, of course, exercise due caution as to
the claims they make about science. Correspondingly, scientists and other
non-humanist scholars should exercise due care and similar caution in
their chracterization of the humanities, especially when they are
diealing with innovative and complex work, such as that of Derrida, and
all the more so if they want to be critical about it. In the case under
discussion, however, no critiism in any real sense -- not even a
dismissal that can be taken seriously -- has been offered, at least not
yet. A serious engagement with Derrida's thought on the part of
scientists is possible, however, and we might yet see it. Then, perhaps,
we will also have a better understanding of why "the Einsteinian constant
is not a constant, is not a center," why "it is the very concept of
variability," and why "it is, finally, the concept of the game" -- or, if
that is the case, why it is none of the above."
Arkady Plotnitsky
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 18:26:50 GMT
Gordon Long :
|> I wasn't trying to be deliberately insulting, although I was speaking
|> from frustration. But it was mostly a comment on rhetorical style: if
|> you go back and reread your end of the discussion, you'll find that
|> mostly what you have to say is in the nature of "That's irrelevant to the
|> point at hand", and nothing more. No explanation of what you thought the
|> point at hand actually was. And every time Mati tried to explain what
|> *he* thought the point at hand was, you'd keep responding by saying it
|> was irrelevant, with again no further explanation. I was simply saying
|> that I do not find this kind of response very convincing or very useful,
|> and I was asking you to come up with something more.
|> Of course, you may disagree with my interpretation, which is your
|> right. And since this discussion also seems to be leading nowhere,
|> I don't see much point in continuing it further.
I entered the "Hermeneutics ..." thread/discussion by making much the
same comment as yours, regarding essentially the same observation about
moggins style of discourse. He was similarly perturbed by it.
With regard to understanding the nature and implications of wrong-as-
approximate physical theories, the discussion lead, well, nowhere.
To me, physics is a collection of mathematical models of nature. These
models connect to one another smoothly as (in the mathematical sense) as
physical parameters are varied. The notion of smoothness -- or more
precisely, continuity -- appears to be absent from the non-scientists
view of physics; thus the preponderance of "Newton is either right or
wrong ... since we know he's not right, well then?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:40:19 GMT
In article <572pj0$5s5@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article , wrote:
>
>>I remember this two to one ratio from somewhere, have to take a look
>>at some point. The equations above will give you an orbit, anyway,
>>but I don't recall whether it is a closed orbit (intuitively I think
>>thet to first order it is).
>
>You're not paying attention!
Possible. I rarely do :-)
>The condition on objects having
>a periodic motion wrt each other is v^2/2-k/r = constant. For
>objects with a small displacement, x,y;vx,vy from X,Y;VX,VY
>and with initial condition X=VY=1, Y=VX=0 , the condition for
>periodic motion is vy = -x, to first order.
Yep. But don't forget that motion can be periodic in each dimension
separately (as indeed you expect fro small displacements) without
being periodic overall. In fact the equations of motion in this case
reduce to a coupled Mathieu pair, which is only guaranteed
quasi-periodic.
>
>I have the advantage of playing with the simulator I wrote, and
>I'm finding there's not much that's very intuitive about these
>motions. For example, if we start with the displacements towards
>and away from the earth, with vy adjusted for the periodicity
>condition, the orbits look like this:
>
>
> .<-*. .....
> ... ... ... ...
> . . + . .
> ... ... CM ... ...
> ..... .*->.
>
>( those are supposed to be ovals half as side as they are long )
>The rotations are in the same sense, but 180 degrees out of phase.
>The maximum excursion from the CM is twice the initial displacement,
>and the period is 1/2 the CM orbital period!
>
Does the phrase "In takes left, left takes out, out takes right, right
takes in" ring a bell?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 20:48:57 GMT
virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy):
>So, let's get over mutually insulting eachother because that certainly
>isn't going to lead to the place I want go --- Progress.
I'm going to take you up on that. It's been more pricks than kicks
for awhile now. I'm going to go ahead and delete all the bickering --
I'll try not to remove anything important, but if I do, just tell me.
>If I had to edit your guess I'd say "Sci.physics: love it!" and I'll try
>address why. Since man's recorded history, men have noticed patterns in
>physical phenomena. You know why Galileo dropped those balls so many
>times? Well, besides not having the Internet to distract him, I'll bet
>he was hoping against hope to just see *once* if the ball wouldn't do
>the same thing. I can hear him praying in Italian before dropping the
>balls "Please O please do something different!". Finally Galileo
>realized that praying wasn't changing the outcome of what the balls were
>motivated to do. So he made the best of it rather than deny the
>experimental observational fact. We praise Galileo accordingly. As such,
>by extrapolation, other men have realized that it's better to love
>physics than to leave it. For men can't actually "leave" physics. There
>is no physics-free-place to go. And don't feel imprisoned --- for that
>would be to miss the fascination entirely.
That's what I'd expect a physicist to say, but what's the connection to
your point? You claimed that newsgroups are divided by subject areas
to separate the "views of people who follow such topics" -- a gloss on
your earlier suggestion, "Remove sci.physics from the header and say
whatever the explicative your brand of religions and philosophies
want to hear."
Mahipal:
>>>You need to justify your claim that my request is "unreasonable". You or
>>>no one else holds any supreme position of declaring what are/not (in)valid
>>>pronouncements. Justify your thoughts. If a scientist said "philosophy
>>>is shit", then you too would want a rational debate before accepting the
>>>scientist's proclaimation. Regardless of how much you personally agreed.
moggin:
>> You're right, I would, but I didn't get up and make a claim -- I just
>>gave you my answer to the question you asked. That doesn't obligate me
>>to anything. However, out of a spirit of good-fellowship, I'll add a bit
>>to what I said. What I'm thinking, basically, is that while scientists
>>as a group are undoubtedly better than philosophers and theologians at
>>doing science, there's no reason to believe that they're well equipped
>>to _think_ about it. Most scientists, I'd say, are more concerned with
>>practicing science than reflecting on it -- and more talented at it, as
>>well.
Mahipal:
>Thank you and I too shall sustain the spirit of good-fellowship. Name
>calling can only be entertainment for so long. It gets nowhere though.
>From my personal experience, most scientists are concerned with having a
>decent paying job within Science than worrying about reflecting on it.
>Though this may seem funny to you, it's far far from funny when you have
>no money.
Doesn't strike me as funny in the least -- I completely sympathize.
>Philosophers and theologians may be better equipped, IYO, about thinking
>about science. Where scientists get bothered is when science is
>misrepresented, otherwise devalued, or told by outsiders that science
>decisions are trivial (Case in point --- Silke's comment regarding the
>estimation of airplane fuel requirements).
Silke didn't claim it was trivial -- she was replying to the assertion
that philosophy should produce results with as much certainty as you
can measure an airplane's need for fuel. She responded by saying that
anyone who faces questions which _have_ certain answers is lucky.
>What's utterly ironic inspite
>of all this, everybody from lawyers to palmists will unquestionably and
>unerringly claim that their works are somehow "scientifically sound".
You'll have that. But it's a testament to the authority that science
has nowadays; and of course, "everybody from lawyers to palmists"
isn't everybody.
>It's enough to make you laugh --- forever. I mean I love to point out
>hypocrits as much as the next guy, but groups like the Christian
>Scientists, et. al. take the cake. Though it's unbelivably funny, all
>these people take themselves way too seriously and want to get --- as it
>were --- equal billing in respect, politics, and classrooms.
That's another argument -- although the talk.origins people should
be happy to see it, since at long last, _something_ in these threads is
on-topic for them.
>However, unquestionably, there are pure philosophers and theologians
>who are not motivated by self-serving misguided (political) reasons.
>But I doubt that they are the outspoken vocal ones.
Where did this come from? You're gonna have to be more specific.
If you've got a gripe with any particular philosopher or theologian,
tell me who it is, and I'll decide if I feel like defending them -- why
bother replying to broad swipes like this?
Mahipal:
>>>You are going to have to do better than that. How many philosophies are
>>>falsifiable and testible? Do help me out. If there is no objective
>>>Reality out *there* --- and I've been misled by the scientific camp ---
>>>then I want the knowledge. I'll exact revenge on those science bastards
>>>then! C'mon --- save me/us.
moggin:
>> The science camp is having trouble making up its mind. Most of the
>>science campers I see on the net can't run away fast enough from the
>>idea that science reports on "Reality." I'm not sure they don't believe
>>it -- they just don't want to be stuck trying to defend the damn thing.
>>On the other hand, there are people like Sokal, who leap to its defense.
>>I'm not the one you should be asking for a science report, anyhow --
>>aren't you one of them scientists? Physician, ask thyself.
Mahipal:
>I well understand the pitfalls of Self-Deception. Trust me, that's why I
>leave the door open. That's why I read these threads. Real time people
>with real time thoughts. I learned from everybody though I've come to
>hate a few for their style and idiocy. But for the most part, I'm glad I
>chose science. I might have exceled at deconstructionism and _that_ scares
>me! I really did in truth enjoy reading Zelany. Fact is, you're
>arguments brought his and a few other's to my attention. So not all bad
>goes unrewarded. But I'm a certified optimist. It'll get me one day. ;-)
I don't remember when he came up, but good -- he's a favorite of
mine. I especially like _Lord of Light_ and _Nine Princes in Amber_.
>Let me be the next to inform you, there *IS* an objective "Reality" and we
>humans are an intricate part of it. If one's philosphy doesn't allow for
>the determination or merely the acceptence of such physical reality,
>then the philospher really isn't doing a very good job.
"If one's philosophy doesn't allow for the determination or merely
the acceptance of God, then the philosopher really isn't doing a very
good job." (That version was popular under an earlier regime.)
>There are very
>simple facts of human's observations that confirm the existence of an
>objective reality. Whether it exists for any "purpose" or not is a
>secondary issue --- from the scientist's perspective. From *THIS*
>scientist's perspective. Why is the issue secondary? Easy, because the
>first issue is to manage to survive in this proovably hostile
>environment! Having succeeded at surviving, then the philosophers and
>theologians and palmists can all live under the shelters science helps
>make and LITERALLY bash on science to their heart's content. If that is
>what they desire. Scientists will defend themselves. But why battle?
You seem to be mixing up "objectivity" with "hostility." Then again,
maybe it's no mix-up.
>I like Sokal. Seems like a well-meaningful individual from what I have
>read of him. If that too is a *hoax*, then infinite kudos to him. :-)
Sokal seems well-suited to be a paving stone on the road to hell.
>The point about true Science is that since it is independent of social
>prejudice, it is immune from both criticism and praise. However,
>scientists are humans and humans depend on Society for mutual
>coexistence. You can bash the scientists --- and they will not like it
>of course --- but the Science remains the same. Kepler is the classic
>case in point. He lead a miserable life personally. Financially broke.
>Death and desease. Witch hunts and what not. Despite all this madness in
>the society around him, he found stability in the patterns of the
>"wanderers" around his Earth. Though we praise him now, it doesn't
>change one iota the misery that was his personal life. We modern
>scientists don't want to live miserable lives and social movements that
>are antiscience will get us to stand up and REASON.
O.k., you've got me: I simply can't decide whether or not you're
trolling.
Mahipal:
>>>Without all these fancy evasions and more... Tell me this
>>>If "Newton is wrong" then how would moggin make the Universe "right"?
moggin:
>> Righting the universe is beyond my ability.
Mahipal:
>If you resolve to believe this, then so shall you achieve.
>Why set yourself up for the failure? Perhaps you're being rational and
>just comprimising with the Nature/God-Given limitations of your ability?
>Anyway, it does not matter as far as either Nature or God is concerned.
Why doesn't God make the universe right? Wouldn't he be the one to
ask, anyhow? You seem to think of me as Godly, with a capital "G" -- I
don't mind the compliment, but you're overestimating my abilities by
a considerable margin.
>See, scientists can be inspirational. The point you and Society at large
>are raising is that scientists have failed at communicating about their
>work --- which influences every life directly or indirectly. That's what
>I gather and it's only valid in the domain of one man's opinion.
Actually, I never raised that point.
>What you are saying is that Science needs to be addressed from religious
>and/or mystical, even literary, perspectives.
I haven't said that, either, although I agree.
>I sincerely doubt you've
>encountered any scientist that would restict your privilege to do so.
>It's only when you persist bitching (for lack of a better word in our
>Era) that "Newton is wrong" and by extrapolation all Science must be
>wrong because there exists no such thing as numerical (Platonic)
>perfection that Physicists feel the need to defend Science's ideas.
"Bitching" would be the wrong word in any era, since I never made
a complaint about it. I don't care if Newton's wrong -- doesn't bother
me in the least. Nor did I make any extrapolations, including the one
you mention. You're just making shit up.
[...]
>moggin, your particular point appears to be that a specific religious
>mystical mindset inspired Newton to succeed despite being Universally
>wrong in the light of later observations.
That wasn't my point, if I follow you.
>Problem with this is that it
>is not true that a specific religious mindset guided him --- no matter
>how religious he personally may have been.
No, the problem is that I never said it.
>Darwin too was a religious
>being but the evidence was more overwhelming than scribblings of ancient
>texts! And since the final product these individuals discovered is
>independent of the personal Beings these men were, it's reasonably true
>that their mystical beliefs are irrelevant to Science.
That doesn't even begin to follow.
>In sum, Reality shapes our perceptions.
>All our perceptions combined
>couldn't make the Sun geometrically square
>No matter how hard we prayed
>Or how throughly we brainwashed ourselves.
>Somethings just ARE.
>The Laws of Physics are a result of seeking out these objectivities.
>And the search continues because we don't have any final answers==truths.
Verses from _The Scientist's Book of Common Prayer_.
>How do I convey that scientists would not discover anything if there was
>nothing to find? Preexistence is a prerequisite. If I have now entered
>metaphysical territory, don't worry for me, I ain't lost.
Of course not: maybe once you were lost, but now you are found.
(Amazing, huh?)
-- moggin
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:15:20 GMT
In article , gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Tom, we are having a misunderstanding; once you have established
>> value, science can be immensely helpful in making your argument. But there
>> is no scientific way to determine good and evil;
>
>Perhaps we are just having a misunderstanding, but I don't think so. You
>seem to be arguing black and white, I'm arguing the shades of gray.
Right on!
>We are no longer in the cave, when it was "justified" to base ethical
>judgements on nothing but our intuition. Until the recent past ethical
>judgements did not need to consider the predictive power of science. Now,
>in many cases, it cannot be ignored and must be incorporated. Our actions
>can have unforeseen effects that science can tell us something about.
>Moreover, science is a part of these actions and is itself an expression
>of ethics as well as a provider of reasoning for ethical standards of
>conduct.
I buy the "provider of reasoning" part, but I'm not sure about the
"expression of ethics" (as it stands, with no qualifications). When
we embark on a course of action, science can provide predictions for
possible outcomes, according to various possible scenarios. Now, in
most cases there are both positive and negative outcomes which are not
commesurable (in the scientific sense, at least). So, when the time
comes to judge and select the best course of action, extra scientific
criteria must be used. Science alone won't give you the full answer.
What it'll do is provide you with the information needed and not allow
you to hide behind "but I didn't know that something like this can
happen". In other words, it can't force you to be ethical but it
makes it more difficult to be unethical.
>I think you fail to realize the breadth of science today. When we conduct
>landscape scale ecological studies humans are a part of the picture, and
>therefore their value systems are a part of the equation. This
>understanding of the ecosystem (including the value systems) in which they
>live can feedback into the value systems having regulating impacts on the
>ecosystem. The duality of observer and observed is no longer clear. The
>determination of good and evil and the advancement of science is mutually
>inclusive. Ideally.
^^^^^^^
Ideally, yes.
>
>> there is nothing good about nature itself.
>
>That hurts. Maybe it's that opinion why we're getting into so much
>trouble. As a member of the human species and an inhabitant of this planet
>and a part of nature I humbly opine that there is infinite good about
>nature itself.
>
Well, I'm afraid here we part company. As I see it, Nature is neither
good, nor evil, it just is.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: fi@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 96 21:53:18 GMT
John Camp writes:
>What I was suggesting in my first post is that a lot of social and
>technical advancements claimed by "scientists" were actually the result
>of "science-like" activity, and were discovered by people without
>knowledge or use of Science as a means of investigation.
Yes, this has been confusing me, too. A lot of this discussion seems
to be about the products of *technology*, not of science. Much
technology arises from applications of scientific findings, but also
out of serendipitous findings, like your example of aspirin.
Science itself produces nothing tangible: only knowledge, or (as I like
to put it) truth. I see truth as having value in and of itself, so from
my personal standpoint, science produces a valuable product. (Which
isn't the same thing, I should think, as "providing value," whatever
that means.)
An aside to the person who mentioned medical doctors: Medicine is *not*
science. Medicine is an art, a technology, a craft, a set of skills --
but not a science. (I'm a physician, by the way.)
--Fiona
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Thomas Pickering
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:50:36 -0800
Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Xcott Craver wrote:
> >
> > In article <3293CF3D.67CD@ix.netcom.com>,
> > Judson McClendon wrote:
> > >Xcott Craver wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >My point exactly. Generally the reason men don't believe in God is that
> > >> >they don't WANT to. It is an affront to their pride. Men want to
> > >> >believe everything is relative, there aren't any absolutes of morality,
> > >> >law, etc. That's because then men can believe they are not accountable
> > >> >to an absolute authority: God.
> > >>
> > >> I said "intellectual capacities of humankind," not "pride."
> > >
> > >You said "an affront to the intellectual capacities of humankind."
> > > -------
> >
> > SO?! I don't jump to conclusions about the limits of the human
> > intellect. Pride? Perhaps. But how is that the kind of pride that makes
> > "men" not want to believe in God?
>
> It is the pride that says "my mind (or 'my anything else') is enough, I
> don't need faith (or God)".
>
> > First of all, a Christian may argue that since humans are one
> > of God's greatest masterpieces, to assume arbitrary limits on their
> > potential is to snub the fine craftmanship of God. That is, one *may*
> > argue this --- I have in fact seen some people argue along these lines.
> > The point: there is nothing about this kind of "pride" in the
> > human intellectual capacity that is inherently anti-christian.
>
> God made man with the ability to know Him. Adam and Eve knew God
> imtimately before the fall. But man sinned and lost his spiritual
> ability to know God intimately. This ability is restored when one
> receives Jesus ans is 'born again'.
>
> > Secondly, many creationists consider evolution theories
> > "an affront to their pride" as well. According to evolutionists,
> > people are just another animal, not the keystone of God's creation,
> > put here for a higher purpose than those of animals, plants, or
> > fungi. Pride, Mr. McClendon, works both ways from both camps.
>
> This is true. But my objection isn't based on that argument. The Bible
> says about the heart of man: "The heart is deceitful above all things,
> and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jer 17:9) And that there is
> not one good man: "Every one of them has turned aside; they have
> together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one."
> (Psalm 53:3) Prideful man has a problem with this.
>
> > >> I am particularly peeved at this because I am a math student.
> > >> Do you know how many times I've been told that I (and everyone else)
> > >> am incapable of comprehending infinity? Mr. Jud, from day to day
> > >> I encounter and must contemplate concepts of which there exist no
> > >> counterparts in the physical universe. To say that people cannot
> > >> comphrehend what is outside the physical world is ludicrous: where
> > >> in the physical world do you find space where there is no such thing
> > >> as distance? Or with an infinite number of dimensions?
> > >
> > >I hope you can see the pride I mentioned earlier being displayed in the
> > >above paragraph? Understand, I am not criticising your intellect. You
> > >could be much smarter than I, but that's not the point.
> >
> > Sure, I can see the pride. But again, I don't see how you
> > can associate this kind of pride with the tendency to reject God;
> > What if I decide that having the ability to contemplate the infinite
> > and the otherworldly implies that humans are put on Earth for some
> > kind of higher purpose than animals, and then conclude that there must
> > be a God? Pride, as I said, can be used both ways. It is neither
> > Christian nor anti-Christian.
>
> Let me try to show the problem of pride by using Satan's fall as an
> example:
> (Isaiah 14:12-14)
> 12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
> How
> you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!
> 13 For you have said in your heart: `I will ascend into heaven, I will
> exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of
> the congregation on the farthest sides of the north;
> 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the
> Most High.'
> (Ezekial 28:17)
> 17 "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted
> your
> wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I
> laid
> you before kings, that they might gaze at you."
>
> And: "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the
> evil way and the perverse mouth I hate." (Proverbs 8:13)
>
> The Bible is repleat with references to God's hatred of pride. When man
> says "My (intellect, wealth, goodness, anything) is enough, I don't need
> God" he is placing himself in the same position as Satan.
>
> > >I'm saying that
> > >intellect is not sufficient. Falling in love is not an intellectual
> > >exercise, it is of the heart. Until you've done it, you don't know it.
> > >Well, spiritual things are not comprehended by the intellect either, or
> > >by the emotions, but by the spirit.
> >
> > Again, this is your assumption. There are those who find the
> > study of mathematics to be entirely spiritual (Ramanujan springs to
> > mind)
>
> People can CALL things spiritual, but that does not make them so. As I
> said, if you haven't been in love you don't know love. But you don't
> KNOW that until you've been there! ;)
>
> > The idea of the separation of intellect and spirit is interesting,
> > but I personally don't buy it. Part of intelligence is awareness of the
> > elementary relations behind things, a breathtakingly spiritual feeling
> > when taken to the extreme. To some, contemplating the structures and
> > symmetries of the universe (I hate to say "universe," as that implies
> > to some a restriction to the physical universe) is a form of worship.
>
> I did not say that intelligence was not involved. How could there be
> understanding without any intelligence? I am saying that spiritual
> understanding is DIFFERENT from intelligence, and cannot be understood
> only through the inttllect.
>
> > >> Apparently subject to interpretation by people like you.
> > >> How did you decide that 'carnal' mind refers to 'intellectual' mind?
> > >
> > >I didn't 'decide'. If you read and understood the Bible you would see
> > >that it is.
> >
> > No, no, no. The Bible (at least, your translation) says
> > "carnal." Not "intellecual." Period. That is the literal translation
> > (at least, in English). Deciding that when God said "carnal," God
> > meant "intellectual" is an *interpretation*. My personal interp. is
> > the one which requires far less hand-waving: that to have a "carnal mind"
> > refers to concerning oneself merely with the base needs and desires of
> > the body, rather than more spiritual avenues. That is, after all, what
> > the word "carnal" _means_. Again, how did you decide that "carnal"
> > refers to the intellect?
>
> You're quibling over inconsequentials here. 'Carnal' used in the bible
> means 'of this earth'; specificly: not of the spirit. Not necessarily
> bad, just 'earth based'. Unless you have been 'born of the Spirit' you
> cannot know God:
> (John 3:6-8)
> 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of
> the Spirit is spirit.
> 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.'
> 8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but
> cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who
> is
> born of the Spirit."
>
> Everything we are naturally born with is of this earth (v6). If you
> haven't been 'born again' then (v8) you can see what people who are
> 'born of the spirit' do, but you can't tell why (like the wind). This
> is a picture of what is happening right now with these messages, no? :)
>
> > Oh, and who are you, really, to tell me that I haven't
> > "read and understood the Bible?"
>
> Because you are arguing against what the Bible clearly says. If I tried
> to tell you that the area of a circle was always 4 would you not rightly
> conclude that I had not read and understood mathematics? ;)
>
> > >> You are confusing what the Bible says with what God says. The
> > >
> > >Hardly. The Bible IS the Word of God.
> >
> > Your Bible says that Moses parted the "Red" sea. This is
> > a mistake in translation. You already insisted that God is incapable
> > of lying, yes? Well, then clearly there's a difference between what
> > the Bible says and what God says.
>
> You are confusing what a translator might do with what the Holy Spirit
> did: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
> for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness," (2Tim 3:16). Sure, there are translational errors.
> That's why we use multiple translations and compare with the original
> language.
>
> > This "Word of God" is, as I said before, autological.
> > Everything you use to conclude that it is true is somewhere in its
> > own content. I would hardly call this something you could know
> > to be objectively true.
>
> No, I have the witness of the Holy Spirit in me, as well as confirmation
> of the world I see around me. But I believe in Jesus Christ through
> faith. "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
> (Romans 10:17) "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he
> who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of
> those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)
>
> It's our choice. Be sure you make the right one.
> --
> Judson McClendon
> Sun Valley Systems judsonmc@ix.netcom.comStick to the Pentateuch, the new testament has nothing to do with the
creation MYTHS that you so desperately and BLINDLY to which you subscribe
.
