by AGuest 53 Replies latest jw friends
just in from bethel, Richard Dawkins paints a very saintly pic of scientists and the scientific community in order to draw a contrast with religious fundamentalists.
The checks and balances of science yield facts about our world that encompasses very little compared to the realities a spiritual life yields and touches upon. But I don't think believers should scoff at science as there is a place for science in religious life.
Diehard head in the sand believers are very few and far between.
Exactly how many Kingdom Halls are in your community, Curtains?
Well, your, ummmmm... "invite", dear Nickolas (peace to you!), certainly isn't the first since I've been here. Others have made similar offers over the years; unfortunately, every time he and I "go there" (yeah, it's always a he - the girls just don't seem to care as much, which I totally understand, myself)... I share what I receive. And then... well, 99% of the time... nothing. Not just nothing (i.e., no post, silence, etc.), but when I ask the person, "Well, okay, that was my contribution - are you with me? Are we still in this?"... you know, in order to keep the discussion going... I either get no response at all (even to PMs)... and often experience an actual disappearance from the forum by the counterpart. Or I get, "Huh, what? What post? Oh, you posted something? Well, I didn't see that..." THEN silence on the matter and, usually, again... a quiet fade or other similar disappearance from the board. Certainly from the thread. Even when I've titled a post to them directly.
I think the reason for this is that... for some reason (my Lord knows I don't know why)... they, like perhaps you now, wish to lump me in with a group that I actually have very little in common with. The "religious." A group they believe they "know" and so they're pretty much already prepared for what they will say when the "usual" questions/responses come up. And maybe there are one or two things that we do agree on (i.e. there is a God and depending on the group, Christ)... but very often the "debate", "argument", "discussion" or whathaveyou that such ones EXPECT when making such invitations... rarely turn out to be what they believe they are "prepared" for. Sort of like when folks like you ask questions of JW's as to their beliefs - you know, they're ready for "usual" religious opposers, but not necessarily kind, thoughtful ones... or ones who already know what they know. You know?
BUT... I'm more than willing to listen and learn... so long, mind you, as the invitor is willing to do the same. You know, stay with the discussion for the duration (Note, some even accuse me of leaving the discussion... although they never addressed/responded to my comments. And so, yeah, after awhile I do leave. I mean, absolutely no point in sharing with myself, right? I can do that without even turning on my computer, let along visiting JWN - LOLOLOL! But I think that posts get lost in other threads from time to time and some things are just missed - they need only direct me and I would respond if the matter called for it). But I mean stay until we agree... or at least agree to disagree.
Please keep in mind that I don't know the "rules" of argument, per se, or debate, etc., and certainly not as to the scientific forum, but I will try and keep up. I a might have questions, however, that will help ME better understand what YOU mean and so I would ask that if I do you accommodate me and answer them, to the best of your ability... and I promise to do the same.
So, sure, if you want to discuss evolution... indeed, even teach me about... I say let's do it. I'm not afraid of education, dear one, or science. Because I absolutely believe understanding science is a very important, indeed critical, necessity to the world we live in. I am also unafraid of enlightenment. I have learned, through Christ, that with the True God, there is no reason to fear anything. Because I am in total agreement with science's position that there is an answer/explanation for everything. There is. I just believe it isn't ALL physical and can be learned from another Source, as well.
And since I am the OP, I have no problem with us doing so right here. No need to take up board space with another thread.
Just lemme know. I do have to run a couple/few errands in a bit but if you wish to proceed, then by all means just start and I'll jump in as needed... desired... or warranted. Okay? Okay!
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
Curtains - I've never read Dawkins nor do I have the desire to. I have however, taken numerous undergraduate and graduate level science, math, and history courses. Not once was his name even mentioned in discussing the various anayltical methods employed to discover facts about our life and world. This thread has nothing to do with some prominent athiestic book promoter. By trying to bring him in to the discussion you are creating a classic straw man fallacy. So again - nobody on this thread is trying to make scientists out to be something their not. Your argument falls flat.
The method, the process, however is what is being discussed. The process is simply not used when it comes to examining one's religous beliefs (not by most believers anyway). The OP made it out like a contradiction in the evidence of a new discovery is somehow a bad thing for science. It's not. This is part of the process. The reason that many (I'm not saying all - but yes there are more than a few and far between) religulous don't want to follow a method like this - is because of exactly what may be happening here in this new scientific discovery. Analysis may show that conclusions are incorrect. Science wants that - that's why they have this thing called the 'null hypothesis'. If religions promoted testing for a null hypothesis in their belief system .. well let's face it - the conclusions that many thought they had would turn out incorrect.
Well, NASA has a better track record for being right than Botchtower does.
Well, Shelby old girl, it wasn't exactly an invite. It was a question, vis a vis our earlier discussion about a light coming on in the minds of believers when they're not ready for it, or when they really don't want it at all. No, the question "Do you really want to learn about this stuff" (or something like that, I'm too lazy to go back a page) was simply a question posed for my own benefit. No hidden agenda, no gauntlet thrown down, nothing like that at all. I do not want to be perceived as trying to convince you of something you don't want to know about. If you can believe that God had a hand in the process of evolution, who am I to argue with you? If nothing else, you have just cleared up for me that you don't necessarily buy the Adam and Eve story. I'm very cool with that. I wish I could get my dear wife on that page. So, I will take it that your answer to my question is a simple "yes". Now, if I ask you to prosthelytize to me, then feel free. But I'm not asking. Thanks.
Thanks for starting the thread.
The OP made it out like a contradiction in the evidence of a new discovery is somehow a bad thing for science
This is a problem with discussion boards. I am sorry that you took it that way, dear JIFB (peace to you!), but that wasn't my purpose or intent at all. My purpose wasn't to make it out like anything "bad" for science, but only to show that science, just like religion... cannot always be trusted. Mistakes are made in science, just like in religion. True, more are made in religion, IMHO...
And so, personally, I don't think science is worse than religion - indeed, from what I know now, I would put my faith in science LONG before I put it in religion. But... I put it in Christ, even before science. Not in religion... in Christ. Which is not the same thing at all.
Truly, I'm not the "animal" you think I am.
Peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Curtains - I've never read Dawkins nor do I have the desire to. I have however, taken numerous undergraduate and graduate level science, math, and history courses. Not once was his name even mentioned in discussing the various anayltical methods employed to discover facts about our life and world. This thread has nothing to do with some prominent athiestic book promoter. By trying to bring him in to the discussion you are creating a classic straw man fallacy. So again - nobody on this thread is trying to make scientists out to be something their not. Your argument falls flat.
Mea culpa, jnfb, 'twas I who introduced Dawkins to the thread. It was a simple quote, however, not a strawman. In some ways I find Dawkins insufferable - he appears almost to be an apologist for pedophiles and I really have a hard time with his close to contradictory stance on abortion - but you shouldn't discount his brand of rational thinking. One of the great benefits of being free to form one's own conclusions is the ability to read whatever he (or she) wants without fear of being swayed against one's will. The better read of this particular ilk, however, is Hitchens, but in his case you need to get past his apparent arrogance.
I absolutely buy the Adam and Eve story, dear Nick (peace!). What did I post to make you think contrary? And leave your dear wife alone - I'm sure putting up with you requires a whole LOT of faith... in all manner of things - LOLOLOLOLOL! Oh, oops... gotta go!!
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
The OP made it out like a contradiction in the evidence of a new discovery is somehow a bad thing for science
My fault, again. I kind of tipped the conversation in that direction with my original post, which was right after the OP. Sorry about that, Shelb. Taking flak on my account. Tsk.
