by KateWild 96 Replies latest jw friends
DD - I don't know if you were inspired to write that because of my previous post. I can't see anything arrogant or patronising about it, can you?
I'm really enjoy teaching if somebody wants to learn. I don't mind how long it takes, I am very patient. If they don't want to learn that's fine too. Either way, popularity isn't high on my list of priorities.
If my style stops somebody learning that's ok. There are plenty others here explaining similar things in their own way too.
Kate said- I will read all of Max Jammer's book. I will try and read it without any bias. But I am bias as we all are. So it is likely Mr Jammer will confirm my bias. You read it too Adam and we can compare notes. What do you think?
Well, the goal is to try to reduce (or eliminate) as much bias as possible, but it's safer just to assume it's always present, and seek the opinions of others to make sure we're not carried away by our biases.
I've read MANY books on Einstein, including his views on religion and God, back in the 1970's (including the book Einstein penned in 1949, "The World As I See it", which contained a reprinting of the article published in the NY Times in the 1930 in the link). So I'm actually pretty comfortable with my grasp of Einstein's expressed views on the subject.
TT2C said: Additionaly, why does it matter what Einstein believed or not? Speculating on his personal belief's in god to support your own belief system is a logical fallicy - an appeal to authority. In a way, It's this same fallacy, that got us all stuck in a cult.
True, since the believer's often resort to an implicit argument of fear of Hell: do it cuz' God says so. It's the most flagrant and onerous fallacy there is: an appeal to Divine Authority.
Regardless, an 'appeal to authority' triggers an automatic 'yellow flag' to check out the credentials of the cited authority to see if they're credible or not (and that's a bit tricky to do with God, and what makes it an invalid argument, since the believer is unable to prove God's existence, much less verify his credibility as an 'expert').
TT2C said: If you want to believe in god, your free to do that, if you want to defend god, it should be based on logic, facts, or personal experience and observervations, not based on whether or not someone else of stature believed or not.
However, Einstein is famous as a genius and physicist: his beliefs are given some weight as an authority as a result of studying the Universe. If you think of it, the opinions of Einstein and other men of science actually carries more authority on the subject of God's existence than religious leaders (eg the Pope, the GB, etc), since the leaders might have somewhat more of a conflict of interest? Maybe?
Frankly, I think those in the physical sciences (like physicists) are generally offered less exposure to studying creation in the same light possible as for those in the life sciences (like biologists), since physicists study matter, and not living matter. You really have to get into the biochemistry and taxonomy of lifeforms in order to see why evolution makes sense on so many levels, and is the unifying theory of biology that the physicists are still searching for in their field.
But yeah, it's good to remember that knowledge constantly changes and expands, and there's more reasons for professing belief than meets the eye (eg Einstein may have been trying to flatter that violinist after seeing they were wearing a cross, etc).
Is this all belivers?
Kate xx
No, just as one cannot say "All atheists..." which I heard a lot as a JW. Having been an atheist before becoming a JW, I knew differently. Now the world is chock full of believers of one stripe or another and then a myriad others, so one cannot shove 6 billion people (assuming these believe in anything from African tribal beliefs to Feng Shui to Hinduism to Islam to Christianity to Astrology and crystal healing to daoism to Jedi Force) into one mold anymore than you can say they all believe the same thing.
I find that kind of thinking typical of the JW mindset- the WT uses sweeping generalisations by saying that all "Christendom" is corrupt, all atheists don't want to believe because they don't want to be accountable to Jehovah and that all "worldly" people are hedonistic, immoral, greedy, materialist myopic Satan worshippers. So we leave JWs, and then apply the same sweeping generalisations to "all" believers or "all" atheists. It's a hard mindset to break.
It's a hard mindset to break.-Julia
That's an honest evaluation, if we know this we can be more patient with family and friends learning TTATT and newbies on the forum. Good point Julia. But then we have to care for our own health too when we feel like we are going round in circles getting dizzy. Lol!
Kate xx
I guess it's about knowing when to pick your battles.
"let's investigate how replicating molecules evolved" - cofty
I have, this goes back to abiogenesis, and the formation of enantiomers. In nature the L-enantiomer is mainly present. In the lab a racemic mixture is formed.
Cofty, Please explain why this is?
I have investigated it myself and found no reasonable conclusion. cantleave has posted a thread on it as well. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/262541/1/Abiogenesis-moving-on-from-the-Urey-Miller-Experiment#.UpcJ28RdW8A
Homochiralty in nature occurs, this is a fact. Humans in the lab when investingating how replicating molocules evolved, can only form racemic mixtures, unless they tamper deliberatley with the process.
I read a university paper. Glass beads induced the formation of homochiral molecules. The inducing of the L/D - enantiomer could be chosen by the scientist. Who represents the scientist conducting the experiment?
I am not filing in gaps, I am searching for evidence and found a gap in scientific understanding. I always believed in God, this confirms my bias, yes I am bias, as we all are cofty.
Kate xx
So I'm actually pretty comfortable with my grasp of Einstein's expressed views on the subject.-Adam
Me too, we just grasp his views differently. You confirm your bias, and I confirm mine Kate xx
Atheism is a belief. To say it is not is an attempt at obfuscation by turning the discussion into word games.-Oub
I agree love Kate xx
should be based on logic, facts, or personal experience and observervations, not based on whether or not someone else of stature believed or not.-TT2C
I have expressed my experience and observations on this thread now, in post number 924.
Love Kate xx
Just popped in to say glad to see this thread has still got legs. Keep it civil folks, sometimes we come across on the page here in a way that we did not intend, and maybe we read something in to what a person has written that is not there.
One difficult argument for god that was given to me by a client of mine was "How do you explain all the love in the world?", now I know there is a lot of evil too, and so did he, but just concentrating on the question, it is not easy to explain in Evolutionary terms, in a way that will satisfy biased Kate. LOL
Romantic love is particularly strange isn't it ? usually cured by marriage LOL
Got to pop out again, like the cat from the crypt, but can you settle the Intelligent Design question by the time I get back please ? (The cat chuckles as he creeps out of the Crypt).
