jan used a famous scientist to garner misleading support for creation, quoting rama singh as saying "the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.
2015 jan p.3) whilst the quote is accurate, it misrepresents singh's intention.
singh continues in the same paragraph, "there are several reasons why facts of evolution are not easily comprehensible by the general masses.
There is not such thing in America like the french "droit de réponse"?
It would be quite funny!
In fact the "droit de réponse" (can be translated by "answering right" in english)is a legal right for each incriminated person. In that particular case, on a France-based media, they (the publisher of Awake) will be in obligation to reproduce integrally this letter in the next Awake.
Would be funny.
In some things, yes. In another, no.
I became more tolérant with people, because, clearly I understand perfectly what's to be lost in a seducing ideology
But I became extremely intolerant at all kind of ideology, religious, political or economical.
But Is that really immoral?
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
A religious believer says we just have to believe that God knows what he's talking about.
No, only monotheist believers. And only those who believe at a personal God among them.
A scientific believer says we just have to trust that empirical methods deliver answers corresponding to the world in itself.
No! Not a single scientific will say "I am empirist"....
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
How can you prove that humans are capable of asking and answering questions about the world in itself that make more sense than the dog who asks how the cupboard produces food?
but the question of the cupboard making food makes sense...
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
Science assumes human rationality is the measure of everything
NO
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
In other words what if the question itself betrays a misunderstanding of reality so fundamental that we cannot even begin to understand how the question distorts the world in itself that it seeks to explain?
The first question, distort or not, doesn't have importance. The important is how you handle the question :
* Like religious people, you stay on this first question, rejecting all facts discordant
* Like scientific people, you can change the question according to the new facts...
What is important is not really from where you start, but where you go!
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
Take a dog as a counter example. It sees food emerge from the cupboard every day. It may wonder to itself, "how does the cupboard make food?"
From our perspective that question betrays a basic misunderstanding of the reality of the situation, and no matter how hard the dog tries to answer the question he's not going to arrive at what a realist would call an "objective" answer to the question as framed. It's the wrong question to start with.
I don't agree. This question is pertinent. It's not the wrong question to start with, but the wrong question to finish with!
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
the basic assumption that humans are mentally equipped to ask and answer questions about the nature of reality in a way that accurately reflects the world in itself
No. At contrary, the scientific method is a tool useful, specially because we can't trust our mental or our reason. They are not sufficient. That's why you need proofs...
1. A religion can't never be "of peace". That's a lie! By definition a religion (except if it's unique, what's not the case), link peoples. Then, like all link, it separates. By essence, a religion is something whe separate, divide people. Then, by essence it can't be "of peace".
2. There is no official authority in Islam. Ajem Choudrey say something, but he have no official authority. It's bullshit... Nobody in france know him, by example...
