lol, amusing article. That's the problem with "creation science". It's an a priori assumption that looks for facts to fit that assumption. Now that the methodology has lead to facts that don't agree with the assumption they have to either say that the methodology was wrong, or just re-interpret the data in some way to fit what they already believe. It's hard to call that science. It's irrelevant though, because 99.9% of those that believe in creation myths don't do so because they are science majors, they do it because it's culturally relevant for them. So these findings will only matter to a very very small group of creationists.
JonathanH
JoinedPosts by JonathanH
-
7
BBC Blog: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
by mummatron inan interesting and informative read, covering some recent research.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml.
-
-
-
81
Belief in God: What were the difficult aspects and questions you had.
by designs intwo main one's for me were god being capricious and serendipitous..
-
-
JonathanH
Can you have free will without suffering? Sure, just get rid of the parts of the brain that register suffering. That was one of the things that got me when I was thinking critically about a theistic god. If god created man, he created him purposefully to suffer if we disobey him. Our mental states are not just some axiom of the universe. Anger is biological, pain is biological, suffering is biological. During the very ugly mid period of psychology a doctor went around performing frontal lobe lobotomies on people through their nose. When it "worked" the result was bizarre and disturbing. The people were still able to function normally, lead regular lives, but their emotional state was different. It was a bit more muted, they said they didn't really feel angry anymore, or hatred. They just felt comfortably content. And went on with their lives (of course most of the victims of this insanity were not success stories).
Our emotions, even the negative ones are a result of our neuro biology. Certain regions of the brain operate in such a way to create the feeling of anger, or hatred, or sadness, or suffering. Which meant that god would've had to have made humans with the capacity to hate each other, even though he did not intend for them to do so. It was a time bomb planted in humanity that if anyone should disobey they would suffer for it. Suffering is not a pre-requisite for free will to exist. But if there was a god, he made suffering a pre-requisite to use free will. We could've just not had the capacity for those things and have been comfortably content, not harbering anger or animosity for others. What would society have looked like after thousands of years if we just didn't have the capacity for hatred?
Or is there some theological mumbo jumbo answer to say why we must have the capacity hatred, and how that is necessary for us, and god was gracious for programming us to hate?
-
6
Evil WT: A Catalyst for Real Spiritual Growth
by cameo-d incould it be that the reason for all lies, deception and evil in the world is actually part of a grand design to act as a catalyst for our spiritual development?.
could it be that it is necessary to know evil in order to appreciate the beauty of goodness and peace?.
could it be that those who knowingly participate in evil for their own gain will receive a punishment for it, while others who are victims of the evil will grow closer to spiritual perfection if they mature through it and triumph over it?.
-
-
JonathanH
Now that you have a question cameo-d you must think of exactly what you're asserting, what is the opposite of your assertion, and how you can determine which is correct. If you want an actual answer rather than a fuzzy "maybe", then you must make your exploration as concrete as possible.
Is evil required for spiritual growth?
What is defined as "evil" and what is defined as "spiritual growth"?
What are observances of "spiritual growth" in the face of "evil"?
Are there any examples of "spiritual growth" in the absence of "evil"?
Are there any opportunities for "spiritual growth" without the presence of "evil"?
Is there a consistent correlation between experiencing "evil" and experiencing "spiritual growth"? If so is the correlation consistently positive, or consistenly negative? Is there any kind of exponential curve to the correlation, or diminishing returns?
Find a means of defining "evil" and "spiritual growth", then find a reliable means of quantifying your terms, then seek as many random case studies under specific conditions to test your hypothesis, and generate a statistical model.
You must start asking concrete questions and attempting to find a means of falsifying the premise, and then attempting to do so. Anything "could be", but the real question is "is it really?"
Happy hunting.
-
49
More on Saturday's drama: Endo-symbiotic theory mentioned not once but twice
by sir82 ini don't want to give a full synopsis of saturday's drama, for fear of inducing stupor among this thread's readers, but.... .
the drama deals with a jw family with 3 kids, 2 of whom are in various stages of rebellion against all things jw.. the older brother is one of the "rebels", while the younger brother is a thoroughly annoying piece of brown-nosing crapola, completely buying into the jw mindset.. anyways, the younger brother is asking the older brother about why he doesn't want to attend the family study any more.. the older kid's rambling answer touches on something along the lines of "i'm learning things in school about how life really came here.
it's not as simple as you think!".
-
-
JonathanH
Great post NewChapter. That's a very true insight into the psychology of the witness brain. I remember being bullet proof when I was thirteen or so. I had just been reading the "life how did it get here" book, and a couple of times back then I got into arguments about evolution online, and got my ass handed to me. I still thought I won, and they just didn't get it. Eventually I did decide that, thanks to satan's cleverness, it was a logically sound theory, but ultimately still incorrect. It's funny what a tiny drop of knowledge can do when you're told that it's really an ocean.
-
27
"Philosophy is disfunctional" - Hallq
by bohm inphilosophy is disfunctional.
http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/07/05/philosophy-is-dysfunctiona/.
im now convinced that, as an academic discipline, philosophy is dysfunctional.
-
-
JonathanH
It was in another topic, and I THINK (I would need to double check, so I just won't assert it) that it was you Nadia that posted that science can talk about the universe but what came before the universe science can't answer and it is best left to philosophers and theologians to figure that out. If that wasn't you my apologies, I'm not bringing it up because you posted it, but because it is relevant to the point I'm making. Now I would ask of that statement "Why should philosophers and theologians be consulted on what existed before our universe?" We might as well ask a baker or a pilot. They are all going to do the same thing, namely make blind unfalsifiable assertions that make sense to them personally. The only real difference is that the philosopher and theologian will be much more obscure in their language. It makes me think of antony flew's article on theology and falsification, let me see if I can find a link to it....
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/theologyandfalsification.html
In order for an assertion to be deemed true or false, it must have something to check it against, anything that it is checked against is going to fall into the realm of empirical materialism. If there is nothing to check it against, then the statement cannot be said to be true or false.
-
27
"Philosophy is disfunctional" - Hallq
by bohm inphilosophy is disfunctional.
http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/07/05/philosophy-is-dysfunctiona/.
im now convinced that, as an academic discipline, philosophy is dysfunctional.
-
-
JonathanH
Case in point.
Materialism is the pragmatic view. Anything else is imagination. If something interacts with our universe, it is natural and describable, quantifiable and ultimately explainable by science, because it is natural. If psychic forces, or gods were discovered, they would be natural and materialistic for the very reason that they exist with or interact with our universe. We may not at present have the means to describe it, but if it has something to do with empirical reality, it is in the realm of science. If it does not interact with our universe then it cannot be demonstrated to exist, only asserted or assumed. That is the problem with non materialist views, there is no means of demonstrating one is more correct than the other, or that they are in anyway correct at all. As such any claim becomes equally valid as long as it isn't self contradictory (and in some philosophical circles, that isn't even a criteria for it being incorrect).
The only thing that I think isn't in the realm of science are things that are human constructs such as art. But it's because they are by nature subjective to taste, and experience, preference and as such there is neither a correct or incorrect for it. There is no "truth" to be had. Gravity is not a preference. Existentialism cannot be said to be "true" or "false" because it is a human construct of what it means to exist.
Scientist are still waiting for some one to demonstrate that materialism is false, or that there are other paths to understanding the universe other than logical positivism and science. To claim that something is true is to say that it is real, and any claim of something being real (that is to say exists) requires some demonstrable evidence and evidence comes in the form of logical positivism, materialism and science. If you cannot offer evidence of something, then you cannot say it is real or that it exists, it is just assertions of one's imagination. So we merely have the assertion that materialism is false without evidence that it is. If somebody wants to go down the road of epistimological nihilism and assert that we can't really know anything in order to destroy materialism, let them. And then ask them if they want some antibiotics next time they are ill. Science FTW!
-
27
"Philosophy is disfunctional" - Hallq
by bohm inphilosophy is disfunctional.
http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/07/05/philosophy-is-dysfunctiona/.
im now convinced that, as an academic discipline, philosophy is dysfunctional.
-
-
JonathanH
I think this is only a problem if you consider philosophy to be a path to truth. It's not. Philosophy is an excercise in reasoning, rhetoric, and logic. Science reveals solid truths about our universe and has an actual end, and a methodology to reach that end. Philosophy is an exercise with no real goal other than fitness. The ancient greeks had a different definition of philosophy that terry pointed out above, it was just the love of wisdom. Science, religion, ethics, law, math, rhetoric, politics, it was all under the umbrella of philosophy. But civilization grew up and science became the arbiter of truth, math was it's torch, laws and ethics were left to shape society and politics, and the vague notion of philosophy is now just pure logics without an end. A great academic excercise, it's a necessary tool in developing ethics and law, and great for sharpening one's critical reasoning, but it has no end unto itself.
The real problem is when philosophy elevates itself to the realm of science. This is frequently called theology, but it has other avenues as well. The problem is when the assumption is made that our understanding of the universe can be moved by pure reason isolated from logical positivism, or the assertion is made that science is just a philosophy. To which the only decent reply is "show me a philosophy that cures disease, or a theology that gives positive information about the universe". Philosophy is an interesting intellectual excercise, but science get's shit done. So as long as that is understood and no one is expecting or claiming that philosophy is TCB'n (Takin' Care Of Business) then it doesn't matter if they can agree on the color of the sky or not. It's a rhetorical excercise. Not everything is science.
-
81
Belief in God: What were the difficult aspects and questions you had.
by designs intwo main one's for me were god being capricious and serendipitous..
-
-
JonathanH
A couple of corrections. Agnosticism isn't the belief that god might or might not exist and you have yet to figure it out, it is the position that it is fundementally impossible to know if there is a god or not. Atheism is the position that it is possible to know if there is a god, and there is no evidence pointing to the existence of one. Theism is the belief that we can know there is a god, and we do know because he interacts with his creation. Deism is the belief that we can know there is a god, there is evidence that he exists, but he does not intervene with nature.
As such, an atheist doesn't argue with arguments for god because of fear of change, but rather because of the desire to be accurate. If somebody says "The sun rotates around the earth" my correcting the person would not be a result of my being afraid to accept change, but rather upholding the logical positivism that demonstrates to the contrary.
Also atheism is not a positive conclusion, rather it is a nuetral stance (Unlike agnosticism which is a positive conclusion, namely that it is impossible to know whether or not any gods exist). I do not believe in leprechauns but it is not because of my exhaustive research on leprechauns, it is because there has been no compelling evidence to suggest that leprechauns exist. As such the atheist position is not "God does not exist" it is "There is no compelling evidence to suggest that gods exist". A subtle but important difference.
-
81
Why I didnt left JW an dont plan to do so
by Lazarus in[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:hyphenationzone>21</w:hyphenationzone> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>de</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"normale tabelle"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif].
in another thread i wrote: i didn't left the jw's and don't plan to do so.
-
-
JonathanH
I couldn't stay if I wanted to. You may be able to live a lie, but I couldn't sit in a meeting talking about how gays need to be killed in order for us to be happy, or how wise and just it was for an omnipotent god to use human armies to commit mass genocide, or how only witnesses are capable of truly knowing love, or any of the other insane drivel they spouted. If you are capable of turning your brain off during meetings, assemblies and witness conversations, in order to keep your family, then that is your perogative. I can't spend most of my life with my brain shut off so that I can tolerate their overt hostility towards the world, and abject willed ignorance.
I didn't leave the organization because I hated the WT, I left because I loved Truth. And I would definitely not be better off if I was in the inside. I've never been happier now that I'm free, I'm about to start college for Electrical Engineering (or maybe biochemistry, I haven't decided yet), I am not constantly living with guilt, fear, or the frustration that comes from being in their ranks. It's not the same for everyone, but for most truth sets them free.
-
4
This is religious experience. This is the supernatural caught on video.
by JonathanH inone of the most oft uttered phrases from people who have experienced demons, angels, jesus, ufos, bigfoot, ect is that we weren't there.
they know what they saw, they know what they experienced, and if we had been there we would understand.
as time has gone by our ability to "be there", to see what others have seen has grown exponentially.
-
-
JonathanH
This actually has led me to a new method of getting rid of demons. If you're house is being haunted, don't start burning books or looking for demonic items, or changing your religion. Just grab a videocamera. Nothing makes a demon disappear faster than having a videocamera handy. Forget crosses, holy water and bibles, demons hate hate hate videocameras.