Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[Rhabbi]

I bring up christianity because you are christian. You made a statement where you claimed that philosophers have more rigid mind-sets than men of faith.

"I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type."



Which means that you believe that more than half of all people are closed minded biggots. Or put in a more mathematical terms.

L = Level of closed minded biggotry
(L*philosopher)>(L*men of faith) && (L*men of faith)> (all people*L biggotry/all people)= Rhabbi's view of biggotry

So if the most men of faith are closed minded biggots but are:

"Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth."

Please explain how a person of faith adapt to the truth if they at the same time are "closed minded biggots"?

I believe all people are social creatures. We like to share beliefs with people around us. No matter what. It's not a question of being closed minded, it's a question of from which sources of facts we are open to. Nobody is trully closed minded. I think it goes against our primeival instincts. No matter how rigid we are in our beliefs in certain situations, we will never see ourselves as closed minded, because none of us are. It's good that we are selective in where we get our information or our whole heads would also be filled with questionable truths given to us by TV-shoping channels.

At least it explains why a particular religious faith is geographically contained.

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

[anonymouse]

True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, including their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Søren Kierkegaard described this as a 'leap to faith'. He said that for a person to have faith, whether in God or any other intangible, one must simultaneously have doubt in its existence.

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

Søren Kierkegaard described this as a 'leap to faith'. He said that for a person to have faith, whether in God or any other intangible, one must simultaneously have doubt in its existence.

anonymouse

Interesting way of putting it, and it sums it up for me. The people who scare me are the ones that are sure they are right, those are the ones that start little tussles like the inquisition.

[anonymouse]

Interesting way of putting it, and it sums it up for me. The people who scare me are the ones that are sure they are right, those are the ones that start little tussles like the inquisition.

That's the same for me. I rather like Leo Tolstoy's 'Christian anarchy' idea as well. It was actually Tolstoy who inspired Ghandi and his peace movement.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Do humans have free will or not?

[anonymouse]

Do humans have free will or not?

It's a very interesting question, Tom, as it's a cornerstone of democracy. My short answer is 'no' and it's based on something I read many years ago in the (fictional) book by John Ireland, "The Unknown Industrial Prisoner". I don't have it at hand to quote directly but essentially, he remarked, "people aren't even free to be poor. There are vagrancy laws against that."

To digress slightly, the human population is still currently 'free to think' whatever it likes. This freedom is based in language/linguistics. For example, I'm free to invent any language (or words/expressions) I like to give meaning to my thoughts. There is an internal dialogue with myself at play that doesn't need decyphering ('meaning') for an external audience. However, if I want to convey 'meaning' I must resort to a more commonly used language -- whatever language that might be within my own social or whatever confines.

Language, especially a commonly used one such as English, isn't equipped to describe such things as the ritual knowledge inherent in such things as the naming of a ship:

"I Christen thee the Queen Mary!"

Formidable research traditions may try and describe this however, no amount of evidence or observation will dispute the fact that that utterance is, in and of itself, empirical to the truth that the ship has been changed -- not in any physical sense, but in the perception people generally will have of it.

The same can be said of Christian ritual in Catholicism: 'this is the body of Christ'. No amount of of empirical or observational evidence will contradict the fact that this utterance conveys all that is needed insofar as 'truth' (as a perceptual thing) is concerned.

Do I believe it? Is it a 'universal'? Most likely not however, just because the human body is capable of swimming in water, even though there's likely to be all kinds of scientific evidence to say many people can't swim, doesn't negate the truth that humans can swim.

I apologize for not having reference/citations for any of this however, with regards to 'utterances' as a research tool, it's a recent thing that comes out of 'speech theory'. I think it's called 'performative research'.

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

It's a very interesting question, Tom, as it's a cornerstone of democracy. My short answer is 'no' and it's based on something I read many years ago in the (fictional) book by John Ireland, "The Unknown Industrial Prisoner". I don't have it at hand to quote directly but essentially, he remarked, "people aren't even free to be poor. There are vagrancy laws against that."

To digress slightly, the human population is still currently 'free to think' whatever it likes. This freedom is based in language/linguistics. For example, I'm free to invent any language (or words/expressions) I like to give meaning to my thoughts. There is an internal dialogue with myself at play that doesn't need decyphering ('meaning') for an external audience. However, if I want to convey 'meaning' I must resort to a more commonly used language -- whatever language that might be within my own social or whatever confines.

Language, especially a commonly used one such as English, isn't equipped to describe such things as the ritual knowledge inherent in such things as the naming of a ship:

"I Christen thee the Queen Mary!"

Formidable research traditions may try and describe this however, no amount of evidence or observation will dispute the fact that that utterance is, in and of itself, empirical to the truth that the ship has been changed -- not in any physical sense, but in the perception people generally will have of it.

The same can be said of Christian ritual in Catholicism: 'this is the body of Christ'. No amount of of empirical or observational evidence will contradict the fact that this utterance conveys all that is needed insofar as 'truth' (as a perceptual thing) is concerned.

Do I believe it? Is it a 'universal'? Most likely not however, just because the human body is capable of swimming in water, even though there's likely to be all kinds of scientific evidence to say many people can't swim, doesn't negate the truth that humans can swim.

I apologize for not having reference/citations for any of this however, with regards to 'utterances' as a research tool, it's a recent thing that comes out of 'speech theory'. I think it's called 'performative research'.

anonymouse

Actually, the debate about free will goes beyond language. I personally do not have an authorative answer to the question, and will argue either side based on my whim of the moment. From a Christian perspective, I will tell people that if we have free will, then God is not omniscient, nor does predestiantion exist. I have seen so many convoluted arguments and rationalizations that all I can say is, "I don't know."