>On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 05:57:52 -0700 "Glenn Morton"
>> Hi David, Happy 4th to you all. I gotta go to work today. Strangely,
>> don't celebrate the 4th over here.
>Just why do you think that the Old Country (you're in a neighbor that
>kinda got swallowed) would celebrate the Colonial Fourth? I won't mention
>that, while the colonials borrowed much, they led their elders into
Burgy is correct, irony doesn't come across on the net without specific
markings. Michael understood. According to one friend, he thinks they
should celebrate the 4th because they got rid of us worthless colonials!
>> It is this wide range of claims in philosophy which made me decide
>> philosophy wasn't for me. There is no grounding of truth, just
>> followed by logical consistency. Now, you are correct that science
>> has the
>> advantage of having a judge for the divergent claims--observation
>> and no
>> such mechanism applies to theology. And that is in large part my
>> point. The
>> only way we have to judge the theological claims which come into our
>> or come to us in a vision is by the means of science. Look at all
>> divergent, mutually exclusive religious claims today. All claim to
>> be the
>> word of some god. How does one go about the job of determining
>> theology is the true theology? We simply can't decide that the
>> claims of our parents are correct because all the adherents of the
>> religions have parents who told them that their religion was the
>> one. Simply put, without some attachment to scientific observation,
>> veracity of religious claims are as adrift from verification as are
>> claims of Locke Berkely, Spinoza, Ficte, etc. And that turns
>> theology into
>> a game of what claims do I like the best rather than what claims are
>> In short, if God did what you say, he left us with no way to
>> determine the
>I'm afraid you've forgotten what you should have learned in philosophy,
>that there is NO scientific support for science, that science is totally
>based on some assumptions which may be considered by philosophy.
I swear someone must be rewriting what I send out. Where did I use the
phrase 'sceintific support for science'? I simply said the obvious that
science has a means of deciding between two alternatives--observation,
theology and philosophy don't. RE-read what I said above. Or are you saying
that is wrong? I don't think I said what you say I did, not at all. And I
haven't forgotten as much as you seem to imply.
>also forgotten that the earliest basis for the secularization of the
>study of nature is found in the Hebrew scriptures? But that does not mean
>that they were teaching science nor based on science. I commend to you
>Hebrews 11:6, which emphasizes that any human connection to the deity is
>based on faith. This can have no basis in science.
May I point you to an earlier instance, where Jesus offered to Thomas the
chance to OBSERVE (i.e. use scientific observation) to verify that Jesus had
been dead, that the events had been real. That DOES have a basis in the
scientific method. If one can't use science/observation to verify claims,
why was it considered worthwhile to stick fingers into the wound???? What
difference would that have made had science/observation been irrelevant to
Further, if you have
>to know, you have to be other than human, for the only thing you know
>indubitably is your own existence while you have experience, and you
>cannot demonstrate that irrefutably to anyone else.
I see you are a Cartesian!
Human beings are
>finite, almost totally limited in true knowledge, though boasting great
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
>From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:19 PM
>Cc: PASAlist@aol.com; email@example.com
>Subject: Re: sciDocument.rtf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 01:44:58 EDT