User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 125

  1. #11
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    I mean even if you believe that God is guiding evolution or whatever, you shouldn't put it in school. The only class that's allowed to claim that everything happens for a purpose is literature classes.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  2. #12
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Is the acceptance of Darwinistic evolution contrary to Christian principles?

    It'd be interesting to hear from Christians on this matter.

  3. #13
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    I have two books on ID. IMO it's either Creationism or Evolution. I'm with the latter.
    *You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
    *Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
    C.S. Lewis

  4. #14
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    I mean even if you believe that God is guiding evolution or whatever, you shouldn't put it in school.
    You can't blame them for trying, though. The theory of evolution, and science at large, is just adding the increasingly popular trend of secularization. Religion is losing its position of authority because of it.

  5. #15
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    A past example would be Copernicus, who mentioned that the sun rather then the earth is the centre of the solar system. The catholic church denied this theory at first but when it became painfully apparent that the catholic church was wrong they adapted their ideas and suddenly said that the earth was the 'spiritual' rather then the physical centre of the universe. They changed their wrong dogma, into a new dogma.
    You're wrong. Copernicus' work was not condemned by the Church as long as it was taught as theory. In fact he dedicated one of his first editions to Pope Leo X. Galileo also received official support from the pope(who was also a personal friend) for his scientific studies. And the Earth being the centre of the universe was never a Church "dogma", but was the common argument of astronomical theories of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    I mean even if you believe that God is guiding evolution or whatever, you shouldn't put it in school. The only class that's allowed to claim that everything happens for a purpose is literature classes.
    No actually that's philosophy. The notion that there's some kind of purpose or design to the cosmos is literally consistent with the whole of Western philosophical tradition.

  6. #16
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    No actually that's philosophy. The notion that there's some kind of purpose or design to the cosmos is literally consistent with the whole of Western philosophical tradition.
    I'm more referencing that Literature teachers insist that there's a purpose to every single little word a writer writes, you just have to find it. So yes, it's similar to philosophy, except philosophy is looking for that in everything, not just writing.

    But pretty much every other subject, in the way it's taught, teaches that order is king and you're lucky to have found it at all in all that entropy and to ask "why" in the philosophical sense is being ungrateful to the almighty Order because the Order is not going to tell you. We don't say there's a God-given purpose to the direction an electron spins or the derivative of a certain function or to certain grammatical rules. They just are and you're supposed to be satisfied with that, and what you believe philosophically is your belief alone. Why should what we know of how animals and plants came to be the way they are now differ from the order of current teaching?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  7. #17
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    I'm more referencing that Literature teachers insist that there's a purpose to every single little word a writer writes, you just have to find it. So yes, it's similar to philosophy, except philosophy is looking for that in everything, not just writing.

    But pretty much every other subject, in the way it's taught, teaches that order is king and you're lucky to have found it at all in all that entropy and to ask "why" in the philosophical sense is being ungrateful to the almighty Order because the Order is not going to tell you. We don't say there's a God-given purpose to the direction an electron spins or the derivative of a certain function or to certain grammatical rules. They just are and you're supposed to be satisfied with that, and what you believe philosophically is your belief alone. Why should what we know of how animals and plants came to be the way they are now differ from the order of current teaching?
    Philosophy is basically an attempt to move beyond mere opinion to a more generalized truth. And philosophy or theory is the key to interpreting the facts concerning the origins of life(or anything for that matter). Theory is the form, while facts are the content so to speak. It actually maybe of interest to know that in terms of cosmological theories, there's not much new under the Sun really. For example, the Big Bang can be said to be an example of Stoic metaphysics.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    So, what are your thoughts, Peguy?

    The Catholic church, when under the wisdom of Pope John Paul II, embraced evolution as "more than mere hypothesis" in 1996.

    How this applies to the layman remain to be seen; yet, papal identity has accepted evolution - and not Creationism - as the relevant architecture for our biological heritage.
    I think you may be misinterpreting Peguy. I think he fully believes in evolution. He's merely saying that ID has legitimacy beyond and despite the fact that it has been co-opted by fundamentalists in an effort to force religion into schools. It's an interesting philosophy, and one that I've always found to have merit. It's a shame that it's been sullied by its association with extremists, because now rational thinking people feel compelled to dismiss it out of hand.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  9. #19
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Intelligent design is barely even a philosophical idea, much less a scientific one. It has trouble qualifying as a philosophical idea because all it does is make note of the fact that the universe appears orderly to most of us. It's nearly as mundane an observation as the fact that the sun travels across the sky every day. For this same reason--the fact that it simply makes note of a basic property of reality--we can never test intelligent design; any experiment's outcome would at the very least be consistent with there being order in reality.

    Nor is there any reason to test intelligent design to begin with, since it's quite obvious, if you think about it, what order springs from. Compare the simplicity of the world as it appeared to you while a small child with the complexity of the world now that you've spent many years in it. The universe became more orderly, and the only thing that changed was your habits thought. How precisely your habits of thought changed was through a process of learning--that is, picking up experience and carrying it along with you like a bundle. With that experience in hand, it became possible to make comparisons between the present and the past, and then to store these comparisons away in the form of abstractions, which not only allow you a sense of the future but are also the source of the order through which you view reality. To the extent that such stored abstractions are absent, reality lacks order. So if for the sake of illustration we imagine a reality without consciousness, that reality would exist in a state of pure chaos. Which is to say that order is completely "subjective," in the sense that it depends on a human mind and not a creator created by that human mind.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  10. #20
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I think you may be misinterpreting Peguy. I think he fully believes in evolution. He's merely saying that ID has legitimacy beyond and despite the fact that it has been co-opted by fundamentalists in an effort to force religion into schools. It's an interesting philosophy, and one that I've always found to have merit. It's a shame that it's been sullied by its association with extremists, because now rational thinking people feel compelled to dismiss it out of hand.
    I remember from an earlier discussion that Peguy was a proponent of Darwinian-esque evolution.

    I was just hoping he'd elaborate further on his stance for this particular thread as, at that point, he hadn't much weighed in.

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism
    By Anentropic IxTx in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 11-10-2013, 11:56 PM
  2. Dennis Quaid's take on Doc Holliday vs. Val Kilmer's
    By DoctorCroupy#9 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2013, 08:18 PM
  3. [E9] Eights, What's Your Take On This?
    By bechimo in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 02:24 AM
  4. A new/old take on temperament theory: Has anyone heard of this?
    By Bethy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 09:17 PM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO