tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post1876812720875580231..comments2024-03-28T00:17:55.823+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Is the Christian evolutionist an oxymoron?Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-41255385698089897572012-10-28T20:46:04.709+00:002012-10-28T20:46:04.709+00:00"One of the problems with this whole area is ...<i>"One of the problems with this whole area is that the assumptions are buried under a vast pile of research and discussion from 150 years. "</i><br /><br />I fully agree. The sad thing is, for whatever reason, most people seem to lack the effort and/or ability to differentiate between the assumptions and the conclusions drawn from them. I think many end up "intimidated into" believing the conclusions without challenging the assumptions. I use scare quotes not because I'm implying conspiracy, but because the intimidation is intellectual, not to mention self-imposed. Paraphrasing the thought process of the sheepish individual, we get something like, "Well geez, these scientists know a lot more than me, so... I should probably listen to what they're saying."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-27889360592287079262012-10-14T06:34:40.963+01:002012-10-14T06:34:40.963+01:00@cl - That's a good analysis; thanks for takin...@cl - That's a good analysis; thanks for taking the time to put it down.<br /><br />One of the problems with this whole area is that the assumptions are buried under a vast pile of research and discussion from 150 years. <br /><br />My response to a lot of the filed is something like - IF your assumptions were certainly correct THEN what you say is a (more or less) ingenious and interesting way of explaining things. <br /><br />But the really insidious things, and I have felt this myself, is when NS is applied to humans and the process starts out by trying to explain humans as we find them; but ends up simplifying the definition of humans (to make the task easier); then goes back and argues that NS has *proven* that humans are indeed creatures with this simplified definition. <br /><br />SO we are then asked to accept that a simplified explanatory model of a simplified creature bearing some (but not much) resemblance to Man is *necessarily* an adequate, sufficient description of the the human condition. <br /><br />This is precisely the situation we are in. Once the trick has been achieved, then people get trapped inside this circle of logic, and find it very difficult to become Christians - fin it very difficult *not* to fall into nihilistic despair (hence the organization of modernity as a vast system of distraction). Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-1304350270562906912012-10-13T23:09:18.106+01:002012-10-13T23:09:18.106+01:00Hi Bruce.
A reader of mine turned me on to this p...Hi Bruce.<br /><br />A reader of mine turned me on to this post, and asked what I thought about it. So I wrote up my feelings. Here's the <a href="http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/2012/10/13/the-atheists-built-in-assumption/" rel="nofollow">link</a> in case you're interested.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-48189209759568318822012-10-13T13:51:28.795+01:002012-10-13T13:51:28.795+01:00I thought so. I was heading toward my office copi...I thought so. I was heading toward my office copier when I figured it would be polite to ask first. Some bloggers don't like publicity.joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-52021704467246950542012-10-12T20:51:21.839+01:002012-10-12T20:51:21.839+01:00@josh - that's what these things are for...@josh - that's what these things are for...Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-61560761350822819772012-10-12T20:28:13.050+01:002012-10-12T20:28:13.050+01:00Christianity, like most religions, sets out to exp...Christianity, like most religions, sets out to explain life. <br />Science does the same thing. <br />Both limit themselves by attempting to explain what is unexplainable, and has no need to be explained. <br />For humanity to go on to the long-awaited (and prophesied) next stage, it is necessary to accept the idea that nothing needs to be explained, unless it specifically does. <br />Mystery being an active phenomenon as much as radiation is. <br />Reality is one's own experience of it, as opposed to one's own explanation of it. <br />The way to understanding is to realize that understanding is not necessary. <br />God is. It is. Life is. I am. You are. <br />Explain it further, and the explanation becomes the god, rather than explaining God. <br /> The Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323413604073160469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-15883838727441565892012-10-12T15:25:15.965+01:002012-10-12T15:25:15.965+01:00Would you have a problem if I shared this post wit...Would you have a problem if I shared this post with my Rite of Adult Initiation class? I found it very helpful.joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-81177992379810778662012-10-12T11:36:50.057+01:002012-10-12T11:36:50.057+01:00Fewtril No. 57012:
"A method has been turned...Fewtril No. 57012:<br /><br />"A method has been turned into a metaphysics."Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-30056240551195239312012-10-12T11:11:52.641+01:002012-10-12T11:11:52.641+01:00@TR - Thank you.
One problem of debate in this ar...@TR - Thank you.<br /><br />One problem of debate in this area is that anti-evolutionists (whether they are secular Leftists who oppose studying adaptation in humans, or Religious opponents to the field of speciation) is that their criticisms of evolutionary theory are over-inclusive, and would (if applied consistently) reject almost all of science. <br /><br />For example, to criticise evolutionary theory because it is historical in focus and does not have proper experiments (of the primary phenomena being studied) also rejects most of astronomy.<br /><br />Or to criticize the study of human psychological adaptations as being intrinsically racist is also to reject most of animal behaviour science, and also studies of human physical adaptations such as resistance to disease. <br /><br />This also leads to a weird and arbitrary separation of mind from body which contradicts the evidence of common sense and personal experience, as well as vast amounts of science.<br /><br />Indeed, to say that the differences in form, structure, or appearance of entities such sexes, races and different ages is *assumed* to be uncorrelated with psychology and behaviour is to fly in the face of virtually everything which could count as evidence.<br /><br />Things that *look* significantly and identifiably different almost-always-are different in their behaviour, motivations, aptitudes etc.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-49865066282518185042012-10-12T11:05:01.221+01:002012-10-12T11:05:01.221+01:00“Scientists animated by the purpose of proving tha...“Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.” <a href="http://dwgleanings.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/successful-method-to-blindness.html" rel="nofollow"> Alfred North Whitehead</a>. <br /><br />Amongst past generations of scientists, there were many who were aware of the abstract sparseness and extrinsicality of scientific knowledge, who did not mistake science for the whole of reality, and who did not mistake for scientific findings the non-scientific assumptions which filled the gaps. I think of men like <a href="http://dwgleanings.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/eddington-on-limits-of-exact-physical.html" rel="nofollow">Arthur Eddington</a>. But such men do seem rare today. A method has been turned into a metaphysics.Deogolwulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02197539477668018797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-34861779031949535402012-10-12T10:24:56.613+01:002012-10-12T10:24:56.613+01:00What I particularly like about this is that you - ...What I particularly like about this is that you - even though you set out to flesh out the relationship between Christianity and evolution - actually paint a condense and precise picture of the nature of science.Thomas Raabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03278016549182732537noreply@blogger.com