Bazooka wrote: Sorry Ceebs, I hadn't realised you'd paid full price for that Diploma in Raccoonomics.....
Racoonomics??.
I though his Ceeboo's second degree was in Raccoolution. (Or was that his first degree.)
As I understand it, the good Boo bought a degree in Whalution first, which came with stamps you collect at gas stations. Once he had nough stamps he traded them for bit coins which, in turn, he used to buy his Raccoonomics Diploma. It is rumoured he is working on a masters in pulled pork barbeque but that's only a rumour at this stage.
(Ceebs, you know we love ya, right?)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
palerobber wrote:i think a believer need not have any conflict with science, so long as they make their religious beliefs completely subordinate to prevailing scientific theories in every field of study and in every last detail. it's a good strategy for believers to avoid a lot of heartache and embarassment. i recommend it, and it seems bcspace also endorses it to some extent.
There are only a few scientific subdisciplines that have the potential come to loggerheads with religion (cosmology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience). 99% of it is unrelated. Cosmology is traditionally thought to be friendly to religion. Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated a BYU. Neuroscience can cause problems if one subscribes to the prevailing (but by no means universal) belief among neuroscientists that people don't have free will because everything is biologically determined. That's small beans to me.
* Cue some boneheaded redneck to post links to statements made by LDS Leaders about the universe and take them literally.
from your reply i gather that you also follow my advice for believers. good for you!
also glad to hear you feel there's only a few areas where you're forced to submit to the authority of science. sounds like this is quite easy for you.
nc47 wrote: There are only a few scientific subdisciplines that have the potential come to loggerheads with religion (cosmology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience). 99% of it is unrelated. Cosmology is traditionally thought to be friendly to religion. Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated a BYU. Neuroscience can cause problems if one subscribes to the prevailing (but by no means universal) belief among neuroscientists that people don't have free will because everything is biologically determined. That's small beans to me.
* Cue some boneheaded redneck to post links to statements made by LDS Leaders about the universe and take them literally.
from your reply i gather that you also follow my advice for believers. good for you!
also glad to hear you feel there's only a few areas where you're forced to submit to the authority of science. sounds like this is quite easy for you.
Thank you! I actually only submit to the science methodologically. Philosophically I just say, hey, I'll be patient until one day I will see how it all fits together.
"It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey." - Soren Kierkegaard
nc47 wrote:The National Academy statement is not NOMA, you need to read it more carefully.
Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science.
It's partially-overlapping.
Richard Dawkins wrote: "It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
It's hard to know where to begin with this quote. He doesn't do his homework. Since God transcends His creation you wouldn't expect to find Him anywhere. This is as at least old as CS Lewis.
The most damning critiques of Dawkins have come from atheist intellectuals. He is trying to push atheism on the masses, so he uses buzzwords and simplistic arguments that get parroted on the internet (sometimes here).
"God transcends his creation?" What kind of religious woo woo statement is that? It is especially nonsensical in the context of the present discussion.
On another thread, BCSpace made a similarly nonsensical claim, and was gently reminded of a few principles of cosmology.
The question for BCSpace, which I will now pose to you, was: since there was nothing before the Big Bang and inflation, as in no space, no time, and hence no matter, exactly how did the Mormon Man-God of flesh and bone manage to even exist, let alone accomplish all of this transcendence?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
nc47 wrote:Take, for example, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. To explain this, majority of physicists and mathematicians believe math exists in its own invisible, Platonic realm. Faith means we believe this points to something grander; that there is possibly a mathematician monkeying around with the universe.
This is almost as stupid as the stuff Uncle Ed says. Get some more training and get back to us.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
palerobber wrote:from your reply i gather that you also follow my advice for believers. good for you!
also glad to hear you feel there's only a few areas where you're forced to submit to the authority of science. sounds like this is quite easy for you.
Thank you! I actually only submit to the science methodologically. Philosophically I just say, hey, I'll be patient until one day I will see how it all fits together.
sounds sensible to me. luckily most people don't take philosophy seriously, so you can believe whatever crazy thing you want there and still be accepted in polite society.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bazooka wrote: As I understand it, the good Boo bought a degree in Whalution first, which came with stamps you collect at gas stations. Once he had nough stamps he traded them for bit coins which, in turn, he used to buy his Raccoonomics Diploma. It is rumoured he is working on a masters in pulled pork barbeque but that's only a rumour at this stage.
(Ceebs, you know we love ya, right?)
Ceeboo,
Yes, we do love ya, my friend.
(Maybe we should start making fun of Bazooka's British spelling now.)
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
nc47 wrote:The most damning critiques of Dawkins have come from atheist intellectuals. He is trying to push atheism on the masses, so he uses buzzwords and simplistic arguments that get parroted on the internet (sometimes here).
nc47,
One may not agree with Dawkin's style, but that does not mean that he is not right. And when it comes to his critique of non-overlapping magisteria, he is clearly correct. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue the point.
And if you think that the quote from the NAS that I identified as a version of NOMA, was not a form of the NOMA argument, then I suggest that you look up NOMA and then read the passage from the NAS again.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
