Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Dawkins and the appearance of design (Score 1) 44

by colnago (#40024705) Attached to: Book Review: The Logic of Chance
I suspect the evidence, itself, supports both The Logic of Chance and Intelligent Design. Dawkins says this world's biology expresses an appearance of design. I'm not sure why, then, the conclusion of actual design is simply thrown out. If someone pursues Truth and then categorically throws out the other half of the premises because of the philosophical belief that science is the only path to Truth (a statement that cannot be empirically tested), then that person seems to be interested in truth if the conclusions are what was expected a priori. Contrary evidence is simply ignored.

Comment: Re:Obvious (Score 1) 1128

by colnago (#39509807) Attached to: Conservatives' Trust In Science Has Fallen Dramatically Since Mid-1970s

Conservatives don't trust the Republican party. And I love your pointing out that reality doesn't care. That's perfect.

And, you know, there are a whole bunch of us religious folk who want to develop well thought out positions using the evidence that science provides.

On both sides of this specific argument, the religious as well as the liberal, it seems it's the wackos are used as strawmen to strengthen the opposing position. Science is interpreted. A scientist may have a healthy skepticism with respect to their personal interpretation. An adherent to scientism, or someone who reasons circularly from the materialist worldview that you have to start with matter and any other starting point is apriori dismissed, will dogmatically hold to their position generally without thinking through the implications and developing a logical argument. This is just as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church showing up at the funeral of a soldier.

Granted, many religious people don't think through their own positions and could not provide evidence, let alone a logical argument supporting their position on any number of fundamental matters, e.g. for Christianity take the evidence for Jesus' rising from the dead. This is no better than the adherent to scientism who claims that only science can provide answers. Why? Because that statement is not scientifically testable. It's a philosophical statement. There is no empirical method to determine if science, in fact, is the only discipline that can provide truth statements. Yet, if you can move away from the wackos I think we'd find many religious people willing to engage in rational discussion about scientific matters, and that many of them are gainfully employed in the scientific disciplines.

Comment: Re:I have problems with this (Score 2) 1319

by colnago (#38192916) Attached to: Muslim Medical Students Boycott Darwin Lectures

"Why can't religious people see this as a much, much greater feat of creation, resulting in God being infinitely more omnipotent?"

Mmmmm, because there is no evidence for a multiverse?

It's not testable. It's an idea. An idea that seems to explain away the problems of God found in our universe. The problem is that an idea does not equal truth. When faced with multiple ideas the weight of the evidence should be the basis of some rational line of thinking. And the evidence does not support a multiverse.

I also suspect religious people don't see the physical creation, or more specifically God's omnipotence, as the whole character of God. There's the omnibenevolent and omniscient aspects (etc.) as well. Just because God can do something doesn't mean he should or did or does do something. And despite his omnipotence, God cannot create a square circle. His omnipotence is bounded by logic.

Comment: Re:A fatal flaw in Christianity. (Score 1) 943

by colnago (#37923676) Attached to: Theologian Attempts Censorship After Losing Public Debate

I would venture to say that evidence exists to support or discredit any claim about anything. Because evidence exists does not make the claim true or not true. While this is one explanation it should be viewed with respect to other explanations with the evidence lending support to the conclusion.

The claim you make rests on an assertion that "the Genesis myths were allegory because those desert nomads didn't know how the world began." I think this one needs substantiation. Similarly, we can assert that the only true knowledge is that which science verifies. Well, that statement is not testable and becomes self-refuting. So if you say the nomads didn't know how the world began but we do now because of science, unfortunately that is not the end of the story.

Furthermore, the evidence that Paul made the whole thing up has a hard time standing up to the preponderance of evidence supporting a risen Jesus among other things. A "fatal flaw" in this case seems more akin to a line of reasoning that simply needs to be explored and weighed against other evidence.

Comment: Re:Wrongly decided (Score 1) 775

by colnago (#37153478) Attached to: Teacher Cannot Be Sued For Denying Creationism

Yes, this passage surprised me:

“We are aware of no prior case holding that a teacher violated the establishment clause by appearing critical of religion during class lectures, nor any case with sufficiently similar facts to give a teacher ‘fair warning’ that such conduct was unlawful"

I am not a judge, but I'm thinking it's their opportunity and their job to be the first ruling in a case like this. Someone has to establish precedent.

Comment: Re:Not a Flaw (Score 1) 148

by colnago (#36426924) Attached to: EG8 Publishes Report In Noninteractive, Nonquotable Format
Interesting. I'd agree on a number of levels with this position. I've had to help a 60-something woman (who recently lost her husband who did all the computer work) to get her wireless mouse working. Because the USB nub wireless receiver fit perfectly into her mouse for storage, she assumed that is where the nub was supposed to go. She didn't understand why her mouse didn't work. She laughed when I "fixed" her problem in about 12 seconds.
I guess the appropriate response is know your audience. How do they work? What do they want to see and how do they want to see it? Perhaps the eG8 knows their audience. Perhaps we hangers-out on slashdot are not the primary audience.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Working...