tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post7558877501005490038..comments2023-12-28T17:14:24.356-08:00Comments on Monkey Trials: GOOD SCIENCE, GOOD RELIGION?Scott Hatfield . . . .http://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-24431955248245769122008-10-25T12:48:00.000-07:002008-10-25T12:48:00.000-07:00I have no idea what link I followed to get here to...I have no idea what link I followed to get here to resurrect this old post...oh, well. I love the 'Friend of A' picture on the side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-12777895972067593072008-10-25T06:49:00.000-07:002008-10-25T06:49:00.000-07:00I would say that the naturalistic account is avail...<I>I would say that the naturalistic account is available to both the believer and the non believer but that, without some perception of what the religious imagination is seeking to uncover (I don't just mean adherence to a belief system or faith)</I><BR/><BR/>Well, then, what is the religious imagination seeking to uncover if not a belief system? Googling the Church of England...Wiki says, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-6976517662918698542008-09-26T00:28:00.000-07:002008-09-26T00:28:00.000-07:00Stan said:Similarly, the bible is taken to be "inf...Stan said:<BR/><BR/>Similarly, the bible is taken to be "infallible", in the sense of factually incontovertable, when it is a group of historical, biographical, literary, allegorical and other types of writing deivices that contains an underlying truth, not an attempt at empirical fact.<BR/><BR/>This is a new argument to me, and I am not sure I understand it. As I parse it, the bible is inerrantR. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17827657170197625528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-76632366622653155762008-09-25T17:15:00.000-07:002008-09-25T17:15:00.000-07:00Actually, Stan, as this article discusses, the tec...Actually, Stan, as <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility" REL="nofollow">this article</A> discusses, the technical term for the position you are describing is 'inerrancy', rather than 'infallibility.' <BR/><BR/>And also, by way of clarification, if I understand you correctly, contemporary physicists are properly speaking neither functional nor philosophical materalists, in Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-48658148277803219262008-09-24T19:35:00.000-07:002008-09-24T19:35:00.000-07:00Scott said,"On the other hand, I don't mean that r...Scott said,<BR/><I>"On the other hand, I don't mean that religious people must accept the <B>provisional claims of science</B> as Gospel---good scientists certainly don't! Nor do I believe that creationists lack integrity because they do not accept widely-accepted scientific theories. Rather, I think that believers must have the integrity to look at the evidence honestly, and not use bad Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-587829839702567022008-09-24T17:21:00.000-07:002008-09-24T17:21:00.000-07:00Richard (re: Jason's original post)...it's interes...Richard (re: Jason's original post)...it's interesting to me how often I manage to misunderstand what other bright, articulate people are saying, all but inviting the sneering comments about my reading comprehension skills. This tends to happen to me on the philosophy of science/critiques of religion quite a bit, and this suggests to me that no matter how hard people try to be objective, we end Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-12542492128772545062008-09-23T15:53:00.000-07:002008-09-23T15:53:00.000-07:00My main problem with Malcom Brown, is that his log...My main problem with Malcom Brown, is that his logic in based upon the invention of, as he puts it "the militant atheist". His argument is not with people, it is with the universe. He is trapped in the idea that things have meaning because *he* exists -- he implies that poetry or art or "transcendental" (by its very definition a concept irrelevant to the issue at hand) things are necessary. R. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17827657170197625528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-88870273597461294652008-09-22T06:14:00.000-07:002008-09-22T06:14:00.000-07:00Hi Scott,I appreciate your reply, thanks for the l...Hi Scott,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your reply, thanks for the links.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-84649083797997846832008-09-21T21:10:00.000-07:002008-09-21T21:10:00.000-07:00Hi, anonymous!First of all, let me begin by saying...Hi, anonymous!<BR/><BR/>First of all, let me begin by saying that I don't think that any one, including science teachers, can reason themselves to faith. If evidence could be produced for a miraculous event, it would almost certainly be 'naturalized', explained in terms of natural causes, and thus not a miracle at all. Science as an enterprise is successful precisely because it has limited itsScott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-34450516751893623202008-09-21T10:20:00.000-07:002008-09-21T10:20:00.000-07:00Scott,I hope this isn't too personal, (and if it i...Scott,<BR/><BR/>I hope this isn't too personal, (and if it is, ignore it), but I really don't understand how a rational person like you, who's a science teacher, can believe in a God, or christianity?<BR/><BR/>First of all, I'd like to know if you really believe that there exists a supernatural being who interferes and affects human activities? I'm guessing you do, because you call yourself a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com