At 23:20 22-5-99 -0300, Hugo Estrella wrote:
>I really cannot understand why someone who has admitted dogmas, like Arie,
Sorry, I only gave my opinion which I think is nearer to the truth than
the opinion of atheists - I don't adhere to any "dogma's" anymore than
someone who adheres to the dogma of the validity of autonomous human
rational reasoning as the ultimate foundation of knowledge.
>can still have the will to participate in a scientific list.
I like science and thinking and discussing its foundations and
methodologies as I think science is making a marvellous contribution to our
understanding the whole of creation in all its modalities. The concept
"God" is not a scientific concept, but it is needed when we discuss the
foundations of science, the "why doing valid science is possible at all".
>If you assume the "wisdom" of the scriptures, and try to make them fit in
>the real world, you may be wasting your time, or perhaps, willing to make
>opposites meet.
Those scriptures are there, written in this "real world", I do not need to
"fit them", just try to understand their meaning without in advance
narrowing down my concept of "the real world" to whatever scientific theory
has recognised as "real" up 'till now. We and our science exist in the real
world, the real world is not existing in our scientific thinking only.
>It would be just a personal approach, but when you feel attacked by those
>who really try to adopt the scientific temper,
I don't take it to be a "personal approach" any more than my personal
contributions to science (as a psychologist studying psychology), I don't
feel "attacked", just try to make a contribution in a discussion where we
try to clarify things and come to true opinions. I do so adopting "a
scientific temper".
>and reply based on your
>dogmatic vision, hidden behind G'ds, or trues impossible to be reasoned, you
>are acting like the Inquisition.
.... I don't think I am acting like that and I am not accusing my
opponents of acting like the Inquisition, althought they write:
>And that is bad, or we could use Arie's
>superstitious spelling: B'd, Wr'ng, Ev'l, or maybe something closer M'ntal
>S'ckness.
... trying to exclude me from their scientific discussions accusing me of
Bad, Wrong, and even Evil dogma's, just like the Inquisition did with
heretics.
>So, please, try not to give up reasoning, even though it might
>shake your structured brain, and let us enjoy an open-minded discussion.
I try and I think I am more open-minded than many others. I would like you
to try as hard instead of reacting rather irritably in an irrational way.
>Let
>us enjoy the freedom we won from people like you.
I enjoy my freedom and I am well aware that it is also freedom to decide
what is "right" and what is "wrong" with the risk of erring. That's why I
participate on this list - to have my erring corrected by sound arguments
in the discussion
Arie
>> This problem and comtroversion is a hoax. God has created the whole
>of the
>>Universe including primitive organisms and eventually man/woman with all
>>their current scientific and technological capabilities and their ethical
>>freedom to decide what to do and what to develop and He set and maintains
>>the laws that make everything, e.g. thinking processes and evolutionary
>>processes, possible and effective. That is the real "biblical" view, not
>>any opinion that God created everything in the first 6 days
>>(6x24x60x60=518,400 seconds *after* "the beginning" (after the "Big
>>Bang"?). The bible says: "*In* the beginning God created heaven and earth"
>>and than follows a poetic song about God creating in which "day" has not
>>the literal meaning of 24 hours - in the Jewish interpretation those days
>>are eras of 1000 years each and we are now in the sixth "day" waiting for
>>the messiah being with us on the seventh day of "rest". I doubt if *this*
>>interpretation is literally true, but it shows that this biblical "story"
>>of creation has a deeper meaning than only describing a physiaval process
>>in time - God even created time itself and all things in time. So this
>>Heather is more right than she knows and she should listen better to her
>>teacher explaining the evolutionary process, even though he is (probably)
>>an atheist having no idea about "the beginning" and creation.
>>
>>Arie
>>
>>
>>
>>BetterSystems,
>>Prof.Dr.A.Dirkzwager,
>>Educational Instrumentation Technology,
>>Computers in Education.
>>Huizerweg 62,
>>1402 AE Bussum,
>>The Netherlands.
>>voice: x31-35-6981676
>>FAX: x31-35-6930762
>>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>{========================================================================}
>>When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the
>>apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person
>>could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977).
>>============================================================================
>>Accept that some days you are the statue, and some days you are the bird.
>>
>-----------------------------------------------
>"If you assume that there is
>an instinct for freedom, there are
>opportunities to change things,
>there's a chance you may contribute
>to making a better world.
>
>The choice is yours."
>
> Noam Chomsky
... and there is a chance that you make a mess of it. The crux is that we
often don't know how to choose the right thing to do and thus contribute to
making a worse world.
Arie
BetterSystems,
Prof.Dr.A.Dirkzwager,
Educational Instrumentation Technology,
Computers in Education.
Huizerweg 62,
1402 AE Bussum,
The Netherlands.
voice: x31-35-6981676
FAX: x31-35-6930762
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
{========================================================================}
When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the
apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person
could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977).
===========================================================================
Accept that some days you are the statue, and some days you are the bird.
|
