*facedesk*PaulSacramento wrote:Religion and science are no different.
Religion and science are different. Religion encourages being biased, science discourages being biased.
*facedesk*PaulSacramento wrote:Religion and science are no different.
Great, BUT what I wrote was:Lunalle wrote:*facedesk*PaulSacramento wrote:Religion and science are no different.
Religion and science are different. Religion encourages being biased, science discourages being biased.
Context.People tend to see what they want to see, to project what they want into things.
Religion and science are no different.
Darwin viewed his findings through the lenses of his culturally bias "eyes".
As do we all to varying degrees.
Sure, I guess I'm just at a loss as to why you posted that.PaulSacramento wrote:Context.
I was referring to the ONE thing that both religion and science have in common that they always will have: People.
And people are and always have been and always will be, bias.
In regards to Darwin's views and how they "prejudiced" his understanding of evolution and how, even today, this happens in not only religion but science as well.Lunalle wrote:Sure, I guess I'm just at a loss as to why you posted that.PaulSacramento wrote:Context.
I was referring to the ONE thing that both religion and science have in common that they always will have: People.
And people are and always have been and always will be, bias.
Lunalle wrote:B.W. you've written a lot of things that appear to be accusations. I'm fine with that, but I wonder why? I'll try to touch on most of what you've said.
You compare my attitude toward my father to that of my attitude toward God. I don't think that is fair, because God is not a father figure to me, but my dad is.
You compare me to God, then ask how am I just? I am neither God, nor just in all things. You go on to ask what a just God would do. My answer is absolutely nothing, because objective just action cannot be based on another's subjective action.
Thanks for clearing things up Dan! I don't believe God exists, so it is really easy for me to imagine him loving like I do (in the case of my father, not loving). Yeah, we'd be in quite a pickle. Well, look around, we are in quite a pickle.Danieltwotwenty wrote: He is saying imagine if God loved us the way you love (or lack there of) your Father, we would be in quite a pickle.
Yep, that's the point I referred too the bias' of global warming has changed names to climate change reflecting the same biases. Question should reflect - when has climate never changed?PaulSacramento wrote:In regards to Darwin's views and how they "prejudiced" his understanding of evolution and how, even today, this happens in not only religion but science as well.Lunalle wrote:Sure, I guess I'm just at a loss as to why you posted that.PaulSacramento wrote:Context.
I was referring to the ONE thing that both religion and science have in common that they always will have: People.
And people are and always have been and always will be, bias.
Lunalle wrote:Thanks for clearing things up Dan! I don't believe God exists, so it is really easy for me to imagine him loving like I do (in the case of my father, not loving).
We are in a pickle caused by our ability to choose evil, that's why a loving God with perfect love has given us a way out through Jesus.Yeah, we'd be in quite a pickle. Well, look around, we are in quite a pickle.
What's this? I could say the same about your posts.Lunalle wrote:If you take truth out of your post, I agree completely.
Ah, I'm agnostic. I don't believe we're capable of understanding objective truth, if it even exists. I meant that I agree with everything in the post, except:1over137 wrote:What's this? I could say the same about your posts.Lunalle wrote:If you take truth out of your post, I agree completely.
If I read your post and your signature you seem to be inconsistent.Lunalle wrote:Ah, I'm agnostic. I don't believe we're capable of understanding objective truth, if it even exists. I meant that I agree with everything in the post, except:1over137 wrote:What's this? I could say the same about your posts.Lunalle wrote:If you take truth out of your post, I agree completely.
Truth is the cure for bias.
and
When bad - truth makes it known as bad.
Ah, well. There is a distinction between truth and objective truth. I'll PM you a more detailed response, as you requested.1over137 wrote:If I read your post and your signature you seem to be inconsistent.Lunalle wrote:
Ah, I'm agnostic. I don't believe we're capable of understanding objective truth, if it even exists. I meant that I agree with everything in the post, except:...
You statement is self-defeating.Lunalle wrote:Ah, well. There is a distinction between truth and objective truth. I'll PM you a more detailed response, as you requested.1over137 wrote:If I read your post and your signature you seem to be inconsistent.Lunalle wrote:
Ah, I'm agnostic. I don't believe we're capable of understanding objective truth, if it even exists. I meant that I agree with everything in the post, except:...
Whoa. I understand the concept of objective truth. That doesn't mean I have to subscribe to it. We can make circular arguments all day long, but that's just a waste of time. Subjectively, there is a distinction between truth and objective truth. Does that make you feel better?jlay wrote:You statement is self-defeating. If you are not capable of understanding objective truth (or knowing it even exists) then you cannot make a claim that there is a distinction between truth and objective truth. To say so, means you are claiming to know something objectively.