tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28676316.post3276311848680710830..comments2024-03-26T08:18:06.895-04:00Comments on Moristotle & Co.: Nature and "the new world religion"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28676316.post-82880207067980650342007-07-27T22:44:00.000-04:002007-07-27T22:44:00.000-04:00My sinus surgery went well, thanks. I arrived at t...My sinus surgery went well, thanks. I arrived at the hospital at 6 a.m. and by noon was already being discharged, even though there had been some possibility that I could have to stay the night. I'm quite sure that if I had, I wouldn't be blogging this evening <smile>.<BR/><BR/>But the nurses might have been right that I should not drive or sign anything for 24 hours, for the way I'm feeling now, your brief statement <EM>seems</EM> to be thickly coated in sarcasm and—especially if it <EM>is</EM> sarcastic—seems to be a sort of QED that indeed we cannot discuss these things....Moristotlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02211602374384087074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28676316.post-75016759962961981712007-07-27T16:49:00.000-04:002007-07-27T16:49:00.000-04:00One does have to pay attention to one's dentist.One does have to pay attention to one's dentist.tom sheepandgoatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519896568648043000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28676316.post-78156713817645683862007-07-26T20:30:00.000-04:002007-07-26T20:30:00.000-04:00Thanks much, Tom, for coming to see what left me f...Thanks much, Tom, for coming to see what left me feeling "beatific" last night! <BR/><BR/>To start with your concluding offer, no, I'm afraid I'm not up to discussing specifics from Lodge with you (any more than you were up to commenting on them to me upon first reading my post).<BR/><BR/>In general, I think we'd be wise to avoid rows by discussing things that we fundamentally disagree on. For example, I don't agree that nature has a design that must have been created with the design in mind. That argument wasn't valid then, isn't valid now. But I think it is crucial to your world view that you believe that it was and is valid. It would be no fun whatsoever to discuss this with you. Your quoting set scriptural interpretations sets my teeth on edge, and my dentist has warned me against grinding them.<BR/><BR/>I never saw that local biologist's "proof," so I don't know how it went. I just mentioned some remark made by the intermediary who told me about it, and I believe it was you who jumped to the conclusion—through an opening hoping to win a point—that it was a probabilistic argument along the lines you indicate. In fact, you sent me some links to similar published arguments.<BR/><BR/>And the same as I do indeed know what your "book of knowledge" is, you know my opinion of that book. (My post for tomorrow, before I go to the hospital for some sinus surgery, quotes Christopher Hitchens—and Bart D. Ehrman, whom he quotes—on the very book.)Moristotlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02211602374384087074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28676316.post-63265401234665378782007-07-26T17:39:00.000-04:002007-07-26T17:39:00.000-04:00People a few generations ago (they tell me) would ...People a few generations ago (they tell me) would refer to nature as the book of creation. Contemplating it was enough for folks (then) to conclude that there must be a creator, so manifest was its design. And that's still valid today (though challenged by many). Didn't you tell me awhile back of a colleage who claimed to have "proof" of God's existance? And, if memory serves, it was proof of the probability kind....in other words, the probability of this or that happening spontaneously is so astromically high that it can be practically regarded as impossible. And that there are any number of areas in which that statement holds true. Yes, i remember we discussed that.<BR/><BR/>But the book of creation's not enough to give one the entire picture. As you observed, it does not account for the suffering and destruction inherent in life today. Thus there is also a "book of knowledge" which addresses these matters. That is, the book of creation primarily addresses the "what" and the book of knowledge addresses the "why" (glimpses of the who, where, when can be seen in both, but primarily the book of knowledge.)<BR/><BR/>I guess you know what I regard as the book of knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Also, I reread your sheep and goats post. Now I remember! Much as I appreciate your mention, I didn't reply because there was almost nothing of Lodge's words I agreed with. and I didn't want to get into a row! To some extent, we've been down that road before. <BR/><BR/>Still, some of the specifics regarding what Lodge writes we haven't discussed yet. I'm up for doing it if you are. But where? Here?<BR/><BR/>Go well, good fellow.tom sheepandgoatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519896568648043000noreply@blogger.com