Re: Irony

Liste des GroupesRevenir à t origins 
Sujet : Re: Irony
De : martinharran (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Martin Harran)
Groupes : talk.origins
Date : 01. Jan 2025, 18:17:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <muranjd7ssk25gnkvugcmmthfhgv6qaaau@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:13:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

[…]

"simple self replicators" is an oxymoron.

So what? Even if your argument is valid, how does that take us closer
to God which is surely the only thing that matters for a religious
believer?

I asked you a number of similar questions in another thread but you
walked away from them The answers to those specific questions don't
really matter - they were just my attempt at being Socratic. What is
really important, and what I think you should think long and hard
about, is why you find them so hard to answer.

In some ways, you remind me of myself when I came to TO about 15 or so
years ago. At that time I was a committed religious believer who knew
nothing about evolution or OOL. I came here on the recommendation of a
friend who was the first person I heard to hear use the expression
"God of the Gaps" and tried to convince me that science shows my Faith
is badly founded. I had no qualms about my Faith but I regard myself
as a rational person and didn't like to think that I might be
believing stuff that science had shown to be nonsense, so I decided to
explore this further.

Initially, I did find it a struggle. I never had too much bother
reconciling evolution with my beliefs but OOL did seem to pose a major
problem for me. I always, however, try to make sure I study all sides
of an argument. My early reading was mostly on the pure science side
of the fence but then I discovered writers like Teilhard de Chardin
writing a hundred years ago or more recent authors like Ken Miller,
Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne. These were highly qualified,
highly regarded scientists who had no problem reconciling their
scientific knowledge with their religious beliefs. The more I studied
it, the more I came to understand that there is no inherent conflict
between science and religion, is manufactured by people on both sides
who persist with a narrow viewpoint, often with very extreme views.
Fifteen or so years later, I can honestly say that my exploration of
science has made my religious belief even more intense and committed.

I seriously advise you not to get hung up on areas where science has
no answers or answers are incomplete. You will only tie yourself up in
endless knots and you are on a proverbial hiding to nothing if you try
to justify your beliefs by proving other people wrong where they have
tangible evidence and you don't. You will gain far more by taking what
science does tell us and figuring out how that fits in with your
religious beliefs, how you can use what science tells us to deepen
your religious understanding of God.


Date Sujet#  Auteur
16 Dec 24 * Irony21MarkE
16 Dec 24 +- Re: Irony1erik simpson
16 Dec 24 +* Re: Irony5Ernest Major
16 Dec 24 i`* Re: Irony4MarkE
17 Dec 24 i +* Re: Irony2MarkE
17 Dec 24 i i`- Re: Irony1erik simpson
19 Dec 24 i `- Re: Irony1MarkE
26 Dec 24 `* Re: Irony14RonO
29 Dec 24  `* Re: Irony13MarkE
29 Dec 24   `* Re: Irony12RonO
30 Dec 24    `* Re: Irony11MarkE
31 Dec 24     +* Re: Irony2RonO
1 Jan 25     i`- Re: Irony1MarkE
1 Jan 25     `* Re: Irony8Martin Harran
2 Jan 25      +- Re: Irony1MarkE
2 Jan 25      `* Re: Irony6MarkE
2 Jan 25       `* Re: Irony5Martin Harran
3 Jan 25        `* Re: Irony4MarkE
3 Jan 25         +- Re: Irony1Kerr-Mudd, John
3 Jan 25         `* Re: Irony2Martin Harran
4 Jan 25          `- Re: Irony1MarkE

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal