Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News0 min ago
Right And Wrong
97 Answers
God is my ulitmate authority on right and wrong, but if you don't believe in God, from where does moral authority originate?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland...just curious here,but how many atheistically inclined books do you read?In general you will find that well informed atheists read "opossition" books and material such as the bible or religious literature(that is why we are well informed)So just how much do you try to understand the world view of others? Or does it scare you to think that others maybe right so you dont even bother in case it upsets your faith?
One of the most intersting books I ever read was "African Genesis", can't remember the author, but he was a playwright who travelled in S.Africa and interviewed the famous Leakey, of the famous family Leakey, and delved into the whole bit about Australopithecines, and the cave explorations there.
I've read a few of Dawkins's books, and Stephen Hawking. I used to read a lot about sub-atomic particle physics, the name Roger Penrose rings a bell or two.
Would you believe that once I could a fairly reasonable explanation of why the universe is "clumpy" having galaxies, and not a simple homogenous mass?
I'm also intersted in zero point energy, and remember this being referred to in several books years ago, but more recently in occasional articles.
I was convinced at one time that a single event brought about ... us ... today. Atoms plus time.
I can really recommend that African Genesis book, although nowadays I disagree with its underlying presumptions and conclusions. I do try to keep an open mind.
I've read a few of Dawkins's books, and Stephen Hawking. I used to read a lot about sub-atomic particle physics, the name Roger Penrose rings a bell or two.
Would you believe that once I could a fairly reasonable explanation of why the universe is "clumpy" having galaxies, and not a simple homogenous mass?
I'm also intersted in zero point energy, and remember this being referred to in several books years ago, but more recently in occasional articles.
I was convinced at one time that a single event brought about ... us ... today. Atoms plus time.
I can really recommend that African Genesis book, although nowadays I disagree with its underlying presumptions and conclusions. I do try to keep an open mind.
I heard Dawkins talking about his book on radio 4 last week. His theories about the evolution of altruistic society at the expense of the individual, and how he ties this up with his earlier work on the "Selfish Gene" was, as you say, an echo from the past. Like he was repackaging his science, not adding anything new. However, I'll reserve judgement until I read it, either from the library or the charity shops if a copy turns up! He's a good author, and certainly keeps my interest bubbling.
On a fairly recent TV programme, Dawkins went to America and interviewed Ted Haggard pastor of a huge Southern Babtist church, and tried to reason his science with this man.
Dawkins, ever the perfect gentleman, was polite but forceful in his questioning. Haggard had him thrown out by the security men!
Haggard s a money preacher, always quoting Malachi 3 and very successfully getting people to part with their cash. But to do this, he and his ilk have to pervert the Christian message, which they do, as do Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn and others. (In the UK we have Mathew Ashimolowo of KICC in London).
So there I was watching bad science versus bad religion, and trying to make out what the ordinary uninformed viewer was going to make of this. I thought it all rather sad.
But, much as I disagree with Dawkins, his manners are impeccable, whereas Haggard succeded only in giving Christianity a bad name.
In fact, Haggard has since resigned over a sex and drugs scandal.
Dawkins, ever the perfect gentleman, was polite but forceful in his questioning. Haggard had him thrown out by the security men!
Haggard s a money preacher, always quoting Malachi 3 and very successfully getting people to part with their cash. But to do this, he and his ilk have to pervert the Christian message, which they do, as do Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn and others. (In the UK we have Mathew Ashimolowo of KICC in London).
So there I was watching bad science versus bad religion, and trying to make out what the ordinary uninformed viewer was going to make of this. I thought it all rather sad.
But, much as I disagree with Dawkins, his manners are impeccable, whereas Haggard succeded only in giving Christianity a bad name.
In fact, Haggard has since resigned over a sex and drugs scandal.
On the TV programme I referred to, RD was in a museum surrounded by a huge collection of bones. His presentation to the viewing audience consisted in taking in the whole scene with a wave of his hands as he referred to this, "evidence", for evolution.
I thought that this was a cheap shot, as the viewers were left to imagine that somewhere amongst this collection of bones, there was definitive evidence for evolution.
True, time was a factor in this programme, and it may simply have been impractical for RD to present his case in full. But it was a poor show, I thought, to simply leave the viewer thinking, "Well if HE believes it, it must be right."
Mind you, Ted Haggard did more for the cause of evolution, as he definitely behaved like a lower life form.
I thought that this was a cheap shot, as the viewers were left to imagine that somewhere amongst this collection of bones, there was definitive evidence for evolution.
True, time was a factor in this programme, and it may simply have been impractical for RD to present his case in full. But it was a poor show, I thought, to simply leave the viewer thinking, "Well if HE believes it, it must be right."
Mind you, Ted Haggard did more for the cause of evolution, as he definitely behaved like a lower life form.
Hardly bad science then. Just a dramatic segment for a tv show aimed at the general viewer. Or do you expect scientists to wade through all the literature on fossil evidence each time they speak? The evidence for evolution IS in the bones though, and the DNA, and through plate tectonics. I wonder whether you have considered the disparity between the level of evidence you require of science before a theory is accepted as being the best current interpretation of the facts, compared with your own evidentiary requirements for concluding that demonic forces showed themselves through morphing the appearance of your in-law's partner to reveal his dead grandmother, even though you were not there. Which seems to be: take somebody's word it happened as described and conclude it was the work of the devil!
I don't want to get out of my depth on this, as I am not a scientist. But, it appears to me that the evidence is not as clear cut as evolutionists would suppose.
Eminent brains on both sides of the argument cannot agree, so how do I decide?
Richard Dawkins is a clever man, but his books and documentaries over the years have failed to convince me.
Then there is James Jacob Prasch, who trained in medicine, and now runs "Moriel" ministries. I think that he could answer Richard Dawkins far better than I.
Below is the web address of an article by Prash that deals with this.
http://www.moriel.org/articles/notice_board/re newed_intelligent_design_contra_darwinism.htm
Eminent brains on both sides of the argument cannot agree, so how do I decide?
Richard Dawkins is a clever man, but his books and documentaries over the years have failed to convince me.
Then there is James Jacob Prasch, who trained in medicine, and now runs "Moriel" ministries. I think that he could answer Richard Dawkins far better than I.
Below is the web address of an article by Prash that deals with this.
http://www.moriel.org/articles/notice_board/re newed_intelligent_design_contra_darwinism.htm
You used the phrase, "The best current interpretation of the facts."
Well, yes, you certainly have a very valid criticism if I have unwittingly demanded a higher level of evidence from one argument rather than the other. The fault is entirely mine and I confess to a certain amount of bias, due to what I feel comfortable with.
But, to go back to your phrase, I believe that the Creator God is the best interpretation of the facts, as I know them of course. Remember, I am no scientist.
Well, yes, you certainly have a very valid criticism if I have unwittingly demanded a higher level of evidence from one argument rather than the other. The fault is entirely mine and I confess to a certain amount of bias, due to what I feel comfortable with.
But, to go back to your phrase, I believe that the Creator God is the best interpretation of the facts, as I know them of course. Remember, I am no scientist.
There is absolutely no science in that link Theland, merely polemic.
Argument from personal incredulity is what it amounts to, with diatribes against any position that doesn't agree or any liberal organisation, come to that. How does any of that offer any scientific rebuttal of the fossil record? The answer is... it doesn't. More, the page shows a wilful misunderstanding of what Evolutionary theory is about, and mixes in a sideswipe at Abiogenesis whilst they are at it.
On that note of Abiogenesis Theland, you still haven't responded to my earlier comment. Why do you refute the hypothesis of abiogenesis,citing lack of evidence, when you are fully prepared to believe the same thing (organic life from inorganic), based on scripture?
Argument from personal incredulity is what it amounts to, with diatribes against any position that doesn't agree or any liberal organisation, come to that. How does any of that offer any scientific rebuttal of the fossil record? The answer is... it doesn't. More, the page shows a wilful misunderstanding of what Evolutionary theory is about, and mixes in a sideswipe at Abiogenesis whilst they are at it.
On that note of Abiogenesis Theland, you still haven't responded to my earlier comment. Why do you refute the hypothesis of abiogenesis,citing lack of evidence, when you are fully prepared to believe the same thing (organic life from inorganic), based on scripture?
I don't know Theland... has he put his work up for critical scientific review?
I would certainly argue with his findings, and I have a science / biology background.
The current abiogenesis hypothesis explains a transition from inorganic to organic life without any supernatural intervention. Principles of parsimony and Occams razor would suggest that an explanation not requiring supernatural intervention is far more elegant :)
I would certainly argue with his findings, and I have a science / biology background.
The current abiogenesis hypothesis explains a transition from inorganic to organic life without any supernatural intervention. Principles of parsimony and Occams razor would suggest that an explanation not requiring supernatural intervention is far more elegant :)
Given your scientific background, your opinion carries much weight as far as I'm concerned.
Give me some time to follow this up for my own satisfaction ... if I can manage to get my head around it that is.
Well one good thing has come out of it. That link above is the first time I've ever managed to do that - stick a link in a post, so I suppose I'm "evolving" eh? I'll get back to you, promise.
Give me some time to follow this up for my own satisfaction ... if I can manage to get my head around it that is.
Well one good thing has come out of it. That link above is the first time I've ever managed to do that - stick a link in a post, so I suppose I'm "evolving" eh? I'll get back to you, promise.
