Again, my apologies for not being caught up.
...but for the past week....
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25326#Post25326post re: definitions, supernatural
p.s. Revl: Thanks for the summary of "conservations-with-god."
I've got it on my Kindle "wish list."
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25332#Post25332Sam, it seems to me what you are saying is this: We need to look on differences of race, language, culture and religion, whatever, not as divisive ones, but as enriching differences. IMO. if someone happens to speak a different language the opportunity is to find the best translation, not to use it as an excuse to develop a feeling of alienation.
This sounds hard to argue with, but let me try.
...not enriching differences; but perhaps, enrichingly different expression of a fundamental sameness.
...or not to find the best translation; but perhaps, to only know that a translation is possible while leaving the details vague.
A definition's effect on a person is what should be acceptingly comprehended (or translated).
...avoiding the quality of details ...or perception of many differences.
As Ellis point out, this is a bit of a cop-out.
...but,
...or whatever is being discussed at the time as a defining aspect of the divine
"as a defining aspect" is the point where we need to be able to translate on a different level; assuming concordance to begin with, and adding reservations only as needed.
I still think it's a 'best starting point,' from which to see how much cooperation can be achieved, before finding too much difference in the details.
As an example, in that 'Cardinal Schönborn thing,'
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9096&SectionName=&PlayMedia=Nohe refers to another source:
"In the Beginning" is an annotated version of a 4-homily series delivered by Joseph Ratzinger (now the Pope) in Munich (1981). Subtitled A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, the book was published in Germany in 1985 and is now available in English translation.
Schönborn says Ratzinger talks about "Divine Intervention and Evolution," suggesting that it is incorrect to see intervention as some "extrinsic" factor or agent; but that it must be understood as intrinsic to every step of creation and evolution.
See? I mean... c'mon, y'know; it's like, well -gee. How can, wait- I know... if you what? ...define intrinsic...
[Hey, that's the word you need in your signature, Revl!]
Okay, so if you're defining an intervention as not extrinsic, then what is the difference between divine intervention and the laws of physics (intrinsic to evolution).
No wonder the Catholics accept evolution.
...meanwhile, continuing along the past week....I liked Warren's term, crypto-natural!
& "...issues of meaning, purpose, etc...."
...to evolve; to save the Creation so others may too evolve?
...or to express God's love?
...what's the difference?Revl. you ask, "I am interested in knowing: What is the "faith" of atheists?"
Would it be faith that the material world is all that exists.
...of course, ...guess it's depending on how you define 'material' and 'exists.' ...a lot of fun questions... including: ...inspired by bfp:
Do all atheists believe that human beings are simply clever animals?
Are we simply one of the accidents of evolution?
Is there any "simple" difference between animals, if G0d is intrinsic? Are there accidents in evolution, if G0d is intrinsic? Whether defined as an accident or a culmination, the result is the same.
Since there is a great deal of systems for the universe that are not understood, to accept any system as possible or likely is to exercise faith.
Good one!
...also, re: your comments:
Michael Shermer, "Mind of the Market" (on my Kindle), argues for the natural evolution of altruism.
...but apparently infanticide was much more common throughout human history (and even currently) than is commonly recognized.LOL Richard,"I still feel guilt about it believe it or not;"
but think how good you made her feel. ...and how do we define "faith?"
It isn't necessary for one to have "faith" in science to use it.
Very Good Point!
...I meant an atheist has no "faith" (as defined by Rev).
...no comment (it's just too late?)
-END- April 12, 2008
...and I'm still not caught up!
