Philosophy Now Forum

How broad must his view be?

Inclusive of God?

Exclusive of what doesn't fit?

As I said, that is his prerogative, but he spells out his attitude to science here: 3:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvnTnC9ldZs&t=434s

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:09 am Can somebody here tell me why Christians deny so VEHEMENTLY the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution? There must a religion-driven reason, but I haven't figured it out yet what it is. What is it in the Bible that evolutionary theory pulverizes?

Creationists believe that Darwin's theory contradicted the Genesis creation passage. The ancient writer of the "In the beginning ..." passage was was clearly trying to describe evolutionary change in allegorical language (since no scientific terminology was available). However, creationists tend to be stupid people with IQ a long way below average.

So creationists are mindlessly fighting against a misconception of a misconception. The issue for them here is life, or more precisely, the afterlife. They "reason" that if he Bible was "wrong" about evolution then it might be wrong about eternal life. So creationsists are so vehement because they stupidly believe that, in fighting for their confused beliefs, they are fighting for their afterlives, against oblivion.

It's pathetic in this day and age. Not only that but now the most stupid in society are rebelliously asserting their right to be hopeless morons while refusing guidance from those with more awareness. Pity that, due to weight of numbers, they are dragging the rest of us down with them.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:31 pm So creationsists are so vehement because they stupidly believe that, in fighting for their confused beliefs, they are fighting for their afterlives, against oblivion.

The living brain-dead being as close to oblivion as they already are, will not find that transition too traumatic. That's their advantage!

Mr. -1- --- you are too complacent: creationist teaching is creeping in here in the UK, partly due to the influence of charismatic churches. And why do you decline to identify the USA as particularly sinful in this regard? Scientific American in August said that 45% of biology teachers in the US either did not teach evolution at all, or only minimally.

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:01 am

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:21 am Necromancer --- The creationists are right on two counts. First, if you believe you know the truth then it is right to do your utmost to spread the news. If non-creationists were half as sure of themselves as the creationists, then their opinion on evolution would hold sway in every school. Second, placing ‘only a theory’ labels on textbooks is a powerful idea. I suggest a legal requirement on religions to place such labels on all their Holy books. At best, only one of them can be right.

their opinion on evolution would hold sway in every school -- they do, they do. In every country in the western civilized world. (Note: I did not write "except for the US of A.")
Incidentally, what are you selling on your website? I sell cockroach killer dust and sexual aids. Trying to sell anything else in this world is a lost cause. Everyone already got everything.

You ask what I sell on my website. Nothing -- I promote ideas (I am retired and have enough money to live simply yet comfortably). In fact I have three websites: one to discourage Muslim violence, one showing men various ways to control women, and one (under construction) called The Suffrageur Society, whose pledge of allegiance strengthens all married men who sign up, so they can use my control techniques more effectively.


Against Muslim Violence: https://sites.google.com/site/muslimcivility/
Techniques for Men to Control Women: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
Suffrageur Society to Empower Men: http://suffrageursociety.com/

Necromancer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:59 am Your input? Your criticism? Your thoughts?

Rupert Sheldrake challenges scientific dogmas.
The science delusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

“Since the late 19th century, science has been conducted under the aspect of a belief system, or world view, which is essentially that of materialism. Philosophical materialism. And the sciences are now wholly owned subsidiaries of the materialist world view.”

(Is he barefoot?)

Walker --- I know nothing about Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas on evolution, but I would regard them with deep suspicion. He is a charlatan concerning the effects of being looked at -- claiming that people can detect when others are looking at them, even when the observation is via a video camera. I wouldn’t pay attention to him, if I were you.

Sheldrake's challenges on that TED Talk were largely fair and reasonable critiques IMO. I'd given that video a "Like" a long time ago. From memory, at no stage, did Sheldrake even hint a criticism of evolution. He is far too rational for that.

It was thus misleading for you to present the video in context without making clear that it had nothing to do with evolution (unless people spend 18 minutes looking for evolution references that would never come).

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:06 pm Walker --- I know nothing about Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas on evolution, but I would regard them with deep suspicion. He is a charlatan concerning the effects of being looked at -- claiming that people can detect when others are looking at them, even when the observation is via a video camera. I wouldn’t pay attention to him, if I were you.

From your other writings I would think that you have knowledge of the sex ray. Long ago a single buddy told of this over a beer.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:00 pm Sheldrake's challenges on that TED Talk were largely fair and reasonable critiques IMO. I'd given that video a "Like" a long time ago. From memory, at no stage, did Sheldrake even hint a criticism of evolution. He is far too rational for that.

It was thus misleading for you to present the video in context without making clear that it had nothing to do with evolution (unless people spend 18 minutes looking for evolution references that would never come).

Sheldrake speaks of the science delusion.

Evolution study falls under the purview of science.

Ergo ...

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:32 am

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:00 pm Sheldrake's challenges on that TED Talk were largely fair and reasonable critiques IMO. I'd given that video a "Like" a long time ago. From memory, at no stage, did Sheldrake even hint a criticism of evolution. He is far too rational for that.

It was thus misleading for you to present the video in context without making clear that it had nothing to do with evolution (unless people spend 18 minutes looking for evolution references that would never come).

Sheldrake speaks of the science delusion.

Evolution study falls under the purview of science.

Ergo ...

Actually, he pointed to various aspects of science that were worth challenging. The provocative name of the talk was marketing, not an exact description of the content, like Krauss's A Universe from Nothing.

Yes, delusions are worth challenging, and their effects upon behavior (such as censoring other views), worthy of understanding.

The provocativeness is the mentioning in the title that youtube banned the video at one time, although that's all rather vague.

That science has delusions isn't such a shock.

Neither is resistance to questioning a branch of science a shock.

This is the way things are.

Ramu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:20 pm The Universe is a Giant, infinite mind with infinite intelligence. Intelligence is way more involved and way more complicated than some stupid, irrelevant pen and paper test that is somehow supposed to "measure" intelligence. Intelligence is from the universe. Why do people give themselves credit for high IQ when its really a gift from the universe? Of course no one is allowed to suggest that the universe is intelligent in main stream science. Its certainly not the kind of thinking accepted in main stream academia!

Becoming an Eastern nondualist - good

Falling into a monistic nondual trap, where we start to think that the Brahman is really some huge intelligent mind playing with itself - bad

Why exactly??

Ramu wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:46 pmWhy exactly??

Brahman is just another word for reality, the world. We are it, but why would it be some kind of intelligent being, playing hide and seek with itself? That anthropomorphic projection is totally made up.