Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Altair
It's because you postulated ''nurtured nature'' like Greenslade, and in actuality the way this has been explained here makes it rather similar to ''intelligent design'', which leads to the same issues as belief in creationism. It [design] cannot be observed in nature and changes in species and environment are natural, and require no supernatural explanation. You may not use the word ''god'', similar to those who believe in intelligent design, but it still leads to the same issues.
|
Altair, I offered that not because I am deeply tied to it. Instead, I offered it as one possibility which can and may be reasonably considered.
As I have said and as you have not yet acknowledged, many cosmologists and planetary scientists also include it as a reasonable possibility, given the preponderance of evidence for intelligent life having come to be on its own in multiple instances is so astronomically low. The logical extension is that we are not special and we too are subject to the same odds
I don't have "issues" with acknowledging that science and what we call fact or "conclusive" knowledge is really just our best guess at present based on very partial information. But it strikes me that perhaps you do, and very much so.
Here is something I'd like to you consider:
The issues you state are your own, or belong to those who must have certainty and dogma, rather than the intellectual humility and open-mindedness required for constant revisions to theory and knowledge that science demands.
A true scientist deals only in probabilities and in current interpretation of [X] fact or situation or theory. Not in certainties or dogma...though many poor scientists do cling to dogma and rigidity and hiearchies, exactly like a patriarchal religion.
It appears you keep stumbling on the issue[s] that
you find problematic.
So here's something else to consider:
Ask yourself why it is you have to label and judge either ideas or people as problematic. And then ask yourself that if someone is telling you that those labels and ideas are not what I've been speaking about at all (such as I have repeated said to you)...and BTW are neither accurate nor relevant as you have posited them to anyone but you LOL...then what do you get or receive from continuing to put something upon others which they do not accept for themselves? And which they have not been speaking to you about?
It is, granted, one way to separate or self-define, by the act of defining yourself against others. But I would argue it is not a robust or liberating way to do so, because you are not able to apprehend others as they are when you only relate to others through the false or artificial constructs you create. You are not really telling me who I am. In fact, you are barely engaging with me and what I've actually said, at all. Instead, you are telling me who you are and you posit me as a straw man, regardless of what I say apparently
Additionally, the construct itself is artificial and limiting, even to your implicit goal of discussion religion v science (which is what I HAVE been talking about).
So what does that gain for you?
If you really want to deal with me as I am, address the topic I HAVE been speaking to...which is intellectual honesty and paradigmatic growth and evolution within the scientific perspective, and within the human perspective more broadly. As well as within the individual's perspective.
That is where I find the topic interesting and that's what I've been speaking to. Not the dualisms you posit or construct, which are more for you and you alone, in your search to define (but perhaps also to limit) yourself as you see fit.
Peace & blessings
7L