Definitions
Well, naturally the situation was more complex than first supposed. Here’s an article relating to the previous short discussion on science/ID and also on naturalism and reductionism. I’m sure free will gets mixed in there somewhere. Anyway, enjoy!
Why did I name this post Definitions? Because it appears even the very basics – definitions of terms – are up for grabs.
Brad, do you have any opinions yet? I was really hoping to hear what you have to say on a few previous posts. Jai, too busy with Air Force stuff? I guess I can just keep hearing myself talk… 🙂
A Christian Theory of Politics
Well, I don’t have one to offer, but, Steve H does! (Brown-haired Steve H.)
Check out the last comment on this page.
Thanks Steve for your thoughts! I do have a response but I’m not finished thinking yet. Actually, there is one I can state now: I am not as convinced as you are that it is good to separate morality from government. Why? Very simply, I don’t think it’s possible (or preferable). But, I will elaborate later (and maybe I’m misunderstanding you).
While we’re on the subect of politics, is there any particular topic anyone wants to discuss? Thanks Steve for your response! Always appreciate what you’ve got to say!
—
All right – update – I’ve copied Steve’s original comments into a comment below and also responded below. Any more thoughts are welcome!
—
Watching My Favorite Argument Disappear
Why couldn’t something physical “think?”
The assumption that every single one of these authors seems to make (and that I myself make) is that thinking is something immaterial. Therefore, if you deny the immaterial you’ve denied thinking. But, is thinking something immaterial? This seems like an untested idea and it is the core of the argument against naturalism.
Why couldn’t someone say that the gray matter that composes my brain is a special kind of matter that allows reasoning and thinking (again – who says reasoning and thinking are immaterial processes?). Who says consciousness is – by definition – immaterial? We seem to be arguing circularly. I recognize that to say that gray matter is solely physical puts a human brain on the level of a table or a stapler; and, I tend to direct my questions towards other humans, containing this special gray matter, as opposed to a table or stapler. But, different physical objects do have different properties. Why couldn’t it be said that gray matter has an extremely special quality – that is physical – that is reasoning itself?
As much as I love the argument against naturalism, it seems to make a huge, glaring assumption. I’m personally comfortable with the assumption but only if it is recognized as such: an assumption. And it absolutely means the argument is not air tight – in fact it appears to have a whole directly in the very center of the argument.
Anywho, I am not a philosopher, but it’s intriguing.
Thoughts? Do I seem wrong?
For the record – as everyone who knows me knows – I do believe in the immaterial.
Random
British schools may soon implement/require ID teaching? That’s what I heard on the news recently. But it wouldn’t be in science class. It would be in religions class. The purpose? According to the TV station I was watching, they want more morality. The station discussed the potential implementation of ID in British schools directly right showing a spree of anti-Semitic acts in Britain.***
—
10 out of the last 14 years are the hottest on record. My question is: how long is our record? 200 years? I don’t know. I haven’t researched this. I have one friend who thinks I should watch An Inconvenient Truth. It would be interesting… Could at least see if Al Gore is ever interesting. I think one time he made a joke.
—
Mac vs. PC – has there ever been a better set of commercials?! That stuff is brilliant. I just saw the latest, where PC is in a hospital gown because he’s getting an operation: the addition of Vista. And the Mac feels sorry for him, has compassion. That is hilarious.
————–
***It turns out that the program I was watching was the 700 Club. I’m not sure what other program would make such an audacious implication.
Beyond Reason 