I'm glad we agree. That said, I find it very common that different people with entirely contrary views in the same breath will claim both objectivity, and the villainy and/or ignorance of those who hold contrary positions, often going to great lengths to undermine the credibility of any who would cast uncertainty upon their positions. This is a deep bias that if unchecked can descend into a kind of extremism, or sadism described by Lewis in Mere Christianity:
It is troubling to me that I see this very thinking in politics all over, and I have seen it in C/E discussions as well.
I can really understand why you think that. I've had a lot of frustration with churches in the past acting in this way. Contemporary Christian culture as pushed by its most common institutions tend to suppress information about their own beliefs because it is easier to manage. In most churches you won't hear about various theories of atonement, or contemporary scholarship on the Bible or other Christian literature, or radical new ideas like Wright's New Perspective on Paul. Academic level theology seems to stay in the halls of the ivory tower unfortunately for the faith of so many. Even so, the social dynamics of ecclesiastical institutions are not identical to the principles of Christianity. This you probably already know though.
That kind of no true scotsman fallacy is reminiscent of the kind used by a certain brand of Evangelicals that anyone who was a real Christian cannot ever deconvert. The reality is the pseudo philosophical arguments of contemporary atheists like Dawkins and his ilk wore thin. Most of them were addressed by the Scholastics over 800 years ago. If not for the fact that almost no information on that end filters down, it would seem almost banally faddish, and most of the contemporary "debate" is so full of category errors it's difficult to know where to begin. But I digress. As I said, I can hardly blame contemporary Atheists for their dissatisfaction with religion, only I would say there is more to see.
No. That is incorrect.
Indeed.
Not only do I not think that, but I don't think it's a rational expectation either. Even the most resoundingly successful theories have had numerous real and apparent factual challenges that needed explanation or required the theory to be fine tuned and revised. But perhaps we're speaking past each other here. Fwiw, I think CD is evidenced beyond reasonable doubt, but the mechanism behind it would not be stochastic as proposed, rather the expression of a Platonic or Teleological principle, or akin to the unfolding of a software program.
Well, let's see. "Scottsman". Some people really are not Scotsman, like me, say.
I dont see this as a philosophical matter, pseudo or otherwise.
Misapplication of philosophy does more to obscure than enlighten.
Nothing worse than listening to philosophy students hold forth.
Most tiresome people on campus. (Digression there)
We observe that many like to cite atheists who found God,
but upon examination virtually all were raised in a religious home, fell away as disaffected youth and were sucked back in.
If you wish to state that this sort of "atheism" is indistinguishable from such as mine where the seed of religious/magical belief was never implanted, do so.
I hold that it is wholly different.
A psychologist is the one to say how that works, how early childhood
determines the course of mental development.
As for evolution, of course theories get tweaked, data added, errors of one sort or another discarded.
I am speaking of disproving it. Data contrary is disproof.
Cambrian bunny is cited as an example.
No data exists to disprove, despite the extravagant and withal quite ignorant and silly claims that fundys make, to the contrary.
'Are you aware of that" is my question.
I don't know what CD is...? So I don't see how platonic teleo
has any bearing on evolution. Explain?
