Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (46216)	4/4/2002 7:45:20 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Miracles, if they occur, do so infrequently" If they do not occur, they occur even less frequently... "there are results that are not readily explained by known natural mechanisms, like the several dozen cases of healing at Lourdes that seem to have no possible natural basis" The only way of processing this objectively is through the scientific method. This does not prevent you or others from inventing "explanations". Science is not opposed to your explanations. Perhaps they will be able to explain your explanation someday. When your explanation is sensible it will be perceived as sensible amongst sensible people. There was a time when almost everything (in the modern framework) would have been considered "miraculous". I find nothing "miraculous" about a few "cures" in Lourdes where expectation is part and parcel of the rational understanding. Hippocrates said a few years ago that suggestion influenced events. I don't remember his quote. It was something about self and curing. But my point is that he did not consider it miraculous, and neither do most other scientists. "The entire physical universe might have a beginning and an end, and nevertheless have an implicit purpose." Certainly; and that may involve an intelligent agent. No good scientist leaves that "possibility" out. But neither do they support or adopt fancies which are only justified by the "unjustified" assertions of racist, or other self interested concerns. Science is not big enough to go to God. And every good scientist knows that. If God wishes to come to us...She may. "I am merely referring to philosophical/theological reflection, which, as I pointed out, is more comprehensive than science and provides a way of addressing claims of revelation, or making sense of accepted traditions. Science does a much better job of addressing such claims than do the thousands of groups who oppose the claims of one another. Mysticism does not evaluate claims of revelation. The weaker side either submits to forced "conversion", or is killed. You have the luxury of "addressing claims of revelation, or making sense of accepted traditions.". I trust you are able to appreciate that such a luxury is fortuitous and unusual... I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree I am not always sure that we do. I have a good idea of where you are coming from. My "disagreement" is qualified by circumstance and context. I suspect that yours is as well...