Irritating Post: no. 529
Irritating Post: no. 529
They say; “There is no God.”
Who, is “They?”
"It’s just a fairly broad generalization. But only slightly."
More than a few, probably the majority of self-proclaimed intellectuals know there is no God. Having a modest grasp of science jargon helps make this seem rational. Here’s what I mean; say you’re at a dinner party and you want to sound reasonably bright, never say something like “You, know, Darwinism as an explanation for the emergence of all living things and their corresponding Eco-systems, is so inadequate, that no rational human being, not in the thralls of self-delusion, would believe it. Which is not say that Darwinism, aka, evolution—whether Punctuated Equilibrium or slow as molasses evolution—isn’t true. It’s observably true but seems to have very little explanatory power once you move beyond the obvious. After that, things get pretty murky.
But! Have no fear, because self-delusion is here, as it is in all human belief. (Did I just overgeneralize, using the term “All?") I don’t think so. Not in this instance.
The Bible, aka, “The World’s Greatest Book, knows this, all too well. The Bible explains human behavior far better than Darwin ever did. Especially when you consider that it’s “We” humans who need the explanation, not an ape, even an upright one.
Science, for instance, can’t explain poetry, except in terms of brain activity or biological changes. It never will, either. The two, science and poetry, are very different languages, with their own codes and symbols that represent various brain types, which process information differently. That’s why art and religion, mathematics and philosophy, aren’t competitors, regarding the search for truth, but are the product of multilingual, multifaceted, very real human distinctions, including male and female (I just thought I'd throw that in there.) These variables reflect genuine diversity, real diversity, of thought and belief, beyond skin color and sexual preference. A diversity of thought is much harder to control, however, and, therefore, has less cache' in the political realm.
It's only the incessant infighting between the practitioners of these different disciplines and ideas that exemplify Darwinian theory. Proving once and for all that Darwin was right.
But only partly.
About that, I have no doubt.
Sincerely, Senior Wences
They say; “There is no God.”
Who, is “They?”
"It’s just a fairly broad generalization. But only slightly."
More than a few, probably the majority of self-proclaimed intellectuals know there is no God. Having a modest grasp of science jargon helps make this seem rational. Here’s what I mean; say you’re at a dinner party and you want to sound reasonably bright, never say something like “You, know, Darwinism as an explanation for the emergence of all living things and their corresponding Eco-systems, is so inadequate, that no rational human being, not in the thralls of self-delusion, would believe it. Which is not say that Darwinism, aka, evolution—whether Punctuated Equilibrium or slow as molasses evolution—isn’t true. It’s observably true but seems to have very little explanatory power once you move beyond the obvious. After that, things get pretty murky.
But! Have no fear, because self-delusion is here, as it is in all human belief. (Did I just overgeneralize, using the term “All?") I don’t think so. Not in this instance.
The Bible, aka, “The World’s Greatest Book, knows this, all too well. The Bible explains human behavior far better than Darwin ever did. Especially when you consider that it’s “We” humans who need the explanation, not an ape, even an upright one.
Science, for instance, can’t explain poetry, except in terms of brain activity or biological changes. It never will, either. The two, science and poetry, are very different languages, with their own codes and symbols that represent various brain types, which process information differently. That’s why art and religion, mathematics and philosophy, aren’t competitors, regarding the search for truth, but are the product of multilingual, multifaceted, very real human distinctions, including male and female (I just thought I'd throw that in there.) These variables reflect genuine diversity, real diversity, of thought and belief, beyond skin color and sexual preference. A diversity of thought is much harder to control, however, and, therefore, has less cache' in the political realm.
It's only the incessant infighting between the practitioners of these different disciplines and ideas that exemplify Darwinian theory. Proving once and for all that Darwin was right.
But only partly.
About that, I have no doubt.
Sincerely, Senior Wences