|
Post by InklingElf on Oct 28, 2003 20:06:23 GMT -5
Where there is a candle--the candle casts a shadow...The closer you are to the light, the bigger your shadow becomes. It is [if I may say so] a law of human nature--not to mention nature--in all its aura. I participated in a Socratic Seminar for this topic once--we all came out with the same conclusion (-_-) lol...Anyway, without further ado, I will try not to drift too far from the stated topic. Firstly, does the mute--or din of a falling tree truly matter that much? Well, no, not really but that's what we're here to talk about right? heh... In order to view this trivial question from all possible view points, we must first ponder how it ended up on a crash course to the lower ground? why the laws of gravity mercilessly killed the poor organic LIVING THING!? ...OK don't answer the second one I wonder how long we can stay sane after such a triviality...Crashing trees and the curious sounds a locker makes after all is quiet...? Do they have something in common? Well, nobody else was there--that's for sure--and the only person who witnessed it didn't have the sheer sensibility to tell US if it did make a noise!!!
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Aug 15, 2004 13:20:07 GMT -5
trivial indeed.
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Oct 28, 2003 19:51:36 GMT -5
In addition to Lossie's post:
There are 6 different categories of philosophy--all of their terms being self-explanatory:
philosophy [in general] analytic philosophy moral philosophy natural philosophy ordinary-language philosophy philosophy of life
...I gathered those of the internet -- questions may be asked of them if there is a dire need of clarity.
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Jan 7, 2004 23:54:09 GMT -5
I read Out of the Silent Planet -- I am still anticipating the other two -- Lewis is an awesome author!Some say Perelandra is the best book though.
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on May 26, 2004 18:46:10 GMT -5
indeed, sience and religion are two opposites
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Apr 10, 2004 18:10:45 GMT -5
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Everything you said up to now is of course valid...I am not a Theologian myself, but truly believe in the Bible.
now..did anyone actually read the article i posted above?
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Jan 7, 2004 23:58:27 GMT -5
For the moment I will leave with an analytical essay I found on the web--http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences2/10sci.html--read it well:
HAS SCIENCE DISPROVED THE BIBLE? H. H. Price has stated that "a Deity who intervened miraculously and suspended natural law could never be accepted by Science."1 In his reply to Professor Price, C. S. Lewis observed that you cannot discover a railway accident by studying railway timetables:
To discover a regularity is by definition not to discover its interruptions, even if they occur. You cannot discover a railway accident from studying Bradshaw [Bradshaw's Railway Guide]: only by being there when it happens or hearing about it afterwards from someone who was. . . . But surely this does not mean that a student of Bradshaw is logically forced to deny the possibility of railway accidents.2 Many people believe that it is unscientific to believe the Bible. If this is true, however, then the following people were unscientific: Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Matthew Maury, Michael Faraday, Clerk Maxwell, John Ray, and Carolus Linnaeus. All of these great scientists believed the Bible, including the miracles recorded within it. In fact, they were creationists, as were almost all scientists before the time of Charles Darwin, whose Origin of Species was not published until 1859.
Has the Darwinians revolution changed all of that? No, there is nothing intrinsically unscientific about Sir Isaac Newton's world view, according to which all of the miracles of the Bible took place, including the creation of the universe by God ex nihilo. However, with the acceptance of the Darwinian theories, there was an acceptance of a new world view. Ernst Mayr, Agassiz Professor Zoology at Harvard University, wrote as follows in the prestigious British journal, Nature:
The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, but a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces.3 According to Mayr, the implication of Darwin's thesis was that "it is unscientific to believe in supernatural causation."4 If Mayr is correct, then the "scientific" world view, according to which there is no supernatural causation, is relatively new to science.
Science itself was built upon the foundation of a Biblical world view. The great historian of science, Stanley L. Jaki, asks in his book, Science and Creation,5 why it is that the development of science took place in Europe between 1250 and 1650 and not in any of the great civilizations of antiquity, even though many of them had long periods of relative stability, and were able to develop technology to a considerable degree. Jaki surveys the civilizations of ancient Babylon, Egypt, China, the Hindus, the Incas, the Aztecs, and the Mayas, in an attempt to determine what kept them from developing a true science.
Scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about order and rationality. Jaki concludes that the elements needed for the birth of science came into existence through the Judaeo- Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. Within such a world view it becomes meaningful to attempt to understand nature, and this is the fundamental reason why science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century.6 Christianity's objective view of truth made possible the rise of modern science. Jaki writes:
The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest. . . . The future of man rests with that judgment which holds the universe to be the handiwork of a Creator and Lawgiver. To this belief, science owes its very birth and life.7
Science will not flourish in a world view which excludes a creator and orderer of the universe. If there is no order in the universe, there can be no science, because the very purpose of science is to study that order. It the presupposition of materialism persists, we can be certain that science as a field will progressively become an unfruitful area of endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Aug 4, 2004 15:32:02 GMT -5
ugly ugly ugly!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Aug 11, 2003 15:25:20 GMT -5
what and OLD topic. Perhaps the Elven costumes were meant to stand out.
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on May 9, 2004 15:47:36 GMT -5
My favorite book by her would have to be Pride and Prejudice
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Aug 15, 2004 14:05:05 GMT -5
Right as always Istawen.
But may I add -- discussing specific chapters of a book is recommended to more efficiently delve into the aformentioned dimensions in Ista's post.
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Apr 19, 2004 23:31:11 GMT -5
The relationship between religion and power - One of the more innovative aspects of Dune is its exploration of religion—something that, in the early 1960s, was rare in most science fiction. Many science fiction authors considered religion as an outdated institution that would eventually lose its direct control over society, as it had in the United States for decades. These authors assumed that the separation of church and state would only widen in the future. Frank Herbert had a different conception of the future. Not only does the universe of Dune employ a feudal government system that includes dukes and barons, but religion has a very strong presence in day-to-day existence and even in political decision-making. ...and you mentioned the spice as addiction -- yes. It is also the human control over ecology -- basically the same thing. I really hope I'll be able to get around to reading all of the books -- sadly I have state tests starting on Wed.
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Apr 10, 2004 18:14:00 GMT -5
I've read the first two: DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH. Perhaps I will be able to lead on a disscussion with you.
What symbols would you like to talk about?
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Apr 16, 2004 18:11:17 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with you Lossie -- she is not quite in league with the writers on my list (besides Tolkien of course) -- however, Anne Rice does a great deal of descriptive imagery -- which I admire. It heightens the senses, which in turn breathes life into her characters and the places are as real as the Golden Gate Bridge to San Francisco (< I don't know where that came from -_-).
Ms. Rice's works of fiction are incredible I'll give you that -- although she is on the eccentric side, her works are quite respectable in the world of fiction.
|
|
|
Post by InklingElf on Oct 23, 2003 14:46:17 GMT -5
;D Perhaps
|
|