Is proselytizing less condescending when evolutionists do it?
Yes, that's a good idea. The simplified version.
The OPs of the 7 threads in the "Evolution is a Fact" series so far could hardly be any simpler.
If anybody is genuinely confused by anything all they have to do is ask.
Evolution doesn’t explain an orderly universe with suitable physical laws - Clambake
In the same way my wife's umbrella is shit at predicting when it's going to rain.
Every living thing evolved from a common ancestor - therefore the JW religion is built on a false foundation.
If your new set of superstitions also requires creationism - too bad for your superstitions.
If I was a believer in a god and religion of some sort............ I would shift my sense of things a little. I'd understand that the Bible is not a science book but a book about faith with stories to illustrate it's point of view.
My position would be......."Evolution? Of course! But it was God who created the Heavens and the Earth so he used evolution as His process when it came to create living things."
If your a believer there's no reason to deny any part of factual science, it doesn't take anything away from a God you have a personal relationship with.
Cofty, I'll look again at some point when I can focus on this. I suspect it's my inability to stay focused that's the problem. If you say it's already simplified as much as possible I believe you.
Well done Paul. Feel free to ask for any clarifications about stuff that isn't clear.
The problem with physicalism and positivism is it clamps down on possibilities. Plus some of them have a tendency to say:
"you can believe whatever you like, just as long as you know it's childish, foolish, irrational and ignorant not to see the world as I do. As long as we have got that straight, then sure, believe whatever you want."
It's a form of discursive oppression.
There's something deeply mysterious about existence. Either we were brought into existence by a being that is in some sense beyond being, or else we appeared from nothing. Both possibilities are deeply mysterious. There is no way around its mysteriouness. Physicalism is not a serious answer. Physicalism thinks the answer to the question "why did you slap me", can satisfactorily take the form: "because my hand struck your face".
Against the mysteriouness of existence there is something completely vacuous and unsatisfying about the philosophy of Dawkins and his friends.
At the moment I'm listening to a series by Richard Holloway on Radio 4 about the spiritual aspect of aging and death. This is a truly wise man. I could listen to him all day.
Both possibilities are deeply mysterious
Once again you are scolding a strawman.
I have listened to some of Richard Dawkins debates and when asked about the qualities that make us as human (creativity, personality, abstract thinking, and moral judgment) he always turns into a theist.
“Just because we don’t know today doesn’t mean science won’t figure it out in the future “.
I have that answer quite unsettling. No amount of copy and paste about our DNA or common ancestor and whatever which change the fact in a relatively short period of time or milli-second in evolutionary terms can explain who one species went from cave paintings to putting a man on the moon.
when asked about the qualities that make us as human ..he (Dawkins) always turns into a theist. - Clambake
How can somebody who rejects all supernatural explanations be described as a theist?
I think you, SBF and many others falsely imagine that people who deny the supernatural have no sense of wonder, awe and mystery. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have never met anybody with a greater sense of wonder about life, the universe and everything than I have. Supernatural answers destroy that wonder with stupefying platitudes.
You just basically repeated exactly what I said and how I find that an unsatisfactory answer.
Dawkins believes all the mysteries of the universe with enough time will be solved and prove there is no such thing as god. Its a leap of faith. His is a science theist.