1. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202472 by Abhishek on July 1, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Comment #202452 by Oystein Elgaroy

I am amazed that he doesn't see how this kind of thinking eliminates all links between reality and the concept of god.

Yeah, me too. I guess rationality is itself rationed in the mind. It takes an enormous amount of clear reasoning to do physics, I dont know -- it still gets to me how the brain compartmentalizes so well.

2. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #202467 by Abhishek on July 1, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Phaseshift: Yeah, I think that's a good point about acquiring enough life experience/opportunities for you to learn about the distinctions and make up your mind. As you say, the adult version SHOULD have more time to learn about the world and themselves.

Barry Pearson: The access-to-alternatives test is interesting. I'll read Humphrey's paper when I have time. My knee-jerk reaction to the test is that it sort of advocates that the "allowed" things to impose on children would be those that are currently in the mainstream, or majority. It would rule out the extreme practices on the fringes and therefore on the face of it seems like a good rule of thumb. It's of course extremely hard to implement since most parents who impose certain beliefs on their children probably sincerely think they're doing their children a favor...

3. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202445 by Abhishek on July 1, 2008 at 1:52 pm

I think we will never have some sort of model that says, "OK, here's how God gets his agenda across in the natural order. Here's how the will of God gets realized in nature -- we won't ever have that. But we might have insights into possibilities about how we could think about that. These insights will be rich enough that they will accommodate religious experience and some of the things that have long been a part of religion.

What the hell does that mean? "But we might have insights into possibilities about how we could think about that" ? We'll have an insight. That insight will illuminate possibilities. Those possibilities will reveal potential avenues for new thought? Wtf.

edit: I guess he's trying to mingle words and say ohh don't worry, in the future we'll find more ways to blur the line and keep god alive. Still, wtf.

4. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #200956 by Abhishek on June 28, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Comment #200932 by Teratornis

The certain level of understanding would be whatever it takes for the Christian to see he isn't a Muslim, if those are the two religions on offer. Obviously only a tiny percentage of Muslims understand Islamic doctrine as well as their Mufti, and if they needed to, then Islam would be in trouble.

Then an interesting point the questioner raised, was that what if the child decides to call himself/herself a Muslim? If it only requires a distinction in the big catagories, a child could say I've looked at the big catagories and I think I'd like to be called a Muslim child, please.

5. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #200843 by Abhishek on June 28, 2008 at 10:14 am

In the questions part, someone asks about the labeling of children. I think his point was that just as children don't have the full understanding of the different nuances of christianity or islam or whatever to be able to correctly label themselves as such, the adults who call themselves Christian or Muslim also don't have a very deep understanding of their religion. He seems to be making the case that contrary to the assumption that adults are free to call themselves muslim because they are capable of understanding what it entails to be a muslim, MOST adults who call themselves muslim don't actually have the level of understanding you would expect one to have before you would call yourself that.

So in the end, most adults and children don't actually know very much about the morality and cosmology and the overall worldview that Islam or Christianity provides. Therefore, why make a distinction based on age rather than on displaying a certain level of understanding of the implications of your self-ascribed label?

Did anyone catch that? Do I have the correct understanding of the questioner's argument?

edit: my response would be that at least adults are CAPABLE of getting full information about their religion before accepting it, while very young children don't have enough information about the world, or haven't full developed their rationality to be able to dissect the arguments.

6. Stupid flies live longer: study

Comment #189082 by Abhishek on June 5, 2008 at 11:27 am

One was so clever at escaping me, that I finally captured it in a net and let it go, out of respect for its abilities.

hahaha

7. Lizards make adaptive change

Comment #187267 by Abhishek on June 1, 2008 at 5:46 pm

the researchers conducted a DNA analysis and found they were genetically identical to the original ones.

I'm assuming they mean "genetically identical" = DNA was ALMOST identical? If it really was entirely identical, there wouldn't be anatomical and functional differences in the lizards.

8. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174425 by Abhishek on May 2, 2008 at 12:07 pm

I think this is the article Epinephrine is referencing.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regrowing-human-limbs

9. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174411 by Abhishek on May 2, 2008 at 11:45 am

DavidJGrossman:

Human fingertip regeneration is nothing new (google it). Salamanders can regenerate entire limbs.

I think the reason it's interesting is because although other species may have extraordinary regenerative capacity, humans generally are not known to be able to regenerate working, complex body parts (including apparently complete re-innervation that this guy has).

10. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174396 by Abhishek on May 2, 2008 at 11:26 am

Interesting. I wonder if Mr. Spievak is religious or prayed for the finger to grow back...

I agree with Jiten, the explanation will of course have to do with the genetics of cellular repair and tissue regeneration. The extra-cellular matrix might not have done anything or it may have served as a catalyst or provided the stimulus to wake up quiescence cells. It'll be interesting to see what the actual explanation is once the researchers figure it out.

11. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170620 by Abhishek on April 27, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Ryan -- I guess where I'm confused is that, well, here's how I understand you, tell me where I'm getting it wrong: You're saying God is by definition everything moral. So are you simply giving a synonym for morality? And do you believe in absolute morality? That the right moral actions exist independently and it's incumbent upon us to discover them?

I see your point about how Dawkins can't claim that God is immoral, therefore it's unlikely that He exists. From what I understood of his arguments, it went something like: 1)God is moral 2) The bible is the word of God/inspired by God, therefore you would expect it to be full of morality 3) The bible contains advice/suggestions that seem immoral 4) Therefore, it is unlikely that a "moral God" was the sole inspiration for the bible. I suppose it's an argument that shows that the biblical God is self-contradictory if His essence is perfect morality, yet He suggests immoral actions.

You're right, it can't claim that ergo God doesn't exist. But it does point out that if you believe the bible is the word of God, then whatever God that inspired the bible isn't perfectly moral, which you would expect if you believed that the god of the bible was a perfectly moral God.

12. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170551 by Abhishek on April 27, 2008 at 8:29 pm

riandouglas: Since then I've barely slept or left the house. My advice is to forget you ever made a comment. In fact, forget you ever saw the site. Run away! :-)

Hahaha I wish I had the sense to do that! I'm currently in med school and I have the biggest exam of my life (boards) coming up in a few weeks, and I totally wasted last weekend glued to the laptop catching up on every comment ever made :) Dammit, I might not remember the pathophysiology of Diabetes but I can tell you why God doesn't exist! My name is Abhishek and I'm an addict.

13. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170419 by Abhishek on April 27, 2008 at 6:16 pm

However, the God of the Bible is defined not simply as being perfect in the moral sense; rather, He is defined as the essence of morality itself. In the Biblical scheme, whatever is moral is whatever is consistent with God's nature. If a god is not moral then, it cannot be the God of the Bible. Therefore, to say that God is immoral or evil is to, in more precise terms, say that a being who by definition is the definition of morality is immoral.

Thinking about it logically, doesn't it seem to you a bit like begging the question to conveniently define God = everything moral? I can say let by definition Satan = everything moral, and according to your line of reasoning, one cannot argue with this impeccable claim. You can define anything as anything and not have to justify the equation.

You have to infer about God's properties, qualities, and wishes from the bible itself, if you're going to claim that the bible is the word of God, or is divinely inspired. And the reason Dawkins suggest that the biblical God is immoral is that the bible paints a picture of God. And these characteristics of the biblical God would be considered immoral by even our lowest common denominator consensus of what's moral.

And I've been perusing this website for some time now, and thought I'd get involved in the discussion. Hello everyone!