Comments | lhynard: Summary of "And What It Is Not" Entries

lhynard

Summary of "And What It Is Not" Entries

Jun 04, 2011 16:29

I am a man who cares very much about definitions. I would argue that many disagreements arise simply because the ones in disagreement are using different definitions of the words. I have shared my wish that words were more precise, that is, that they did not have such a wide range in meanings.[1] If words have fewer meanings, there is less chance ( Read more... )

faith, evolution, politics, self-observation, freedom, hate, realism, intelligent design, democracy, grammar, precision, needs vs wants, disorders, science, logical flaws, stereotypes, paradoxes, definitions, hypocrisy, summaries

Comments 8

sadeyedartist June 4 2011, 20:54:01 UTC

I literally hate that you believe in evolution. While you may think it a paradox, I think you are a hypocrite for claiming to have faith yet believing this way. I know that you have the democracy to think as you please, but that's no reason to go down this path of so-called "logic". (As you would precisely define it.) Evolution is a symptom of the disease called "disbelief" and is racist towards people of faith. Intelligent design is so much more grounded--it has "intelligent" right in it's name. Of course, I would expect nothing less from someone who believes in such "realistic" fiction as the uncertainty principle. Life is not all relative, although people in your field literally make that correlation. Not to be hateful or anything, but arguing about real truth is wanting in this situation. It is literally essential to the upholding of the fortress/palace/castle of our faith.

mwbangor June 16 2011, 23:02:58 UTC

sadeyedartist: I cannot hope to improve on the creative wit in your post but I too was bothered by the evolution definitions ( ... )

lhynard June 17 2011, 00:39:22 UTC

I can assure you that sadeyedartist meant the whole thing in jest; she doesn't really hate that I "believe in evolution".

You are correct about science being about observation and testability, and in fact, my next entry is going to be about science and its strengths and weaknesses. You are also quite correct in hinting that - in most cases - science cannot prove the past. However, in the case of astronomical evolution, there is an interesting catch. We actually can observe the past, because the light traveling to us from far away shows us an image of billions of years ago. We can see older parts of the universe and we can see that it both is and was expanding from a single point. The only way this could not be the case is if God created photons in transit - which sounds contrary to an honest God - or if the speed of light has changed over time, for which there is no evidence at all. That's why I describe astronomical evolution with more certainty ( ... )

mwbangor June 17 2011, 11:48:17 UTC

You know a lot more about science than I do which is one of the reasons I enjoy reading your blog. I don't mean to commandeer your post but I would like to continue our argument for another comment anyway ( ... )

Not so sure about "Hate"? ext_644780 June 4 2011, 23:03:05 UTC

Rom 12:9 New International Version (©1984) "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." Hate is does not necessarily lead to evil actions. It is proper to love the sinner and hate the sin they/we commit. This is often easier said than done, especially in a climate where people are looking for reasons to be hurt by the actions/statements of another.

Re: Not so sure about "Hate"? lhynard June 4 2011, 23:13:29 UTC

I wasn't trying to say that it necessarily leads to evil actions, just that it can. (I'll go clarify that with an edit.) Note also that I was very careful to say that if I were perfect I would not hate a human. Moreover, I'd persoanlly go even further and say that if I hate someone, it is evil, even if I don't act. I agree that we should all hate evil. I'd imagine that we're on the same page with that.

Thanks for visiting!

themadcow June 8 2011, 18:29:40 UTC

Love this--particularly "correlation" and "excuse".

I am sure I have become quite annoying to some by consistently saying, "Correlation does not imply causation," but it annoys me to no end that this is such a widely held belief with people. I'm sure the fact that I work in a field full of troubleshooting makes it all the more annoying to me when people make this mistake, but still...

I also have to dodge people jumping down my throat on a fairly regular basis when I offer reasons why people do some of the things that they do. These reasons are not meant to excuse any action but rather to explain it. The fact that I understand someone's motivations or the driving influence behind their actions does not imply that I am attempting to excuse their behavior.

(The comment has been removed)

lhynard November 1 2011, 14:12:18 UTC

Thanks!

I do plan to start up blogging again. I just finished my PhD, and that task ate up a lot of my free time.