Dear OUG,

I am not posting anything more on Asimov's book. I just recommended it. If you want to see what it says. Get it or borrow it.

Au revoir, David Fischer.

George,
Defining the terms is a big part of the discussion; what is a scientific theory, what is a philosophy. No doubt Darwin thought he was compiling a sound scientific theory on our biological origins. As such, I don’t think it has been particularly compelling. Probably not much more than his contemporary, Marx, who also thought he was making contributions to science in the field of economics. When such ideas bled (pardon the pun) into the philosophical realm, inspiring passions the world over, I don’t think it deserves to be called a downgrade when a supposed scientific theory is satiating a philosophical appetite.

Remembering that part of Zimmerman’s definition of science, which demands that scientific claims be offered in a manner that permits them to be falsified; how would you propose we falsify the idea of the common descent of all life from a single cell ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection? It’s a theory of history (account and analysis of past events). And as you’ve been saying, history differs from natural science, as it’s somewhat closed to laboratory experiment.

To say “Je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse” makes good sense when you have a workable theory with good explanatory power over the observable data.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that we’re compelled to subscribe to the best theory available. I guess that’s somewhat axiomatic. The question then always shifts to just what is the best theory. I do not think that the best theory is naturally that of the materialist. That might be good Enlightenment philosophy, but I don’t see the need to subscribe to it.

no/worries..david...its clear..you only threw-in a redirection..lol

anyhow..i did some research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

which led to more/research
http://www.jamaat.net/name/name3.html

so..even your throw-away..destractions
reveal..even fools have their wisdoms

i guess its just the difference/betwixt..thee and me

i wont quote from the first/link
[that was your destraction]

so quote/from the 2 de[cause i thought/it interesting]

<<converting Jewish..(Yehudi)..names into Gentile names.

The letters Y.H.W.H..occur in the Hebrew..(Jewish)/Scriptures..6 823 times, boasts the Jehovah's/Witness,..and it occurs in combination with the word "Elohim;" 156 times..in the booklet/called Genesis alone.

This combination YHWH/ELOHIM has/been..consistently/translated..in the English/Bible as.."Lord God,".."Lord God,"..Lord God,"..ad infinitum.

COMMON-ORIGIN

What is YHWH;..and what/is..ELOHIM?

Since the lews/did.not articulate the/word..YHWH for centuries,..and since even the Chief/Rabbis..would not allow/the ineffable..to be heard,..they have forfeited/the right..to claim dogmatically..how the word is to/be..sounded.

We have/to..seek the aid of the Arab..to revive Hebrew,..a language which had/once..died/out...In every/linguistic-difficulty..recourse has to/be made..to Arabic,..a sister-language,..which/has remained alive and viable...Racially and linguistically,..the Arabs and the Jews have a common/origin,..going back to Father/Abraham.

Note the startling/resemblance ..between the languages,..very often the same sounding-words..carry identical meaning in both.

<<Shaloam/Salaam/peace
Yahuwa/Ya Huwa/oh he

YHWH or..Yehova or..Yahuwa/..all mean..the very-same/thing.

"Ya" is a vocative/..and an exclamatory-particle..
in both Hebrew and Arabic,..meaning Oh!

And "Huwa" or "Hu" means He,..again in both..Hebrew and Arabic.

Together they/mean Oh He!

So instea.. of YHWH ELOHIM,..we now have Oh He!..ELOHIM.

<<.. it is an/admitted-fact..that prior/to..the sixteenth century,..the word.."Jehovah,"..was unheard of.

<<Tetra,"..in Greek means FOUR,..and/"grammaton,"..means LETTERS.

It simply/means.."a four-letter/word."

<<..The European/Christians..have developed..a fondness..(sickness) for the letter.."J" They add J's..where there are no/Jays.

Whenever..the origin/of this word..appeared in/its..true Hebrew-form in Jewish-Scriptures..(read/from right to left..as in/Arabic)..Yet,Huh,Wav,Huh;..or Y.H.W.H.

these four-letters..were preceded/by..a substitute word.."Adonai,"..

to warn the/reader..that the following-word/was-not to/be..articulated.

Dear Oliver,

I agree with the facts you list, although I do not know according to what criterions would you consider China as having arrived “further” than the West before globalisation (brought about by the information technology explosion) started to erase the boundaries. Certainly not in critical (Enlightenment) thinking, science and technology, although there were times IN THE PAST when China was closer in this respect to our present levels than Christendom of those times .

The role of Islam as a catalyst in the formation of Christian thinking (through mediating the reconnection of the West to Greek thought) is well known. Unfortunately, the problem with Islam is that their thinking during (Christian) Middle Ages was closer to our present day standards than it is today (see e.g. the interview http://www.catholic.org/ae/books/review.php?id=37873).

As for Enlightenment, let me repeat that it did not come from another planet (another civilisation or culture) to be forced upon Medieval Christianity, but arose from within the Judaeo-Christian heritage as a self-correction, as painful - and as desperately opposed by those holding the (cultural etc) reins of the "total society" - as it was (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8985#142704).

AJ Philips,
A can only repeat, history is not about what you can safely say but about what actually happened.

I am not an expert on Whitehead, so you can read about him - and others with similar appreciation to the role played by Christianity in history - the same as I can. Just google “Christianity, history, role”: I found 33,100,000 hits. I am sure some answers you will like, some you will not.

I agree, that “we have a way of determining which of opinion is more likely” - the one which is our own or represented by a school of thought we subscribe to; this is what opinion (“view or judgment formed about something”) means. When interpreting history opinions shaped by our a priori world-view play even more important roles than they do when interpreting the findings of natural science.

Dan,

There is no best theory on tentative theories. One tries to prove a proposition then test it. It hangs around until something better comes along: e.g., Man didn't descend from apes; We evolev from a common ancestor. So, Darwin according to present knowledge was in error to the exist that his knowledge is an apporximation of our knowledge. As Einstein (in Popper) said:

"There could be no fairer destiny for any ... theory than it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on
..."

Sometimes there is a paradigm (Kuhn) shift wherein most scientists will recognise strong evidence: The Solid State vs. Big Bang debate was won by the latter because of the discovery of uniform background
radiation as forecast by physcists. (Which incedently also shows the universe to be billions of years old. (An issue you haven't addressed (see above)).

Regards.

Dear George,

Sorry if I was unclear about the Enlightenment. The West took off and surpassed China (and other socities) after the Enlightenment and particularly after the mid-1700s (The Great Divergence). Chinese society being traditionalist tended not to have peaks and dark ages like the West. Progress was slow yet continuous. Knowledge enhancement was often in the direction of improving State unification techologies and agriculture. Said knowledge enhancement was built on classic works which provided firm foundations yet little oppunity to paradim (Kuhn) shift. The intelligensi controlled knowledge but within a system that did not allow them to break ranks.

On the other hand, in the West, the Church controlled knowledge and importantly the interpretation of knowledge. Maybe the Christian Church was not the main cause of the Dark Ages, yet it played a significant role in sustainng it.

As a thinker I see you not only post-Enlightenment but also post Hiensenberg. Your distinction between Christianity and Christiandom reveals an acceptance of history.