.

Dear George,

.

" ... you have the right to thus dismiss any field of enquiry ... "

True, but I do not. What I do is to consider the object of enquiry to be invalid: "the interface between the philosophies of science and religion".

Alchemy was a field of enquiry for about 2 500 years, until the 20th century. The object of enquiry was threefold: the transmutation of common metals into gold and silver, the creation of the elixir of life, and the discovery of a universal solvent (alcahest).

Despite 2 500 years of research, none of these goals were ever achieved and alchemy was gradually abandoned.

Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas and Isaac Newton were all alchemists.

Perhaps philosophers and alchemists would still be active in this particular field of enquiry if several major political and religious leaders had not condemned or forbidden it, and had Robert Boyle not fathered chemistry in the 17th century, thus rendering it obsolete.

In many other fields of enquiry, much research is undertaken, but relatively little is pursued to its final term. Fields of enquiry are not eternal.

And what about the Abrahamic religions, for that matter, has not the main player abandoned that eminent field of enquiry for two thousand years, or more, If, indeed, he ever contributed to it ?

My sentiment is that there has been and continues to be a certain amount of confusion between science and religion to the detriment of both.

Regrettably, neither has ever been a factor of progress for the other. The contrary would be a valid goal in my view, the prerequisite being the establishement of a constructive dialoque between the two.

The exclusive sphere of activity of each could then be clearly defined and respected, with no overlapping, no common ground, no interaction, no interface, no common boundary, no rivalry, no competition, no confusion.

Rather than "the interface (interference) of the philosophies of science and religion" as a field of enquiry, I prefer "the independence (non-interference) of the philosophies of science and religion".

Auf Wiedersehen, George.

.

Sorry for the delay in response, George. My Computer died.

<<So I will not apologise any more, if that is the problem...>>

I don’t believe I suggested or even alluded to that in anyway shape or form. What I do think is becoming a problem though, is your insistence of misinterpreting me.

<<...and just accept that you are reading my posts to Oliver et al as using arguments “that are deliberately devised to appear plausible, but are actually fallacious and misleading”, as well as an “inherently flawed form of Christian apologetics known as ‘Presuppositionalism’ that - as every other form of apologetics does - falls down at its premise and ultimately fails”.>>

No, I don’t believe I said that either, sorry. I think I made what I thought fit that description quite clear. I even outlined the reasons as to why they fit that description.

<<Well, I am certainly not aware of insisting Oliver or others accept “an ultimate category of thought or a conceptual framework...>>

Just as I’m am not aware of every claiming that you did.

You make very much the same mistakes in reasoning that presuppositionalists do and this is why I figured you were arguing very much from that angle.

Just one of the many examples of the mistakes made is that you use presuppositions to rationalize religious belief ignoring the fact that the huge leap from a presupposition to a belief in a specific religion is not rational. Going by this “rationalization” I could presuppose anything and the huge leaps and bounds in faith and any assertions would then supposedly be “rational”.

<<Also, not everybody who uses the term social is a socialist; the same with presuppositions and this “presuppositionalism”.>>

No, but when someone continuously uses the term “social” in political discussion while making the same error in reasoning as a socialist, along with what appear to be similar motives, then one starts to wonder.

AJ Philips,

>>What I do think is becoming a problem though, is your insistence of misinterpreting me.<<

That is a very good reason for me to stop, and not to bother you with attempts at explaining how I see things. However, this OLO is not a line of communication exclusively between you and me. I would also stop reacting to what david f, Oliver and others write if they claimed I "insisted on misrepresenting them".

>>You make very much the same mistakes in reasoning <<

This is another good reason to stop since I do not remember having tried to reason with you, only understand you.

aj/quote...<<Just as I’m am not aware of every claiming that you did.>>.im just having to pre-suppose/you meant...ever...not every?

<<You make very much/the same mistakes in reasoning that presuppositionalists do>>.sometimes when others presume...i need to assume/because they presume incorrectly

<<and this is why/I figured you were arguing very much from that angle.>>.your presuming again

<<Just one/of the many examples..of the mistakes made/is that you use presuppositions to rationalize>>>the knife cuts both ways..[noting your presumptions..of having science...hasnt been backed with presenting/it

im not even neding to presume/you aint got none...it is self evident

<<religious belief/ignoring the fact that the huge leap from a presupposition..to a belief>>so you keep presuming...its funny that those of no belief...presume so badly...upon that which they suppose

<<in a specific religion is not rational.>>>says the blindmouse to the man[its funny how you cant validate...YOUR science...thus fel the need to pre-supose...your deklusions..into name calling

<<Going by this/“rationalization”..I could presuppose anything>>.clearly you are[but because you dont have FAULSIFYABLE facts...that is reasonable?

<<and the huge leaps/and bounds in faith..and any assertions would then supposedly be..“rational”.>>.your assuming to presume...CLEARLY YOU CANT VALIDATE...your FAITH...in evolution...thus hangon to side issue/DISS-tractions...from the topic..by name calling

it is sad...you cant present...the SCIance...to validate...your BELIEFS...in evolution...its sad your pers..HAVE/NEVER replicated that...they laughingly..call SCIENCE

but then agrivate your ignorance...with name calling...WHEN AL YOU GOT IS A FAITH...in...SCIENCE...but no science/to validate your FAITH

PRESENT YOUR FAULSE/AS-IF-YABLES
or replicate...it...mate
or name the first evolving mem-brain
or the first living...'thing'...
and what it evolved...INTO

DONT NAME-CALL..NAME NAMES

validate...ONE CHANGE OF GENUS...
there is NONE recorded!...EVER...HUGE GAPS>>>MATE

YOU HAVE FAITH....in a lie
your decieved...

and worse...your name calling...in lue of presenting FACT
your a decieved child...aj...take the red pill/lips

WASHINGTON — Two days after a federal judge delivered a heavy blow to the intelligent-design movement, the journal Science Thursday proclaimed that fresh evidence of evolution in action was the top scientific breakthrough of 2005.

In the annual roundup, the journal's editors pointed to wide-ranging research built on the foundations of Charles Darwin’s landmark 1859 work ”The Origin of Species” and the idea of natural selection. Among the highlights: a study that showed a mere 4 percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, and studies documenting the splits in species of birds, fish and caterpillars.

“Amid this outpouring of results, 2005 stands out as a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds,” the editors wrote. “Ironically, also this year, some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution.”

The journal’s editor in chief, Don Kennedy, acknowledged that this was a reference to the spread of intelligent-design claims, which contend some aspects of nature are so complex that they are best explained as the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection, as Darwin argued.

Opponents, including many scientists, argue that intelligent design is a thinly disguised version of creationism — a belief that the world was created by God as described in the Book of Genesis. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that creationism may not be taught in public-school science classes.

“I think what arouses the ire of scientists [about intelligent design] is ... the notion that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis,” Kennedy told Reuters in a telephone interview.

“It’s a hypothesis that’s not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea,” said Kennedy. “That’s just not possible with a notion that’s as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is.”
Story continues below More below

OUG. Is this your uncle?lol.

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050829/chimp2.grid-6x2.jpg

OUG. I think you agree that the two paths destination,s are clearly divided and by one respect, neither is a fools game. Now since there isnt much point on continuing, one must stop and all go back and re-think.

NIMHO, I wish to believe the eyes on approach, and have faith in my-self. " NOW GOD MADE ME IN THE IMAGE OF HIMSELF, RIGHT! So its fair to say that he trusts my thoughts on any matter,s my brain wishes to choose. ( free will )

Well I will be the first to declare that my religion is worshiping the earth, and would put my faith in it rather than your magical world that "no" new human would touch in a 1000 years of logic to come. As for the god, you can have it my friend, because I see no god doing no-thing in regards to saving this planet, and as irony would have it, you need this world to have a god in the first place. So with that, we will see that your faith seeds, as the rest of us fight to save this world while you and your mob choose to talk to thin air. smile.

Enjoy the link.

And all the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_iAkprzjKE

TTm>