Philo

At age ten I was very capable of critical thinking. I have reviewed my personal philosophical beliefs many time since - I am content with my pre-adolescent decisions.

As for your church:

<<< In my church there are professors of horticulture who teach at WS University, professor in electronics UT NSW who assisted in the development of equipment for the NASA space programme, and built the first computer for the Australian Government. Both of these guys became Christians in their 30's and are avid creationists. >>>

Your church must offer great succour to these professors.

:-)

Yes Dan, it's quite reasonable to suggest Darwin was as focussed on his 'idea' as you are (and certainly Dawkins does tend to exhibit a certain (non) religious fervour), but once again you deftly (or stubbornly) avoid the real issue.
Darwin, as with all scientists, was prepared to see his idea evolve; as other scientists built on his work.
History is an evolution of ideas, philosophies, mores, customs, taboos and thoughts.
Science is an evolution of physical knowledge.
Your theory of Religion is believing that nothing people have learnt in the last 2000 years is worth squat.
David f, that was the absolute worst pun I have read this year.
And it still made me laugh.

Sqeers,

>>what's true for you is not true for me<<
Well, I do not think you meant it sound like it does; you probably meant that there were things I hold true (i.e. believe) while you do not, and vice versa. Then I agree.

>> What is truth for you?<<
This is a challenging question that cannot be answered in 350 words. For instance, Wikipedia has a huge article, discussing various philosopher’s and schools’ views of the concept, that you probably are aware of. Sometimes they complement, rather than contradict, each other.

I personally do not like the concept as such (except in a religious context, where it is undefined, only modeled by mythologies, sacred texts and theologies), although I like the expression “pursuit of truth” as a description of a (natural, but probably also social) scientist’s activity, de-emphasizing (but not completely rejecting) Thomas Kuhn’s approach. Another way to describe this activity is to “explain phenomena” as david f suggested elsewhere.

One things is to believe there is an objective (physical) reality as the source of these phenomena, i.e. sensual perceptions, and another thing is to believe that one KNOWS (or will know in the future), this reality. My belief is of the first kind, hence scientific truth has both a subjective and objective dimensions. Those who believe to KNOW this reality neglect (or reject) the subjective dimension of truth, whereas post-modernists sound to me as neglecting (or even rejecting) the objective dimension of truth.

Something similar, I think, could be said about Truth or Ultimate Reality in its metaphysical/theological sense, althoug today those who reject its objective dimension are much more numerous than those who reject the objective dimension of scientific truth.

Well, I am afraid i did not answer you question completely to your satisfaction but you have to admit that I tried. (ctd)

Sqeers (ctd),
>> I don't believe in belief<<
Again, this makes sense to me only if by “belief” you mean “religious belief”, i.e. in an “Ultimate” Reality irreducible to physical reality (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883). That is fair enough.

However, you cannot be without ANY beliefs. Somebody listed e.g. these, which I think the vast majority of us - of whatever world-view or philosophical pre-disposition - can accept (listed on http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx):

that our senses and our memories are (usually) reliable, rather than being hallucinations;
that our short-term thought processes are (usually) reliable (that is, that we are sane at all);
that the entire universe didn't whisk into existence a second ago (including all of us, with a complete set of fake memories), and won't whisk out of existence a second later;
that other bodies which act like ours contain conscious awarenesses like our own (and that the "intensity" with which they feel sensations and emotions can be judged by the complexity of their behavior);
that it is likely that a consciousness is permanently destroyed by the destruction of its physical body and will never be resurrected later in another physical body (that is, the only thing that makes us think murder is immoral at all).

There are other “beliefs” known as scientific presuppositions (e.g. the belief in a rational, orderly - not necessarily deterministic - nature of physical reality) without which there could not be any science.

I agree, you can have your beliefs unsystematized, unconscious, but some people - at various levels of sophistication - like to have them systematized into a world-view, naive or not.

Dan,
Let me repeat

“evolution - like Quantum Mechanics, Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc - is not a “core belief of Catholicism”, but simply a scientific insight compatible with what the Church stands for” .

There are many things that are neither a “core belief” nor peripheral to Catholicism. If the Pope made a statement e.g. supporting (or condemning) the ALP, that would not be a “core belief”, but neither would it be “peripheral” - you’d just have to ask the media to see.

AJ,
When you say evolution is a demonstrable science while the ideas of the other two, Marx and Freud, are mere philosophies, you are helping to clarify my point.

That was exactly what I was saying. In their day, Marx and Freud were considered scientific. They were considered able to be put to experiment. Many consider the day the Berlin Wall fell to be the end of a failed experiment.

The ideas still persist, but as ideas, as philosophies. They’re discussed in the halls of ‘social sciences’. Other ideas are making them look old fashion.

Darwin still holds sway in intellectual circles, even within the science faculties. But Johnson was predicting the day when Darwin’s idea will too be downgraded, to be held onto by some, and discussed at length in philosophical domains.

Darwin’s idea has several problems. Firstly, it makes little sense. Secondly, it is supported by little evidence. But in the context that I’m talking about here, its problem is that it is a theory of history, and as such not subject to testing like the real experimental sciences.

Grim,
If you accuse me of saying that people haven’t learned anything worthwhile in the last 2000 years, then it is obvious that you are not really reading my posts. If so, then why direct your comments towards me?