Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> George Jelliss writes (15.03 at 12.15): [i]"[belief in] abiogenesis does not require any radical change in the current scientific paradigm...On the other hand ideas of life after death...require a radical change."[/i] On 15.03 at 17.35 he writes of abiogenesis, [i]"I don&apos;t have any "faith" that a solution will be found...It is a difficult problem. It may be that some revolution in the scientific paradigm will be necessary."[/i] - I can&apos;t see much difference between a radical change and a revolution. If the possible need for change in the scientific paradigm is grounds for not believing in one hypothesis, why isn&apos;t it grounds for not believing in the other? - However, the fact that George doesn&apos;t [i]"have any &apos;faith&apos; that a solution will be found"[/i] is what really interests me. Spontaneous generation is crucial to the argument for atheism. Dawkins, in his chapter entitled [i]Why there is almost certainly no God[/i], says that the [i]"spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary molecule...is central to this section of the book"[/i], and without faith that the theory will be proved, I don&apos;t see how anyone can dismiss alternative explanations. That does not mean that I am advocating belief in a deity, or in an afterlife. I have no convictions about them either. I am simply trying to find out how someone can be convinced that their own unproven theories are right and other people&apos;s are wrong. George&apos;s two statements leave me as confused as ever. - In response to Clayto&apos;s being a "pure" agnostic but not having an inner conviction, by "pure" I meant the original meaning of agnosticism, which is "the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists." (I am working with the definition of belief as an inner conviction.) The "impure" definition that you and I go by is that we just don&apos;t know!