Alphabetically?
The question does seem ambiguous. What is it supposed to mean?
If there is a perceived conflict between something believed on faith and what appears to be true according to the scientific method, which should prevail? How should such conflicts be resolved?
That how I’m interpreting it, anyway.
Excited to get to hear @Faizal_Ali debate! I’ll tune in.
Anyone watch?
I’ve watched parts of it. Makes me want to interview you sometime.
I watched some of it Sunday but am just getting to the rest of it now…
Have now watched the whole thing. You made some good points. It would have been nice if he didn’t enjoy interrupting and then emitting long strings of creationist misconceptions, because it prevented having much of a discussion on most of this.
I am a bit puzzled by his insistence on what are the “big questions.” It seems to me that if one insists on identifying only non-worthwhile or poorly-defined questions as “big,” one will always wind up in a variety of philosophical blind alleys. Some people fancy themselves poetic thinkers and they can’t ask what a starling is without a lot of “hail to thee, blithe spirit!” messing it up. I always take the question “why are we here?” as meaning “how did the world get to be the way it is, including the existence of us,” but I find that other people mean that sort of question very differently from how I do and that the only answer, for such people, ultimately, is “42.”
I watched it and thought it was an interesting discussion. You came off as a lot more agnostic than my previous impression. You seemed to respect the wonder in biology and the universe in general.
I think you could brush up a little on Behe’s arguments as he is more agnostic then you claimed about the exact how of the design.
I thought your points about starting with “God of the whole show” (Aristotle Aquinas) vs God of the Gaps was solid.
I’m game for that.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.