David Bailey
Member
Here is an interesting discussion! I wish it was a bit longer.
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/evolution-and-god#video-2473
David
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/evolution-and-god#video-2473
David
Well, there are a number of times I've seen posts on this forum by people who say something like "I've seen the evidence for 'such-and-such-a-phenomena' and I agree that it's completely convincing. But I still can't accept it".It makes me wonder if subconsciously he wants wants a certain result? I do get the sense he enjoys (a little too much) his status among the academic 'royalty'. It's a pity.
I think perhaps it's the difference between seeing the evidence for something and seeing it for real.Well, there are a number of times I've seen posts on this forum by people who say something like "I've seen the evidence for 'such-and-such-a-phenomena' and I agree that it's completely convincing. But I still can't accept it".
That isn't so much an ultra-sceptic view, it's from people who are reasonably open-minded. But there's some sort of anchor which people find themselves chained to, which means they can't break free and simply "follow the data".
My opinion. There are only two principle ways that people change their views on anything, whether it is politics, religion, science, pretty much anything. First, if they happen to be reachable at a particular point, usually quite early in life, when they are freely able to consider all ideas, toss them around, try them out, and quite freely forms a new view or outlook. I call that the "window". The second is more drastic. It takes some sort of life-changing event, such as being afflicted by some illness, or some great upheaval in personal circumstances, something which is earth-shattering, this creates another kind of window. Outside of these windows, most people cling to their anchors.
Or maybe infinite intelligence forces such a being to adopt the course which will yield the best outcome long term? :)One of the things I liked was that BJ said something to the effect that he liked the idea of a god that wasn't infinitely intelligent, and who had to experiment and tinker around to create life on earth. This chimes with my intuition. I mean an infinitely intelligent god would not need any evolution or anything - he could just set everything up in one go.
More generally, infinities always seem to cause trouble.
David
Well, there are a number of times I've seen posts on this forum by people who say something like "I've seen the evidence for 'such-and-such-a-phenomena' and I agree that it's completely convincing. But I still can't accept it".
That isn't so much an ultra-sceptic view, it's from people who are reasonably open-minded. But there's some sort of anchor which people find themselves chained to, which means they can't break free and simply "follow the data".
My opinion. There are only two principle ways that people change their views on anything, whether it is politics, religion, science, pretty much anything. First, if they happen to be reachable at a particular point, usually quite early in life, when they are freely able to consider all ideas, toss them around, try them out, and quite freely form a new view or outlook. I call that the "window". The second is more drastic. It takes some sort of life-changing event, such as being afflicted by some illness, or some great upheaval in personal circumstances, something which is earth-shattering, this creates another kind of window. Outside of these windows, most people cling to their anchors.
Maybe. But is that sufficient?I think perhaps it's the difference between seeing the evidence for something and seeing it for real.
Yes, I agree.I think there's at least a third way of changing one's opinion, and that is simply the passage of time.
I suspect it's human nature. I suffer from it myself.Maybe. But is that sufficient?
Here is an interesting discussion! I wish it was a bit longer.
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/evolution-and-god#video-2473
David