This overextension of Darwinism is the actual betrayal of Darwin. It has zero explanatory value. How can you describe or explain anything objectively if every concept is gauged by its spreading factor? Concepts are inferences, that's why some of them get repaired or replaced.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @higherOrderNet and
we're never going to agree.
4 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @NegarestaniReza and
This is the critical point.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @cyborg_nomade and
Yes, it's just akin to a conversation between a rationalist and someone who believes in god in this or that guise.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Outsideness and
Nature might as well be a God (Gnon). The more we try to understand it's rules, the higher the probability of reward.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
Whether it's a mindless God or not is irrelevant to this statement.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
God is omnipresent? Reality is omnipresent. God is omnipotent? Reality not only can, but does do everything that can be done. God is omniscient? Reality is already the thing which is to be known.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Baalren @higherOrderNet and
Except that the blind idea of reality is as much idiotic as the belief in a God.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm merely pointing out that reality as we understand it can be framed theologically. I'm not seeing the conflict with rationality here. With a theological framing, reason is the worship of reality, by trying to understand it's nature.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
By mindless I don't mean blind, I'm walking back my statement from possibly being misconstrued as an assertion of pan-consciousness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
My apologies. Sure that's something we can tentatively agree on. But I wouldn't call it theology. Because when we talk about theology a lot of extrinsic factors creep in.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
The reason I do this is to derive is from ought. Christ's God/Allah may have been a mirage, but ultimate reality certainly isn't, and it's worthy of the same level of devotion because it's even more terrifying.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @Baalren and
You see that's when we should draw the line. For science, there is no ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is just another word for mystery or natural secrets. We shouldn't confuse our theoretical ignorance with the idea that nature is mysterious. That's not the business of science
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.