georgesbluegirl

I wasn't saying that I didn't believe God wasn't involved in evolution. I was saying that from a purely logical standpoint (i.e. if one did not believe in God), the idea of evolution itself makes sense. What I was asking is where you thought the flaw would be that an atheist would recognize, not someone who believed in God. Where would there be a "gap" in evolution, in the development of species or in the actual origin of life? Subsequent posters have elaborated on this, but I wanted to make sure that you understood what I was asking and what I was saying. For the record, I reconcile the two (God/evolution) in my own system of belief. The mechanism itself is "survival of the fittest," but to say that evolution "kills off species" is a lopsided view of things. Mutation is the underlying substrate for evolution. What becomes more advantageous survives within the species, and may come to dominate the gene pool. See: Darwin's finches.

From a strictly logical standpoint, I don't see any problems. Would you care to elaborate? Do you mean the origination of species or the actual starting point for life?

what about knowledge beyond functional knowledge? self-knowledge? is there a human instinct? i believe that there are definitely certain elements of consciousness (and unconsciousness) that don't derive directly from experience. do we "learn" compassion, or do we simply know it?

Interesting thoughts about nature. By the way, ontology is indeed a more specific term which applies here, but it's also a subdiscipline of metaphysics. Just saying.

Dealing with nature and free will is certainly metaphysics. I'm confused - how would animals killing animals be a "natural sin?" I'm not sure whether I'd agree or disagree, but I'd like to consider it further, so some elaboration would be awesome. Thanks!

"Sinful nature" is a metaphysical, rather than a physical, characteristic.

It costs a whole lot more money for the state to go through the capital process (appeals, mostly) than to jail someone for LIFE. Even without the issue of putting innocent people to death, there's still the fact that the majority of cases that could become capital cases don't - it's something like only 10%. Which cases do can be extremely arbitrary, one of the reasons that the statistics comparing executions of people of different races is so skewed versus actual population proportions (regarding African Americans who have allegedly murdered white people in particular). Same thing with those from different economic classes. It's pretty much a travesty when you look at the data. Which is why, beyond the reasons above and many more, I am firmly against the death penalty. Lock 'em up. Let God be the ultimate judge.

Because conditions didn't change in a way that necessitated a genetic shift. Horseshoe crabs are basically living fossils - they've been just fine.

thanks for replying with a sensible take on the environment - too often i hear people say something to the effect of "the world is ending soon, why should we care what happens to the earth?" there's not much that bothers me more than that kind of apathy. the planet is a magnificant treasure, and one that we should look to preserve, for the sake of wildness itself as well as for the sake of our children. (re: burke, i know, i don't totally disagree with that quote, i just think it was made regarding his horror at the french revolution. his response to that revolt outlined his core principles of conservatism (in the purest sense of the word) and has always sat sour with me. he believed that man did not have natural rights, by the way)

lets not stereotype the environmental movement too quickly now, remember that it's highly facted. anyway, i was just saying i don't like edmund burke's whole theory of politics in general.

Edmund Burke - ew. nevertheless, yeah i remember peter singer. i learned about him in ES 101...lots of headaches had. trust me, while he may be important as a point of reference and he has certain interesting ideas about sentientism, the practical applications of his ideas are far from being accepted.

following a discussion about the authority of the dalai lama: empiricism or rationalism? does knowledge come from "natural light" or from experience? i personally believe in a middle way, both (you have to stick divinity in there somewhere!). i think there's a difference necessarily between the way you learn ideas and the way you learn facts. i can't remember which philosopher finally asserted that, but essentially we're dealing with the basic principles of Descartes vs. Hume. Kant's been thrown out there too. thoughts?

I meant that he was not naive in a wordly sense, not that he should necessarily be considered wise for being an exile. All I was saying is that he's well aware of the evils mankind is capable of inflicting. His qualifications as a religious leader are quite seperate from the fact that he suffers in his exile from Tibet. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to put in a huge amount of time on this as of yet - I have a bio midterm to study for, so bioenergetics are calling my name. Apologies if this is spotty and not that fleshed out, I will return to it. Firstly, my point was that I believe it's almost impossible to understand something "100%," at least in the conventional sense. You may think you know all of the facts about a situation, but part of "understanding" is your own personal experience, something that cannot be shared fully with others. And indeed, how do you KNOW you know everything? I would simply be wary of saying that you understand anything even to a great extent. I think it's been proven true that the more you learn, the more questions are raised - the more you realize you don't know. As in biology, as in life. Secondly, if we want to have a debate about epistemology we could certainly open another thread. The question you raised about the validity of acquiring knowledge - I assume that you mean "epistemology" in the general sense of the word and are not specifically jumping back into Kant's whole reason thing? - is broad, too broad for what is fundamentally a conversation about the Dalai Lama. If you want to make your question a little more specific so that we don't wind up debating broad generalities, then that might work too.

But can't you find God in all things that are good and true? By the way, when I said that the question posed by kabowd was irrelevant, I meant that we were speaking about two different things: I was referring to the specific words of someone I believe to be a very holy and wise man, and Scripture is certainly not on the same playing field as localized debate and all that. And kabowd, I didn't mean to belittle you - sorry if I came off that way. I only meant that it has been my experience that in general, Christians often tend to consider sinful or a waste of time things that are not explicitly Christian. Hence conversations on Worthy about whether or not it's okay to celebrate certain holidays, read non-Christian books, listen to rock music...or take seriously the words of an old Buddhist. What I was trying to say was that even things that challenge you, that might come from some other perspective or conviction, should illuminate and enlarge the way you understand the world and your faith. For example, studying Buddhism extensively has given me hope. Interfaith dialogue and action is becoming successful, especially in addressing human rights issues in Asia. Why? We meet at the crossroads of compassion. Which is why, for my part in this conversation, I side with the old Buddhist.

But again, you're looking at two kinds of laws. I'll reiterate what has been pointed out multiple times already - laws against child abuse, murder, speeding, shoplifting, etc. prevent harm from coming to others. Laws attempting to legislate personal decisions with no legally measurable consequences for others beyond the self I believe are generally indefensible. We have to be able to walk the thin line between protecting ourselves from the actions of others and allowing the freedom of personal choice in determining how one lives his or her life. The laws about drug use, cannabis in this case, that I'd be for would be driving laws, etc. I'd be all for making those strict. Driving high is irresponsible and has the potential to injure or kill other human beings. Your personal choice should not be allowed to harm the freedom or well-being of other human beings (as it deprives them of their own ability to make personal choices). Plus someone brought up smoking an O a day? Yeah, no. Maybe one day, but there's no way that you could sustain that, in either a monetary or physical sense. Unless you're Snoop Dogg or Willie Nelson, but they kind of make up their own category.

That's kind of an irrelevant question. Regardless, Jesus preached love, compassion and forgiveness - and that's what I see in the teachings of the Dalai Lama. It seems like many Christians tend to be afraid of considering opinions of those outside of Christianity. If you are strong in your faith, what can seeking out the perspectives of others do but enrich your understanding of the world?

Well, the groundfish situation is a little different as an issue. Regardless, "sustainable fisheries management" is all well and good to describe in theory, but the bottom line is that a lot of the core theories involved in making key decisions that you learn about in Environmental Studies 101 are fundamentally flawed, such as the concept of "maximum sustainable yield." We just don't know enough about how underwater ecosystems function to make real judgments about the states of fisheries - which is why the Chesapeake Bay has serious issues with crabs (and Lord knows tons of other things) - see the miscalculation with rebuilding the rockfish population - but that the lobster population off the coast of Maine, seemingly always on the brink of eradication from overfishing, is somehow still afloat. Until folks begin to understand that the sea is NOT an endless resource from which to reap, we're always going to have problems with managing long term fisheries goals with the short term desires and needs of those who make their living hunting in the ocean.

I wonder how you can call a man naive who's been exiled from his home country. Trust me, he's well aware of the global religious conflict and its serious implications. Fundamentalist Islamic countries kill Buddhists. The Chinese government has destroyed ancient Buddhist art and architecture against huge outcry ("Monumental Standing Buddhas"...a true travesty). But having read him with great care and discussion, I am aware that he's an incredibly wise man, Avalokitesvara incarnated (i.e. Chenrezig, the Tibetan form of the name) or not. He's not naive - he just has vision. And this: That's contradictory. Be careful of ever saying that you completely understand something, because there is no way that you do. Unless you have lived the lives of those on all sides of this conflict and discussion, then you don't understand it 100%. So be open what other people have to say - it'll inform your perspective a great deal and maybe your opinion. Namaste K

Between Iceland and Japan, the situation of the moratorium is a little weird... Granted, minke whales weren't really the true concern when the ban was enacted (correct me if I'm wrong). But still. Honestly, this is just a classic example of why fisheries management is so difficult, especially on a global scale. Let's hope Iceland enacts some protective regulations if this really goes through, otherwise - can you say "tragedy of the commons?"

So he's wrong because you don't agree with him, and you won't listen to him because...he's wrong? So much for learning and growing from the viewpoints of others. Anyway, he's an extremely intelligent man. I take his opinion quite seriously.

Yeah! Who cares what anyone who isn't Christian thinks? Their opinion can't amount to much....right? Namaste.

except that it's a way oversimplified and essentially incorrect way of presenting evolution.

Hi Metta. God bless the Dalai Lama. He's one of my heroes as a religious leader, a philosopher and an activist (in the world in general and regarding Tibet - I'm planning on working over there in the next year, maybe teaching English with one of my friends). I like your name, by the way. "Loving kindness." Like the Metta Sutta... Peace K

ah. so that's where the young creation number comes from. honestly though, i don't understand why there has to be a specific number, why people are so adamant about that. the scripture says that a thousand years is "AS" one day, not that it is exactly a day. i think it's a stretch to try to turn that into a measuring tool. i mean, if we read biblical numbers literally, do we only get forgiven exactly seventy times seven times?

way for me not to finish my post. and not realize it till now. sorry, the colbert report...distracted me. anyway, the argument basically goes that day and night were not specifically defined until the third "day" of creation - so who's to say that the first two days had to span a "day" as the way we define it now? couldn't it be billions of years of time? maybe it doesnt totally hold up, but its an interesting point of view to consider.