From Greg Williams (930517)
Joel Judd (direct)
I have been counseling patience all along -- one should not claim
scientific support for theological concepts without having sufficient
evidence (or at least a model which can, in principle, be tested) that
such support is there. BTW, I basically agree with the thrust of your
comments.
A bit of interest in the "free will" thread WAS shown (see below); if
you want to go public again, I'm game.
···
-----
Rick Marken (930517.1400)
What a thrill to be able to completely agree with every-
thing Greg Williams (930517) said.
Are you trying to buy votes for the swimsuit competition, or what?
-----
Bill Powers (930518.0800 MDT)
I think it is important ETHICALLY to have a well-tested theory
that I am not the sole creator of the universe I perceive. Some
who believe THEY create it ALL will have no qualms about
attempting to DESTROY it all.
I'm not sure I see what ethics has to do with it. Is there an
objective standard for ethics that says destroying it all is _a
priori_ unethical?
Of course not. IT'S ALL THEORY, including one's ethics. As I said, I
[emphasized!] think it is important -- that's MY ethics. But there
might be some possibility of "objectivity" in one of Hugh Petrie's
senses (shared interpersonal agreement). I wonder whether YOU think
that somebody trying to destroy the world is [NOT _a priori_]
ethically neutral FOR YOU. Similarly, I wonder whether YOU think that
folks claiming to know The Truth about God's Plan for you (that's how
it was expressed to me by a young Mormon missionary who accosted me at
the University of Kentucky a couple of weeks ago) are ethically
neutral FOR YOU -- they certainly aren't ethically neutral for me if
they claim that those who don't buy into their "Truth" are Wrong. It
is too easy for that "Wrong" label to turn into an "Undesirable"
label, with the potential for out-group "cleansing."
Too many people value single-minded "Truth" above being able to learn
from diverse worldviews. That's my ethics.
As ever,
Greg