21–30 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nautilus, the publisher, is funded by the John Templeton foundation which is a evangelical fundamentalist organization.
Maybe you should back up this claim. Just because they are a religious organization does not mean they are fundamentalist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not…
> I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not God stretches the limit of rationality. That always sounded like an unimaginative argument. Another possibility is that his followers exaggerated his words and deeds after his death.
Clickbait title. A great deal of science is rooted in the works of individuals who held a variety of religious beliefs, and in many of those cases, their works were directly motivated by those beliefs. So the fact that Bayes came up with his theorem because of a desire to justify a belief in the resurrection of Christ is, I suppose, somewhat interesting, but not so much so that it needed to be the headline of the sto…
The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not…
I don't really get this. Someone who thinks they are God and isn't (the "lunatic" part) can still have important insights and a knack for showing them to others. Someone who knows they are not God but claims to be (the "liar" part) can be using their lies to spread valuable insights more broadly. I would definitely prefer to learn from someone unencumbered by either issue, but they don't seem fundamentally incompatible with being a "great teacher".
https://books.google.com/books?id=g2M3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA361&lpg=...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not…
> I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not God stretches the limit of rationality. That always sounded like an unimaginative argument. Another possibility is that his followers exaggerated his words and deeds after his death.
Additionally, the great majority of Jesus' teaching depends on a context that admits unabashedly of a supreme Creator to Whom we owe, well, everything. Thus Jesus' teaching that lusting after a woman internally is tantamount to adultery only makes sense in the given Judeo-Christian context. So, even if we ignore claims of divinity and the origin of those claims, it's difficult to find a coherent moral message absent some claim regarding the existence of an ultimate Creator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not…
The value of Bayes' work is somewhat orthogonal to his use of it to prove the truth of the Resurrection. It was valuable to show that Hume's approach was flawed but limited value to prove the truth per se. To apply probabilities to the events you'd have to make an awful lot of assumptions about the accuracy of the, non-eye witness, reporting. However, it was an excellent approach for such an evaluation. As to the Ful…
Clickbait title. A great deal of science is rooted in the works of individuals who held a variety of religious beliefs, and in many of those cases, their works were directly motivated by those beliefs. So the fact that Bayes came up with his theorem because of a desire to justify a belief in the resurrection of Christ is, I suppose, somewhat interesting, but not so much so that it needed to be the headline of the sto…
The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not…
I say that because I've read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma which sounds familiar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not…
The value of Bayes' work is somewhat orthogonal to his use of it to prove the truth of the Resurrection. It was valuable to show that Hume's approach was flawed but limited value to prove the truth per se. To apply probabilities to the events you'd have to make an awful lot of assumptions about the accuracy of the, non-eye witness, reporting. However, it was an excellent approach for such an evaluation. As to the Ful…
Regarding the final paragraph and implicit assumptions regarding the veracity of the content of the four canonical gospel accounts, I am not sure attributing it to "simple" assumption (i.e., the colloquial assumption where one just thinks something is true without examination) is reasonable given the education of both men and the body of work done over several centuries on examining epistemologically and historically the veracity of the gospels. See for example the intense work of John Henry Newman, 19th century Oxford scholar and intense defender of the historical reliability of the canonical gospel narratives.