On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias <samiyaill...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your >>> 'demonstrating >>> factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.': >>> >>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1 >>> >>> >> >> You changed the subject and focus. Why? >> >> I did not refer to your blog but to this: >> >> http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm >> > > I am not a muslim, but I also disagree with the fundamental premise of > Foundalis, which I quote below. I claim that just the opposite is true. A > theory that explains already existing data is considered less important or > impressive than one that predicts data that does not yet exist. Example are > numerous, but Einstein's GR is the best known example. > "In science we don’t start with a theory and then try to find data to > support that theory. Instead, we first gather data through observation, and > then we see which theory explains best the data." > The point was that in respectful scientific discourse we *can* pick out and take issue with something at all, which you intuitively did above. I don't agree with black and white rendering of this particular problem you quote either. But exclusively first person interpretation of a text with complex cultural history, without some distanced perspective, or reference to scientific discourse or facts in some form... to people unfamiliar with the text gives us little to no reference points for discussion. We run increased/higher risk of confusing personal spiritual posture with shareable scientific facts in reference to some theory, which is already a given in such discussion. At least Foundalis provides a reference point we *can discuss* (and disagree about, no problem) without hitting the wall of fundamental differences again and again, which itself spells hope of seeing the others' point and fostering the kind of understanding and tolerance that is more genuine than "Ok, to be culturally/politically correct and polite, I will believe you". The latter runs nowhere and confirms the religious' skeptic's stance of "ok, they just want to brainwash me with ideology, instead of having a discussion where we can see eye to eye." PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
