> But my absolute favourite was no 22:
>
>     What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of
> the other eight or ten kinds?
>
> which is a good question, capable of being thought-provoking,
> but also capable
> of being answered. And more importantly, legitimately
> answered, as diversity
> here is seen as valuable, healthy, and fully allowed for in
> the scientific
> process. As is the mechanism by which differences in these
> eight or ten kinds
> of evolutionism will be explored to produce the syntheses
> that will lead to
> fewer kinds, maybe even just one eventually.
>
> So eight or ten kinds, it's still, in its way, a united front.
Well, not necessarily. If I understand things correctly, there are
essentially no Darwinians (which is probably a good thing, if you look at
all that came with Darwin, especially racism and sexism). There are
neo-Darwinians aplenty. Is it punctuated equilibrium, or constant, gradual
change, or something else? Now, before Darwin, there were only the
precursors to evolutionary thought. Now, that original Darwin camp has
changed and fractured into more than one, in less than two centuries.
Looking at physics and math, it seems that the trend is toward several
diverse camps.

There have been lumpers, attempting to unify thought. Wittgenstein had
thought that all philosophies had the same underlying ideas, just with
different jargon. He was forced to conclude that, while that was almost
true, it ultimately failed. Bertrand Russell, in his Principia Mathematica,
argued that Math is Logic, and Logic is Math. That, too, failed. But it did
give us group theory, which has proven useful. Lumping may make you famous,
but splitting into camps sells books and pulls in a paycheck.

> and it's much harder when played back to the original
> inquirer. Because
> diversity here *isn't* seen as valuable, healthy, and fully
> allowed for in the religious process.
> Instead, it's dissent, schism, heresy, or worse.
>
> Because every religion thinks its the 'one true' religion,
> and all others
> (even other interpretations of Christianity, let alone
> Judaism which has at
> least the same God, to say nothing of Islam, Bhuddism,
> Shinto, what-have-you)
> are stone wrong. And there's no easy way of resolving these
> differences.
Sometimes. It has recently been argued that the Arab world has not had to
endure the internal strifes of fundamentally irreconcilable religions with
different sets of scriptures, but that the Western world has, which is
exactly why we now have religious pluralism and a civil religion where "god"
is a rather inclusive and elastic idea. There are Jews who think that Jesus
works just fine for Gentiles, some of whom they will see in the Age to Come.
There are Christians who believe that Jews who are obedient to their own
faith are saved and will go to heaven. There are Catholics who think that
Protestants can be saved, apart from The Church (meaning the Roman Catholic
Church), and Protestants, even Evangelicals, who think born-again Catholic
is not an oxymoron. And even within these broad categories, there are sects
that have healthy respect, even envy, for each other, and discuss what is
good and less than good about the other guy's sect. Some folks need to get
out more, and talk to people of other convictions.

> But a 'one true God'? You wouldn't think there was much room
> for argument over
> that, now would you? But just look at all those different religions.
Oh, how come no one seems to remember the discussions about monotheism
versus polytheism?

>     If there is a God, how come we need all this crap?
> i.e, you'd think He would have created something a whole lot
> simpler.....
That's a fascinating claim. At least one sacred text suggests that the
Creator rigged the game, so you can never figure it all out, the end from
the beginning, even though there is nothing new under the Sun. Fortunately,
that leaves us all with work to do.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *