In Reply to: Re: Mr. Don's paper posted by OT2 on March 31, 2006 at 18:18:41:
Perhaps we have differing definitions of pluralism? I went to Wikipedia to see if my working definition was off base. I used the term to mean there is an appreciation for diversity on this board. Perhaps not as much among some people as others, but if there weren't some appreciation for diversity, I seriously doubt a person would stick very long and keep posting.
One reason I like this board is because it is quite diverse. What would the world be like if there wasn't a place of atheists and agnostics to mix it up with true believers? Damn boring, imo.
I looked at the article at the link you posted, and I'm wondering what it has to do with the Exclusivity and Pluralistic Society topic?
The debate on the link you posted is a very good topic, don't get me wrong, but it's about the source of morality. I used to do a lot of reading in philosophy, but that was before I trained in science. I'm afraid my brain is broke now when it comes to metaphysics and some of its presuppositions. "Supernatural" is a speculative area of thought that I don't find easy to think about in an analytic way.
Anyhoo, I think Craig's article on "Creation and Big Bang Cosmology" a more interesting read. I agree with the notion of a "cause" behind the evolutionary, mechanical, and quantum processes of the universe. However, I'm not a particularly big fan of Big Bang cosmology, because it's linearity seems to be such an obvious artifact of causality. In other words, it may be erroneous to assume there is a beginning and end to the universe. There is clearly a beginning and end to life as we know it on the planet, but that is not the sum total of the cosmos.
There are alternate scientific theories about how the universe works and the "intelligence" that shines throughout, and the ones that I find most interesting are the quantum models that Craig states "have not yet proved to be convincing." Like Big Bang HAS been proved convincing? Give me a break. He favors Big Bang because it fits his preferred philosophical framework, not because it's more scientifically convincing.