<p>I would have to disagree with the claim that theistic evolution is a joke. There is sooooo much symbolism in the Bible. I believe that it is possible that the story of the creation could be symbolic too. Perhaps the word “day” was used to denote a period of time. I don’t think that evolution and creationism have to work against each other. Maybe God used evolution as a tool to create life on Earth. Maybe a day to God is different than a day to us. Others may disagree with me, and they have the right to do so, but that’s my opinion. When it comes down to it, though, is whether or not I believe in evolution going to determine my salvation? I don’t think so. Whether or not evolution occured, I believe that God created the world and all life upon it. I believe that Christ is my Savior and Redeemer. All of those picky little details sometimes seem to get in the way of what is important.</p>
<p>Also, as a side note to Elitism, I already said this but Mormons DO believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We believe He is the literal Son of God. We believe that He atoned for our sins and it is through him that we can achieve salvation. He is the focal point of our religion.</p>
<p>When people use the English translation of the Bible to argue fine points, I tend to wonder if they realize how the Hebrew is oftentimes quite different.</p>
<p>Oh well, why should that matter when you have an agenda?</p>
<p>Not necessarily. The same overall message is there, but I do remember some subtle differences from when I was studying Hebrew… The difference between “God” and “Elohim” or “Adonai” are particularly striking.</p>
<p>“Mmm…appeals to authority are one of my favorite logical fallacies because they’re so easy to spot (even in my own posts.”</p>
<p>Is appealing to an authority logically fallacious, or are the arguments they make logically fallacious? I don’t see a logical flaw in backing up an argument with hundreds of years of thoughtful wisdom that preceded my own. Reverent, maybe; fallacious, no. </p>
<p>Besides, the mere act of “appealing” is not a logical flaw.
To say my argument is correct because Lewis/Aristotle say so without elaborating is empty, but not wrong; to say that my argument is correct and here is why, as argued the way that Lewis/Aristotle argued it, is effective philosophizing. </p>
<p>Interesting that you should invalidate the list of thiestic philosophers and leave the list of athiestic “authorities” untouched. It leaves one wondering whether your abhorrence to appealing to authority is sincere or, perhaps, agenda-driven.</p>
<p>Re: C.S Lewis in the same sentence as Aristotle </p>
<p>Both present compelling arguments for the existence of God. Both were among the greatest thinkers of their time. Both go down in history as intellectual giants.</p>
<p>Oh get over yourself. As far as I’m concerned, the “atheist” list is just as fallacious. You don’t use someone’s name to show how you’re right. You use their arguments, if they are logical and sound, to help your own thinking. OMG! I didn’t list both lists, therefore I don’t think that it was also an appeal to authority.</p>
<p>Oh wait, that’s a fallacy too. That’s a hasty generalization.</p>
<p>Saying, “But Aristotle says I’m right!” is no better than saying, “Scientist X says that global warming is true!” Both are fallacies because it’s entirely possible to have an “authority” say something that’s utter BS. For example, Aristotle defended slavery. Does that make it right?</p>
<p>C.S. Lewis was one of the greatest thinkers of his time? I guess. His work at Oxford on allegory was good, but I don’t think that qualifies him as a “greatest thinker.” I’d put him in the great professor and author cateogry, myself.</p>
<p>By the way, the cute little, “You’re agenda driven!” comment? Kinda silly. Everyone has an agenda of sorts, especially in a discussion like this. I don’t pretend to be “agenda free.”</p>
<p>If you go back to the original exchange between w1cked and me, we are talking about arguments, not mere authorities. WIcked said something about Pascal’s ARGUMENT being flawed, and then I responded saying it’s good that we have various other arguments from various philosophers to fall back on. I didn’t use the word argument, but we are all intelligent people here and don’t need things spelled out for us if we take things in context. </p>
<p>I’m not exactly sure how Lewis could have been a great author and professor withouth being a great thinker. To write with the success, lucidity and intellect that Lewis wrote with is no easy thing. It certainly requires great thinking.</p>
<ul>
<li> There are many different ideas of God. What if you choose the wrong one, and said deity sends you to Hell anyway? You’ve just wasted your life, time, and money praying to a false God.<br></li>
<li> God wouldn’t be stupid enough to believe you if you just follow a religion based on some “wager.” If you don’t really believe, there’s no reason to go to a house of worship. Trust me, God will know.</li>
<li> Not every religion believes that non-believers “go to Hell.” Judaism only dictates that the “truly wicked” spend time being punished. Buddhism doesn’t particularly care.<br></li>
<li> Most atheists don’t think that there is a God, but then decide not to believe in Him/Her. They simply haven’t been presented with any good evidence. No, Pascal’s Wager is not good evidence. You can’t choose not to believe that North America really exists (unless you’re truly a wingbat new ageist). This again makes going to a house of worship even though you don’t believe a wasteful act since said deity’s gonna know anyway.</li>
</ul>
<p>Tsk tsk, Ms. Words, you missed a little tidbit: You used the superlative “greatest.” I’m not arguing that he wasn’t a great thinker. But I don’t put him up there with the “greatest.” Subtle differences.</p>
<p>And again, I hold that anyone who had the success as an author and professor that Lewis had and anyone whose arguments were held in as high esteem as Lewis’ were during his time must be among the greatest thinkers of their time. </p>
<p>Just think of Harold Bloom, Jeffrey Hart, William F. Buckley, Peter Kreeft, Martin Lings, Christopher Hitchens, Huston Smith etc…These are the greatest thinkers of the current generation (and some would argue that they don’t hold a candle to Lewis…or, Hume or Nietzsche…if those two bear more weight with you than Lewis)</p>
<p>Michael Crichton is also an incredibly successful author, but I wouldn’t consider him amongst the greatest thinkers.</p>
<p>I do respect Lewis, and I think his works are important. But I think of so many other people before I think of him, such as Michel Foucault, Kurt Godel, Sarte, Rawls, (even though I find her dislikable) Rand, Turing, and on my own personal list- Pareto.</p>