Quote from nitro:
"ZZZzzzzzzz (Apr 13, 2006 1:54:05 PM)
my argument is that human nature has not changed in thousands, and thousands of years, despite all the advancement in science, which shows that science doesn't touch the inner side of human life
You only need to review Z's long Darwinism threads to understand that his positions are informed by faith. It is pointless to attempt any sort of dialectic with a religious mystic.
Take the statement above. The key to the statement is the phrase 'which shows'. If you read this carefully, it is clear that there is no logical reason to relate the material which precedes this phrase with what follows it. Let us say that we could confirm that there has been no change in something called 'human nature' in many thousands of years. Let us further assume that there is some way of defining 'the inner side of human life'. How on earth would our evaluation of certain as-yet unchanged aspects of 'human nature' be proof that science can't
ever change 'inner life'. In the first place, the scientific revolution may as well have started yesterday, in epochal terms. There is no way for us, today, to evaluate the effect of science on 'the inner side of human life'. Get back to me in 10,000 or 20,000 years and let's see what effect science has had on 'the inner side of human life'.
Z argued in one of his threads that since the lifespan of humans had not changed since the emergence of homo sapiens, Darwinism was disproved (biblical lifespans somehow set aside). It was suggested that human lifespans may indeed change in the long term, over many tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Z gave no response. It's clear that Z's faith delimits the potential effects of social and physical evolution. This seems to be confirmed by his latest statement. Statements like this make it impossible for us to engage Z in meaningful debate about science, religion, or anything else.
The most interesting thing, however, is this. In more general terms, notice how Z characterizes this as an 'argument'. Z uses terminology that is academic in nature; ironically, although he derides science at every turn, he wants his arguments to be received in the same way as a purely empirical argument. But in the statement above, there is nothing but the purest form of assertion. What exactly is 'the inner side of human life'? Only Z's definitions need apply - the whole system of thought is self-contained.
Remember, this is the same guy who said that the earth is exactly 1,945,867,549 years old. It was suggested that it might be 1,845,867,548 years old, but this idea was rejected by Z. He also said that the origin of human life on earth was when 'magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality'. When pressed to explain this seemingly bizarre statement, he later recanted.
