# Which NT is most likely to be religious?



## noz (Dec 7, 2009)

I could swear just about every INT philosopher we studied in early and late modern philosophy classes accepted God as a matter of fact, or at the VERY LEAST some sort of propositional given from which we can logically analyze the resultant consequences.

I wonder what happened?


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

noz said:


> I could swear just about every INT philosopher we studied in early and late modern philosophy classes accepted God as a matter of fact, or at the VERY LEAST some sort of propositional given from which we can logically analyze the resultant consequences.
> 
> I wonder what happened?


Darwin.....


----------



## noz (Dec 7, 2009)

I want to agree, but if I do, it means our blessed resilient NTs are too influenced by social tides. Darwin does not provide a complete metaphysics by any account.

Neither Darwin nor updated evolution version 8.8941 explain the laws of physics that bring about an organism change.

At some point in a temporal regression, you have to say the field laws of physics activated-the mechanisms of EM and gravity that yielded life here began. Why not call that beginning God? what's really wrong with the unmoved mover? It seems as parsimonious explanation as any ....

its not a SOPHISTICATED explanation like genetics or gaussian curves, but what's wrong with implementing the G word? I don't see any metaphysical disadvantage. I think this is where i'm at odds with most NTs of my day....


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

noz said:


> I want to agree, but if I do, it means our blessed resilient NTs are too influenced by social tides. Darwin does not provide a complete metaphysics by any account.
> 
> Neither Darwin nor updated evolution version 8.8941 explain the laws of physics that bring about an organism change.
> 
> ...


"God" is a substitute for real explanations.


----------

