The article was quite difficult to read, the point was often lost in historical recaps and relationships between historical figures. The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it. Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored…
…written beautifully. But I also have the requisite beliefs to address the subject matter - sorta like trying to grok algebra without understanding division or multiplication. >The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it. This is a misunderstanding, I think, because the author was saying Hume and Paley are examples of natural theology, they weren't…
…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought Lamark’s main works were from the turn of the 19th century, as was Cuvier’s work on extinction, and Darwin’s uncle Erasmus’s descriptions of “metamorphoses”. Paley’s Natural Theology, which originated the famous “watchmaker” analogy for God, was from 1802. The Vestiges, published anonymously in 1844, sparked massive controversy that was the talk of “educated” people throughout the…
……虽然不是科研成果，但依我看（IMHO），这本书出人意料地专业且高效地将哲学、哲学史、科普和科学史交织在一起，来探讨自然神学（Natural Theology）。第 1 点：Shannon 理论适用。第 2 点：s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/。我没记错的话（IIRC），他承认我们并不知道物理常数潜在微调的范围，如果那……
…is not scientific research, but the book IMHO is a surprisingly effective and professional weaving of philosophy, history of philosophy, popular science, and history of science toward consideration of Natural Theology. Point 1: Shannon applies. Point 2: s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/ He acknowledges IIRC that we do not know ranges for potential tunings of physical constants, if that…
…world through the Christian worldview does not have some kind of burden of proving Christianity. >I present some of my own thinking below... What you've outlined here is actually firmly in the scope of natural theology, the project of establishing certain theological claims through human reason alone, though not all Christians agree that this project is successful. You may be interested in section 5 of chapter 2 of…
这篇文章相当难读，核心论点常常被淹没在历史回顾以及历史人物错综复杂的关系里。它的核心前提就是错的，休谟和佩利都讨论过自然神学（natural theology），但他们的论证都没能反驳它。关于“证明”上帝的争论，最后往往演变成了在争论到底“哪种”证据才算证明，而文章对此根本没有探讨……
The article was quite difficult to read, the point was often lost in historical recaps and relationships between historical figures. The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it. Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored…
……文笔优美。但我本身也具备探讨这一主题所需的信念基础——有点像连除法或乘法都不懂就想硬 grok 代数一样。>核心前提就是错的，休谟和佩利都讨论过自然神学，但他们的论证都没能反驳它。我觉得这是一种误解，因为作者的意思是休谟和佩利是自然神学的代表例子，他们并不是……
…written beautifully. But I also have the requisite beliefs to address the subject matter - sorta like trying to grok algebra without understanding division or multiplication. >The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it. This is a misunderstanding, I think, because the author was saying Hume and Paley are examples of natural theology, they weren't…
……http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought 拉马克的主要著作出自 19 世纪之交，居维叶关于灭绝的研究以及达尔文的叔父 Erasmus 对“蜕变”的描述也是如此。佩利的《自然神学》（Natural Theology）开创了著名的论证上帝的“钟表匠”类比，出版于 1802 年。1844 年匿名出版的《创造的痕迹》（The Vestiges）引发了巨大争议，成了当时整个“受过良好教育”人群的热议话题……
…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought Lamark’s main works were from the turn of the 19th century, as was Cuvier’s work on extinction, and Darwin’s uncle Erasmus’s descriptions of “metamorphoses”. Paley’s Natural Theology, which originated the famous “watchmaker” analogy for God, was from 1802. The Vestiges, published anonymously in 1844, sparked massive controversy that was the talk of “educated” people throughout the…
……虽然不是科研成果，但依我看（IMHO），这本书出人意料地专业且高效地将哲学、哲学史、科普和科学史交织在一起，来探讨自然神学（Natural Theology）。第 1 点：Shannon 理论适用。第 2 点：s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/。我没记错的话（IIRC），他承认我们并不知道物理常数潜在微调的范围，如果那……
…is not scientific research, but the book IMHO is a surprisingly effective and professional weaving of philosophy, history of philosophy, popular science, and history of science toward consideration of Natural Theology. Point 1: Shannon applies. Point 2: s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/ He acknowledges IIRC that we do not know ranges for potential tunings of physical constants, if that…
……通过基督教的世界观来看待世界并不背负着某种证明基督教的举证责任。>下面我提出一些我自己的思考……你在这里概述的内容，其实完全属于自然神学（natural theology）的范畴，即仅凭人类理性来确立某些神学主张的尝试，尽管并非所有基督徒都认同这一尝试能够成功。你可能会对第 2 章第 5 节感兴趣……
…world through the Christian worldview does not have some kind of burden of proving Christianity. >I present some of my own thinking below... What you've outlined here is actually firmly in the scope of natural theology, the project of establishing certain theological claims through human reason alone, though not all Christians agree that this project is successful. You may be interested in section 5 of chapter 2 of…