Welcomes & Introductions

[Watson]

O, I thought it was nice you are young enough to change direction, and start over.

[Paralith]

Trying to have confidence, but of course, I'm afraid that I'm too old to start over.

Nonsense, Clove.Sci.Phy. I firmly believe anyone can learn anything, given enough time and effort. It may take you a little more time and effort than someone who's more recently been immersed in the relevant maths and science, but that would be true for anyone. You'll do fine. Congratulations on getting back to what you love.

[spacebar]

Just found these forums. Compliments to the owner on the layout. Had to join. I'm interested in many science topics such as human evolution, technology, space, physics, etc.

I'll be around.

[mtbturtle]

Welcome spacebar enjoy the forums

[Clove.Sci.Phy]

Welcome spacebar. You're going to love this forum. I can read for hours catching up here.

[papadre86]

Hello, my name is Andreas Papadopoulos and I am a Junior Biochemistry Major in NJ. I am very interested in many science fields, and when I stumbled across this site today I thought it was a great opportunity to expand on my knowledge. From what I have seen so far browsing I am very excited to learn and be apart of this community. Thank you, and Cheers!

[Watson]

Welcome to the forum.

[Clove.Sci.Phy]

Welcome to the forum :) I'm no one official or important, I'm just overly friendly! LOL

[Watson]

Welcome to the forum :) I'm no one official or important, I'm just overly friendly! LOL

So you fit in just fine, and you are just as important as the rest of us. And we don't have an official greeter. Just who ever is here and abouts. Ya Ya, not a word.

[papadre86]

Ok great. Well thank you for the warm welcome Watson and Clove.Sci.Phy.

[Watson]

I look forward to getting to know both of you.

[Clove.Sci.Phy]

I have met the best people on this forum and the My Math Forum.

Awww shucks, Watson, you're a sweet peach : )

[La gaya Scienza]

Hi, everyone.

I live in a remote part of Tasmania. Not many people to talk about science and philosophy here so hope to find some some interesting discussions on these forums.

Cheers

[Watson]

Welcome. I hope you find it to.

[manishkumara]

Hi all,

I am new here today i have join this forum. I like meet new people and know about their life style and culture.

Thanks

[mtbturtle]

Hi and Welcome to the forums manishkumara :)

[BubbleGum]

Hey guys, my name is Carola and I signed up a few days ago ;)
By now, I haven’t joined a conversation but I have read along in the past ;) I just wanted to say hello to all and I hope that I will find some exciting discussions on these forums! I am really into biology and astronomy... so, hopefully, some of you are willing to talk to me about it :P
Thanks a lot and kind regards ;)

[mtbturtle]

Hiya BubbleGum (Carola) and welcome to the forums.

[Ettu0315]

Hello, Ettu here.

There's not much to say about me. I have no formal education beyond high school. What little I know I've learned on my own. I am as fascinated by science as I am confounded. I make a living through manual labor; hauling steel as I like to call it.

I enjoy all sorts of speculative fiction from historical to science and especially mythology. I have a tremendous appreciation for the works of Joseph Campbell.

Check out my profile if you're interested in some of my favorite quotes and that's all I can think of to say.

See you on the board.

[mtbturtle]

welcome and enjoy the forum Ettu

[Combo]

Hello, new here. I'm 23 years old. I take an interest in politics, economics and philosophy. I'm from the UK.

[Eclogite]

Hello, new here. I'm 23 years old. I take an interest in politics, economics and philosophy. I'm from the UK.

Welcome Combo. I imagine as a UK resident you are taking an interest in the economic arguments put forward by politicians about Brexit. Just remember to remain philosophical about the outcome. :)

[noone]

Hello.

I'm a fool.

My background is art and design but i'm doing a second degree in Economics and Mathematical Sciences.
I'm mainly interested in Mathematics and Philosophy with added physics and 20th century literature.
Learning, catching up, like an obsessed madman, looking forward to adding a little flesh through this forum, and being a fool no more.

Lee.

[mitchellmckain]

I am a physics teacher and science fiction author. I am also interested in philosophy and religion.

I judge beliefs by the following criterion:
1. logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful.
2. Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable.
3. Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in.
Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be both healthy and an asset for human civilization. Indeed, I would compare it to the genetic diversity of the human species, which makes us more adaptable.

I would divide evidence into two categories.
1. objective evidence provides a reasonable expectation that others should agree.
2. subjective evidence provides compelling reasons for your own personal beliefs only.

With regard to the first I am a scientist and a secularist, which means I think the force of law must be restricted to what can be objectively (scientifically) established. Of course I have my own conclusions with regards to issues where there is no objective evidence either way, for my own subjective reasons. Where these regard moral behavior I would consider these to apply to my own behavior and choices only.

I am a liberal evangelical Christian who agrees with the Eastern Orthodox on a couple of doctrinal issues like original sin and the atonement, and with the likes of John Polkinghorne on the issue of open theism. Though, be careful, I attribute no authority to any of these to dictate what I believe and I will express what I believe quite differently than they do.

I was not raised in any religion unless it is psychology (both parents majored in the subject at university). I searched for the truth first in science, then in philosophy and only then in religion. I was and remain a scientist before Christian. Science is an inseparable part of how I perceive the world, which is very much according to a methodological naturalist, and so my approach to religion could never be a question of choosing between science and religion but one asking myself if there is any value to religion when science is a given. By science now, I very much mean modern science as a well defined method of inquiry AND the consensus of the scientific community. SO that means I am very much an evolutionist and an avid opponent of creationist pseudoscience. Of course I believe that God is the creator of everything but I actually think that evolution is MORE compatible with the Christian idea of God and His involvement with the world, than is design (the watchmaker conception of a creator).

I came to see value in Christianity by a very circuitous route, starting with the existentialism of Albert Camus and Kierkegaard. Other influences include the Pragmatism of Charles Sanders Peirce, the writings of Scott Peck, and Aristotle. I find myself rather surprised at this point to find that I am Trinitarian Christian, but I suppose that is the limits of my "orthodoxy" because I am also an open theist, and have I highly pluralistic interpretation of the Bible and Christianity. My educational pursuits include a masters in physics and a masters of divinity.

In my explanation of many things, I find myself constantly drawing upon examples and metaphors from biology and the nature of living things. I would compare the diversity of religion and culture to the diversity of the species, saying how the wolf, the bear and the eagle all have very different ways of life and from these differences they all have their own advantages and limitations, so too when we choose our path in life, our choices make us wise in some ways and blind in others.

[Dave_Oblad]

Welcome mitchellmckain,

Nice posting as an introduction. Take your shoes off and join in with the fun.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

[Scott Mayers]

I hadn't formally introduced myself here and so thought to at least give a summary of who I am and my interests.

I am MOSTLY self-taught in all general areas. My strength lies in logical analysis of everything to an extreme. I began (or re-began) my trek by going back to learn history of the world because I wanted to understand HOW we came to understand things in a step by step process. I thought that if I begin in the past, I could 'grow' in understanding with the way we evolved our intellect, rather than to today's more preferentially 'rote' methods. I was less satisfied with accepting 'data' blindly without meaning and evidence. As such, that approach led me to avoid merely memorizing things exactly by force but to learn by personal comfort.

If I didn't understand something, I'd try to step back or sideways 'historically' to try to find closure of something before moving on to the next thing. This led me into studying ORIGINS in general. Religions were one interest because I never was personally but wanted to understand how these came to be. Then, I discovered this needed an understanding of philosophy and logic, especially through the Greeks. So I read into much of the early philosophies and gradually crept through to a 'cursory' goal of trying to understand as much of nature as possible.

This led to science and a special keen interest in determining 'closure' (certainty) through all areas relating to this, especially with regards to the apparent 'contradictions' existing everywhere.

This has led me to a set of my own theories (and/or conjectures) and skepticism of nearly everything and everyone to a fault.

I'm here in hopes to utilize these linked philosophy and science forums in a way that both asks questions AND contributes in some way. I do NOT like how many of the other forums, especially relating to science, treats anyone remotely skeptical in kind to what I've logically understood about religion and politics. I used to default a blind 'faith' in everything science until, through years of depth into the broad areas demonstrated that even science and other skeptics of my own 'kind' are as equally vulnerable to err with as equal passion as any of the worst forms of thinking.

As such, I don't necessarily make or keep friends long in this pursuit but refuse to let this fact alone drive me to placate others for those things that lack especially logically valid AND sound arguments. I've learned that just as 'friends' and family are concerned, EVERYTHING is still actually "politically" controlled that limit us from getting to the 'truth' about reality. Yet, I also understand this as inevitable and equally 'necessary' even where it tends to dip below sanity more often than not.

So this is me and it might help you at least get a rough background until you get to know me.

Scott.

[Faradave]

Welcome Mitchell and Scott,

Like most here, I usually don't reply to introductions in order to avoid diluting the thread with redundancy. But you may assume from the high reader:intro ratio that your posts are appreciated for the insight they provide to your subsequent contributions. Thanks for sharing!

On behalf of SPCF, we're glad you're here and we look forward to interacting with you.

[Braininvat]

I would divide evidence into two categories.
1. objective evidence provides a reasonable expectation that others should agree.
2. subjective evidence provides compelling reasons for your own personal beliefs only.

Mitchell, welcome. I will be interested in how you reconcile your Evangelical approach with the above. How subjective evidence constitutes evidence at all might be worth pursuing, as an epistemological question. And how one can be both Evangelical and yet feel that subjective religious experience offers "compelling reasons for your personal beliefs only," might also take a bit of unpacking for some of our members. On the surface, it seems a bit paradoxical, but it sounds like you've given it considerable thought so I look forward to hearing more.

[mitchellmckain]

deleted response to above and moved to new thread in the religion section
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=31734

Welcome Mitchell and Scott,

Like most here, I usually don't reply to introductions in order to avoid diluting the thread with redundancy. But you may assume from the high reader:intro ratio that your posts are appreciated for the insight they provide to your subsequent contributions. Thanks for sharing!

Point well taken!

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

A bit of a belated intro:

Hey all, you can feel free to call me 'Scruffy' if you like. The rules here look great so I figured I may as well see if it's worth settling into a site run this sensibly. Also there appears to be a healthily active community, which makes SPCF all the more attractive. So this is me, throwing my hat in the ring.

Who am I? I'm an obsessive sort that does little more than reading for fun. When I'm not working I'm studying in order to begin finally submitting my research to a few friends I have in publishing (Randall House and St. Anselm's), at some point. Aside from that, I teach people music, tune and repair pianos, play the organ for the Ripon Oratorio Society (we perform baroque cantatas and oratorios), and during any span of downtime I'm normally feeding my frantic need to read whatever academic material I can get my hands on. Nowadays I'm bonkers for ontology, logic, epistemology, and anything to do with music theory or the acoustical sciences.

Musically speaking, as of late I've been crazy about Takemitsu, and the cyclical Bach obsession has come back full force.