 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / August 2009Creationist Controversy (was sex-based differences)
"Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org>" wrote: > Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that > creationism is undesirable because it is detrimental to science, is > something that I have never heard in Australia. In most Internet discussions (and many non-internet discussions), my sense of "Creationism" is that it's a clipped form of the term/phrase "Young-Earth Scientific Creationism". Generically, "creationist" might apply to anyone who believes in a Creator. This constitutes no particular conflict with being a scientist; IIRC, several polls taken over the last decade indicate that most people who believe in evolution also believe in God. I once attended a talk by Jesuit priest who was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science. His presentation and responses during the Q/A suggested to me that he was at least as scientifically informed as anyone else I have ever met. (This stands to reason, since the Vatican has 1.5billion Roman Catholics to choose from and, so gets to be very choosy). The problem is that Young-Earth Creationists are determined that Earth is at most 10-15,000 years old, and that the stories in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis are a correct historical account of actual events. This betrays two points, (1) that their position is not scientific, because they have stated the conclusion of any research they might do in advance of doing the research, and (2) their beliefs are at odds with the mainstream scientific view of Earth history on a number of points. But, the modern world gives great credence to the discoveries of scientific research, and so Young-Earth Creationists are forced into the position of having to address that research somehow. The result is a staggering amount of nonsense: research that says the speed of light is not constant, claims that fossilized footprints prove humans walked with dinosaurs, alleged explanations of how representatives of every known species could have fit into Noah's Ark, and on and on. Moreover, many Young-Earth Creationists have worked to have their material introduced into science classes and/or to have evolutionary biology removed. So, if you read about scientists objecting to creationists, it is not merely a half-witted "science vs religion" thing going on. It is a more specific "You really shouldn't be teaching people that there was a full planetary flood only a few thousand years ago from which there were only eight human survivors, because it doesn't appear that any such thing actually happened." It sometimes happens that a school board in some small place will pass a rule about teaching "alternatives to evolution", or some such, as a way to get young-Earth ideas into their classrooms. There are usually lawsuits, and one interesting thing about the cases is that many of those objecting to teaching of young-Earth ideas are religious groups, whose objection hinges on the misuse of their own sacred texts. My own view, for example, is that those who go looking for Noah's Ark have totally missed the point; they might as well go looking for the vineyard described in Matthew 20:1-16%, thinking they were doing something worthwhile. -- % http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=matthew+20:1-20:16&version=nrsvae This is not to say that I don't appreciate the inventiveness of the YECs. They're trying to defend a position which hinges on essentially no evidence whatever, against veritable libraries of results on the other side. I just wish they put all that money and time and effort into something actually worth doing. Couldn't they buy school supplies for poor kids, or work on houses with Habitat for Humanity, or something? Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." -- Robert Firth (snip of Good Stuff... purely to save bandwidtth) >other side. I just wish they put all that money and time and effort >into something actually worth doing. Couldn't they buy school supplies [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of > their C programs." -- Robert Firth DNS... I absolutely agree. Furthermore, there really is no contradiction between evolution and Christian belief and practice. For anyone who is really interested in examining this alleged "conflict" between faith and evolution, I strongly recommend a fairly new book by Denis Alexander. The title is: "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? Dr. Alexander is a truly heavy hitter in molecular immunology at Cambridge and he's also a practicing Christian. In his book, he examines the evolution/faith arguments from both scientific and theological perspectives and from a non-specialist level. It's good stuff, whether you're atheist, agnostic, or theist.... rj > "Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org>" wrote: >> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of > their C programs." -- Robert Firth Darren, I specifically steered away from the debate over creation vs. evolution. There was an atheist in "Prayer can Change Your Life," who accepted the idea of evolution as the manifestation of creation. My views are something like that, certainly not "either-or." There is a Jesuit priest who is a research member of an observatory, dealing with the fringes of knowledge; he has to face these issues every day. But I did read a report that the science faction were worried that if people believed in a Creator, their faith in science would be lost. I suspect that the people saying that aren't "true believers"in science; they can't tolerate any challenges to their beliefs. Those reasons lead to censorship. "True believers" can accept the opposite view without feeling threatened by it. I mentioned it only in the context that Doug A. was so insistent on scientific evidence. Perhaps my perception of American culture is inaccurate. We believe in science, but it hasn't become for us the core of a belief system. As I said to Doug, there are so many unproven things that we need to take for granted every day, just to get on with living. Doug L. > > "Doug Laidlaw <blackh...@afraid.org>" wrote: > >> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > "True believers" can accept the opposite view without feeling threatened by > it. I think belief in a certain kind of creator can undermine belief in scientific discoveries, because science does necessarily rely on ideas like cause and effect. If you believe in a creator that actively meddles on a day-to-day level with the physical world around us, then everything we see only *seems* to work in a predicable way because it's the creator's desire up until now to make it work that way. Such a creator could easily alter the results of any experiments humans might do, by making the physical properties of the study material different, by manipulating the laws of chance so that something that would be very unlikely happens 100% of the time during the experiment, or, heck, by altering the memories of the researchers so that their accounts of the results were inaccurate. If you believe that that kind of being is out there, and some people do, then, frankly, it *should* undermine your belief in science, because if you think the world is absolutely unpredictable then science doesn't make any sense as far as I can see. If things might fall upward at any second because gravity only operates as long as God wants it to, then why study physics? I think that people who believe that the creator has set up a physical universe with predictable rules and only makes exceptions rarely if at all (which I think is a lot more common) there's no reason that faith need undermine scientific belief or the other way around. I think that such people usually feel a conflict between their faith and their scientific knowledge when they hit an area where they hope that one of those infrequent exceptions might get made. Sarah >>> "Doug Laidlaw <blackh...@afraid.org>" wrote: >>>> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > scientific knowledge when they hit an area where they hope that one of > those infrequent exceptions might get made. I don't think you give those scientists who also believe in religion enough credit. In most religions, truth is of great importance and because of that wouldn't one then conclude them to be more likely to *not* fudge results. Yes, we are all human, and even those noble non-religious scientists might want to prove their hypothesis so greatly, they meddle with the experiment along the way. But that is about the integrity of each individual. Vickie > >>> "Doug Laidlaw <blackh...@afraid.org>" wrote: > >>>> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > But that is about the integrity of each individual. I think you're misunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you, or something. I'm not in any way suggesting that religious scientists are more likely to fake their results, and I have no idea where you got that. (Really, where did you get that? I just re-read what I wrote and I still don't understand. I didn't say anything about any scientists, religious or non-religious, faking their results. I said that if you believe that God meddles with the day-to-day workings of the world, then presumably *God* could spoof your results and you'd never know.) What I meant by the last part was that I think people who are both scientifically minded but believe (at least a little) in miracles can be very conflicted in situations where the two ways of thinking would lead to different decisions. I'll concede that's mostly speculation on my part though. Sarah (snip) > I said > that if you believe that God meddles with the day-to-day workings of > the world, then presumably *God* could spoof your results and you'd > never know.) The first time (and this was over 30 years ago now - I was only a teenager) I had a conversation with someone who was truly convinced of his version of a literal interpretation of the Bible, I came away from that conversation struck with two points, which made me resolve never to debate the question again. 1) I asked "what about fossils?" Answer: "Put there by God as fakes to test our faith." 2) I asked "why would god do such a thing?" Answer: "The ways of God are beyond our comprehension." (I may not have the literal words correct, but I have the points correct. And in the second case I have the literal words correct, and can hear in my mind's ear exactly the intonation with which this was said.) While to my taste, nonsensical, the answers are perfectly logically consistent and there is really nothing left to argue about. Anytime we question how things could be a certain way if there is a god, the answer "the ways of God are beyond our comprehension" is ready to hand. And anytime something contradicts some individual's notion of God, the contradiction could have been planted to test one's faith. (I find it impossible to believe in a god who is both such a trickster, and so inscrutable, but that's just me.) > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > (I find it impossible to believe in a god who is both such a > trickster, and so inscrutable, but that's just me.) The answer I got to that one was that my inablilty (or in my case unwillingness) to beleive in such a God was that my disbelief was irrelevant to his existence. THAT at least made sense to me. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > (I find it impossible to believe in a god who is both such a > trickster, and so inscrutable, but that's just me.) Well, sure, it's internally consistent and pretty much unfalsifiable. What I don't get is how people who believe this deal with the much bigger can of worms it seems to me to open. I mean, once you've assumed that you're dealing with a God who can and will lie to humans wholesale, then what the heck do you trust? Maybe it's the *bones* that we're supposed to believe in and the *book* that is lying. Maybe both are lies and we're supposed to believe some completely different third thing. Maybe everybody actually goes to hell no matter what they believe, for some reason that God thinks is good but that we'll never understand as limited humans. "The ways of God are beyond our comprehension and what seems bad to us may be good from God's perspective" seems the exact opposite of comforting to me. But apparently I have some sort of mutant brain in this regard. Sarah > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > perspective" seems the exact opposite of comforting to me. But > apparently I have some sort of mutant brain in this regard. To be clear, I'm not asserting that the only way to believe in God is to believe my 1 & 2. Obviously neither Vickie's nor Darren's beliefs are in these categories. But yes, I agree with you about the consequences of 1 & 2 for those who believe in what I consider to be fundamental literal interpretations of the Bible. In any case, something missing from both my analysis and yours is the issue of "faith" and the importance of having it. I don't understand how to work that in. r "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" wrote of a discussion which included these points: > 1) I asked "what about fossils?" Answer: "Put there by God as fakes to > test our faith." > > 2) I asked "why would god do such a thing?" Answer: "The ways of God > are beyond our comprehension." This idea is due to one Philip Henry Gosse, who wrote a book titled _Omphalos_, which is Greek for "belly button". The point of his book was to consider the question of whether Adam & Eve had bellybuttons, because if they did that would imply they had been born to a woman. Gosse's position was that this is *not* faking by God: He may have chosen to give them bellybuttons for aesthetic reasons. The resulting misperception is because we *assume* a bellybutton means there was once an umbilical cord. It's not God's fault if we make a bogus assumption. What's important about this is that it's explicitly unscientific: it cannot be tested in any way. SO, if our discussion is about what to teach in science class, "apparent age" is out. That's the fulcrum on which to attack this sort of argument: our only dispute is about what to teach in science class, and this idea is explicitly anti-scientific. My only public policy argument with Creationists is "what do we teach in school science class?", and so the Omphalos theory is out because it can never be tested for. * For fun, though, you can always come back with Last Tuesdayism, which holds that the Universe was created from nothing Last Tuesday, and all memories or any other evidence of existence prior to Last Tuesday was intentionally put there by God so we would be comfortable in our new universe instead of all freaked out. Since God is, per usual description, much more clever than us, there is no evidence of any kind that we could discover to refute Last Tuesdayism, because obviously God would have thought of anything we might come up with in advance. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "It's only half completed, I'm afraid -- we haven't even finished burying the artificial dinosaur skeletons in the crust yet, then we have the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods of the Cenozoic era to lay down, and..." -- Slartibartfast, on the construction of Earth Mark Two > "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" wrote of a discussion > which included these points: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > an umbilical cord. It's not God's fault if we make a bogus > assumption. Well, perhaps in this example. But as far as fossils go, it is difficult to come up with an explanation as to why God put them there other than as some sort of test. I suppose you could theorize that he ran out of regular rock, and had to stick some lizardy looking bits in the cracks, but that's fairly far out. If fossils are not (as they appear) relics of very old life forms, then if God put them there, he would have known what they would look like to us. So I would say it _is_ his fault if we assume they are relics of very old life forms. > What's important about this is that it's explicitly unscientific: it > cannot be tested in any way. SO, if our discussion is about what to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > school science class?", and so the Omphalos theory is out because it can > never be tested for. Precisely. >>>>> "Doug Laidlaw <blackh...@afraid.org>" wrote: >>>>>> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > Sarah I'm fairly certain it was *my* misunderstanding. If the belief is that God meddles with day to day workings of the world and therefore can spoof results, the results would still be what they are. So, I don't see how there would be a conflict. I have a feeling this may lead to the conflict between (rigid) predeterminism and free-will! I admit to being sorely lacking in the knowledge of God's infinite intelligence and His determination whether to give requisite conditions or bow out. Wonder what Dr.NS' thoughts are on this subject! Vickie (snip) > If the belief is that God meddles with day to day workings of the > world and therefore can spoof results, the results would still be what > they are. > So, I don't see how there would be a conflict. That's a good point, and sort of interesting to think about. If an experiment-meddling God meddled consistently, then the experiment would tell us something repeatable. Tricker is an experiment meddling God who just meddles some of the time, so the the results of the experiment are inconsistent. >>>>>> "Doug Laidlaw <blackh...@afraid.org>" wrote: >>>>>>> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea [quoted text clipped - 150 lines] > world and therefore can spoof results, the results would still be > what they are. So, I don't see how there would be a conflict. I think the issue arises if God were inconsistent. One century perhaps all the evidence lead one way then POOF look smething completely different, tee hee. > I have a feeling this may lead to the conflict between (rigid) > predeterminism and free-will! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Vickie In news:c298fcdb-3132-4c25-97e8-c95527ebd67c@r33g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, Sarah Lister <aliaslister@yahoo.com> mused: > I think belief in a certain kind of creator can undermine belief > in scientific discoveries, because science does necessarily rely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a predicable way because it's the creator's desire up until now > to make it work that way. A belief in a creator who determines everything does not necessarily mean belief in a creator who meddles in anything. There is a theory which suggests that each and every event in the entire universe was preordained at the moment the universe was created. IOW, there is no true randomness. A small micro example of that theory is the use of a computer to generate random numbers. If you've ever done any computer programming, you know that there's a function in almost every computer language that generates a random number. But no matter how sophisticated that random number generator might be, it's never, ever truly random. It can be so sophisticated that for all practicalities, it is equivalent to being random, but look deeply enough into the code, and it is not random at all. Now, if we extrapolate that notion to a level of complexity and sophistication that we could never possibly grasp, it still comes down to the basic fact that just because we can't imagine how a universally large number of events could possibly tie together along a logical path so as to preclude true randomness does not mean that there is randomness. It only means that it looks that way. So yes, even human decisions which seem to have been made by decision, were still all preordained. A group who believes so adamantly in the notion that environment affects behavior should be open to this notion. Everything about your physicality at birth was preordained. Even the most extreme complexities of your brain were decided at the moment of conception. And so if that is true, then all there is left as to the formation how we will think are the external stimuli we encounter from that same moment of conception. Yes, that's an oversimplification, but just like the random number generator that only seems random because most of us don't understand its sophistication and complexity, our "free will" only seems to be completely free because we don't understand the sophistication and complexity of the human mind, and how its affected by our experiences. So the faith part of the equation comes in two forms..... Faith in a being that created the universe, and faith in the fact that just because something is beyond our ability to grasp doesn't mean that it isn't the case. > Such a creator could easily alter the > results of any experiments humans might do, by making the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fall upward at any second because gravity only operates as long > as God wants it to, then why study physics? That whole line of thinking presupposes that God doesn't know what might happen from one moment to the next. A truly all powerful God knows everything past, present, and future. Therefore, such a God would know at the moment of the creation of the universe what will happen, and doesn't have to wait until right before it does to cause it to be so. God can simply set the path of everything in the universe to come together in such a way so as to make it happen that way. In that sense, pure science (as described in my rant above), and absolute belief in a God are not only NOT mutually exclusive, but, in fact, converge to the very same result. > There is a theory which suggests that each and every event in the > entire universe was preordained at the moment the universe was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > number. But no matter how sophisticated that random number > generator might be, it's never, ever truly random. "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann, 1951 The thing is, quantum randomness is said to be *truly* random, and while that could be a misperception, the evidence for is strong and the evidence against is not. (If quantum randomness is in fact simply an error, that could easily be proved by producing an equation which will describe exactly the times when the events happen under various circumstances.) > So yes, even human decisions which seem to have been made by > decision, were still all preordained. See, this just doesn't work for me. For me to believe that decisions are merely an illusion would require truly impressive proof. Even if we fall back all the way to solipsism, and everything I think I know is merely a dream, it remains my direct experience that I have made choices in the dream. The idea that I do not exercise will is so counter to my experience that it's like saying I've never worked out a "mate in two" chess problem. I have direct experience of doing it. Even if there are no actual chessboards or computers or other people to play chess against, I've still solved such problems. (Chess is what's known as a "formal system", and as such is what's called "medium independent" -- ie, if you represent the tokens in the problem space, it's a chess game no matter what form it takes. Thus you can play chess with helicopters, or you can play it blindfolded, keeping track of all the moves in your head, and it's still "really" chess. You couldn't play football with helicopters without radically changing the nature of the game, though people might still pay to watch.) I have direct knowledge of me adding numbers. The proof that I have not added numbers would have to be staggeringly impressive. So with the proof that I have never made choices. > A truly all powerful God knows everything past, present, and future. > Therefore, such a God would know at the moment of the creation of the > universe what will happen, and doesn't have to wait until right before > it does to cause it to be so. An omniscient Creator could only know things which are actually things to be known, in the same way that an omnipotent Creator can only create things which are really "things". For example, no Being of any sort or power could tell you the name of our pet camel, since we have no pet camel. The phrase "name of my our pet camel" does not refer to anything, and thus no name can be given. In the same way, an omnipotent Creator cannot create a "four-sided triangle", because those who speak English have all agreed that the word "triangle" refers to a thing with three sides, and if we make something with four sides we won't call it a "triangle". There is no limit here on what a theoretical omnipotent Creator might create, only a limit on what we're going to say about His creations, and that limit only exists by prior agreement. Because of the tacit agreement that comes from speaking English, "four-sided triangle" is syntactically- correct nonsense: it's a bunch of words that looks like it refers to something, but it doesn't. (Other examples could include "integer between 2 and 3", or similar nonsense references.) SO, if a being is going to be created with free will -- truly free will, not merely an illusion -- then not even an omniscient Creator can know what that creature will do in every case unless the being is actually created and exists to make choices. If it *is* possible to examine the design of a being and work out its exact decisions in any situation, then that being has no free will, because a truly "free" will means that at least some decisions are made independent of antecedent causation. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "I believe in free will. If it turns out that I am right, then great!, I was right all along. If it turns out that I am wrong, well, too bad, but I was fated to be wrong, so it is not *my* error." -- Chris Torek >> So yes, even human decisions which seem to have been made by >> decision, were still all preordained. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > proof. Even if we fall back all the way to solipsism, and > everything I think I know Nothing of what we think about this can ever be proven. But that notwithstanding, my point is not that decisions are an illusion. My point is that decisions are true decisions. It's just that if we had the intellectual capability to have developed a super computer model of the entire universe down to the most elemental event, that decision could've been predicted. It's not all that different than the state of psychology today, but only in a very general sense. Profilers can predict with amazing accuracy how certain people will react given their psychological makeup. It's not those subjects lack for free will, it's that the results of that free will are predictable. I find it difficult to aciculate my position, but it's the difference between looking from the inside out, as opposed to from the outside in. >> A truly all powerful God knows everything past, present, and >> future. Therefore, such a God would know at the moment of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > things to be known, in the same way that an omnipotent Creator > can only create things which are really "things". You speak of a God that has limits. I speak of a God that has none. > It's just that if we had the intellectual capability to have developed > a super computer model of the entire universe down to the most elemental > event, that decision could've been predicted. Okay, but you've got a lot of physicists on the other side. Quantum events are, by all available evidence, truly and fundamentally random. As best as the physicists can make out, no computer of any design ever could predict specific quantum decay events, no matter what data you put in or how much data you had or how good your sensors were. I'm not trying to tell you want to think, believe anything you like. But I have encountered people who think that "quantum randomness" is a shorthand used by scientists to refer to limits on their microscopes, or something, and that with Star-Trek-like equipment scientists could predict all such events. That's not what physicists think, and that's not what "quantum randomness" refers to. You're free to disagree as far as I'm concerned, but not to present your position as consistent with the mainstream of scientific thought, or an extension of same. I wrote: > An omniscient Creator could only know things which are actually > things to be known, in the same way that an omnipotent Creator > can only create things which are really "things". Mr AllYou! replied: > You speak of a God that has limits. I speak of a God that has none. I spoke of no limits on God, I spoke of limits on the world. God cannot tell you the name of my pet camel, not because God isn't smart enough to figure it out, but because no pet camel exists to be named. That is no limitation on God; it's a limitation on the world (in which I do not have a pet camel). Obviously an omnipotent being could create a camel and plop it in our yard and give us a really big dog bowl and a bag of Purina Camel Chow and arrange for a pet license and so on, and then we'd have a pet camel and He'd know its name. But so far, He has not seen fit to do so, and thus "tell me the name of our pet camel" is not an instruction He can carry out. Not because of any limit on Him, but because of limits on the world. When I say "An omnipotent being can do anything", that is restricted to actual *things*. Phrases such as "integer between 2 and 3" do not refer to anything; they're just nonsense. Taking nonsense and sticking "Can God" on the front of it doesn't fix it. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'but how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." -- Richard Feynman > I'm not trying to tell you want to think, believe anything you > like. But I have encountered people who think that "quantum [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not to present your position as consistent with the mainstream > of scientific thought, or an extension of same. I'm not presenting any such thing. As you know, I began stating my position with the premise "There is a theory which suggests that each and every event.........." I don't know how that could be interpreted as a "position consistent with the mainstream of scientific thought, or an extension of same." Secondly, the theory of quantum randomness as you've stated is starting to come into question more frequently. That's not to say that I'm stating which theory is correct, but simply to point out that there is no definitive view on the matter. But most of that is irrelevant to my point anyway. By beginning my post the way I did, I was simply trying to make the point that there is a difference between a lack of ability to predict the future due to intellectual limitations, and whether or not that future is therefore random (i.e., subject to decision making). > I wrote: >> An omniscient Creator could only know things which are actually [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > exists to be named. That is no limitation on God; it's a > limitation on the world (in which I do not have a pet camel). I see your desciption of God as one which has limited abilities. The inability to know the future is a limitation.. Yes, it's a limit on the world, but in definingg God as incapable of knowing the future, you've defined a God with a limitation. In that sense, I think that your logic is circular. > Obviously an omnipotent being could create a camel and plop it > in our yard and give us a really big dog bowl and a bag of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pet camel" is not an instruction He can carry out. Not because > of any limit on Him, but because of limits on the world. > When I say "An omnipotent being can do anything", that is > restricted to actual *things*. Phrases such as "integer between > 2 and 3" do not refer to anything; they're just nonsense. > Taking nonsense and sticking "Can God" on the front of it > doesn't fix it. Are you under the impresion that's what I've done? If so, please show that case, and if not, then I'm at a loss to understand why you'd make that comment. What I have done, however, is to try to make the point that an all powerful God is not bound by concepts such as past, present, and future. Belief in an all powerful God can be to have faith in a God who knows past, present, and future, as well as one who has blessed humans (and some other living beings) with the power to make decsions. The fact that they do not know what their decsions will be does not mean that God doesn't know it. > I see your desciption of God as one which has limited abilities. > The inability to know the future is a limitation.. Yes, it's a > limit on the world, but in definingg God as incapable of knowing the > future, you've defined a God with a limitation. I have not said that God cannot know the future. The traditional position, to which I have no major objection, is that God does not experience the passage of time. We are like people walking down a path in the fog: we see only the part of the path we are on, and we can remember the bit we already passed, but we can only vaguely make out what is ahead of us. God is not on the path at all, but sees it from above, and sees through the fog which clouds are memories and makes it hard for us to see what is ahead. Thus He knows perfectly what we can only experience as it passes, and He knows it all at once. But that is not *predicting* the future: it is knowing the future directly. It doesn't deny what to us is foreknowledge, of course, and I don't see any way in which it puts any limits on God. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "It's all about baptism, brunch, and blessing fire trucks." -- Fr. Ed Zelley >> I see your desciption of God as one which has limited abilities. >> The inability to know the future is a limitation.. Yes, it's a >> limit on the world, but in definingg God as incapable of >> knowing the future, you've defined a God with a limitation. > > I have not said that God cannot know the future. Can you reconcile that comment with this other one by you? "God cannot tell you the name of my pet camel, not because God isn't smart enough to figure it out, but because no pet camel exists to be named." A God without any limitations on knowing the future woold know that the camel will exist, and what you'lll name it. > God is not on the path at all, but sees it from above, and sees > through the fog which clouds are memories and makes it hard for > us to see what is ahead. Thus He knows perfectly what we can > only experience as it passes, and He knows it all at once. Wouldn't that mean that he knows what you'll decide? > But that is not *predicting* the future: it is knowing the future > directly. It doesn't deny what to us is foreknowledge, of > course, and I don't see any way in which it puts any limits on > God. Me neither. What I do not see is how this then means that God would not know that you will have a pet camel, or what you'll name it. In an earlier article I wrote that an omniscient being could not know the name of our pet camel, because no pet camel exists. This is not any limit on omniscience, it is a limit on the world. (If a pet camel existed, obviously an omniscient being would know its name, if any.) > Can you reconcile that comment with this other one by you? "God > cannot tell you the name of my pet camel, not because God isn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A God without any limitations on knowing the future woold know that > the camel will exist, and what you'lll name it. When I wrote that, I meant "our pet camel" in the present tense. Obviously I do not know the future perfectly, and it may be that, through some implausible sequence of events, one day I will have a pet camel. An omniscient being who exist outside time presumably knows how that comes out, and also know the name of the pet camel, if one will one day exist. If we restrict the question to the past, "What was the name of our pet camel when I was 12?", then future knowledge makes no difference, and again not even an omniscient being could answer the question. Should I die without ever having a pet camel (a situation I regard as quite likely), then no pet camel will ever exist, and not even an omniscient being would be able to answer the question "What was the name of his pet camel?" (if the question refers to me). And none of this is a limit on omniscience, or any omniscient beings which may exist, but merely a limit on the physical world. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy Vila: "I think I just made the biggest mistake of my life." Orac: "It is unlikely. I would predict there are far greater mistakes waiting to be made by someone with your obvious talent for it." > In an earlier article I wrote that an omniscient being could not > know the name of our pet camel, because no pet camel exists. > This is not any limit on omniscience, it is a limit on the > world. (If a pet camel existed, obviously an omniscient being > would know its name, if any.) We seem to be debating at cross purposes. You seem to believe that I somehow made the claim that a God could know of something that will never come to pass. I never made such a claim. All I've ever claimed is that an all powerful God knows all that is past, present, and future. I also clam that a God can know all that is to ever happen in the future, and still bless humans (and other beings) with the ability to make decisions for themselves, and that these two realities are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to believe in an all powerful God who has not only the power to know the future, but by definition, has determined the future, and yet, human beings can still be blessed with the power to decide for themselves. You may disagree with that position, but doing so would have more credibility if you made the case for where the logic for it that I've posted in this thread has either flaws or holes instead of trying to argue against a point that I never made, or tried to make. (snip) > Darren, I specifically steered away from the debate over creation vs. > evolution. I think you may have missed Darren's point. The political debate in the US is not between creation and evolution. Many religious people accept evolution and simultaneously believe that the earth or universe was created by God. The political debate in the US is whether to teach creation in _science_ classes, and more specifically a creation story based on a literalist interpretation of the Bible. > There was an atheist in "Prayer can Change Your Life," who > accepted the idea of evolution as the manifestation of creation. My views [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I mentioned it only in the context that Doug A. was so insistent on > scientific evidence. You also misunderstand me. I don't insist on scientific evidence. But I do point out when people claim that science supports assertions like "men are more rational than women" and "women are better at multi-tasking" that they are mistaken, and that science does _not_ assert that. >> "Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org>" wrote: >>> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > But I did read a report that the science faction were worried that if > people believed in a Creator, their faith in science would be lost. Just goes to prove that there are idealogues and zealots of *all* stripes. > I suspect that the people saying that aren't "true believers"in > science; they can't tolerate any challenges to their beliefs. Those > reasons lead to censorship. "True believers" can accept the opposite > view without feeling threatened by it. True believers of *anything* don't make sense to me. > I mentioned it only in the context that Doug A. was so insistent on > scientific evidence. Scientific *evidence* and scientific *faith* are two wildly different things. Once refers to the actual real application of scientific principles. And one is a religiousification of science. > Perhaps my perception of American culture is > inaccurate. Perhaps it could be a difference other than a stereotypical neat and tidy packaged culture/gender/race... whatever? Perhaps you *just don't undersyand Doug A*? Perhaps because you are so bust tucking things into nice sterotypical cubbiholes? > We believe in science, but it hasn't become for us the > core > of a belief system. I suppose some people do. But the very point of science is that as evidence is gathered and hypothesis tested, our understanding can *change.* That is very different than a belief system. Se previously mentioned Tim Michin bit. > As I said to Doug, there are so many unproven > things that we need to take for granted every day, just to get on > with living. And to a lot of people that means God. To others it mean, oh we just don't know yet. > Doug L. > "Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org>" wrote: >> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > has 1.5billion Roman Catholics to choose from and, so gets to be very > choosy). Most religions have no conflict with creationism and evolution. It seems to me most theologists welcome the science to gain more knowledge and see connection. There are statements from the jewish, mormons, episocopalians, presbyterians, lutherans, and (my fav:-) Roman Catholics who accept evolution in conjunction with creationism. Pope Pius was said to take in scientific research to assist him in his reflections and concluded, "animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet", as an example of how the two ("C and E") co-exist. Pope John Paul II agreed with Pope Pius. I am happy to note that there are places like the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, CA that look into the links. Part of their mission statment: "The universe is more mysterious than either science or religion can ever fully disclose, and the urgencies of humankind and the natural environment demand an honest interaction between the discoveries of nature, the empowerment afforded us by appropriate technology, the inherent value of the environment, and the demand that we commit ourselves to a future in which all species can flourish. We can no longer afford the stalemate of past centuries between theology and science, for this leaves nature Godless and religion worldless. When this happens, our culture, hungering after science for something to fill the void of its lost spiritual resources, is easy prey to New Age illusions wrapped in scientific-sounding language -- the 'cosmic self-realization movement' and the 'wow of physics' -- while our 'denatured' religion, attempting to correct social wrong and to provide meaning and support for life's journey, is incapable of making its moral claims persuasive or its spiritual comfort effective because its cognitive claims are not credible. Nor can we allow science and religion to be seen as adversaries, for they will be locked in a conflict of mutual conquest, such as "creation science" which costs religion its credibility or a philosophical stance of "scientific materialism" which costs science its innocence...." > The problem is that Young-Earth Creationists are determined that Earth > is at most 10-15,000 years old, and that the stories in the opening [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > -- > % http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=matthew+20:1-20:16&version=nrsvae I agree Noah's Ark to be symbolic of salvation (simply put), but I do find it fascinating that the story is repeated in a number of religions, including Judaism, Islam, and (of course) Christianity. > This is not to say that I don't appreciate the inventiveness of the > YECs. They're trying to defend a position which hinges on essentially [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for poor kids, or work on houses with Habitat for Humanity, or > something? As for teaching creationism, that could be pretty difficult, considering creationism is somehow different in each religion. I like the idea of theology offered as an elective in high-school. Vickie > > "Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org>" wrote: > >> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It seems to me most theologists welcome the science to gain more > knowledge and see connection. I agree with this for what are considered mainstream religions in the US. You give good examples for Catholicism below. It is different in the evangelical movement though, and that comprises a pretty sizable group of the religious in the US. (It is hard to get good numbers, but I've seen numbers as high as 26% of the population are in an evangelical church. I bet that is too high, but I also bet among the actively religious, the proportion of people who are evangelicals in the US might be that high or higher). > There are statements from the jewish, mormons, episocopalians, > presbyterians, lutherans, and (my fav:-) Roman Catholics who accept [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pope John Paul II agreed with Pope Pius. The Catholic church has come a long way since Gallileo! (Thankfully.) (snip) > I agree Noah's Ark to be symbolic of salvation (simply put), but I do > find it fascinating that the story is repeated in a number of > religions, including Judaism, Islam, and (of course) Christianity. It isn't like it is picked up independently, right? Noah's Ark comes from the Torah, which becomes part of the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. Mohammed considered himself a Judeo-Christian prophet and so took in large parts of Judeo-Christian thought into his own thinking. So to me Noah's Ark seems like a Jewish story that stayed with the large religions that grew out of Judaism (Christianity and Islam) rather than something seized upon independently several times. >> > "Doug Laidlaw <blackhole@afraid.org>" wrote: >> >> Here in Australia, we don't worship science so much. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > large religions that grew out of Judaism (Christianity and Islam) > rather than something seized upon independently several times. Yes. I guess I should have said I like that it stayed in. Vickie |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.