Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by George.
@ Sean
“That’s exactly right. Determining which position is “most rational” is a personal effort. No one else can do it for you. It’s all based on one’s own personal abilities to think rationally.”
But is the mystical rational, especially if one does not have not had first hand experience of it? As we have discussed, you and I have never witnessed a miracle or do not have personal conversations with God. In fact everyone I know personally – although they may have gestalt-spiritual feelings – has never witnessed a miracle or spoken to God. Thus such phenomena do not likely occur or are extremely rare in nature. Would you agree that is a rational conclusion?
Now on the surface, I think we can all agree that the story of Christ and his resurrection as the son of God, is one of the if not the most incredible stories ever told. And I am not being disparaging here, it simply is! But is it rational? Why on one hand would God flood the world killing innocent children but then on the other hand sacrifice his own son- part of Him – for the sake of saving, in many instances, much worse humans? To me this juxtaposition of the OT God and the NT God is irrational as being the same ‘perfect’ deity.
Let’s take it a step further: if the scientifc consensus over the course of time points to the likelihood of old life on the planet from many scientifc disciplines is it rational to believe in young life; especially if the proponents of same all stem from believers in the paramountcy of the biblical story?
So, is Pauluc, and for that matter Dr. Kime ( even though their perpectives differ) that far off the mark when they say it takes faith?
In my case I have a great deal of faith: in the progress of science to better and better approximate the reality of the universe and life on earth devoid of the biases of religion or atheism ( a fundamentalist religion!) I have faith in the cross cultural study of religions to understand the basis of their formation, their variance and similarities, their evolution(s) as it were. And yes I confess: such faith exalts human reason- perhaps hubristically- above the suppossed word(s) of God. Now perhaps in the future I will have relgious experience whereby I will subordinate my reason to connection with God. Rationally I have to leave open that possibility because I have no rational explanation for First Cause- the ultimate basis for agnosticism.
Or perhaps – because your position offers more hope- you are more rational?
Or perhaps – Pauluc is more rational as he sees the dilemma between the empirical weight of the evidence and the literal creation story- but has a deep reverence for the beauty of Christianity?
What thinks Sage Kime?
Table of Contents
George Also Commented
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
@ Wes
I can picture an atheist California ‘Valley’
Girl, all a twitter with her cyber friends, texting OMNG!!
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
. “Oh atheists, we limit thyselfs, why make a graven idol of absolutism in the mystery of the unknown?”
Oops, a bit of erratum, “we” should have been “why” .
Just wondering though, do atheists say: “oh my not God ” when making pronouncements of wonder, or not wonder as the case may be?
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
@ Prime Time Kime
“may I submit that if there can be such things as “honest doubts,” exquisitely indubitably standardized and syllabized as they are, are there not also “honest certainties,” certainly of the Bible?”
Not only submit, but argue with wit, to an agnostic twit, who is indubiatly as entwined in the DNA matrrix of doubt, as those of faith, which I vouchsafe is indeed stout.
Serious? You bet ya pard, but not withoug a healthy dose of self deprecation when in the presence of a very wise elder and a brilliant advocate of the marrying empiricism to faith. You see when I encounter folks of high intelligence with firm beliefs, they act as a crucible to test my own existentialist gestalt. We are all looking for God notwithstanding protestations to the contrary. I find a bit of ‘that’ lovely sepraphim filigree in the extant cyber dialectic with yourself and Sean. And I have been converted to an extent. To the extent that I better understand the essense of the faith that drives you. That has been a mote in the eye of a non – God. Oh atheists, we limit thyselfs, why make a graven idol of absolutism in the mystery of the unknown?
Is the malleability of humanity the key to sanity?
Always got a bedroll and fire burning for you on the ole high ontological plateau pard. It is only lonely if one cannot embrace the beauty of brevity and privilege to exist and comtemplate with inner eye wide open.
With fondness
Your irascible prairie dog
Recent Comments by George
The Creator of Time
Hello Sean
In fairness to you and your readers I feel like we are being redundant on many points and issues. I need to be respectful that this is an Adventist forum that believes and supports YEC not a platform for my agnosticism.
I do appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to lively debate issues.
Respectfully
The Creator of Time
To Sean
“ A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, so it is not scientific. The concept of God, Allah, or other supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole Universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence, any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).”
And back to you
The Creator of Time
To Sean
“Remember also that the assumption that future discoveries will one day be able to explain everything via mindless naturalistic mechanisms is not science, but a philosophy of naturalism that is very similar to a blind faith religion.”
How does this compare to the assumption that the Bible will be able to predict the end of the world? Scientific in your estimation or perhaps I really don’t understand how science versus religion works
The Creator of Time
Hello Sean
“I began my investigation with genetic evolution since that is my own personal field of expertise. ”
So have you published papers in scientific peer reviewed journals in this regard? Have you done experiments in this regard? Have you published statistical analysis to demonstrate your theory that macro evolution is mathematically possible?
You are always stating that others have to proof you wrong? Really? If you we’re trying to prove Newton or Einstein wrong would you not have to do so before your scientific peers?
Come on now, as you like to say, do you really scientically think all the biodiversity we witness today cane off a floating Ark some 4000 years ago! Is that really a scientific proposition that is provable or just some just so story?
You see I get the design argument but miracles, prophets, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, arks and the like are not proper subjects for science in my opinion. This is why you are seeing religions, including the progressive side of Adventistism moving more towards acceptance of science as reality, because they understand the modern educated mind will reject them if the stories are too fanciful or don’t make sense.
You see I don’t mind you calling ideas of the meta verse just so stories or not currently scientific as being non falsifiable. You have a point there. I don’t mind you advancing design arguments, especially as it relates to the fine tuned mechanisms of physics and organic life. You have good points there. But please, try to objectively use use that same scientific circumspection to the fantastic claims of the Bible and EGW prophecies or even the age of life on earth. Then perhaps I’ll see a bit of rational sense to your overall position.
Cheers
The Creator of Time
Hi Sean
Your real problem of credibility is your double standard of proof. Put your biblical stories of reality to the same degree of circumspection as you put evolution. To really conclude that all the bio diversity that we see in the world today- apart from that that survived in the water- came off an Ark is probably the most unscientific fantastic claim that even all children see as allegory. There is a reason this is not taught as the source of biodiversity in schools Sean. Yet you as a scientist believe it and think it has an evidentiary basis.
Your arguments on design make much more sense because it is certainly arguable that there is a design to the universe based on the anthropiic principle. It is certainly arguable that a designer like God could have designed a universe like ours but also a designerlike God could have designed a cause and effect evolving universe as well. Like Deism I think ID is worthwhile exploring. But I also think science continues to demonstrate mindless cause and effect mechanisms that don’t require design.
You and Behe are focused on irreducible complexity as an underpinning for design – which for you then becomes the stepping stone to biblical creation. Your methodology is apparent to get ‘educated’ minds to buy into a biblically designer God.
You see I don’t mind admitting that there is still much to do when it comes to understanding how physics and biology work. The best minds in the world continue to work, theorize and experiment in these areas. But you dismiss these efforts with a wave of your hand because they fall outside the biblical narrative so they can’t be true. And it is THAT factor Sean that utterly shatters the rational credibilty of
of creation science as an objective endeavour. The boys at the Discovery Institute understood this and have tried to broaden their approach. Deists understood this as well to get away from cultural myth and move towards a more observational basis for understanding the universe. But sadly Sean l, I think you are so entrenched in your biblical paradigm that you cannot see how your double standard of scientific inquiry harms your credibilty as an objective scientist. If I was to cross examine you in a Court of Law I would have a field day on pointing this discrepancy. And believe me, having cross examined many medical experts in forensic matters I do speak from professional experience.
Yes I know I am stating the obvious as many of your fellow ‘progressive’ Adventist colleagues have stayed before, no doubt to no avail. But, without being smug, just as you have encouraged me to look for God, I encourage you to look very deeply within yourself and look for humbly for rational contradiction. Objective humility is the real start to seeking truth.
Cheers
