My apologies for not responding earlier. I have been rather busy
assembling a further module for my personal website entitled 'Inner
Conviction'. This demonstrates further remarkable features of the
opening words of the Hebrew Scriptures - in particular, the numerical
interdependence of its words. The analysis enables us to get a handle on
the extreme odds against such a structure arising by chance.
Responding to your comments, let me say:
1) In my view, your understanding of 'cognitive dissonance' falls short,
and tends to trivialise this important matter. It is surely something
stronger and more subtle than a mere 'aversion'! No one is immune to it,
for it is lodged deep within the human psyche; it is undoubtedly a
direct and dire consequence of the Fall. The Psalmist asks, "Why do the
nations so furiously rage together against the Lord, and against His
Christ?" (Ps.2:1,2) Why, indeed? Does it make any sense? It is man's
antipathy toward his Creator that represents the essence of CG! Evidence
for His Being and Sovereignty is ignored; evidence which casts doubt on
the veracity of the Scriptures is eagerly acclaimed, and promoted with
zeal in many quarters!
2) Your understanding of God's faithfulness also needs looking at a
little more closely. You claim that God will honour the natural laws
because He is trustworthy. But, in that case, what of miracles? Does not
His transient suspension of these same laws from time to time amount to
'untrustworthiness', in your view? Isn't it the case that some TEs
require a sequence of wonders of this kind to sustain their beliefs?
Clearly, God is 'faithful' only in respect of the promises He has made
which are recorded in the Scriptures.
To Noah - and through him to mankind in general - He says, (a) "I will
not again curse the ground...for man's sake...neither will I again smite
...every living thing...", (b) "While the earth remains, seedtime and
harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not
cease.", and (c) "...there shall be no more flood to destroy the
earth." (Gn.8, 9). We are also aware of the principle of 'common grace'.
More specifically, we read of the promises to the Patriarchs and,
through them, to their descendants. And, again, of the promises of
Jesus to those who believe and are faithful to him. But where do we read
that God will invariably uphold the natural order so that His sworn
enemies may the better disavow him?!
3) As one who so clearly respects empirical evidence, I am surprised
that you consistently refuse to acknowledge the numerical miracle of
Gn.1:1, and incorporate it into your thinking. Can you explain why you
are content to ignore this whilst accepting other matters as 'fact' on
greatly inferior evidence?
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
PS I shall soon be taking a holiday and will then be 'out of touch' for
a while. However, I look forward to resumimng our discussion in due
course.
V
mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>
> Hi Vernon,
>
> At 11:53 PM 7/4/99 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >(2) Science does not recognise the supernatural.
>
> Scientists who are christians, like members of this list, do recognized the
> supernatural. So this can not be used as a reason to reject what your
> brothers in the Lord say.
>
> On the other hand,
> >Christians will know that our earthly existence has a supernatural
> >dimension - indeed, they can personally testify to encountering the
> >'spiritual warfare' on a daily basis. Is it reasonable, then, that in
> >what nowadays appears to have become something of a reflex reaction,
> >Christians should always 'bend the knee' to science? - allow it to
> >become the principal arbiter in deciding matters of fundamental truth?
> >Can 'science' ever equate with 'reality'?
>
> Science can not define the totality of reality, but what it does define is
> as certain as anything can be in this world. Is the sky purple with pink
> polkadots? Is the ocean made of lemonade? You know these are false
> statements because of scientific observations. So, scientific observation
> is needed even in everyday life when you don't call it scientific.
>
> To interpret the Bible in a fashion that makes the laws of nature plastic
> and irrational implies that the Creator is untrustworthy in what he has
> made. This seems to undermine the entire reason for believing the Bible.
>
> Should we expect God to honour
> >the 'Laws of Nature' and 'scientific observation' when these today are
> >being used by so many to question His Being, His Sovereignty, and His
> >interest in, and involvement with His creation - man, in particular?
>
> Vernon, God will honor the laws He made because GOD is trustworthy, not
> because mankind is trustworthy. God knows that we aren't trustworthy and
> so if he changed the rules everytime we were untrustworthy then God would
> have to change the rules about salvation daily. God created the Laws of
> Nature, for our good. And because God Himself is trustworthy we can trust
> His laws. And because we can trust His laws, we can trust logical
> deductions from those laws. Why do you think God is not trustworthy?
>
> I
> >regard it as significant that He has promised to 'destroy the wisdom of
> >the wise' (Is.29:14), and 'to have them in derision'(Ps.2:4).
>
> Considering that science was not in existence when those verses were
> written have you ever considered the possibility that the 'wise' might
> refer to those who think themselves morally wise?
>
> >
> >(3) Something real and common to the human condition (and specified by
> >the Scriptures!) is the phenomenon of 'cognitive dissonance' ('CD'
> >hereafter). This results when a person is confronted by ideas or facts
> >that are at odds with his pre-existing notions; psychologists recognise
> >it has the power to distort or even block perception.
>
> I am delighted that you brought this up. When I was a young-earth
> creationist and a believer in the global flood, I was living a life full of
> cognitive dissonance. I knew (as you have admitted) that the scientific
> data didn't support what I was believing. That, as you so correctly
> define, is the very essence of congnitive dissonance. I believed the
> global flood IN SPITE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT. I would suggest that
> you take a look deep inside and consider if that might apply to you as it
> once did to me.
>
> As an example, in
> >the film "2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY", the discovery of a large, smooth,
> >domino-shaped slab with perfect right-angles suggests to the viewing
> >audience that the universe contains intelligent life other than man.
> >People agreed unanimously that this was conclusive proof of
> >intelligence, for the intelligence that was implied was not God. No CD
> >here! At the end of the film, a human embryo fills the screen -
> >something at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to the level of
> >design present in a domino-shaped slab! Were it not for CD God's
> >existence should be intuitively obvious.
>
> Were it not for CD the futility of the global flood would be equally obvious.
> >
> >I have met the problem of CD at first hand as a reaction to my drawing
> >attention to the 'standing miracle' of Genesis 1:1. To my intense
> >surprise, even Christians are unable to accept that God would (or
> >could!) do such a thing.
>
> It is always amazing to me that no one ever thinks that cognitive
> dissonance might apply to themselves. It always applies to other people.
> In my case, as a YEC, it applied to me.
>
> >Finally, regarding the matter of the Flood, I see little point in
> >reiterating my understanding of its global nature. Bearing in mind its
> >stated purpose (viz a 'biological clean out', to be followed by a
> >restocking of planet Earth), none of the 'devices' suggested for
> >avoiding these clear intentions carry any real weight or conviction -
> >and they shouldn't satisfy those who love truth!
> >
>
> At the very first of your note, you wrote:
>
> "I believe it appropriate that I set out a background for my
> belief that - notwithstanding scientific evidence (real or imagined) to
> the contrary - the event devastated the whole Earth."
>
> The fact that you believe, notwithstanding the scientific evidence to the
> contrary' is precisely the definition of cognitive dissonance you gave.
> Look within.
mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>
> Hi Vernon,
>
> At 11:53 PM 7/4/99 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >(2) Science does not recognise the supernatural.
>
> Scientists who are christians, like members of this list, do recognized the
> supernatural. So this can not be used as a reason to reject what your
> brothers in the Lord say.
>
> On the other hand,
> >Christians will know that our earthly existence has a supernatural
> >dimension - indeed, they can personally testify to encountering the
> >'spiritual warfare' on a daily basis. Is it reasonable, then, that in
> >what nowadays appears to have become something of a reflex reaction,
> >Christians should always 'bend the knee' to science? - allow it to
> >become the principal arbiter in deciding matters of fundamental truth?
> >Can 'science' ever equate with 'reality'?
>
> Science can not define the totality of reality, but what it does define is
> as certain as anything can be in this world. Is the sky purple with pink
> polkadots? Is the ocean made of lemonade? You know these are false
> statements because of scientific observations. So, scientific observation
> is needed even in everyday life when you don't call it scientific.
>
> To interpret the Bible in a fashion that makes the laws of nature plastic
> and irrational implies that the Creator is untrustworthy in what he has
> made. This seems to undermine the entire reason for believing the Bible.
>
> Should we expect God to honour
> >the 'Laws of Nature' and 'scientific observation' when these today are
> >being used by so many to question His Being, His Sovereignty, and His
> >interest in, and involvement with His creation - man, in particular?
>
> Vernon, God will honor the laws He made because GOD is trustworthy, not
> because mankind is trustworthy. God knows that we aren't trustworthy and
> so if he changed the rules everytime we were untrustworthy then God would
> have to change the rules about salvation daily. God created the Laws of
> Nature, for our good. And because God Himself is trustworthy we can trust
> His laws. And because we can trust His laws, we can trust logical
> deductions from those laws. Why do you think God is not trustworthy?
>
> I
> >regard it as significant that He has promised to 'destroy the wisdom of
> >the wise' (Is.29:14), and 'to have them in derision'(Ps.2:4).
>
> Considering that science was not in existence when those verses were
> written have you ever considered the possibility that the 'wise' might
> refer to those who think themselves morally wise?
>
> >
> >(3) Something real and common to the human condition (and specified by
> >the Scriptures!) is the phenomenon of 'cognitive dissonance' ('CD'
> >hereafter). This results when a person is confronted by ideas or facts
> >that are at odds with his pre-existing notions; psychologists recognise
> >it has the power to distort or even block perception.
>
> I am delighted that you brought this up. When I was a young-earth
> creationist and a believer in the global flood, I was living a life full of
> cognitive dissonance. I knew (as you have admitted) that the scientific
> data didn't support what I was believing. That, as you so correctly
> define, is the very essence of congnitive dissonance. I believed the
> global flood IN SPITE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT. I would suggest that
> you take a look deep inside and consider if that might apply to you as it
> once did to me.
>
> As an example, in
> >the film "2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY", the discovery of a large, smooth,
> >domino-shaped slab with perfect right-angles suggests to the viewing
> >audience that the universe contains intelligent life other than man.
> >People agreed unanimously that this was conclusive proof of
> >intelligence, for the intelligence that was implied was not God. No CD
> >here! At the end of the film, a human embryo fills the screen -
> >something at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to the level of
> >design present in a domino-shaped slab! Were it not for CD God's
> >existence should be intuitively obvious.
>
> Were it not for CD the futility of the global flood would be equally obvious.
> >
> >I have met the problem of CD at first hand as a reaction to my drawing
> >attention to the 'standing miracle' of Genesis 1:1. To my intense
> >surprise, even Christians are unable to accept that God would (or
> >could!) do such a thing.
>
> It is always amazing to me that no one ever thinks that cognitive
> dissonance might apply to themselves. It always applies to other people.
> In my case, as a YEC, it applied to me.
>
> >Finally, regarding the matter of the Flood, I see little point in
> >reiterating my understanding of its global nature. Bearing in mind its
> >stated purpose (viz a 'biological clean out', to be followed by a
> >restocking of planet Earth), none of the 'devices' suggested for
> >avoiding these clear intentions carry any real weight or conviction -
> >and they shouldn't satisfy those who love truth!
> >
>
> At the very first of your note, you wrote:
>
> "I believe it appropriate that I set out a background for my
> belief that - notwithstanding scientific evidence (real or imagined) to
> the contrary - the event devastated the whole Earth."
>
> The fact that you believe, notwithstanding the scientific evidence to the
> contrary' is precisely the definition of cognitive dissonance you gave.
> Look within.