To Glenn, Wayne and George
Thanks for your helpful comments and Glenn's concluding remark.
As to Biblical "historicity", with the little geology I do have (B.Sc), the
Mediteranian flood proposed by Glenn is the most reasonable of those I have
heard of/read.
Sam
"Glenn Morton" <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>@udomo3.calvin.edu on
30.01.2001 19:49:25
Sent by: asa-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
To: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>, <asa@calvin.edu>
cc:
Subject: RE: Faith was: Creation Ex Nihilio and other journals
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Dawsonzhu@aol.com
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 2:28 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Faith was: Creation Ex Nihilio and other journals
>
>
>????:01/01/30 0:22:40 ?? (???)
>
>Samuel.D.Olsen wrote:
>
><< The words of Augustine quoted by someone on the chat
> group "Credo ut intelligam/I believe in order to understand" and from one
> of the minor prophets (Hab 2v4): "the just shall live by faith" take on a
> new meaning for me ( have I taken this latter phrase erroneously into
this
> context George?). Take Hebrews 6v1and6 ("assurance" = subjective ;
> "without faith impossible to please God") and we once again see that
> systematic reasoned factual foundation is unfortunately not what will
hold
> me to Christianity or any world view for that matter. >>
>
>I'm reminded of a PSCF article: "Pain, Pleasure and Evolution: an
>Analysis of Paul Draper's critique of Theism", 51(1), p 40-6 (1999).
>
>"It might be said that the entirety of this paper has been
>essentially a case for agnosticism, since our main concern
>has been only to refute atheistic arguments and to put us at
>a kind of level playing field. Evidence for theism has only
>incidentally be included. In the last section especially,
>I pointed out that it is agnosticism above all other positions
>that has the highest intrinsic probability....."
>
>The problem with agnosticism is that you're neither hot nor
>cold. In my mind, one has to make a choice at some point,
>and then run with it. I may be wrong, I may be laughed at,
>I may be called the fool who accepted Christ. But I will
>just wear that as a badge, because who, if they really
>have the word of God written on their heart, can do any harm.
>When a tough decision comes my way, which would I prefer,
>to follow Christ, or listen to man? I made up my mind that
>on that answer long ago when I said "yes".
The really interesting thing to me is that all other metaphysical positions
are equally resting upon faith based upon faith. To be an atheist requires
that one be assured that a negative statement can be proven. Logic tells us
that negative statements can't be proven--at least negative statements of a
certain type. An example, one can't prove "There are NO leprechauns" one
can't actually claim to have a demonstrable basis upon which to reject
their
existence. No matter what experiment one runs to disprove the existence of
leprechauns, one can't be sure that some other experiment would prove they
exist. Thus, one must base leprechaun atheism upon a faith that goes
against
logic.
Thus the atheist is caught without a rational, provable case, no matter how
smug he is.
The agnostic was pretty much covered by Wayne. How can you say that 'I
don't
know' is a valid position to take and defend. One can't rationally claim
that others must also be agnostics because to do so requires that you know
agnosticism is metaphysically true--which is self-contradictory.
The pantheist, can't prove that all spirits are one and that every part of
the universe is part of the spirit. THey too have faith based upon faith.
And we have recently covered a widely held theistic position which shows
the
same thing.
I don't think there are really other positions than these four basic ones.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 13:33:15 EST