>DM>Theologically, I am an agnostic, since I do not believe that either
>>the existence of an ultimate "god" can be confirmed or that the
>>nature of any such "god" is knowable.
>SJ>We never really discussed this on Fidonet. On what do you base this
>belief?
Two separate beliefs; two answers.
Why don't I believe that the existence of an ultimate "god" can be confirmed?
If there isn't an ultimate god, then confirmation of the existence of one is
clearly impossible. If there is an ultimate god, I know of no evidence that
this god *wants* its existence confirmed beyond doubt.
Why don't I believe that the nature of an ultimate god (presuming such a god
exists) is knowable?
Partly because our minds are far too small to fully (or even partially, to
any significant degree) encompass the nature of a being who created and
sustains the entire universe. Partly because any useful knowledge on a
"nature of god" would be drowned in the "static" generated by people who
already think (or insist that others think) they know the nature of god.
>DM>For all practical purposes I am an atheist, since I believe that,
>>whether a god exists or not, there is no purpose to be served by
>>either believing in the existence of, or worshipping, such an entity.
>SJ>So even if "a god exists" you believe "there is no purpose to be
>served by either believing in the existence of, or worshipping, such
>an entity"? On what do you base this seemingly paradoxical belief? I
>mean, if something "exists", it seems a bit irrational to still not
>believe in its "existence"?
If something *clearly* exists AND has a direct influence on me, then, yes,
it would be irrational to still not believe in its existence.
If, however, it is unclear whether something exists, and, even if it does
exist, it is so remote from me that it exerts no significant influence on
me, then to believe or not believe in its existence is of minimal or no
consequence.
For example, does it really matter whether I believe in the existence of
some particular distant galaxy or quasar that I haver neither seen nor read
about?
>DM>I am deeply sceptical of all claims of supernatural phenomena.
>SJ>Based on what you have just written, I would have thought you would
>*reject outright* on principle "all claims of supernatural phenomena"?
I'd like to, but I can't. I simply don't know enough about the way the
universe works to be quite that dogmatic. Deep scepticism is as much as I
feel comfortable with.
>DM>I reject revelation transmitted via "chosen" people as a means of
>>gaining knowledge or understanding, since such revelation is so
>>easily counterfeited that no god worthy of the title would consider
>>such an unreliable method of revealing themselves.
>SJ>How do you *know* that "no god worthy of the title would consider
>such an unreliable method of revealing themselves".
Since *I* wouldn't be so naieve as to entrust such a presumably important
revelation to people I knew would distort it for their own ends, I have to
assume that a god, as gods are generally defined, also wouldn't be so
naieve. Now I realise that this is an anthropomorphic argument; however, I
would expect that some anthropomorphism is reasonable when discussing a god
who, presumably, created us in his image.
>SJ>In the case of the
>Bible it has proved *exceedingly* "reliable", having been transmitted
>for thousands of years, and now translated into most languages on
>Earth and indeed every year always topping the best seller list.
There are many books that have been transmitted for thousands of years, and
have been translated into most languages on Earth. The Bible has, for the
last 1600 years, always had political authority behind it in the Western
world. But I'll bet that it doesn't top too many best-seller lists elsewhere.
>DM>Philosophically, I am an optimistic humanist, since I regard people
>>individually, and humanity at large, as finally responsible for, and capable
>>of, the care and ongoing development of humanity.
>SJ>And what do you base this belief on?
My intuitive interpretation of my knowledge and experience of the
performance of humanity thus far.
>SJ>Many humanists are not so
>"optimistic" anymore that man is going to make it.
This is good. If *everyone* was as optimistic about humanity as I am,
humanity could easily be lulled into a false sense of security. The world
needs its balance of humanist doomsayers.
>SJ>Zacharias says:
>"With all the attempts to impart hope, trying to live without God ends
>up in a vicious circularity, raising questions the answers to which
>raise even greater questions.
God involves one in circular argument, and also raises unanswerable questions.
>SJ>In short, atheism has no answer for why
>we spell pain the way we do. And the grim, barbaric options between
>stoicism and epicureanism, now called optimistic humanism, do not
>even spell relief. If one were to borrow Edward Murrow's definition
>of an optimist-"someone who tells you to cheer up when things are
>going his way"-it is evident why optimistic humanism is called such,
>though it effectually redefines both terms for its optimism is
>artificially induced, and its humanism devalues humanity. Optimism
>here is an obscured reason's substitute for hope." (Zacharias R.K.,
>"Can Man Live Without God", Word Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p51)
Zacharias has his opinion and I have mine. Zacharias may think that "atheism
has no answer for why we spell pain the way we do", but it does, presuming
that he is talking, using unnecessarily quaint phraseology, about why and
how we experience pain. We experience pain because many of the actions we
can take to make pain go away enhance our (and our ancestors') chances of
survival, passing on our genes, etc.. How we experience pain has much to do
with the enormous capacity for thought that we have, relative to animals. We
don't just feel pain, react to it and sometimes remember it as animals do.
Additionally, we predict it, fear it, analyse it, use it for diagnosis of
illness and injury, and even make up stories about it.
I do, however, like Murrow's definition of an optimist! :-)
And, in answery deny this if you choose, but your
denial, and its rationale, will be meaningless to me.
>DM>In the absense of any real, knowable god, or other sapient
>>intelligence in the universe
>SJ>Hang on. You just said that: "I am an agnostic, since I do not
>believe that either the existence of an ultimate "god" can be
>confirmed or that the nature of any such "god" is knowable." Now you
>are saying that there is an "absense of any real, knowable god".
>SJ>Not knowing whether God exists is not the same as knowing
>God doesn't exist. Which is it to be? :-)
I don't know whether God exists, I have no experience of God, I know of
nothing that *demands* the existence of God, I am extremely sceptical of
claims concerning "divine" revelation, and I have no personal need to
"invent" God. So, while I cannot insist that God doesn't exist, I can, and
do, certainly assume, as a *working* hypothesis, that God doesn't exist. And
that assumption will remain until further knowledge or experience, not
revelation, tradition or authority, dictates otherwise.
This applies particularly to a "personal" God (a god that interacts with
people); what anybody believes concerning an "impersonal" God is of little
consequence.
>DM>I see humanity as potential gods, at least of our own world. So,
>>in answer to the question, "Is there a God?", my answer might be,
>>"Not yet, but we're learning!"
>SJ>Why only "potential"? If there is no God, then man is already god,
>because all along "God" has been a projection of man's mind. If fact,
>man is greater than "God" because man is "God's" creator.
On that basis, yes, humanity is already greater than the creation of our
minds that we call God. But a "real" god would be much more than a creation
of our minds. And humanity needs to harness much more power, and VERY much
more wisdom to use that power responsibly and creatively, before we can be
"real" gods.
>DM>And where do I stand in the creation/evolution debate? I am a
>>provisional naturalistic evolutionist.
>SJ>What else *can* you be, if you believe that God is either
>unknowable at best or non-existent at worst?
I could be a creationist. Just because God is unknowable doesn't mean that
this unknowable God is incapable of the separate creation of species or
"kinds". If there were no plausible natural means of creating species,
"kinds", life, or even the universe, I would be a deistic creationist.
However, enough plausible natural means do exist for phenomena previously
considered supernatural in origin, so I am an agnostic (effectively atheist)
evolutionist (or, more, correctly, anti-creationist).
>DM>I see the core of evolutionary theory as based on the following
>premises:
>>
>>The genetic replication processes found in life are highly accurate, but not
>>totally accurate. Thus, there is variation between organisms. There is no
>>basis for limitation to the available variation, except the limits imposed
>>by the genetic replication process itself. Since the genetic replication
>>process is common to all life, the total variety of existing and known
>>extinct life is within the limits of available variation.
>SJ>This is reasoning in a circle. It assumes what it sets out to prove.
What led you to believe that I set out to *prove* anything?
>SJ>The fact that there is a "genetic replication process" that "is common
>to all life", does not prove that all life is the *result* of that
>"genetic replication process".
You are right. However, while it is not proof, it is a very reasonable
inference. To my understanding, the *most* reasonable inference I have been
exposed to.
>SJ>An Intelligent Designer could have used
>the "genetic replication process", to bring about small-scale horizontal
>variation, while intervening in it to bring about large-scale vertical change.
Sure. But why would anyone believe that, when there is now a simpler
explanation? Why would not a "More Intelligent Designer" use the genetic
replication process to bring about small-scale horizontal variation AS WELL
AS the accumulation of this small-scale horizontal variation into an
appearance of large-scale vertical change? And why would a God that is
intelligent and powerful enough to create a universe, need to tinker with it
after the event? Unless, of course, God created the universe SO that he
would have something to tinker with. Which pretty much makes us God's toys.
You can be God's toy if you like, but not me, thanks!
Your "Intelligent Designer" hypothesis asks more questions than it answers.
Which would not necessarily be a bad thing, except that those questions lack
any but self-referential meaning.
>SJ>And in any event, it does not explain where the "genetic replication
>process" came from in the first place. Popper, the great philospher
>of science, and himself a Darwinist, was thoroughly baffled by
>this:
Everybody, to a greater or lesser degree, is "thoroughly baffled by this"!
However, I'm firmly convinced that scientific methodology is much more
likely than religious revelation to provide the answer to this puzzle.
10 years ago, everybody was baffled by a lot of things that we are not
baffled by now.
10,000 years ago, we were baffled by almost everything.
>DM>In an environment of limited resources, some individual organisms
>>will survive and reproduce, and some will die before they reproduce.
>>The selective survival of individual organisms to reproduce requires
>>no supernatural presumptions.
>>
>>All evolutionary processes can be reduced to the selective
>>reproductive success or failure of individual organisms. The study
>>of "macro-evolution" is a study of the relationships, patterns and
>>environmental factors evident in this selective reproductive success
>>or failure of individual organisms.
>SJ>Unfortunately, for your orthodox Neo-Darwinist view, there is no
>evidence that such "selective survival of individual organisms" has
>lead to any large-scale changes:
I'm sure. I don't believe that there ever were or are any "large-scale
changes". Just lots of small-scale changes that environmental pressure,
possibly other complex natural forces, and a certain amount of chance,
accumulated, over geologically short periods of time, into the appearance of
large-scale changes. However, very few reproductively successful offspring
would have been profoundly different from their parents.
>DM>The "conflict" between the Neo-Darwinian and P.E. positions on
>>evolution is no more than disagreement concerning the significance of
>>particular relationships, patterns and environmental factors.
>SJ>God being ruled as non-existent, by definition that is all it *can*
>be. To the Progressive Creationist, both ND and PE fatally wound each
>other, and therefore *both* are wrong.
I would have to assume from your assessment of ND and PE that you are
looking at each of them with an expectation that one of them should be able
to explain all of evolution by itself under all environmental conditions.
Might I suggest that you consider each of ND and PE separately under each of
static, slowly varying and rapidly varying environmental conditions.
And might I also suggest that you consider the *actual* claims of ND and PE,
rather than the *caricatures* of them promoted by some of their opponents!
Neo-Darwinian theory is NOT best described by what Stephen Jay Gould and
Niles Eldridge say about it. Punctuated Equilibria theory is NOT best
described by what Richard Dawkins and John Maynard-Smith say about it. And
neither ND nor PE are best described what by Phil Johnson or Duane Gish say
about them.
>DM>Any new evolutionary theory that is to gain credence will contain
>>almost all of neo-Darwinian and PE theory, and will be a naturalistic
>>theory. The history of science, religion and philosophy shows
>>clearly that once a credible naturalistic explanation for a set of
>>phenomena has been promulgated and gained wide professional
>>acceptance, supernatural explanations are never widely accepted for
>>that set of phenomena again.
>SJ>By definition it *must* be "a naturalistic theory", since that is the
>*only* type of theory that can be accepted by science.
Yes. But there are still a number of questions for which we do not have
answers provided by naturalistic theories. Those questions are still widely
subjected to supernatural explanation and speculation, as well as scientific
investigation. It appears, however, that fewer and fewer educated people are
taking those supernatural explanations and speculations seriously.
Until recently, we had no workable naturalistic theory that explained the
diversity of life. So it was subjected to supernatural explanation. Longer
ago, we had no workable naturalisic theory that explained the occurrence of
lightning and thunder. And of course they, too, were subjected to
supernatural explanation.
The recent history of the intellectual development of humanity has been the
marginalisation of the supernatural. I see no reason for more than odd,
local, and temporary reversals of this global trend.
>SJ>The fallacy of the above, is regarding all "phenomena" as the same,
>and not distinguishing between *operations* and *origins*.
I can understand that the origin of the universe *might* be intrinsically
different from all other subsequent events (though I personally doubt it),
but where do you draw the line after that?
I'm sure that, at one time or another, the formation of the solar system,
and the items that compose it, would have been considered to be an *origin*
event. Now we understand it to be a product of the *operation* of the laws
of physics and chemistry on pre-existing matter.
>SJ>While
>naturalistic science has been very successful in explaining the
>*operation* of the universe and life, it has no success in
>explaining the *origin* of same,
Does this mean that whether a phenomenon is defined as an *origin* event or
an *operation*, depends on how successful naturalistic science has been UP
TO THE PRESENT TIME in explaining the phenomenon under discussion? In other
words, is a phenomenon that introduces something "new" (however defined)
into existence automatically classified as a (presumably supernatural)
*origin* event until demonstrated to be a (presumably natural) *operation*?
IMO, with the *possible* exception of the origin of the universe, the
origin/operation dichotomy is an illusion. As are dichotomies generally!
There are two types of people in the world, Steve. Those who do think that
the world can be conveniently divided into "two types of people", and those
who don't. ;-)
>DM>Further, I believe the creation/evolution arena is not a useful
>>forum for deciding the viability of Christian belief. Given the
>>number of Christian evolutionists and non-Christian creationists in
>>the world, it surprises me that anyone thinks that it is a useful
>>forum for this purpose. I fail to see how the attempt to equate
>>belief in evolution with disbelief in the Christian God will benefit
>>Christianity.
>SJ>You need to define what you mean by "evolution". If you mean fully
>naturalistic "evolution", with no need for intervention or even
>involvement by "the Christian God", then by definition it leads to
>"disbelief in the Christian God".
There's that dichotomy thing again. "Evolution" encompasses *both*
philosophical positions (and others), which is *why* it is not a useful
forum for deciding the viability of Christian belief. The main (some would
say "only") significant themes of the Bible are the relationship between God
and humanity, and relationships among people. Whether God created humans
directly, God created the process that created humans, or God created the
universe that created the process that created humans is irrelevant to these
themes.
>SJ>However, if by "evolution" you mean
>a process of the origin and development life guided and directed by an
>Intelligent Desiogner in furtherance of his purpose, then by
>definition it is compatible with belief "in the Christian God".
If, by "evolution", I mean a process of the inevitable origin and
development of life INTRINSIC IN THE ORIGINAL PARAMETERS OF THE UNIVERSE as
created by an Intelligent Designer in furtherance of his purpose, then by
definition it is also compatible with belief "in the Christian God".
Of course, both of the above definitions are compatible with belief in any
Creator God, even a deistic one.
ANY explanatory theories of events:
(A) that don't make specific claims concerning god-human relationships,
(B) that don't make specific claims concerning the *moral* dimension of
human-human relationships, and
(c) that are not *explicitly* exclusive of the existence of an intelligent
and purposeful designer and creator of the universe,
are compatible with belief "in the Christian God".
I know of no truly scientific theories that are otherwise. I would even go
as far as to claim that theories that are "otherwise" cannot be truly
scientific, by definition. Science does not have the methodologies to either
affirm or deny the viability of theological or philosophical claims.
>DM>There are, however, items peripheral to the creation/evolution
>>debate that do impact on belief in a personal god. The main ones are
>>the age of the universe and the age of the earth. A physical
>>universe centred around the relationship between God and humanity
>>makes sense in a 6,000-10,000 year old geocentric universe inhabited
>>by humans for 99.9997% of that time. A physical universe centred
>>around the relationship between God and humanity makes no sense to me
>>at all in a 15 billion year old "big bang"-centric universe inhabited
>>by humans for 0.002% of that time.
>SJ>Firstly, either way it makes no real difference.
Maybe it does. For instance, Tony Jester used Mark 10:6 ("But from the
beginning of the creation God made them male and female.") to argue with you
that biblical innerrancy demands YEC.
Now, if we are talking about 4 days into a 4,000 (then) year old universe,
then that can reasonably be called "the beginning of the creation".
However, the first dioecious (having distinct male and female individuals)
species did not appear on earth until, assuming a 15 billion year old
creation, about 13.5 billion years after creation. This *cannot* reasonably
be called "the beginning of the creation". Unless, of course, you are
prepared to apply the same flexibility of meaning to "beginning of the
creation" that you have already applied to "days with evenings and
mornings"! :-)
Let me try this out on you.
God knows the future, since God exists both within and outside of time.
Therefore, when God was expiring (or inspiring) the first chapter of
Genesis, God knew what confusion and discord that use of the Hebrew
equivalents of the words "day", "evening" and "morning" would eventually
cause as people became scientifically knowledgeable.
God nevertheless chose to have those words used.
Therefore it can reasonably be inferred, within a theistic framework, that
either:
(A) God did not expire or inspire those verses of Genesis that use "day",
"evening" and "morning" in relating the creation story, and their inclusion
in an otherwise God-expired Bible is a result of human error;
(B) The common meaning of the words "day", "evening" and "morning" is what
God intended to convey, since, all scientifically derived evidence to the
contrary, the creation events really did occur in about 144 hours from start
to finish; or
(C) The common meaning of the words "day", "evening" and "morning" is what
God intended to convey, in spite of the fact that those events took about 15
billion years from start to finish.
If I were a theist, I think I would go with (A).
>SJ>Millions of
>Christians today believe that the universe is 15 billion years old,
>with no adverse effect on their faith.
True. Millions of Christians today also believe that humans evolved from
chemicals with no need for direct intervention by God, also with no adverse
effect on their faith.
>SJ>The "Christian God" has always
>been regarded as infinite with respect to time (ie. eternal), so
>whether He created the universe in 4 x 10^3 BC or 15 x 10^9 BC, is
>irrelevant from the perspective of eternity.
True. But if humanity has only existed for 0.002% of the total age of the
universe, then it becomes somewhat more difficult to believe that humanity
is central to the *reason* for the existence of the universe.
>SJ>Secondly, because Christianity teaches that "humanity" will exist for
>eternity and outlast the present universe, your "0.002%" will
>eventually be infinity %! In other words, the age of this present
>universe is insignificant compared to the infinite time that
>"humanity" will exist.
This is a self-referential argument. You are using the teachings of
Christianity to validate other teachings of Christianity. However, I can't
really criticise you for this since there is no other way to validate the
teachings of Christianity. Which is one of the reasons I don't buy
Christianity - it has no unassailable links to reality.
>SJ>Finally, as Hugh Ross has pointed out, the "big bang" is probably the
>best scientific news that Christianity has ever received, since it
>confirms that its holy book, alone of those of all the world's
>religions, is in harmony with this basic scientific fact:
Ross apparently did not consider deism. According to my understanding of
deism, most of God's attributes are transcendent and extra-dimensional.
>DM>No doubt this message will generate some comment. I look forward to
>>learning from your responses.
>SJ>Here we go again, Derek. You will get me to answer my six-months
>backlog on Fidonet, one way or the other! :-)
Not likely. I expect that our exchanges here will follow their own path. And
this message was addressed to the whole group, not just you. No one *forced*
you to "bite"! Though I would have been disappointed if you hadn't. :-)
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------