Re: Defense of Theism pt 1

[Glenn Morton] No, my main thrust is that the atheist's proposed solution is no more far-fetched than God.

[Don Winterstein] Huh? This sounds like you're defending the atheist's solution. I didn't expect that or detect it in your "Defense." If so, why?

[Glenn Morton] ...I place emphasis on the math because that is what we humans understand. We really don't understand things in themselves.

[Don Winterstein] We don't understand their essences, but we can often describe their manifestations, sometimes in great detail. Behavior as described by math is one such manifestation, but in most cases it encompasses only a tiny bit of what we are capable of describing about the thing. We can calculate Earth's relative motions from gravity math, for example, but that tells us only a small fraction of the things about Earth that we might find relevant. Ultimately, you have to judge what's going to be most meaningful for your target audience. The emphasis on math seems awfully narrow to me.
 
[Glenn Morton] I would suggest that it is more correct to say that the YEC interpretation of Gen 1 and Gen 6-8 gives him reasons not to convert to Christianity.

[Don Winterstein] Of course; but atheists I've dealt with don't seem willing to give the Bible a break--no doubt partly because they're aware of YECs and their interpretation. If what they read sounds like just another ancient, tribal myth, they're not going to put in a lot of effort trying to understand how it might be something more meaningful. They're going to assume any effort on our part to read meaning into it will be just a pathetic attempt to save a sinking ship, so to speak. In conversations with atheists on religion I steer topics completely away from the Bible's first several books--if they allow me the option. Of course, you and I have very different attitudes towards this.

 Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: glennmorton@entouch.net<mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net>
  To: Don@broadbandsupport.net<mailto:Don@broadbandsupport.net> ; Winterstein@broadbandsupport.net<mailto:Winterstein@broadbandsupport.net> ; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:36 AM
  Subject: RE: Defense of Theism pt 1

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:35 PM
  To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>; Glenn Morton
  Subject: Re: Defense of Theism pt 1

  Glenn wrote:

  "I am looking for a critique of these ideas. Be hard, be thorough, be critical. I want to know where these ideas are weak, even if I disagree, I want to know."

  [Don Winterstein]Your main thrust is that God as a solution to the problem of existence is no more far-fetched than any of the atheists' proposed solutions. In fact, God may be the preferred solution, because traditionally people impute powers to him that they don't commonly attribute to the other, impersonal solutions.

   
  [Glenn Morton] No, my main thrust is that the atheist's proposed solution is no more far-fetched than God. That is different than saying that the God is a solution no more far fetched than God. The difference is subtle but important.[end=grm]

  [Don Winterstein]You touch only briefly on the properties of existence (i.e., the universe) as we find it. You emphasize the complexity of the math required to model aspects of the universe, but you ignore the complexity of things themselves. What's more basic, the math or the things themselves? The math at best provides a very limited description of a very limited portion of reality. There are much deeper truths about the world than the few things about it that our math can model.

   
  [Glenn Morton] You are right, but, I placeemphasis on the math because that is what we humans understand. We really don't understand things in themselves. Kant showed us that. We simply do not know the noumena; all we can get are phenomena [end grm]

  [Don Winterstein] (If we had a TOE, I'd maybe be a bit more circumspect here, but as yet we don't.) Recommendation: Tone down the emphases on math and logic and lean more heavily on the things themselves. There's a lot to lean on: all the evidences for cosmological fine tuning, for example, plus all biological complexity, etc. For NOTHING to give rise to some complex math is nothing compared to what it would take to give rise to the real things of the world.
   
  [Glenn Morton] Frankly, I think it is difficult for nothingness to give rise to either. I don't see much of a shade of grey there.

  [Don Winterstein]Given what we know about our world today there's no good reason an honest and conscientious atheist should not convert to agnosticism or perhaps even to theism. But Gen. 1 and Gen. 6-8 unfortunately give him an abundance of reasons not to convert to Christianity.

  [Glenn Morton] I would suggest that it is more correct to say that the YEC interpretation of Gen 1 and Gen 6-8 gives him reasons not to convert to Christianity.

  [Don Winterstein]Best wishes in your struggle with atheists. That's a struggle I'm intimately familiar with myself.

  Yeah, I know you know.
Received on Mon Jun 27 03:16:25 2005