From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 06:20:50 EDT
Joel Cannon wrote in part:
> More to the point, Don Winterstein states that fine tuning lends
> support to his belief in a "Tuner." Presumably this means that since
> he has learned about fine tuning he has more confidence that the
> Christian God YHWH is real and that YHWH is discovered and known
> through the person of Jesus of Nazareth . By implication, Don would
> also have less confidence in Christianity's truth if no fine-tuning
> was observed (can't have it both ways).
>
> This seems to me to be quite sandy soil. In fact, it is evidence
> against Christianity's truth.
>
> At the heart of Christianity is the belief that YHWH has revealed
> himself most clearly through Jesus. The need to derive comfort from
> fine-tuning and holes in evolutionary theory is evidence that this
> revelation which is the doctrinal center of Christianity is not so
> reliable. If Jesus reveals YHWH, why go seeking solace from
> fine-tuning? If Jesus needs to be propped up by fine-tuning or holes
> in evolutionary theory, he is irrelevant to answering the question of
> God's existence. If Jesus is irrelevant to answering the question of
> God's existence, Christianity is false.
Thanks for providing an additional motive for clarifying my previous
comments. (I was going to respond to George's earlier post, but this will
be more to the point.)
In one's spiritual life, one gets help where one can. I don't know about
you, but my spiritual life on occasion encounters rough sailing. Doubts
creep in. Unlike many on this list, I don't believe the Bible is either
infallible or inerrant. Certain parts presented as history obviously cannot
be taken literally. Who's to say that any of it can be taken literally? If
writers of some parts can present what is likely modified local myth in the
guise of historical truth, why should I believe that writers of other parts
aren't doing the same thing? Why should I even believe Jesus was a real
person? Where's the evidence?
My faith is firmly rooted in personal knowledge of God. The reason I
believe the Bible to the degree that I do--and I do believe most of it makes
a reliable witness to the revelation of God--is that the Spirit of God
within convinces me of its truthfulness. Ultimately, I think, no one can or
even ought to have greater conviction than what the Spirit provides. I
believe God in fact does not want our faith to rest on any observation of
nature or even any inspired Book but on him alone, through personal
interaction.
A problem is that doubt destroys a person's perception of his personal
relationship with God. When doubts come, it is as if the relationship
vanishes. So what are you to do? Well, you fall back on the witness of your
Christian friends and of the whole Christian Church throughout its history.
But most of those people don't or didn't know as much about the world as you
do, and what if they were all gullible? OK, so fall back on the Bible. But
what if its authors were even more gullible? By now you're in free fall.
At this point a few hard facts that may support the existence of God can be
very helpful for regaining your footing. Such hard facts would serve
not as a basis for a detailed creed but as a safety net.
Throughout the history of God's people, hard facts of the world have in fact
served as such a safety net. The grandeur and stability of nature and its
intricately formed creatures were clear evidences to God's people of God's
existence, age, benevolence, intelligence and power. Read, for example, the
last several chapters of Job. In our time scientific discoveries have taken
much of this witness of nature away from us. Nature now to most
scientists witnesses of nothing but impersonal forces and random processes.
I would strongly support "creation research" as a way of restoring some of
this witness to God if only it could show some credible success. But how
many times in a row do its scenarios have to defy common sense before its
proponents conclude they may be going down the wrong road?
In contrast to most creation research efforts, ID in the form of pointing
out cosmic fine tuning has had, in my opinion, rather astounding successes.
My understanding is that these successes have driven most cosmologists who
concern themselves with the anthropic principle to retreat to multiple
universe theories, where, out of many existing universes, ours by chance is
the only one that happens to be finely tuned to support human life. Well,
such speculation is never going to be more than pure philosophy, because no
one can test for the existence of other universes. Consequently, the fine
tuning of our world does in fact, for me, support the existence of a Tuner
in roughly the same way that nature used to support the existence and character of
God for God's people of old.
At this point the free fall ends, and I can begin to work on reestablishing
the all-important relationship on which my faith and spiritual life rest.
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 06:17:46 EDT