Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

Vernon,

You wrote:

"...A cursory examination of the 7 Hebrew words of the Bible's opening verse suffices to prove otherwise - its representative numbers and their combinations being observed to make a great deal of numero-geometrical sense! Indeed, such is the richness of these 'pyrotechnics' that Genesis 1:1 - already a powerful and strategically-placed assertion, and most widely read sentence of all time - must be rated _the most remarkable combination of words ever written_! "

I realize it's foolish to step in, but let me repeat anyway what I said three years ago or so on this, and see if it makes a difference this time:

Gen. 1:1 is a simple statement with a simple meaning. Would you agree that the author intended that his readers understand this simple meaning? If the author so intended, then he had to say either exactly what he said or else something very close to it. As long as he wanted to convey exactly that idea (and we have no reason to think he wanted anything else), the number of alternative ways he could have expressed himself was small, certainly less than 100.

Then the probability of getting the exact words and letters of Gen. 1:1 from an author who wanted to express the idea contained in Gen. 1:1 is 1/(the number of ways of saying the same thing), which is not small. Since your "numero-geometrical" results come from those same words and letters, the probability of getting your results is exactly the probability of getting those words and letters from an author who was trying to convey the idea in Gen. 1:1. In other words, it's not at all surprising that you get the results you do; they were constrained by the author's limited options for expressing his idea.

The fact that your "numero-geometrical" results seem impressive is coincidence. It's unfortunate that you've devoted so much time and effort to these coincidences.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Vernon Jenkins<mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
  To: Dawsonzhu@aol.com<mailto:Dawsonzhu@aol.com> ; dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

  Wayne,

  You wrote:

  "The main reason why science shuns this 'other' (the supernatural) is because we have no way to set up controlled experiments to examine it...So 'empirical' in the sense of 'experimental' knowledge of religious truths is basically ruled out in this picture because we have no means whereby to achieve interaction with it..."

  I observe that forum members are apt to say this kind of thing from time to time - but the fact is that the claim is manifestly untrue! Better than any 'controlled experiment' - as David suggests - is an examination of the historical records: in this case, the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures which form the basis of all Bible translations. A potentially significant feature of these writings is that they may also be fairly read as _sets of numbers_; in other words, stripped of their literal/interpreted meaning they rest, ultimately, on a solid numerical _ground_. And while it may be supposed that such a ground must, in itself, be devoid of all meaning, a cursory examination of the 7 Hebrew words of the Bible's opening verse suffices to prove otherwise - its representative numbers and their combinations being observed to make a great deal of numero-geometrical sense! Indeed, such is the richness of these 'pyrotechnics' that Genesis 1:1 - already a powerful and strategically-placed assertion, and most widely read sentence of all time - must be rated _the most remarkable combination of words ever written_! [Details provided here: http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Wonders.htm<http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Wonders.htm>]

  Wayne, just recently - as I'm sure you've noticed - I've been attempting to draw attention to two paradoxes which TEs like yourself appear happy to live with; I have termed these 'a pilgrim's paradox' and 'the paradox of misplaced allegiance', respectively. Now it appears we have a third, viz 'the paradox of data non grata'. In other words, a self-evident truth emerges from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (covered by the Apostle Paul's "All scripture...") which appears to be - indeed, can be conclusively proved to be - the outcome of _divine intent_; yet, apparently, no one in this forum sees it as being of the slightest significance whatsoever! But, the implications of this _real_ event surely demand the urgent attention and close scrutiny of all who earnestly seek truth; wouldn't you agree?

  Regards,

  Vernon

  www.otherbiblecode.com<http://www.otherbiblecode.com/>

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com<mailto:Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
    To: dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:41 AM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

      W.D.: The main reason why science shuns this "other" is because we have no way to set up controlled experiments to examine it.

      D.O.: But the same is true for much of science itself. Historical science, as the recent discussion here highlighted, can make predictions about anticipated observations that should follow from the model deduced from historical facts, but it often can't be subject to controlled experiments. We can't re-run the early universe or biological evolution in any meaningful way against a control. That doesn't make cosmology or evolutionary science non-empirical.

    You may have a point to some extent. I am writing down what
    I sense is my job as a scientist and a physicist, but whether
    this is "fair" to addressing religious truths may be another
    matter.

    My take on it is that, if I want to demonstrate that a religious
    assertion is true, the burden of proof is solely on me. It is
    very high bar, aggressive, and adversarial environment. Even sound
    arguments with sound facts and sound experimental evidence can be
    scoffed at. So how can one expect to argue persuasively with
    religious views where there are often questionable facts, and
    little or no experimental data to support them.

    With history or evolution, you can always ask, are the claims
    consistent with things that are possible, is the corroborating
    evidence from independent sources, are there any artifacts that
    we can point to? So practically, history yields less friction.
    Evolution has a fair amount of corroborating evidence to help
    support it. Cosmology is sometimes a bit difficult for me to
    decide whether the line is being crossed, but, the arguments
    are posed in the realm of plausibility.

    There may be some double standard in this, as I have observed
    disparaging words and people questioning a person's integrity
    on skeptic lists when a scientist dares to confess that he/she
    believes in God.

      W.D.: So "empirical" in the sense of "experimental" knowledge of religious truths is basically ruled out

      D.O.: I agree, if "empirical" only means "controlled experiments."

      W.D.: we have no means whereby to achieve interaction with it, except possibly at a very personal level and at a time of God's own unknown choosing.

      D.O.: But here I disagree. This is the big epistemic issue as I see it. I think stating it this way capitulates to the positivist / empiricist's epistemology.

    Why thank you. Were I to have posted this to a skeptic list,
    I expect I would have been mob beaten, berated and called less
    than charitable things. If I'm seen as positivist and empiricist,
    I'm hardly any of the things they would likely call me. :-)

      D.O.: We can achieve and observe interaction with "it" through God's working in history. Exhibit A is the cross and the resurrection. Our faith is warranted not only by incommensurable personal experiences, but historical observations and by rational presuppositions about God and our capability to understand that God has acted. I agree that personal experiences provide the assurance of faith and constitute part of the warrant for belief, but I can't agree that the sphere of "faith" is grounded in incommensurable personal experiences alone.

    As a fellow Christian, I strongly agree. The problem is that people
    outside the faith may refuse to believe the testimony, and some
    would feel free to insist that I show a resurrection before they
    will believe it. To us, that is arrogant and sinful even to
    demand such a demonstration, and even Gideon was at least
    respectful and humble before God in making his request. It
    also strikes me as a double standard that anyone should out and
    out insist that that the apostles were lying, but that's the world
    for you, I guess. You'd wonder why they don't think their friends
    are lying also, and they would resent having to appear in a court
    where they were presumed guilty before proven innocent, but again,
    that is the world.

      W.D.: So, if you ask me for proof, I would have to be silent,

      D.O.: I agree and disagree. I agree there is no "proof" of faith claims. But I agree with that because I think the notion of "proof" is not well defined. There's no "proof" of most claims, including most claims of science, if "proof" means certainty beyond any possible question. In contrast, I think there can be good "warrant" for faith claims, such that it can be rational to make them and to use them as anchors for one's worldview.

    I think this is a very interesting point. Even the argument
    that there is lack of extra-biblical sources does not completely
    rule this out (unless one is predisposed to quickly rid the
    point, of course). It is quite a common strategy for powerful
    people to ignore someone they do not agree with. Sometimes this
    is because it is well deserved, sometimes it is because it is
    not. Even the issue of voluminous records cannot firmly address
    this point. People were not dumb back then (any more than they
    are now), and I'm sure the natural reaction by "reputable"
    authors to a resurrection claim was "that's absurd", back then
    as it is now. So demands for extrabiblical sources and opposing
    views does not really answer this central issue.

    It is possible we have
    developed a culture that does not explore all forms of proof
    adequately. Being a religious man who believes in God and is
    a Christian, I see that "empirical" has serious limitations to
    answering all my questions. It seems empirical answers the easy
    questions, but for the truly hard questions that really matter,
    we cannot really pose these questions in a way that science can
    explore them for the most part.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 19 03:21:53 2006