Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

Don,

I forget how I answered your comments 3 years or so ago; but let me now say I'm surprised that you should regard this kind of numero-geometric display as a _necessary outcome_ of someone choosing from an existing and limited vocabulary words to create the equivalent of Genesis 1:1. You have to remember that virtually all the features described are _independent_ ; some are _quite unique_ . I trust that after some further reflection you will see what I mean.

Regards,

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
  From: Don Winterstein
  To: Vernon Jenkins
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:30 AM
  Subject: 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
    To: Dawsonzhu@aol.com ; dopderbeck@gmail.com
    Cc: 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]

    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

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
      To: dopderbeck@gmail.com
      Cc: 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 Thu Sep 21 19:23:26 2006