Re: Re: [asa] Rejoinder 4 from Timaeus – What Could Evolution Do if God Were Dead?

"I appreciate your point, but it is pedantic. Most of us will say of what
we firmly believe that it is true"

Pedanic it may well be. But sometimes one needs to be such. For my
part, when I first encountered the word "verisimilitude" in
Polkinghorne's writings, I stumbled over it; checked in a dictionary
(had to open the big one), etc. After several rereadings the word
became part of my vocabulary - a treasured part -- for it allowed me
an understanding I had not previously possessed.

Of course I must agree with your second sentence. I do it myself. But
it is "sloppy" language, none the less. Better to say "I firmly
believe something to be true" than to say "I know that it is true," or
"It is true." Better still to admit that "I assume it to be true
because much evidence I know about supports it and evidences to the
contrary I know about are weak, spurious or non-existent."

Yeah -- I admit to the "pendatic" charge. <G>

I shall no doubt repeat it from time to time.

Burgy

On 10/3/08, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> Burgy,
> I appreciate your point, but it is pedantic. Most of us will say of what
> we firmly believe that it is true. The fact is that I cannot prove the
> existence of God, nor that of the Trinity, nor that through faith I have
> been granted eternal life. But I do not hesitate to affirm with Paul, "I
> know whom I have believed..." (II Timothy 1:12) with its implication of
> truth. Similarly, few hesitate, except when being almost excessively
> precise, to refer to the best available scientific theory as true, even
> though we know that all such theories are subject to review and revision.
> There is a problem, obviously, when someone insists that such a looser
> usage must express a formally precise meaning. This latter is almost like
> insisting on a precise measurement rather that a value with standard
> deviation appended.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:39:07 -0600 "j burg" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
> writes:
>> This is to Tim, who wrote: "But it is absolutely worthless, from my
>> point of view, to hear that Darwinism isn't the whole story and in
>> the
>> same breath to assert that WITHIN SCIENCE, Darwinism is absolutely
>> true. There is a major blurring going on here ... ."
>>
>> The problem is with the word "true." Polkinghorne suggests the term
>> "verisimilitude," which recognizes that science never perceives
>> "reality," but only what it can catch in its net.
>>
>> If I were a TE, then, I'd NEVER assert that Darwinism was "true,"
>> only
>> that it currentlty passes the verisimilitude test.
>>
>> Do you see the difference, or am I still being obscure? Or, maybe,
>> some TEs DO assert that Darwinism is "true." I think not.
>>
>> Burgy
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Looking for a new or used RV? Click here!
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3l1oV5qwQfPdka2sLRmncDkY9Fx7xBXrWmCq4UDc06YhpUvN/
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.