On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 00:33:12 +1000 (EST) you wrote:
[...]
DM>Theologically, I am an agnostic, since I do not believe that either
>the existence of an ultimate "god" can be confirmed or that the
>nature of any such "god" is knowable.
We never really discussed this on Fidonet. On what do you base this
belief?
DM>For all practical purposes I am an atheist, since I believe that,
>whether a god exists or not, there is no purpose to be served by
>either believing in the existence of, or worshipping, such an entity.
So even if "a god exists" you believe "there is no purpose to be
served by either believing in the existence of, or worshipping, such
an entity"? On what do you base this seemingly paradoxical belief? I
mean, if something "exists", it seems a bit irrational to still not
believe in its "existence"?
DM>I am deeply sceptical of all claims of supernatural phenomena.
Based on what you have just written, I would have thought you would
*reject outright* on principle "all claims of supernatural phenomena"?
DM>I reject revelation transmitted via "chosen" people as a means of
>gaining knowledge or understanding, since such revelation is so
>easily counterfeited that no god worthy of the title would consider
>such an unreliable method of revealing themselves.
How do you *know* that "no god worthy of the title would consider
such an unreliable method of revealing themselves". In the case of the
Bible it has proved *exceedingly* "reliable", having been transmitted
for thousands of years, and now translated into most languages on
Earth and indeed every year always topping the best seller list.
DM>Philosophically, I am an optimistic humanist, since I regard people
>individually, and humanity at large, as finally responsible for, and capable
>of, the care and ongoing development of humanity.
And what do you base this belief on? Many humanists are not so
"optimistic" anymore that man is going to make it. Zacharias says:
"With all the attempts to impart hope, trying to live without God ends
up in a vicious circularity, raising questions the answers to which
raise even greater questions. In short, atheism has no answer for why
we spell pain the way we do. And the grim, barbaric options between
stoicism and epicureanism, now called optimistic humanism, do not
even spell relief. If one were to borrow Edward Murrow's definition
of an optimist-"someone who tells you to cheer up when things are
going his way"-it is evident why optimistic humanism is called such,
though it effectually redefines both terms for its optimism is
artificially induced, and its humanism devalues humanity. Optimism
here is an obscured reason's substitute for hope." (Zacharias R.K.,
"Can Man Live Without God", Word Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p51)
DM>In the absense of any real, knowable god, or other sapient
>intelligence in the universe
Hang on. You just said that: "I am an agnostic, since I do not
believe that either the existence of an ultimate "god" can be
confirmed or that the nature of any such "god" is knowable." Now you
are saying that there is an "absense of any real, knowable god".
Not knowing whether God exists is not the same as knowing
God doesn't exist. Which is it to be? :-)
DM>I see humanity as potential gods, at least of our own world. So,
>in answer to the question, "Is there a God?", my answer might be,
>"Not yet, but we're learning!"
Why only "potential"? If there is no God, then man is already god,
because all along "God" has been a projection of man's mind. If fact,
man is greater than "God" because man is "God's" creator.
DM>And where do I stand in the creation/evolution debate? I am a
>provisional naturalistic evolutionist.
What else *can* you be, if you believe that God is either
unknowable at best or non-existent at worst?
DM>I see the core of evolutionary theory as based on the following
premises:
>
>The genetic replication processes found in life are highly accurate, but not
>totally accurate. Thus, there is variation between organisms. There is no
>basis for limitation to the available variation, except the limits imposed
>by the genetic replication process itself. Since the genetic replication
>process is common to all life, the total variety of existing and known
>extinct life is within the limits of available variation.
This is reasoning in a circle. It assumes what it sets out to prove.
The fact that there is a "genetic replication process" that "is common
to all life", does not prove that all life is the *result* of that
"genetic replication process". An Intelligent Designer could have used
the "genetic replication process", to bring about small-scale
horizontal
variation, while intervening in it to bring about large-scale vertical
change.
And in any event, it does not explain where the "genetic replication
process" came from in the first place. Popper, the great philospher
of science, and himself a Darwinist, was thoroughly baffled by
this:
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing
riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function
unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of
the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod
points out, the machinery by which the cell [at least the nonprimitive
cell which is the only one we know] translates the code "consists of
at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in
DNA." Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain
products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling
circle: a vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model,
or theory, of the genesis of the genetic code." (Popper K.,
"Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All
Science", in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology 259, 270, 1974,
quoting J. Monod, Chance and Necessity 143, 1971, in Bird W. R., "The
Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. I, Regency: Nashville, 1991,
p299)
DM>In an environment of limited resources, some individual organisms
>will survive and reproduce, and some will die before they reproduce.
>The selective survival of individual organisms to reproduce requires
>no supernatural presumptions.
>
>All evolutionary processes can be reduced to the selective
>reproductive success or failure of individual organisms. The study
>of "macro-evolution" is a study of the relationships, patterns and
>environmental factors evident in this selective reproductive success
>or failure of individual organisms.
Unfortunately, for your orthodox Neo-Darwinist view, there is no
evidence that such "selective survival of individual organisms" has
lead to any large-scale changes:
"Here we face another curious consequence of Darwin's way of looking
at life: despite the power of molecular genetics to reveal the
hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects of evolution
remain unexplained, including the origin of species. There is 'no
clear evidence ... for the gradual emergence of any evolutionary
novelty' says Ernst Mayr, one of the most eminent of contemporary
evolutionary biologists (Mayr E., "Toward a New Philosophy of
Biology", Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, p. 529-53).
New types of organism simply appear upon the evolutionary scene,
persist for various periods of time, and then become extinct. So
Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the
gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be
without significant support." (Goodwin B., "How The Leopard Changed
Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity", Phoenix: London, 1994, p.x)
DM>The "conflict" between the Neo-Darwinian and P.E. positions on
>evolution is no more than disagreement concerning the significance of
>particular relationships, patterns and environmental factors.
God being ruled as non-existent, by definition that is all it *can*
be. To the Progressive Creationist, both ND and PE fatally wound each
other, and therefore *both* are wrong.
DM>Any new evolutionary theory that is to gain credence will contain
>almost all of neo-Darwinian and PE theory, and will be a naturalistic
>theory. The history of science, religion and philosophy shows
>clearly that once a credible naturalistic explanation for a set of
>phenomena has been promulgated and gained wide professional
>acceptance, supernatural explanations are never widely accepted for
>that set of phenomena again.
By definition it *must* be "a naturalistic theory", since that is the
*only* type of theory that can be accepted by science.
The fallacy of the above, is regarding all "phenomena" as the same,
and not distinguishing between *operations* and *origins*. While
naturalistic science has been very successful in explaining the
*operation* of the universe and life, it has no success in
explaining the *origin* of same,
DM>Further, I believe the creation/evolution arena is not a useful
>forum for deciding the viability of Christian belief. Given the
>number of Christian evolutionists and non-Christian creationists in
>the world, it surprises me that anyone thinks that it is a useful
>forum for this purpose. I fail to see how the attempt to equate
>belief in evolution with disbelief in the Christian God will benefit
>Christianity.
You need to define what you mean by "evolution". If you mean fully
naturalistic "evolution", with no need for intervention or even
involvement by "the Christian God", then by definition it leads to
"disbelief in the Christian God". However, if by "evolution" you mean
a process of the origin and development life guided and directed by an
Intelligent Desiogner in furtherance of his purpose, then by
definition it is compatible with belief "in the Christian God".
DM>There are, however, items peripheral to the creation/evolution
>debate that do impact on belief in a personal god. The main ones are
>the age of the universe and the age of the earth. A physical
>universe centred around the relationship between God and humanity
>makes sense in a 6,000-10,000 year old geocentric universe inhabited
>by humans for 99.9997% of that time. A physical universe centred
>around the relationship between God and humanity makes no sense to me
>at all in a 15 billion year old "big bang"-centric universe inhabited
>by humans for 0.002% of that time.
Firstly, either way it makes no real difference. Millions of
Christians today believe that the universe is 15 billion years old,
with no adverse effect on their faith. The "Christian God" has always
been regarded as infinite with respect to time (ie. eternal), so
whether He created the universe in 4 x 10^3 BC or 15 x 10^9 BC, is
irrelevant from the perspective of eternity.
Secondly, because Christianity teaches that "humanity" will exist for
eternity and outlast the present universe, your "0.002%" will
eventually be infinity %! In other words, the age of this present
universe is insignificant compared to the infinite time that
"humanity" will exist.
Finally, as Hugh Ross has pointed out, the "big bang" is probably the
best scientific news that Christianity has ever received, since it
confirms that its holy book, alone of those of all the world's
religions, is in harmony with this basic scientific fact:
"The big bang together with the equations of general relativity tell
us there must be a simultaneous beginning for all the matter, energy,
and even the space-time dimensions of the universe. This beginning
occurred only a few billion years ago and places the cause of the
universe outside, that is, independent of, matter, energy, space, and
time. Theologically this means that the Cause of the universe is
independent of and transcendent to the universe. The Christian faith
is the only religion among the belief systems of humankind that
teaches such a doctrine about the Creator. (Several religions like
Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism accept as valid at least portions of the
Old and New Testaments but every one of them, outside of Christianity,
denies, at least in part, God's transcendence and extra-dimensional
attributes.)" (Ross H., "Creation and Time", NavPress: Colorado
Springs CO, 1994 p129).
DM>No doubt this message will generate some comment. I look forward to
>learning from your responses.
Here we go again, Derek. You will get me to answer my six-months
backlog on Fidonet, one way or the other! :-)
On a personal note, I would appreciate you passing on my regards
to Nick, Laurie and the rest of the gang on C_VS_E. I miss them, but
like an alcoholic and a bar, I dare not pop my head inside to see how
they are going. Any news from C_VS_E would be appreciated.
Regards.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------