On this we agree, "... but we don't know the purpose of God."
is very good theology.
[...]
Burgy:==
>You also wrote: "The detrimental effects
>of aging have been subject to extensive scientific study
>for many years and thus are not comparable to Gould's
>"no engineer would do this" argument which really amounts
>to an opinion only. "
>
>To which I will agree. But I am not the person who brought up "aging," or
>"wear and tear." Can we put these aside?
>
Well, perhaps, but only with great difficulty :). The issue
of God's potential deceptiveness is crucial to this discussion
from my own perspective. In my opinion, God would not
create by fiat if that entailed deception or even a strong
"appearance of deception" since deception is so counter
to the revealed nature of God.
Burgy:==
>Finally, you said: "But most of my previous argument was a theological
>argument.
>It is true that we could never know the mind of God or completely
>understand his methods. But we can tentatively make some judgements about
>what we might expect to find based upon what has been revealed to us in
>the Bible regarding the nature of God. "
>
>I think what I am probing here is either theology or philosophy, not
>"science-as-such." You said "tentatively" above -- this allows
>exploration of other possibilities.
>
>Speaking philosophically, then, what do we really know about God,
>exclusive of Scripture/Revelation? Not much.
>
Very little IMHO. As Pascal wrote in his tremendous "Memorial"
" 'God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,' not of
philosophers and scholars."
Burgy:==
>Let me use another term, "Intelligent Agent (IA). IA could be plural,
>BTW.
>
>These three things seem to be self-evident about the IA:
>
>1. The IA is at least as intelligent (whatever that eans) as humanity.
>2. The IA is technologically advanced beyond the civilization of 1997.
Oooh, you hit another sensitive point with me. Why technology?
Aren't we creating the IA in our own image? Technology is part
of the whole "machine" metaphor which I am really uncomfortable
with.
I recall being taken aback by a statement Per Bak made in
his book. In discussing his various "complaints" about
Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker he said something to the effect
"there *is* no watchmaker, blind or otherwise". I took this
to be saying "there is no God" and perhaps this was Bak's
intent but there is another interpretation. Perhaps God
isn't either a Watchmaker or an Engineer. Perhaps organisms
are not watches or machines ! We are so technology oriented
that this may be a difficult idea to even contemplate.
>3. The IA has a sense of humor.
>
Let's hope so!!!
>Most of us, including me, also add the assumption
>
>4. The IA is not a liar.
>
Although you changed terminology from God to IA, items (3)
and (4) seem to me nevertheless to be modeled after
what we generally perceive as God's nature, especially
item (4). If we are talking about some general theory
of intelligent agents then I will always and forever
be suspicious of the IA's motives and honesty.
Burgy:==
>The best argument for a YEC seems to be that the IA created us with an
>apparent history but avoids the "liar" label by telling us about the
>young earth in Genesis. Why did he do it this way? Either he:
>
>1. Was "just fooling"
>2. There was no other way it could be done.
>
Both the above are completely unacceptable to me theologically,
so I'll add another:
3. We misinterpreted Genesis.
"The holy scriptures cannot err and the decrees therein contained
are absolutely true and inviolable. But ... its expounders and
interpreters are liable to err in many ways."
-- Galileo
Burgy:==
>Now I've not been arguing the young earth position, but I have been
>probing the "progressive creation" position, primarily on the basis of
>(2) above.
>
>I am beginning to come down on the PC side (vs TE side) of this, having
>"fence-sat" for a long time. One of the arguments is this. It is clear to
>us, as Christians, that SOME progressive creation events have most
>certainly taken place. The Cana event, the feeding event, various events
>in the life of Moses, David, etc. It seems odd to pick out the creation
>of humanity as counter to these events.
>
Isn't this a category mistake? Why would the miracles of Jesus
be considered part of "progressive creation"?
>Well -- enough of this for now. Just got a phone call from Austin -- son
>& daughter arrived safely home after a 20+ hour trip across ice --
>normally a 16 hour trip -- we were getting a little concerned! Blessings
>to all...
>
Likewise !
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"... we have learned from much experience that all
philosophical intuitions about what nature is going
to do fail." -- Richard Feynman