> KM>I posted this request before, but Stephen simply ignored it
>
By the way: who's KM?
>
> Kevin wrongly assumes that I "ignored" it. I simply did not see it.
>
Apparently then Stephen has been "simply ... not seeing" alot of my posts
lately, considering how many he has not responded to (he even seems to have
abandoned our thermal protein debate); I thought he just didn't like me
anymore.
>
> KM>so I will post it again, since he has raised the issue again:
> >
> >I for one would appreciate it if Stephen would be gracious enough to
> >explain how we "TE/ECs" should "rationally discuss" his assesment
> >that we have been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy'
> >(Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism", such that "the 'E'
> >part of 'TE/EC'" controls "the Christian 'T' part."
>
I noticed that he did not answer my request, however. In point 4 he simply
reiterated his demand for rational discussion without explaining what he
meant by rational discussion. Unless what he means by rational discussion is
for his opponant to admit defeat and declare that Stephen was right all along.
>
> >For example, what
> >evidence or argument would he accept as proof that he is wrong?
>
> Thanks to Kevin for asking! I would be prepared to reconsider my claim
> that "TE/ECs...have" to varying degrees "been taken `captive' by a `hollow
> and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), if TE/ECs:
>
Except that if any "TE/EC" did what Stephen demands he or she would be
admitting that Stephen was right. Perhaps Stephen misunderstood me, but I
did not ask him what "TE/ECs" had to do to admit that they had been "taken
'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific
materialism-naturalism". My question was what argument or evidence would
Stephen accept that would convince him that "TE/ECs" were **NOT** "taken
'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific
materialism-naturalism". In other words, I want Stephen to tell us how we
can convince him:
>
> 1. were willing to frankly acknowledge that scientific materialism-
> naturalism *was* a hollow and deceptive philosophy;
>
that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is not "a hollow and deceptive
philosophy";
>
> 2. admitted that as scientists, trained in scientific institutions
dominated
> by scientific materialism-naturalism, there was at least a *possibility*
that
> their thinking had (perhaps unknowingly) been adversely influenced by
> scientific materialism-naturalism;
>
that our scientific thinking has not "been adversely influenced by scientific
materialism-naturalism";
>
> 3. acknowledged that as Theistic Evolutionists, the very name of there
> position is prima facie evidence that TE/ECs are trying to combine the two
> competing philosophies of Christian theism and scientific materialism-
> naturalism;
>
that "TE/ECs" are not "trying to combine the two competing philosophies of
Christian theism and scientific materialism-naturalism";
>
> 4. were prepared to: a) rationally discuss the possible influence of
> scientific materialism-naturalism on their thinking;
>
that we are prepared to discuss this if Stephen would only tell us how;
>
> b) be prepared to listen to Christian apologists and ID critiques of
> scientific materialism-naturalism;
>
that we are prepared to listen when there is something worthwhile being said;
>
> c) be prepared to identify evidence of scientific materialism-naturalism
> influence on their thinking (eg. anti-supernaturalism, anti-creationism,
> pro-evolutionism, etc);
>
that such thinking does not influence our scientific judgement;
>
> and be prepared to diminish and eventually give
> up scientific materialism-naturalism.
>
that there is no compelling reason to do so;
>
> 5. show they are open to and in principle not opposed to Christian
> supernaturalism by: a) being seriously open to the real possibility that
God
> might have intervened supernaturally in life's history....
>
that we would gladly examine any evidence that could validate this claim;
>
> ...(that as Christians they would admit He has in human history);
>
that we freely admit this already;
>
> and b) by supporting, or
> at least not opposing, creationists and ID theorists.
>
that we would gladly do either as long as creationists and ID theorists
supported or at least did not oppose science;
>
> 6. start being even-handed by criticising publicly the atheist/agnostic
> scientific materialist-naturalists to the same degree that they criticise
> their fellow Christians who are creationists and IDers.
>
that we would gladly do so when "creationists and IDers" are equally
"even-handed by criticising publicly" the bad science promoted by "their
fellow creationists and IDers to the same degree that they criticise" what
they see as bad science promoted by "atheist/agnostic scientific
materialist-naturalists";
>
> 7. show that they are decisively under the control of Christianity by: a)
> stopping their sub-Christian ad hominem comments about their fellow
> Christians who are creationists (eg. Mike Behe being a "liar", Johnson
> being "only a lawyer", etc);
>
that such comments are not "sub-Christian ad hominems" when the circumstances
validate them;
>
> and b) starting to show that Christian `blood' is
> thicket than scientific materialism- naturalism `water';
>
and that this is irrelevant to the question of the scientific validity of
evolution, creationism or ID theory?
To reiterate: in response to my request that Stephen explain how "TE/ECs"
could convince him that they have not been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and
deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism",
he has made seven demands that, if acted upon, would in fact require that
"TE/ECs" admit what they are trying to deny. In other words, to convince
Stephen that he is wrong we would have to admit that he was right all along!
Is it just me, or is there something hypocritical about this situation? It
sounds alot like Stephen is playing the "Heads I win, Tails you loose" game,
acting concilliatory while making demands that insures that he wins the
debate no matter what happens.
In any event, that's not what I asked. To reiterate, I want to know from
Stephen what we would need to do to convince him he is wong -- that we
"TE/ECs" are not now and have never been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and
deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism" --
that also doesn't require us to repent of our "errors" and be converted to
his belief system.
>
> KM>Considering what Stephen said in the first paragraph above, however, I
do
> >not see that he would ever admit he is wrong, since even if we "TE/ECs"
> >were to rationally and calmly discuss his assesment that we have been
"taken
> >'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely
> >scientific materialism-naturalism"....
>
> Which is an admission that TE/ECs haven't yet rationally and calmly
> discussed my assesment that they have been taken captive by the hollow
> and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8) that is scientific materialism-
> naturalism!
>
Mostly because Stephen still hasn't explained what he means by a rational,
calm discussion. Plus, I may be the only idiot on this list who still takes
Stephen serious enough to respond to his rhetorical clap-trap at length and
in detail.
>
> KM>...he could still reject our arguments and evidence on
> >the basis that we "may not realise" that we have been "taken 'captive'",
> >since it is "after all, a *deceptive* philosophy".
>
> Kevin seems to have little confidence in his "arguments and evidence"!
> Why doesn't he just post them and see what happens?
>
Stephen has posted ample evidence that regardless what arguments and evidence
I or anyone else present, Stephen will only admit he was wrong if "TE/ECs"
"admit" he was right that they had have been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow
and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific
materialism-naturalism".
>
> KM>In other words, as long
> >as Stephen believes that we have been "taken 'captive'" and that we "may"
> >not realize it, I do not see what we could possibly say that would make
him
> >change his mind.
>
> See above. I have said publicly that I am prepared to change my mind on
> this if TE/ECs can show that they have not been taken "captive through [a]
> hollow and deceptive philosophy..." (Col 2:8), namely scientific
> materialism-naturalism, by meeting my seven conditions above.
>
Except that the only way we can demonstrate that we "have not been taken
'captive through [a] hollow and deceptive philosophy...' (Col 2:8), namely
scientific materialism-naturalism", is to admit that we have been all along.
The only way we can prove Stephen wrong is to prove he was right.
>
> I believe these are reasonable conditions that any Christian should have
no
> trouble agreeing with-*unless* they are under the strong influence of the
> philosophy of scientific materialism-naturalism. The ball is now in the
> TE/ECs court!
>
Exactly my point when I said: "even if we 'TE/ECs' were to rationally and
calmly discuss his assesment that we have been 'taken "captive" by a "hollow
and deceptive philosophy" (Col 2:8), namely scientific
materialism-naturalism' he could still reject our arguments and evidence on
the basis that we 'may not realise' that we have been 'taken "captive'",
since it is 'after all, a *deceptive* philosophy'." Unless we admit that we
all have been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col
2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism", Stephen will reject any
argument or evidence to the contrary simply on the basis that we are all
"taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely
scientific materialism-naturalism" and don't even know it. Heads Stephen
wins, tails we all loose.
Since Stephen refused to address my specific request, I am declaring a foul
in the game and putting the ball back in his court. What I want to know from
him is what evidence or argument would he accept that would convince him that
none of us are now and that we have never been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow
and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific
materialism-naturalism", that would convince him that we know we are not
captives and are not simply self-deluded fools, that such a philosophy does
not influence our thinking or scientific judgement, that it is not the basis
for our opposition to creationism and ID theory; in other words, that he is
wrong about what he claims motivates us.
Kevin L. O'Brien