Reflectorites
[...]
On Sun, 7 May 2000 11:42:53 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote re:
Brain biology:
[...]
>SEJ> [More evidence of a `ghost in the machine'?]
[...]
WE>What, that there is a delay between sensory perception and cognition?
>It seems to me that a surprising result would be if there were no such
>delay [...]
Maybe Wesley should read the article in full again? It quotes the authors as
stating that it was surprising in view of previous theories.
WE>The data of Eagleman and Sejnowski would appear to be completely
>explainable with reference to integration time. The data as stated in
>the article don't appear to me to be anything very surprising at all,
>despite the researchers' enthusiasm.
It is sufficient for my purpose that Wesley confirms my point that the
authors thought the data surprising. That Wesley doesn't think it surprising
is not surprising!
[...]
On Sun, 07 May 2000 12:23:05 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote re: Intelligent
Design:
[...]
>SJ>But if I ignore their posts it could look like I am discourteous
>>or even unable to answer them.
CL>Threads can't go on forever. You can't always have the last word.
>It's not discourteous to just drop out rather than repeating an
>argument.
Agreed. But I was not talking about threads which have been going "on
forever" or "repeating an argument." I was talking brief posts which are the
*first* response to one of my posts.
>SJ>But Jesus did in fact explicitly claim to be the Son of God and in
>>Jewish eyes this was the same as claiming that He was God: "[Jesus
>>said] `I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to
>>stone him, but Jesus said to them, `I have shown you many great
>>miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' "We
>>are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, `but for
>>blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.' Jesus
>>answered them ... Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I
>>said, 'I am God's Son'?" (Jn 10:30-36).
CL>The either/or question seems to me somewhat softened in the original
>Greek, where the genitive case is broadly used to refer to many things.
>'A is of B' can mean 'A is the son of B', or can mean 'A is from B', or
>simply 'A partakes of the substance of B'.
As I said, words are not mathematical formulas and many interpretations
are *possible*, and it is necessary to consider the textual evidence *as a
whole*. I recognise that Cliff is a classical Greek scholar, but I would point
out that Greek was the mother tongue of most of the early Church Fathers
who ratified the foundations of classical Christian doctrine which is
enshrined in the great creeds of the Church.
CL>The priests were basically annoyed that a radical competitor was
>intruding into their domain, and seized on any twist of language to
>counter him. Jesus answered that their own scriptures said 'you are
>gods'; doesn't that belie the claim that Jesus was more a god than
>anyone else?
See above.
CL>May I ask BTW which translation you use and why you prefer it
>to the King James?
I usually use the NIV (New International Version), which AFAIK is the
most popular translation in use today. I have not used the King James of
1611 for 30 years. The problem with the KJV it is that while its language is
beautiful: 1) the English language has changed a lot in nearly 400 years;
and 2) the Greek text it was based on (the Textus Receptus) had a number
of copyist errors which had crept in and which have been corrected in
modern New Testament Greek texts.
>SJ>In fact it was for this claim that He was the Son of God that
>>Jesus was executed on a charge of blasphemy:
CL>Here you are citing the actions of the Sanhedrin as proof of
>divinity, reminiscent of how you quote evolutionists to disprove
>evolution.
Not really. I was merely pointing out that Jesus *claim* to be the Son of
God was equivalent to claiming that one was God. Obviously the
Sanhedrin did not think Jesus *really was* God!
>SJ>"But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the
>>high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the
>>Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus...The high priest tore his
>>clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You
>>have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all
>>condemned him as worthy of death." (Mk 14:61-64). >
CL>This should not be confused with the incident cited from John above. The
>latter quotation refers to the actual binding over for trial. The previous quote
>from John refers to an occasion when Jesus barged into the temple and was
>razzed, presumably including having pebbles tossed at him, after which he
>left under his own power.
I am not confusing it with "the incident cited from John above". That was
in John 10. The trial of Jesus in John (which is parallel to Mark 14) is in
John 18.
Again my point was simply to demonstrate that a claim to be the Son of
God was regarded by the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day as
equivalent to a claim to be God.
On Sun, 7 May 2000 22:59:55 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote re
Re: Intelligent Design:
>>BW>You have decided
>>>to reject evidence against design before analyzing it.
>SJ>Again, no. I am well aware of the evidence against design (I have after
>>all been a member of this Reflector for 5 years!), but I consider that
>the evidence for design is far stronger than the evidence against it.
BW>I Apoligize, I read something between the lines which wasn't there.
Thanks to Bill for this apology. Now I know Bill is not Pim! :-)
>BW>So presumably Bill himself must accept that there is evidence for design
>at *some* level?
BW>Either design or multiple universes and this is the one which turned out
>ok.
This indicates there is at least prima facie evidence for design. There would
be no need to postulate "multiple universes" otherwise. I would be
interested in how Bill would resolve which alternative it was.
BW>I don't necessarially believe everything I write. I try to make a logical
>response to what I read.
The problem here is that if Bill sometimes writes supporting things that he
really doesn't believe in, we could never know when it was. Strangely
enough Pim used to argue for atheist positions until one day he let it slip
that he really was a Christian who liked to "play the devil's advocate".
From that day on I ignored Pim.
BW>I've been on several lists for several years and I don't recall anyone
>being "converted" from one position to another. There isn't any point to
>going round and round.
Agreed. But there is a point in debating one's position, even if it is only to
clarify it in one's own mind.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, too, with Darwin's theory that evolution was the result of, among
other processes, the survival of the fittest, a belief qualified rather than
destroyed by the development of genetics and biochemistry. 'Only one
theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the
development of life, the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,' he said as
late as 1972, 'and a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy
assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly
be called a theory.' And after dealing with certain evolutionary examples he
added, with a vigour that would do credit to a modern Creationist rather
than an accomplished scientist. 'I would rather believe in fairies than in such
wild speculation.'" (Clark R.W., "The Life of Ernst Chain [Nobel Prize for
Physiology & Medicine, 1945]: Penicillin and Beyond," Weidenfeld &
Nicolson: London, 1985, p.147)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 17:27:56 EDT