Jones and his "Gimme-that-old-level-playing-field-so-I-won't- have-to-prove-my-o

From: Bertvan@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 08 2000 - 16:17:17 EDT

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "Re: Jones and his "Gimme-that-old-level-playing-field-so-I-won't- have-to-prove"

    Hi Chris,
       
    There is a difference between Stephen's belief in theism and your belief that
    nothing exists which can't be explained naturalistically. The difference is
    as follows:

    Stephen is not trying to impose his belief in theism upon anyone, and he
    acknowledges that his beliefs are unproven. (Evidence can be cited as
    argument for both views, but not proof.) But while Stephen is merely
    presenting his arguments for the benefit of those who might be interested,
    materialists, on the other hand, seem determined to impose a belief in
    naturalism upon everyone else as "scientific truth". In fact, they take to
    the courts to try to enforce that view.

      Design in nature seems as obvious to Stephen and me as your belief that
    nothing "non-natural" exists appears to you. I'm confident most proponents
    of ID would be content for everyone of your persuasion to continue doing
    science, or whatever else you choose to do. They merely want the issue
    openly and clearly defined so that all those who believe something more than
    matter exists can make their own free choice--without fear of intimidation or
    ridicule. Personally I don't share Stephen's beliefs about his God, any more
    than I share your belief in materialism, but I have no desire to "eliminate"
    either philosophy. At the moment all ID is doing is asking that their view
    be heard. If promoters of ID ever become as arrogant as materialists now
    are about trying to imposing some particular theory such as Darwinism (RM&NS
    plus genetic drift) upon society, I'll join you in protest.

    Bertvan
    http://members.aol.com/bertvan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 08 2000 - 16:17:29 EDT