Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   False dilemma/'created dilemma'
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 1 of 26 (505409)
04-11-2009 8:40 AM


Is there REALLY a dilemma between a cosmology and worldview of a monotheistic, creator God who possesses the ability to reveal Himself to us and the world of 'science' and origin? Or, is this 'dilemma' something we as human beings have 'created' through faulty reasoning and analysis and a very, very strong desire to advance our own causes, whatever they may be? As a born again Christian who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture and one who is endlessly fascinated by both the 'hard' and 'soft' sciences, it is not so clear to me that this may not be the case. I have followed many of these issues and debates, I have spoken with many people(Christians and non-Christians alike), I have followed sites like this one and many other things as well when I can and while there are some very thought provoking and serious questions that are asked, I cannot help but notice that there is alot of misleading and false information from both sides of the issues. Are we REALLY looking for answers or are we looking to 'win' a battle within the larger culture war?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by onifre, posted 04-11-2009 9:42 AM ImagesandWords has replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 04-11-2009 9:59 AM ImagesandWords has replied
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 10:34 AM ImagesandWords has replied
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 04-11-2009 12:45 PM ImagesandWords has not replied
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 4:39 PM ImagesandWords has replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2009 12:37 PM ImagesandWords has not replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 5 of 26 (505417)
04-11-2009 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by onifre
04-11-2009 9:42 AM


Response to "onifre"
With all due respect, I am sure you are a bright man. However, I think you have sought out an easy answer to the question. While this is perfectly understandable, and more common than what is desirable, I suggest you re-read the question and re-think your answer; even if it takes an extended period of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by onifre, posted 04-11-2009 9:42 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 3:51 PM ImagesandWords has replied
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 04-11-2009 8:33 PM ImagesandWords has not replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 7 of 26 (505420)
04-11-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
04-11-2009 9:59 AM


Reply to "Coragyps"
Hello. Thank you for your welcome of me to this engaging site. First, I would like to point out unequivocally that I am not a 'young earther' and I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. It is not so clear to me that Scripture teaches a literal 6 day creation period that is in opposition to 'science proper' and modern cosmology. Second, the outright hostility that oftentimes accompanies the science in the classroom debate from both factions is unnecessary and unfortunate and the fact that we, as a culture, are now using the U.S. court system to answer what are, essentially, EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions is a sad testament to where we really are in this debate. In my mind this tells me 2 things, at minimum: #1 We, as a culture, scientists included, oftentimes want to do what is legal, not necessarily what is just. #2 That we, as a society, scientists included, must continue to enage each other in this question, honestly and transparently: If you are as familiar with the issue as you portray you must admit that there is enough intellectual dishonesty to go around. I will admit, and if there are any other Christians reading this, you have to also, that our emotions get the best of us just like everyone else and Christians are not always as prepared as they should be when entering these discussions. Open mouth, insert foot. But again, this cuts both ways. Having said this, I can relate, as a parent, to what it takes to raise my child to be a critical thinker. One of the biggest things I try to instill is for them to ask themselves; "Is this question a true intellectual barrier for me or is there prejudice and bias on my part?" No discussion can honestly advance before this question is answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 04-11-2009 9:59 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 4:21 PM ImagesandWords has not replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 9 of 26 (505437)
04-11-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
04-11-2009 10:34 AM


Reply to 'Straggler'
I like some of what you had to say. At least you had the intellectual integrity to admit that some scientists within the scientific community DO use their respective discipline as a platform for subjects that ARE NOT scientific for UN-scientific purposes and I concur; It would be unfair and dishonest for me to broad-brush the whole of the scientific community proper into this category. If I have given this impression, my apologies. However, as with many of the assertions out there, the notion that God must be relegated to the supernatural only and 'Science' to the natural is false. First, since 'science' IS attempting to make truth claims about the world we live in, it, by virtue of this fact, is opening itself up to the realm and criticism of philosophy. For 'science' to claim that it (science) and only it is the only what can be known by 'science' or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true is a self-refuting claim for how can this statement itself be quantified and empirically tested? If it cannot, by the statements own standard, it cannot itself be true or rationally held. In short, whether one likes it or not, the VALIDATION of 'science' is outside the realm of 'science'. This is the realm of philosophy and any assertion to the contrary will be a SELF-REFUTING philosophical claim. Second, the use of God as a primary cause or uncaused cause, or what have you, ARE NOT religious claims. Obviously there is much more that could be said but these examples should suffice as to why I disagree with at least parts of some of the not so well-thought out responses to my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 10:34 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 3:19 PM ImagesandWords has replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 14 of 26 (505442)
04-11-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
04-11-2009 3:19 PM


Second reply to 'Straggler'
While I do see some merit in your response I think you are capitulating somewhat on your first point. The language you use belies this. The thrust of my argument on this point is this; When some of those within the scientific community, especially those who are well-known or esteemed, even if temporarily, for whatever reason, advance and/or advocate a position that has no REAL, OBJECTIVE basis (The myth behind man-made global warming for example) in scientific fact, the damage is done to the rest of society, the common man. In todays POLITICAL climate it almost doesn't matter anymore whether the scientific community sorts itself out later (to paraphrase). Ideas have consequences and somebody must pay. Incidently, it is no secret that many scientists must constantly seek out funding for their research or it 'dies', so the pressure to produce tangible results must be enormous and human nature being what it is, I suppose the lure of a seemingly endless supply of research money, in whatever form, is overwhelmingly tempting. In reference to your second point the answer is absolutely not! Modern science has produced innumerable valuable advances in every area and facet of our lives. To deny this would be absurd and border on delusional. However, in your zeal to make your point you have overlooked the fact that without philosophy and logic, science would be nothing more than mere voodoo, religion, the very thing science does not want nor should be. You have inverted this relationship so, yes, philosophy can and does claim just as much, if not more pratical success, even if it is achieved vicariously. On the third and fourth points I reiterate the just mentioned answer. Let's not be obscurantists. On the fifth point, again, you are employing faulty logic. Even if most people did disagree with my point it does not make my claim false. Look at what I said. I am not using God in a theological, religious sense to promote theology or religion. Here I am using God as a mere philosophical concept or perhaps a theoretical entity needed in some sort of an explanation. Aristotle and Newton used this concept quite well even though Newtons appeal was later falsified. But that is beside the point. Lastly, I am not here addressing creationism in any of its forms. However, to use the term 'evolution' in its broadest sense to portray some sort of high achievement is misleading. "Macro-evolution" has plenty of difficulties to deal with. I have no problem with 'micro-evolution' on the level of, say, viruses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 3:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 5:19 PM ImagesandWords has replied
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 6:26 PM ImagesandWords has not replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 15 of 26 (505443)
04-11-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rrhain
04-11-2009 3:51 PM


Response
Hello. I think that, for whatever reason, you missed the point of my response to onifre. I CLEARLY stated that I thought he was bright enough to go back and look more closely at the question. To read between the lines a little and draw some other conclusions. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Besides, if that is his real image beside his response, he looks old enough to me to speak up for himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 3:51 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 5:23 PM ImagesandWords has not replied
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 6:02 PM ImagesandWords has not replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 17 of 26 (505445)
04-11-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rrhain
04-11-2009 4:39 PM


Response
You have created a straw man for an argument. I did mention my belief in a global flood anywhere in this forum. As a matter of fact I did not state my position at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 4:39 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 5:24 PM ImagesandWords has not replied
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 6:49 PM ImagesandWords has not replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 19 of 26 (505447)
04-11-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 5:22 PM


Re: Response
Self-correction. I meant to say that I didn't mention my belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 5:22 PM ImagesandWords has not replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 20 of 26 (505448)
04-11-2009 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
04-11-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Second reply to 'Straggler'
Thank you for the insight on how to better format my responses. I am new to this venue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 5:19 PM Straggler has not replied

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 5464 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 21 of 26 (505449)
04-11-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
04-11-2009 5:19 PM


Recess
'Straggler'. I have to exit this forum temporarily. However, I will continue as soon as possible to address your last couple of questions. I am not so sure we are on different pages on some of the issues. I would like to say that your style of discussion is refreshing; Matter-of-fact, straightforward with no fluff and, judging by the tone of your responses, non-antagonistic. This is commendable in an environment such as this. I look forward to more discussion with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 5:19 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024