Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
You haven't been reading your Bertrand Russell enough. There is no goodness to thank or evil to condemn at all in a universe that is nothing but an accidental by-product of impersonal chance or necessity. Ascribing to concatenations of atoms the attributes of good or evil makes about as much sense as praising or condemning the orbit of the moon around the earth.
“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (Russell, “Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” 1957, p. 115)
Cordially,
"The game board is set up and the game is played by the rules." Agreed. But who set up the game board, and according to what rules? I'd say: God created the natural world, which is the game board. And His Logos established the rules that give order to the natural universe.
You may say: "These are not scientific questions." But that doesn't make the questions illegitimate. Especially in light of the fact that these are precisely the questions that man has been asking since time immemorial. Are we to think human beings are stupid because universally, they ask such questions?
As far as miracles are concerned, especially in light of discoveries of quantum physics, perhaps miracles are simply events the causes of which we do not grasp from our perspective in space and time. For all we know, they may be perfectly "natural" -- as you define it (i.e., game board plus rules) -- but we don't know how they occur.
Common descent contradicts Genesis, which says that each creature reproduces "after its own kind," and only its own kind. That doesn't necessarily mean that each species had to be specially created by God. And it doesn't rule out evolution. It just rules out common descent.
Of course, if you are of a mind to say that Genesis is a myth and nothing more, well of course you're entitled to your opinion, js1138. I am not required to share it.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis. And it seems to me God is extraordinarily forthcoming in the description of the early universe in Genesis 1. You do have to realize, however, that the time questions involved in these texts are not asked according to the "normal" time of human experience. Indeed, the early verses describe things that are not "in time" at all. In reading Genesis, I see nothing at all incompatible with state-of-the-art physics. I see the singularity, I see the big bang, I see the inflationary universe; I see the universal vacuum field; I see the emergence of the primordial light out of which all matter was made; I see the inception of Life, and the constitution of a hierarchy of living beings with man at its summit. Etc.
Am I being "subjective" here?
Translate your supposition into a form that can be researched. What would you expect to find that will not be found by mainstream research? How is the supposition that God set up the game board different from the supposition that the game board is what we see and study?
Common descent contradicts Genesis, which says that each creature reproduces "after its own kind," and only its own kind. That doesn't necessarily mean that each species had to be specially created by God. And it doesn't rule out evolution. It just rules out common descent.
Any reading of Genesis that rules out common descent is simply wrong. Either Genesis is wrong, or the reading is wrong. This is no different than asserting that a literal reading of the Bible is wrong if it concludes that the sun rises in the east and the earth does not move. If facts are incompatible with the literal interpretation, it is time to reconsider how the text should be read.
Amen indeed, dear brother Quix! All glory be to God.
If you feel free to fiddle with the interpretation of time in Genesis (which many do not) you may as well take note of the fact that there is no literal discussion of method. Genesis says that life came from non-life. The process is not described in scientific terms, so any interpretation is simply personal opinion.
I find it the height of vanity that some people will promote their personal opinion over the evidence found in existence itself. If creation is the word of God, then it is available to all men at all times; no translation required. You do not need to be born in a priveleged time or place, or have parents who inculcate you with the correct theology.
Science speaks the same language to all people in all times and places, without regard to religion, race, nationality, gender. there are thousands of religions at war with each other. Scientists, regardless of religion or politics, reason together.
Not "subjective", but seemingly ambibuous. When you say "generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis", does that mean that other religions (not just specifically Islam) that believe in the creation of the universe by a supernatural diety don't really believe in "creationism" if that account doesn't agree with Genesis?
The word "creationism" appears in virtally any standard reference dictionary you can find. Why is it necessary to dance around simply settling on the commonly used and understood meaning of the word based on those references? It seems a reasonable proposition that in any debate that there needs to be mutual agreement by all parties on a common, objective, and equally accessible source of the definitions of the principle terms involved. Somehow that seems to be too much to ask for.
Scientists are avid to discover the causes of things -- except for the cause of the entire "ball of wax," the universe ("the game board"). Then suddenly it becomes a matter of, "That's not a scientific question."
Huh??? Are scientists saying that every natural thing has a cause, but the sum total of all natural things -- the universe -- does not? That the universe has no beginning (no cause) and no end but is simply a random, material process running on forever?
Then where did the matter come from, and where did "the guide to the system," the natural laws, come from? You did declare to believe in natural laws ("the rules of the game"). But if you do, how do you square this with the supposition that the universe and the life in it is a random process?
You wrote: "If facts are incompatible with the literal interpretation, it is time to reconsider how the text should be read." I'd suggest that a literal reading of Genesis is the wrong way to approach the text. Genesis is not an instruction manual or a user's guide, to be read literally strictly for information purposes. Better to engage these texts with the aid of the Holy Spirit, which anyone can humbly invoke ("seek and ye shall find; ask, and it shall be given unto you"). Then we might really get somewhere.
Funny thing is, cross-references to modern physics has, if anything, made me appreciate the genuine authority of Genesis all the more.
Genesis says that life came from God speaking His holy Word, the Logos, for whom and by whom all things were made, in the beginning -- a real beginning of space and time -- ex nihilo. Then the photons showed up. :^) ("Let there be Light!") That's not exactly the same thing as "life came from non-life." The latter is so dry and doctrinaire, plus a heck of a lot less informative than the Genesis text itself.
You wrote: "I find it the height of vanity that some people will promote their personal opinion over the evidence found in existence itself." My "personal opinion" happens to be informed by the evidence of my own existence, experience, and observation.
You also wrote, "Science speaks the same language to all people in all times and places...." So does God. The problem is not everyone has the ears to hear Him. Maybe people don't try to listen hard enough. :^)
Then again, there are a lot of people who believe there's nothing "there" to "listen to." And that, of course, is another personal opinion -- presumably based on evidence, experience, observation???
Or does this merely signify a closure of the mind, a sealing of the Spirit, to God?
Some are interested in the question, and some work on answers. Science works with phenomena that are accessible to the methodologies of the day. That requires humility and discipline.
You are correct. the passage I have in mind speaks of dust. Figuratively speaking, both Genesis and science agree that living things are made of "dust."
Some people are arrogant enough to imagine they know the method and the process by which this happens. Science is humble enough to admit that it does not, but curious enough to read the book in which life is written. I guess curiosity is what you have in mind when you speak of sealing oneself off from the spirit of God.
It is too much to ask for. Reliance on dictionary terminology can be a substitute for thought. We need to agree on the meaning of words. Then we'd need to ask, which dictionary? For different dictionaries may give differently nuanced definitions. It's better to "reason together" and see if we can stand together on the same page thataway. If not, then not. Besides, the point you were raising went to "subjectivity." And so I gave my subjective opinion that "generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis."
Whereupon you inquired: "does that mean that other religions (not just specifically Islam) that believe in the creation of the universe by a supernatural diety don't really believe in "creationism" if that account doesn't agree with Genesis?"
I don't think I have suggested that. What I did suggest: I regard Genesis as a truthful account of creation regardless of what other accounts other religions or cultures might come up with, even scientific accounts (such as orthodox darwinist theory).
Indeed. Still, the mind of man outraces his tools and methodologies nonetheless. We have seen magnificent scientific speculations that have had to wait for the technology to catch up with them, so that they might be tested.
That's hardly what I have in mind!!! Curiosity is God drawing us to explore His magnificent revelation, the creation itself! I consider curiosity a divine gift. It's an openness to God, not a sealing of one's self from divine influence.
Indeed, they do. The physical basis of life is matter -- whatever that is! LOL! We'll just agree to call it: "dust." :^)
I believe you also maintain that your definition of cretion is completely objective and free of personal bias.
It is too much to ask for.
I've already had one discussion on this thread with another poster in the same vein on the meaning of the word "evolutionism" and "evolutionary philosophy". When the answsers didn't seem to correspond to what I understood the word "evolution" and it's derivatives to mean, I asked what definition he was using and where I might find it. I was informed that his definition was an "original work" that couldn't be found in any standard reference, and that it was "dishonest" of me to attribute commonly accepted and understood meanings to the words he was using.
The whole arrangement seems calculated to make sure nobody can really know what's been said, so that you can always claim to be "right" and the other guy can always be "wrong".
Where did I maintain that?
You cannot hide behind an argument of "moral equivalency," or of groundless personal bias here; i.e., my supposed lack of "objectivity." The distinctions I draw are perfectly "objective."
137 posted on 06/22/2007 9:41:47 AM PDT by betty boop
That appears to be a claim of perfect objectivity and absence of personal bias in the matter of what is and isn't "creationism".
Fine. And I agree. That just means ALL Muslims are "creationists," including the liberal ones that accept evolution.
The objection, if there be any, is to the idea that life and biology are the result of a purely materially based, more or less accidental development.
And indeed this is the principal Muslim objection to evolution.
I continue to be mystified as to why, or on what basis, you insist that Muslims (or "Islamofascists") aren't "creationists".
How is the notion of Muslims (or "Islamofascists") being creationists "completely nonsensical" to you? Don't all serious monotheists accept some theological doctrine of creation? Aren't all monotheists then creationists?
In earlier messages, the best I could gather was that you think Islamists are not creationists because of theological doctrines they hold or sociological tendencies they exhibit apart from the doctrine of creation they hold. That's kind of like claiming that while people who play on grass courts qualify as being "tennis players," those who play on clay courts somehow don't qualify as "tennis players". IOW it's a completely arbitrary violation of the normal meanings of words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.