"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is dead." ~ Al Dente (1764-1814)
Greetings Grandstanders,
I've enjoyed the comments. I thought I'd offer some replies while I have some time. I've culled the most salient and/or interesting remarks from this thread thus far (in my arrogant opinion) for rejoinder. Each is preceded by the screen-name of the person who made the salient and/or interesting remark. Also, I've replied in the order that these excerpts were posted, so a particular screen-name may occur several times throughout the post.
SUTG
I like Popper. I also like Kuhn. I haven't read everything they've written on the philosophy of science, but from what I have read, I admire their efforts to formulate a cogent accounting of and grounding of the scientific enterprise. From my Biblical position, however, I don't expect there to ever be a sufficiently coherent and defensible thesis for the verity of science apart from the full recognition of the God of the Bible.
The Berean
If I can jump in here, it is a mistake to think that a theory is less scientific than science or facts or data. They are different things and should not be misconstrued as anything like "degrees of certainty" or "levels of verification." The theory of evolution is scientific in certain aspects. The theory of creationism is scientific in certain aspects. The difference is this: Evolutionism must blindly assume the inductive principle upon which the scientific enterprise is based. Whereas the Creationist view can make application of the inductive principle with certainty because it derives from the existence and attributes of God, who created, governs and maintains the universe.
mighty_duck
I agree with you, m_d. I will do my best to make sure the discussion does not slip into that muddy gultch.
Several of the of the definitions I've offered were based on Evolutionist formulations with an aim toward speaking the same language, of avoiding the pitfalls of miscommunication, and of not talking past one another, as is so often encountered in these types of discussions. I am very open to using whatever definition my opponent prefers, but I reserve the prerogative to quallify those definitions in my own usage of the terms. Clear communication is vital, and I do not wish to undermine profitable discussion by getting derailed into a semantic squabble.
Yes, I expect it may. But as a Biblical theist, I must be loyal to the biblical definition. I am willing to consider a modified definition, should Stratnerd choose to offer one, but my use of his definition will always be qualified for clarity.
I can see how you would view this as a pre-emptive strategy toward claiming victory. And since you've pointed it out, perhaps I will actually do that. But seriously, it's not a matter of simply making a claim at the conclusion of the debate. I should be able to demonstrate the cogency of my arguments and the incoherence of my opponent's. My summation might not be persuasive, but if I am to declare victory in the end, it had better be coherent.
It's very astute of you to recognize the different tack employed by my statement that you quoted. However, in my defense, it is not a departure from my chosen path, but rather the other wheel of the vehicle I use to navigate that path.
fool
I often see these kinds of claims, suggesting that the Biblical conception of God can be merely replaced by any number of imagined entities (Coke cans, Spaghetti Dieties, etc.). The problem with this approach is twofold: First, I've yet to meet someone who starts off with such inane boasts to carry them through. In other words, those who offer up such propositions will not defend them because they don't really believe their own proposition. Competing worldviews cannot be adequately compared if one of the views is not seriously put forth and affirmed. Second, whenever I've pressed those who make such suggestions to begin to describe the nature and attributes of their Coke can deity or their Pasta Papa in the Sky, the ostensible votaries inevitably back down. This is because they realize where my questions will lead, namely, to a description that begins to match in varied respects the true God as revealed in the Bible.
This is true. Knowledge, that is true and certain knowledge, begins with the fear (reverence, respect) of the Lord. Apart from the existence of God, the laws and methods you use to navigate through life make no sense. You must blindly assume them to be magically trustworthy. All knowledge based on the blind application of these unverified laws and method will ever be suspect. Strangely, we find evolutionists who say this very thing: No knowledge is certain; everything is subject to revision, pending superior evidence to the contrary.
This is an excellent question. The answer is no. All men are created in the image of God (i.e. possessing reason and personality). And as such, they are endowed by their Creator with the ability to learn by the application the inductive principle in a universe that is uniform in its behavior. The problem for the Unbeliever is this: He cannot justify or account for his method or his conclusions on the basis of his own espoused worldview. He is using God's tools to come to his correct conclusions, but he fails to acknowledge the Source and Basis for his method and conclusions, and instead trusts in them blindly, irrationally, as if they arose out of the void or out of chaos.
I know you won't like this, but the Authority to which I defer, that is, the Bible, allows no other answer: A correct conclusion is distinguished by counterfeit conclusions according to whether or not it comports with reality, the ultimate description of which is God Himself.
This is a keen observation, but it is only partly correct. I do not deny true conclusions to the anti-Theist/Unbeliever. Unbelievers are perfectly capable of counting the change in their pockets and inventing antibiotics. The problem is, by not acknowledging the God of the Bible as the very foundation for their successful application of the inductive principle, logic and science, they become irrational in their blind reliance upon tools for which they cannot account. "It's axiomatic," they'll say, which is to say, "It's magic."
No, this is backward. A correct conclusion held by an Unbeliever doesn't move from being counterfeit to genuine. Rather, it moves from being an irrational assumption to being a grounded certainty.
My rejoinder above should suffice to correct this statement. Let me know if you wish for me to unpack it further.
SUTG
I assure you that my skepticism is limited to that which the Bible does not address by explicit pronouncement or by sound inference. I am not skeptical in the least concerning the verity of science, the laws of logic, issues of morality, the nature of reality, the grounding of knowledge and of applied ethics. Where I become the skeptic is when I put myself in the shoes of the anti-Theist/evoutionist and I try to make sense of these things in terms of a Godless universe governed by impersonal entities or forces such as time, necessity and chance.
Johnny
Although I might be able to guess, I'd like to hear from you why this is a surprising development in your eyes?
Would you like to sincerely posit that view? If so, I have a battery of questions for you by which we will ascertain the nature and attributes of the FSM. Please let me know if you're interested in pursuing this.
See above.
This is like asking: Why is a grounded and certain knowledge any different from a blindly assumed conjecture?
Whatever successes and advances made by science are in spite of, not because of, blind-faith commitments to the tools of science.
mighty_duck
Although roughly stated, you are, for the most part, correct.
I am happy to oblige, as time allow, m_d. But if I may first ask, what would constitute acceptable proof for you?
See my above comments regarding the Awe-Inspiring Airborne Al Dente Deity. I would like to ask It about some problems I have with Angel Hair pasta (it absorbs too much sauce; something has got to be done about that).
Johnny
But it does. That's the point. Do you seriously wish to advance the notion of a universe governed by the Paternal Pepsi Can in the Sky? Because that is the only condition upon which your All-Powerful Pepsi Can will get a fair hearing.
fool
See my bio. I do believe I paid proper homage, not only to the Blessed Gods of the Barley-Based Bubbly, but also to the Titans of Tobacco. If I am truly guilty of oversight, I will duly repent in sackcloth and (cigar) ashes.
Thanks for the lively discussion. I will gladly continue to participate as time allows.
All the best,
Jim
Greetings Grandstanders,
I've enjoyed the comments. I thought I'd offer some replies while I have some time. I've culled the most salient and/or interesting remarks from this thread thus far (in my arrogant opinion) for rejoinder. Each is preceded by the screen-name of the person who made the salient and/or interesting remark. Also, I've replied in the order that these excerpts were posted, so a particular screen-name may occur several times throughout the post.
SUTG
Originally posted by SUTG
The Berean
Originally posted by The Berean
mighty_duck
Originally posted by mighty_duck
Originally posted by mighty_duck
Originally posted by mighty_duck
Originally posted by mighty_duck
Originally posted by mighty_duck
fool
Originally posted by fool
Originally posted by fool
Originally posted by fool
Originally posted by fool
Originally posted by fool
Originally posted by fool
Originally posted by fool
SUTG
Originally posted by SUTG
Johnny
Originally posted by Johnny
Originally posted by Johnny
Originally posted by Johnny
Originally posted by Johnny
Originally posted by Johnny
mighty_duck
Originally posted by Johnny
Originally posted by mighty_duck
Originally posted by mighty_duck
Johnny
Originally posted by Johnny
fool
Originally posted by fool
Thanks for the lively discussion. I will gladly continue to participate as time allows.
All the best,
Jim
Comment