tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2669114297224558352..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Should scientists who believe in ID be excluded from science positions? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56213708817705338152014-04-04T02:17:17.180-07:002014-04-04T02:17:17.180-07:00CONT.
"What's your reason for refusing ?&...CONT.<br /><i>"What's your reason for refusing ?"</i><br /><br />About debating you on your blog? The backwater of your blogsite does not appeal. Anything you have to say can be said here, mindful of the particular OP that Victor posts. In terms of debating you, the arguments you bring forward come from the same pool of apologetics that has been hashed over for centuries. If I thought you would bring fresh new discoveries or new insights that do not rely on the exegesis of old and tired theological and philosophical arguments, I might be tempted. But I've been there, know the sources. I've been a christian for a good part, some three decades, of my life. I could write your argument as well if not better than you, gleaning over the same corpus of apologetics that you would.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88145353681883550802014-04-04T02:16:39.471-07:002014-04-04T02:16:39.471-07:00Cale
It seems when one scratches a Cale B T, a Cru...Cale<br />It seems when one scratches a Cale B T, a Crude morphs from the lesion.<br /><br />What you assert as 'a bout of free-association' and earlier described as my "endlessly derailing threads and spamming links in this combox" are the clearest and latest of research on religion, religiosity and religious belief, from sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, archeology, biology, and others, as a way of explaining why it is you and believers like you believe as they do, and why it is you practice the rituals and incantations and spells associated with, by way of one of innumerable examples, the cannibalistic exercise of the eucharist, in which the eaters of the rump and the drinkers of the blood of the archetypal superhero will be endowed, infused, with the power, strength of the superhero on which they have feasted. The explanatory power of these diverse disciplines founded as they are on the most rigorous and meticulous methodological and evidentiary-based investigation and research framework yet developed, explains with great eloquence and philosophical depth how the mental, physical, and environmental imperatives of the human condition interplay and function. It is an emergent, multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and congruent narrative that cannot be explained away within the restricted confines of scientifically-uninformed philosophy which is essentially considered by mainstream contemporary philosophy as the spawn of apologetics, a product of the singularly narrow focus of Christian theology. <br /><br />For you and other believers in superstitious supernaturalism, these are not accepted as credible scientific peer-reviewed findings and evidence, but are characterised as 'free-association', 'thread derailing' and 'spamming'. Why? Because believers do not want to hear the facts, the truth about why there are thousands of religious belief systems and just one universal scientific system, an investigatory tool and system that transcends and simply dwarfs all religious systems in their capacity to explain.<br /><br /><i>"Funnny, I seem to remember it being largely because you don't actually engage people properly."</i><br /><br />No. It was a christian cabal of free speech censors, headed by Crude who sought to have me banned, imploring Victor in the most embarrassingly cringing manner to rid me from the site. Of course he and other religious sycophants will not have the courage, decency, the ethical or intellectual honesty to tell you about the 'Papalinton Challenge'. It was only Bob Prokop, a dyed-in-the wool christian believer, and a man with integrity and honesty and genuine humane fellowship, for which I had great respect, that spoke against the blood-baying Crude to have me banned. And quite frankly, I couldn't be bothered reviewing all the older blogs.<br /><br />I was wondering when you would fly Crude's 'Jolly Roger', about my accusing Feser of plagiarism. Did you read further down that same commentary at where I admitted to the mistake and that I had 'egg all over my face'. Not only did I lay the charge but I also forthrightly righted the wrong admitting that I had made a mistake and acknowledged that Feser had not plagiarized. For Crude, he doesn't believe in telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For Crude, only that half of the story he wants to tell suffices. Of course the act of extending forgiveness among christians of the Crude variety is an unknown.<br /><br />You would do well to think twice before you append your name to the Crude banner. <br /><br />Cont.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64093286618295639062014-04-03T22:02:19.366-07:002014-04-03T22:02:19.366-07:00So Cale shows his colors. Shows us by his own exa...So Cale shows his colors. Shows us by his own example how to engage people properly. That's how you get someone to debate you.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61162495422555302812014-04-03T18:14:33.949-07:002014-04-03T18:14:33.949-07:00"Religious pluralism is the most contemporary..."Religious pluralism is the most contemporary of apologetical attempts"<br /><br />By mentioning it, I wasn't advancing a specific opinion on this subject, but I see that didn't stop you engaging in another bout of free-association. <br /><br />You clearly <b>do</b> want to discuss this issue.<br /><br />"A cabal of christians collectively decided to play 'no-speakies' with me on the pretense that I was rude and mean, and discourteous to their belief system"<br /><br />Funnny, I seem to remember it being largely because you don't actually engage people properly.<br /><br />And, of course, that whole copying and pasting from the internet and passing it off as your own writing thing. And being caught out wrongly <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iv.html?showComment=1354390653578#c365707427604719833" rel="nofollow">accusing</a> Ed Feser of plagiarism in an utterly idiotic fashion. And the list goes on... <br /><br />But, here's my offer: be as rude as you like in the debate. Let me have it. Your choice of word count and any length of time to respond. <br /><br />What's your reason for refusing ?<br />Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2125130493887714332014-04-03T15:52:47.413-07:002014-04-03T15:52:47.413-07:00CONT.
In regard of you comment of few people respo...CONT.<br />In regard of you comment of few people responding to my contributions, there is history. A cabal of christians collectively decided to play 'no-speakies' with me on the pretense that I was rude and mean, and discourteous to their belief system. When I look up the togas of Gods that is regarded as disrespectful. But then anything I might challenge about their belief system will seem an affront for those that divide their world and lives into the sacred and the profane, a world in which it is verboten, politically incorrect, and out-of-bounds to challenge the sacred. To challenge the sacred is seen as abuse of the believer's own character, their personhood, an 'egregious' personal affront. So strong are the beliefs held believers are unable to and incapable of disengaging their beliefs as a system from their personal identity. When one scrutinizes faith and belief, it can appear to be rough, and disrespectful. Prof David Eller, <i>"When one studies religion, whether historically, sociologically, psychologically, anthropologically, and so on, one can do trivial things like count worshippers in church or evaluate their voting habits. this generates a certain amount and kind of information about religion, or at least religious behaviour. But most influential students or religion have wanted to do much more, namely, provide a <b>theory</b> of religion, give an <b>explanation</b> of religion. What does it mean to 'explain religion'? The one thing it does not mean is to take it at face value - to respect its claims, its authority, its boundaries. If one were to explain scientifically some ritual or ritual in general, what one would <b>not</b> would be explain it as true: "Those people do that rain-making ritual because it really does make it rain.""</i><br /><br />Pulling down statues and scriptures to give them a good look over, is appreciated as a disrespectful (and entirely warranted and desirable) thing, but it is not always so easily grasped that explanation itself is a disrespectful thing as well. <br /><br />I challenge belief systems for what they are, emotional, social, psychological, anthropological, historical and cultural constructs of the most terrestrially-bound kind. Sacred is solely a theological concept that is not part of the vocabulary of the sciences.<br /><br />I continue to comment here as a reality check and foil to the simulacrum of religious belief.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41219702402064861102014-04-03T15:52:14.233-07:002014-04-03T15:52:14.233-07:00Cale,
"As for the question of religious plur...Cale, <br /><i>"As for the question of religious pluralism, I'd love to debate you on this topic. So why not do so? You obviously think that discussing these issues is worthwhile enough to keep on posting about them in Reppert's comments, but, in case you hadn't noticed, few people respond to you anymore."</i><br /><br />I was not able to respond earlier. Indeed I had almost completed a response to you when your God invoked an electrical blackout and my comment was consigned to the aether. Lucky for me God wasn't able to wipe all of it from my memory and I recall much of what He didn't want me to publish. That's if you believe that God caused our regional blackout to prevent me from commenting. I mean, my reasoning seems to comfortably fit with what most believers feel how God influences their lives in managing their day-to-day thoughts and actions.<br /><br />Religious pluralism? <br />You misread me terribly. Religious pluralism is a musical score for cacophony in B♭, E#, C major and D♭ combined. Religious pluralism is the most contemporary of apologetical attempts, and retreat from the centuries-long christian held position, that a number of concurrent religious worldviews can equally be valid and/or acceptable. It envisages religious pluralism as more than just tolerance, and that there are multiple paths to God or gods . Religious pluralism is the thwarted attempt to contrast the idea that there is only one true religion or way to know God and to mitigate the reality of 'exclusivism' for which religions are infamously and ubiquitously renowned. <br />Religious pluralism means in essence Christians believe that Ganesha, the elephant god is as real and as justified a belief as a belief in jesus christ is to christians in knowing god. But which god? Yahwah or Shiva? Allah or Vishnu? Do christians firmly believe this? I say, Hardly. I say, only the rhetoric.<br /><br />Cont.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45703079502199115492014-04-03T14:25:30.974-07:002014-04-03T14:25:30.974-07:00Cale,
Since the resident science-haters are also ...Cale,<br /><br />Since the resident science-haters are also showing themselves to be resident cowards as well, I - part in humor, part in seriousness - will try to help you out.<br /><br />How would you like to debate me instead?<br /><br />Granted, we're both theists, etc. But I propose a topic of my own: I will defend the proposition that the Cult of Gnu are not intellectually or ethically worthy of dialogue nor debate. You can - since you really and truly seem to believe otherwise - take the opposite view.<br /><br />Probably not your cup of tea, and it's certainly far afield from what you were aiming for - but the offer stands. This convo is starting to slide off Victor's front page slowly but surely, so if you accept or are interested, please let me know on my blog.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10781101531772438592014-04-02T22:00:02.409-07:002014-04-02T22:00:02.409-07:00"Linton poses his arguments as if they are un..."Linton poses his arguments as if they are unanswerable criticisms which no Christian has ever heard before (because if they had, then how could they still be Christians?)."<br /><br />I think there's a lot of that to go around.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8821971054816945402014-04-02T21:38:47.599-07:002014-04-02T21:38:47.599-07:00Linton poses his arguments as if they are unanswer...Linton poses his arguments as if they are unanswerable criticisms which no Christian has ever heard before (because if they had, then how could they still be Christians?). <br /><br />If they really are that powerful, then they can withstand scrutiny. Having a structured exchange on a narrowly specified question prevents one from leapfrogging from topic to topic, mindlessly hyperlinking to the first result from Google.<br />Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87178822277025621682014-04-02T19:33:38.689-07:002014-04-02T19:33:38.689-07:00Cale B.T.,
May I ask, why are you so anxious to h...Cale B.T.,<br /><br />May I ask, why are you so anxious to have a formal debate? I certainly enjoy discussion in a conversational manner, but I'm not so keen on the idea of procedural restrictions.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6055306461423168112014-04-02T15:51:07.489-07:002014-04-02T15:51:07.489-07:00Truly, papalinton, I don't know why you wouldn...Truly, papalinton, I don't know why you wouldn't take this opportunity.<br /><br />In this thread alone, you've mentioned<br />-the relationship between Christianity and science<br />-the morality of the atonement<br />-religious pluralism<br />- the nature of truth<br /><br />The only reason you've given against this proposal is that you don't think a debate would be of any value or worth. Right, so a debate is "unfruitful", but endlessly derailing threads and spamming links in this combox for the rest of your retirement is?<br /> <br />It seems to me that, contra your denials, like you really do want to discuss these topics, so why not do in an extended manner? This is a golden opportunity for you to show just how finely crafted your arguments are.Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88522209203912508522014-04-02T14:00:28.155-07:002014-04-02T14:00:28.155-07:00"On the other hand, maybe the fallacy is in y...<i>"On the other hand, maybe the fallacy is in your dumb little example. You make the assertion that there is in fact a bean. I don't think so."</i><br /><br />Perhaps there is a bean under the 'cup' of christianity. I do recall a very similar narrative of a bean thrown out the window only to grow and connect to another dimension, which one could climb, into a world of giants and golden eggs.<br /><br />Do they come from the same .....?<br />Naahh. One of them has got to be a myth. To adjudicate, I think I'll raise the question with an African traditional tribal religious believer, someone still practicing a living religion that is much closer to that which was originally practiced by our European ancestors, someone not tainted with the bias of today's concepts. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/What_is_African_Traditional_Religion-by_Joseph_Omosade_Awolalu.aspx" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> is a truly enlightening and informative overview of African Traditional Tribal Religions that are as deeply held and reverentially practiced as Christianity to its believers. What makes the christian belief system any the truer and these African traditional tribal religions false or misguided? On what basis? By what criteria?<br /><br />Two millennia of positivist apologetics does not make christian claims any more valid or substantive or factual than that of African religions. Both are social products of the cultural milieu from which they were spawned.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81283780305690363142014-04-02T13:53:17.775-07:002014-04-02T13:53:17.775-07:00Cale, I was hoping you would tell us why you thoug...Cale, I was hoping you would tell us why you thought scientific distinguishing was limited in this way.<br /><br />Crude, I think we have moved to discussing the metaphysics of 'guidance', or even, given that our guiding agent is God, the <i>theology</i> of 'guidance'. Now I'm not sure how theological argument is supposed to go but I'll give it a try. Suppose we say that 'nature takes its course' by virtue of God's will, knowledge, and act. In a word, through God's 'guidance'. I think this stretches the conventional sense of 'guidance' too far, but let's accept this as 'guidance', for the sake of argument. My thought is that the conventional sense of 'guidance' necessarily reappears. For part of our concept of God is that he orders the world in a way we find comprehensible. We try to capture this ordering in our notion of the laws of nature. If there are to be miracles then we must see these as exceptions to the laws of nature---else they could be assimilated to the laws and would no longer be miraculous. And so we arrive at the idea of God's 'guiding' the world, in the normal sense of the word, in his working of miracles. Take away this sense of 'guiding' and we lose the sense of 'miracle'.<br /><br />Secondly, I don't see the connection between guidance and knowledge, that you emphasise. Ordinary guidance can occur without knowledge of what will happen without it. Guidance is usually given when expectations are high of things going wrong if the guidance is not given. How does this square with God's omniscience? What is he supposed to know? Is it the future without his intervention; or is it the future with his intervention; or is it that he knows how the future would depend on his intervention, a kind of if--then--else conditional? But this objection assumes God's guidance is ordinary guidance, of course, so you are free to reject it. Nevertheless, the knowledge connection is unclear to me.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39493901284411319982014-04-02T13:44:23.833-07:002014-04-02T13:44:23.833-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87886090965765277912014-04-02T07:22:25.885-07:002014-04-02T07:22:25.885-07:00"To make it crystal clear: Let's say I hi..."To make it crystal clear: Let's say I hide a bean under one of three cups. Reasoning according to the One True Religion fallacy, since the bean cannot possibly be under all three cups, it must therefore be under none of them."<br /><br />Oh, well that proves it. Hinduism is true after all. To make it crystal clear: I've looked at the "cup" of Christianity very carefully, and examined it from many angles. No bean there.<br /><br />On the other hand, maybe the fallacy is in your dumb little example. You make the assertion that there is in fact a bean. I don't think so.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81677820079547625512014-04-02T06:06:48.963-07:002014-04-02T06:06:48.963-07:00Cale,
There's actually a logical fallacy call...Cale,<br /><br />There's actually a logical fallacy called "The One True Religion" fallacy, in which a person (erroneously) concludes that, since <i>all</i> religions cannot be true, it follows that <i>none</i> of them are. A child could spot the flaw in such reasoning.<br /><br /><b>To make it crystal clear:</b> Let's say I hide a bean under one of three cups. Reasoning according to the One True Religion fallacy, since the bean cannot possibly be under all three cups, it must therefore be under none of them.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41733996129534041482014-04-02T04:49:39.057-07:002014-04-02T04:49:39.057-07:00As for the question of religious pluralism, I'...As for the question of religious pluralism, I'd love to debate you on this topic. So why not do so? You obviously think that discussing these issues is worthwhile enough to keep on posting about them in Reppert's comments, but, in case you hadn't noticed, few people respond to you anymore. And, it's not as if you don't have the time to do this.<br /><br />How about it?Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35890145756630742602014-04-02T04:39:27.444-07:002014-04-02T04:39:27.444-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64587680262209836872014-04-02T03:41:10.789-07:002014-04-02T03:41:10.789-07:00Cale B T
"You obviously want to discuss this ...Cale B T<br /><i>"You obviously want to discuss this topic, so how about that debate, papalinton?"</i><br /><br />Ohh I don't think a debate would be of any value or worth. Your initial premise of the actuality of a jesus-god atonement is mythos with no historical grounding. The leap of faith from the Romans having might executed a disgruntled insurrectionist and dumping his body to a vicarious atonement of all of humanity's 'sins' is a Dan Brown-like saga of immense hubris. You will appreciate and acknowledge my position once you understand why it is that both you and I, equally, reject the fable of Shiva's divine atonement or the veracity of the existence of the Angel Moroni and the Golden Tablets of Mormonism. <br /><br />Here is the Atonement of Shiva: <i>"Bhikshatana is considered a gentler form of Shiva's fierce aspect Bhairava and a gentle phase between Bhairava's two gruesome forms, one of which decapitates the god Brahma and the other of which murders the god Vishnu's gatekeeper.[4] Bhikshatana is the form of Bhairava that Shiva assumes to atone for his sin of severing Brahma's fifth head. He wanders the universe in the form of a naked Kapali mendicant, begging for alms with Brahma's kapala (skullcap) as his begging bowl, until his sin is expiated upon reaching the holy city of Varanasi."</i><br /><br />So which is the truth? The truth of Shiva's atonement or the truth of jesus-god's atonement? And remember just as a billion catholics believe in the jesus-god atonement so too do a billion Hindus believe in the atonement of Shiva, for whom the expatiation continues unfulfilled because He has yet to reach the Holy City of Varanasi. Which of these two strongly and equally reverent and fervently held beliefs should humanity chose as THE correct story, the one and only universal truth?<br /><br />I've been a Chrisian, Cale, I know it inside out. I didn't lose my faith. I grew up, matured and set aside childish things, the belief in supernatural superheros being one of them. You would do well to face Islam front on and Hinduism and mormonism and attempt to convince them of the truth of Christianity and why it is far superior to all other belief systems that are ..... well, just wrong. Right? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84399766638274828812014-04-01T20:02:58.763-07:002014-04-01T20:02:58.763-07:00You obviously want to discuss this topic, so how a...You obviously want to discuss this topic, so how about that debate, papalinton?Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52490159866924276712014-04-01T17:05:12.791-07:002014-04-01T17:05:12.791-07:00The reality is that nature would take its natural ...The reality is that nature would take its natural course regardless of and without foreknowledge and fore-willing of any god construct. The superfluity of the god hypothesis is best illustrated by the bewildering array of supernatural hero-warrior archetypes humans have imagined [including jesus-god] matched only by the bewildering variety of cultures out of which these god-like icons were spawned. Which is the right god? The muslims say Allah, the Hindus say Shiva or Ganesha or Brahma, the christian says jesus-god, the Australian Aborigines say the Great Serpent of the Dreamtime, the Egyptians said Osiris and Isis, the Romans said Mithra, and the scientologists say Xenu. The god-hypothesis is an irrelevancy to any discourse on nature. <br /><br />And people are slowly beginning to understand the nonsense that falls under the rubric of theism, christianity no less so.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37061074552773227402014-04-01T15:14:13.402-07:002014-04-01T15:14:13.402-07:00@Dave
"'scientific distinguishing' i...@Dave<br /><br />"'scientific distinguishing' is a restricted or limited kind of distinguishing that lacks the full resolving power, as it were, of unqualified distinguishing."<br /><br />That's what I was getting at, yes. Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74955697170561547092014-04-01T14:37:10.857-07:002014-04-01T14:37:10.857-07:00David,
Can you explain why you think it doesn'...David,<br /><br /><i>Can you explain why you think it doesn't 'work'?</i><br /><br />When you talk about 'nature taking its course', you're talking about it taking a course that God foreknows, even forewills. Granted, you can say that this happened eternity ago or outside of time, but at the end of that day you're still dealing with exactly that. It's 'guided' in every conventional sense of the word, unless you're stipulating that God has no idea what nature will do next, etc. Which, again, is going to run far afield of what science can possibly hope to test and demonstrate.<br /><br />I think the problem here is thinking there must be one of two 'stances' that science/a scientist has to take on the subject re science: 'Nature is guided' or 'Nature is unguided'. I think there's a third category: 'We have no idea whether nature is guided or unguided. The entire question is outside of scientific consideration.' This goes equally for physics as it does for evolution.<br /><br />Talk about God 'not interfering with the process of speciation' has two senses it could be understood in: 'God engages in no proximate, active intervention' and 'God has no idea what the results of speciation will be, had no role in orchestrating them at any level, does not foresee them, etc'. The former could obtain while nature is still ultimately 'guided'. The latter could not, but good luck advancing that claim via science. And yet I think it's clear Coyne, etc, would sooner choke than restrict themselves to the former - because that would mean evolution (insofar as science alone is concerned) is entirely compatible with guidance and ultimately design.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82191762153089245972014-04-01T04:56:22.615-07:002014-04-01T04:56:22.615-07:00Hello Cale, At 10:42 PM, you said
If we have two...Hello Cale, At 10:42 PM, you said<br /><br /><i>If we have two possible scenarios:<br />1. I roll my unloaded dice. God exists and infallibly foreknows and fore-ordains the result.<br />2. I roll my unloaded dice. God doesn't exist.<br />I think that those two scenarios are indistinguishable scientifically.</i><br /><br />Presumably you think that these two situations are distinguishable somehow, but that 'scientific distinguishing' is a restricted or limited kind of distinguishing that lacks the full resolving power, as it were, of unqualified distinguishing. Could you make this a bit clearer for us?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80290650617733785372014-04-01T04:54:08.096-07:002014-04-01T04:54:08.096-07:00Hello Crude,
DB: So if our concept of God as agen...Hello Crude,<br /><br />DB: So if our concept of God as agent permits the idea that he can stand back and let evolution take its course, even though he is seen as the creator of nature itself, then we can reasonably speak of evolution as unguided.<br /><br />C: I don't think this works, or at least the qualification is going to absolutely gut what most people (including evolutionary biologists) apparently mean by unguided. In fact, it doesn't seem possible to really square 'unguided' with 'scientific'.<br /><br />Well, yes, much hangs on what we understand by '(un)guided'. My comment at 5:59 AM (do wish Blogger numbered comments) was an attempt to understand Victor at 4:18 PM, where he supposes that 'God does not interfere with the universe throughout the process of speciation'. I had hoped it would prove uncontroversial! It certainly fits with my notion of 'unguided'. Can you explain why you think it doesn't 'work'?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com