Science and pantheism

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@eyeillustration

How about coming down on someone else for a change?

I already do. You’ve got plenty of company.

@Klax

You need to submit to science the way God does.

I’m glad the rocks and trees reflect God’s glory - making science possible in the first place.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@eyeillustration

I’m not YEC.

You said:

@eyeillustration

The strata of the earth with its fossils etc. ‘looks’ old from a naturalistic perspective. From a philosophically supernaturalistic perspective, however, it could possibly be young.

That is a YEC argument, and as I pointed out, one that is factually untrue at that. If you don’t want to be thought of as a YEC, don’t make YEC arguments. Especially not factually untrue ones.

For what it’s worth, you also said this:

@eyeillustration

When I studied Geology, I believed in an ancient earth of billions of years as well as Darwinian evolution. When I became a Christian I became more convinced of a young earth but always retained doubts because of my geological training.

A word of advice here. Your geological training means that you can reasonably be expected to properly understand how science works. It means that you can reasonably be expected to understand what differentiates a good argument from a bad argument. It means that you can reasonably be expected to be mathematically literate and to understand how measurement and error bars work. It means that you can reasonably be expected to be aware that there are strict limits on what you can and can’t claim that the evidence supports, whether you appeal to “assumptions of naturalism” or not. Your brothers and sisters in Christ who don’t have any scientific training can always plead ignorance if they make untrue or misleading statements about science. You do not have the luxury of that excuse.

Not only that, but pastors and Bible teachers in your church who are in that position will be expecting that anything you tell them about science will be informed and factually accurate. If you make untrue or misleading claims about science and they then repeat them from the pulpit, you are ultimately responsible.

The bottom line: you need to make sure that you’re getting your facts straight.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@beaglelady

Have you read this book? Do you intend to read it? It looks very pricey.

Its on the list. I’m particularly interested in Chomsky.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@jammycakes

That is a YEC argument, and as I pointed out, one that is factually untrue at that. If you don’t want to be thought of as a YEC, don’t make YEC arguments. Especially not factually untrue ones.

It wasn’t an argument. I was explaining to someone else why I personally don’t fall into either catagory of YEC or OEC as that was the particular question. You don’t get to control others.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@eyeillustration

Regarding the age of the earth, I remain agnostic. I don’t have enough verifiable information to definitively say either from science or the Bible. When I studied Geology, I believed in an ancient earth of billions of years as well as Darwinian evolution. When I became a Christian I became more convinced of a young earth but always retained doubts because of my geological training. The strata of the earth with its fossils etc. ‘looks’ old from a naturalistic perspective. From a philosophically supernaturalistic perspective, however, it could possibly be young. So I can’t in honesty rule out either. So the point of divergence as I see, is the vast gulf between naturalism and supernaturalism. Some people here, I believe, find ways of marrying the two, which is interesting.

I feel for you here. You’re trapped. What has Christianity got to do with a young earth? Apart from that it sits on, emerges from, in, ANE culture. From a truly philosophically supernaturalistic perspective earth could not possibly be young. Chomsky cannot make it so and wouldn’t dream of it. Even though, like all good postmodernists, he questions rationality itself.

God expects you to bite the bullet. To worship him with all your mind. To reason with Him. And in so far as you can, you do. You are not responsible for the crisis that you are in. You are trapped by literalism. By fear. That if Genesis is untrue, then so is God; He does not exist, in Christ, the only warrant we have.

I’m sorry for your pain. Good luck. The most likely outcome in your case is that this is how you reproof your faith, but it is a Sisyphean task.

[Kendel]

@jammycakes

pastors and Bible teachers in your church who are in that position will be expecting that anything you tell them about science will be informed and factually accurate.

James, this is a really good point that is rarely brought up. Pastors rely on the few scientists they know from their congregations, to be their guides regarding science and faith, because few pastors have the kind of scientific training to evaluate the garbage spewed by organizations misusing pseudoscience as an apologetic.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

Thanks for your sympathy, I’m touched by your concern, but I think it may be a little misplaced. Just to say I’m not in any fear or pain and I don’t feel trapped.

Neither would I turn to Chomsky to resolve any of these issues. I don’t think he is a postmodernist- in that classic postmodernist sense that there is no such thing a truth. Neither is it my position. Most of the postmodernist debate he would readily admit he doesn’t understand. He would also say that some of the postmodernist commentators on science, that he has read, is actually quite embarassing.

I believe that I don’t really need to know the age of the earth as a basis for a robust Christian faith. So it really doesn’t worry me all that much.

Thanks anyway

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

So, if you are not vulnerable, if this causes you no pain, what is the dependency on supernatural young earth, in denial of natural old earth, in Christianity? In God, purpose in Christ? Does social conservatism and damnation follow from a supernatural young earth Christianity?

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@Klax

So, if you are not vulnerable, if this causes you no pain, what is the dependency on supernatural young earth, in denial of natural old earth, in Christianity? In God, purpose in Christ? Does social conservatism and damnation follow from a supernatural young earth Christianity?

I’m afraid I can’t answer for others. What I can say is that I personally don’t have such a dependency. I don’t detect one at least.

Regarding ‘social conservatism’, we need to first of all define what that is. What I do see is that what has been hitherto regarded under the broad term so-called ‘western values’, historically grounded in Christianity, are being rapidly eroded and replaced by something else. I think it is for this reason I strive to understand the philosophical thought processes (to some measure) that have lead to the present state of affairs and that this is a fair motive for being in a position to provide ‘a reason of the hope that is in you’.

For this reason I will study the ideas of secular philosophers. Not with a view to believing what they believe but to understand the development of thought.

Regarding the reasons for damnation, I leave that to the almighty believing that he is forgiving.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@eyeillustration

@Klax

So, if you are not vulnerable, if this causes you no pain, what is the dependency on supernatural young earth, in denial of natural old earth, in Christianity? In God, purpose in Christ? Does social conservatism and damnation follow from a supernatural young earth Christianity?

I’m afraid I can’t answer for others. What I can say is that I personally don’t have such a dependency. I don’t detect one at least.

Regarding ‘social conservatism’, we need to first of all define what that is. What I do see is that what has been hitherto regarded under the broad term so-called ‘western values’, historically grounded in Christianity, are being rapidly eroded and replaced by something else. I think it is for this reason I strive to understand the philosophical thought processes (to some measure) that have lead to the present state of affairs and that this is a fair motive for being in a position to provide ‘a reason of the hope that is in you’.

For this reason I will study the ideas of western philosophers. Not with a view to believing what they believe but to understand the development of thought.

Regarding the reasons for damnation, I leave that to the almighty believing that he is forgiving.

Social conservatism emerges from the last four of the genetic moral foundations and redirects the first two away from pluralism, hence it is able to justify theft of the commons, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, homophobia, inequity, oppression, war on drugs, you name it.

So what has been eroded and what is trying to replace it?

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@Klax

So what has been eroded and what is trying to replace it?

I think I see what you are driving at. The link would appear to give a particularly American view of ‘social conservatism’. Right leaning ideals held by many Christian churches in the USA which I don’t share.

BTW- For what its worth- I’m not a Marxist either.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@eyeillustration

@Klax

So what has been eroded and what is trying to replace it?

I think I see what you are driving at. The link would appear to give a particularly American view of ‘social conservatism’. Right leaning ideals held by many Christian churches in the USA which I don’t share.

That’s a generic view of social conservatism. It looks the same everywhere. What Orwell called nationalism. It’s the dominant history of everywhere to date. It’s genetic. Evolved. It obviously had survival value for hundreds of thousands of years in humans alone. Hundreds of millions of years, half a billion, in other social animals in our lineage.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@Klax

That’s a generic view of social conservatism. It looks the same everywhere. What Orwell called nationalism. It’s the dominant history of everywhere to date. It’s genetic. Evolved. It obviously had survival value for hundreds of thousands of years in humans alone. Hundreds of millions of years, half a billion, in other social animals in our lineage

What, in your view, is the social solution to the ‘genetic’ problem?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@eyeillustration

@Klax

That’s a generic view of social conservatism. It looks the same everywhere. What Orwell called nationalism. It’s the dominant history of everywhere to date. It’s genetic. Evolved. It obviously had survival value for hundreds of thousands of years in humans alone. Hundreds of millions of years, half a billion, in other social animals in our lineage

What, in your view, is the social solution to the ‘genetic’ problem?

There is none but existential crisis, which throws our hive switch. We are 95% pack monkey and 5% bee. And if it isn’t hard-wired, genetic, evolved, carnal, what is it? Original sin? There is no sign whatsoever of the eusocial switch being thrown anywhere to any significant degree. Injustice is intrinsic to all large societies. Even Norway is regressing.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@Klax

here is none but existential crisis, which throws our hive switch. We are 95% pack monkey and 5% bee.

Well I think my 5% bee must be calling me. I think its time for me to buzz off.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@eyeillustration

I think this is called begging the question. It’s merely a circular argument.

Evolution is not circular, but it is dynamic. Nature is never static.

The ecologies and biosphere we see around us here and now is just a snapshot of life on Earth, a moment in hundreds of millions of years of constant change.

Evolution is just biology over time.

[T_aquaticus]

@eyeillustration

It doesn’t necessarily follow that I personally should have any new positive evidence for a hypothesis in order to question the validity of evolution. All I need is a doubt and this is what I have.

If you are going to overthrow the theory of evolution you will need two things:

1. An understanding of what theory of evolution actually states and the mountains of evidence that currently support it.

2. Evidence of your own that falsifies the theory.

Doubt alone isn’t going to do it. It’s not as if I can doubt the theory of gravity and suddenly start floating in mid air. Flat Earthers are free to doubt the current models for the shape of the Earth, but that doesn’t mean they are right or that they should be considered equally with the scientific consensus.

@eyeillustration

What I have found fruitful for myself is to investigate the a priori philosophical basis for evolution and geology and read more widely in the so-called ‘soft sciences’ and question the belief in the power of the human mind to unravel these mysteries.

The a priori philosophical basis for evolution is the very same basis for every other scientific theory you currently accept. The philosophical basis for evolution is methodological naturalism, otherwise known as the scientific method. It is the same for every theory in science.

[beaglelady]

@T_aquaticus

The a priori philosophical basis for evolution is the very same basis for every other scientific theory you currently accept. The philosophical basis for evolution is methodological naturalism, otherwise known as the scientific method. It is the same for every theory in science.

Yup. Only nature gets to vote in scientific inquiry.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

Hee!. I don’t have to overthrow it. I just don’t ‘HAVE TO’ believe it.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@T_aquaticus

Evidence of your own that falsifies the theory.

Unless he decides to play devil’s advocate (probably doesn’t even realize how apropos that is), answering by asking how you can be so sure all that evidence wasn’t contrived by the same evil genius who is keeping your brain alive in a vat just to mess with you? Can you be sure it isn’t true? Were you there? Etc, etc.

I’ve never understood the appeal of acting as a troll.