Article <fgppojtoan1om2726515f5cv30gevn0k4q@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<fgppojtoan1om2726515f5cv30gevn0k4q@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Paradoxes
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:00:10 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 189
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <fgppojtoan1om2726515f5cv30gevn0k4q@4ax.com>
References: <vm0n1k$16lsd$2@dont-email.me> <vm0r7q$178hu$1@dont-email.me> <vm7sd5$2sled$1@dont-email.me> <pvdhojpi9mdffqp9qah9im4fbq1t6i9m26@4ax.com> <vmah23$3e6d8$2@dont-email.me> <avjhoj5mt2mfdcpotq0rqops96jl212hfi@4ax.com> <vmdhjr$15ag$2@dont-email.me> <rslkojplv5j2sg9d9pecthfutp0tmdc285@4ax.com> <vmence$9594$1@dont-email.me> <1d8nojl6gg4a85v5dgting5hvqdt7iogam@4ax.com> <vmg95o$rq0n$1@dont-email.me> <6jpnoj5tqckrgt1l4nregl62o8rl7aek0q@4ax.com> <vmht00$1fpo6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="45126"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jgWrOFr73/9tc2Y7t6U2XhCYYFA=
Bytes: 10890

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 14:53:17 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 19/01/2025 4:48 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 00:09:11 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 18/01/2025 11:44 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:59:26 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 18/01/2025 12:14 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:14:51 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/01/2025 9:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:46:59 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16/01/2025 6:46 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:42:09 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, be careful to avoid a god-of-the-gaps.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, knowledge of God lies outside the province of science.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, do not rest religious belief on the science of the day.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, I suspect the thinking you espouse is the product of an a priori
>>>>>>>>>>> commitment to metaphysical naturalism. Which itself is a position of
>>>>>>>>>>> faith, for example:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." (Carl Sagan)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've already asked you this several times but you've always ignored
>>>>>>>>>> it; is there any chance of you addressing it this time?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you squareyour claim of an a priori faith-like commitment to
>>>>>>>>>> metaphysical naturalism with the many, many theistic evolutionists
>>>>>>>>>> like myself who are totally convinced of  their religious beliefs but
>>>>>>>>>> have no problem accepting the role of natural processes in both OOL
>>>>>>>>>> and Evolution?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As pointed out by Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center
>>>>>>>>>> for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism
>>>>>>>>>> is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant
>>>>>>>>>> seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I assume you meant to say "metaphysical supernaturalism"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was quoting your own words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I haven't ruled out Theistic Evolutionism. A have trusted
>>>>>>>>> and respected friends who are orthodox Christians and hold to various
>>>>>>>>> forms theistic evolution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why do you insist that acceptances of natural processes is "the
>>>>>>>> product of an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism"; does it
>>>>>>>> apply to those  "trusted and respected friends who are orthodox
>>>>>>>> Christians"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I did say was this: "I suspect the thinking you espouse is the
>>>>>>> product of an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism". The
>>>>>>> thinking to which I refer is the position of excluding the possibility
>>>>>>> of agency outside the material universe, full stop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, to me, the scientific evidence does not support a
>>>>>>>>> noninterventionist interpretation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not asking you about that. I'm asking you about your suggestion
>>>>>>>> that accepting a noninterventionist interpretation equates to atheism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're proposing "noninterventionist theism".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does this noninterventionist do then in relation to the universe,
>>>>>>> if anything?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evasion doesn't cut it. As I've said to you before, you really should
>>>>>> think long and hard about why you find my questions hard to answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine
>>>>> wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of
>>>>> theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be
>>>>> characterised as:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; detectable)
>>>>> 2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in principle)
>>>>> 3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
>>>>> 4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable)
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you express it, and where would you sit personally?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trying to change the subject is a rather feeble attempt at evasion and
>>>> as I already told you, evasion doesn't cut it, it just highlights how
>>>> you can't answer my question with undermining your original argument.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm really not trying to be evasive. I'm coming at the topic from this
>>> direction as I think it will help us progress the conversation. But
>>> happy to answer a specific question if you'd like to restate it.
>> 
>> In your reply to Kestrel and on various other occasions in the past,
>> you have expressed the view that accepting OOL arose through natural
>> processes is the product of an a priori commitment to metaphysical
>> naturalism. You describe that itself as a position of faith which
>> implies the total exclusion of God. How do you square that with me and
>> many others, including your own trusted friends, believing in God but
>> accepting OOL through natural causes?
>> 
>
>Perhaps I need to extend/clarify my position to something like this:

You are still not addressing my question. Let's make it simple for
you.

Your comments above and elsewhere suggest that you regard acceptance
of OOL through natural process as equating to a rejection of God. Is
that a fair summary of your position, yes or no?


>
>"If OoL research were to find no plausible naturalistic explanation 
>after some large amount of research time and effort, would one then 
>consider supernatural action as a possible explanation? If your answer 
>is no, that suggests an a priori commitment to either metaphysical 
>naturalism or undetectable theism."


>Definitions & clarifications:
>
>- "find no plausible naturalistic explanation" = a general consensus 
>that all known hypotheses, mechanisms and pathways have been shown to be 
>implausible
>
>- "implausible" = generally accepted as essentially physically 
>impossible or with vanishingly small probability
>
>- "some large amount of research time and effort" = an arbitrary and 
>conservatively large allowance
>
>- "consider supernatural action" = allow for this option, but with no 
>requirement to abandon further research
>
>- "suggests an a priori commitment" - at this point an unwillingness to 
>even consider supernatural agency is rationally contrary to the balance 
>of scientific evidence, and therefore is based on other factors
>
>- "undetectable theism" - the position that any and all divine action is 
>not detectable or unable to be inferred from observation/analysis of 
>physical phenomena
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========