Article <kh31qjh0714jdtgkbunhtcso2n9ka6agun@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<kh31qjh0714jdtgkbunhtcso2n9ka6agun@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!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: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 09:37:34 +0000
Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
Lines: 176
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <kh31qjh0714jdtgkbunhtcso2n9ka6agun@4ax.com>
References: <k8pcpj509sre1veqqu9q9b7iu8mrcmcp4n@4ax.com> <vn635o$1q7s$4@dont-email.me> <cf3epjhhf91ihq6i5t7mnvi5bm399146bg@4ax.com> <vn75jq$inai$1@dont-email.me> <tcvhpjhbt0k8appfn7bj7n6csa3ccd4f1g@4ax.com> <vnc1tj$23168$1@dont-email.me> <hb7kpjt1es1r8hf2r1f2h7ut28f18843ho@4ax.com> <vnfonc$2tuvu$1@dont-email.me> <8a7npjlromvn6bm5d0687ghs7qfbtho2bo@4ax.com> <vnh5as$36dlg$1@dont-email.me> <f06ppj1r3bjqs4u2rdn9ebhhd436a2gdq9@4ax.com> <vnn46t$ii1t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="97876"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 11001

On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 17:43:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 31/01/2025 8:44 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 11:26:01 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 31/01/2025 2:44 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> rOn Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:44:44 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/01/2025 11:59 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>     On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:57:03 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29/01/2025 2:58 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:29:24 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> […]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
>>>>>>>>> theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
>>>>>>>>> weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part, on
>>>>>>>>> our belief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just over a week ago, I asked you if you regard acceptance of OOL
>>>>>>>> through natural process as equating to a rejection of God. You said
>>>>>>>> no. yet here you go again relating the acceptance of natural forces to
>>>>>>>> atheism :(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you interpreting my statement
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        "An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options..."
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>        "acceptance of OOL through natural process [equates] to a
>>>>>>>         rejection of God"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key phrase in my statement is "may preference", which is nowhere
>>>>>>> near equating OOL through natural process with a rejection of God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "may preference" is a weasel-worded way of suggesting the
>>>>>> relationship whilst trying to avoid looking as if you are suggesting
>>>>>> it. Do you think that a person's worldview "might" somehow affect the
>>>>>> veracity of their scientific findings? James Watson in his later
>>>>>> years, has expressed some extremely racist views about genetics; does
>>>>>> that mean the results of his pioneering work on the DNA double helix
>>>>>> should be disregarded? Many scientists in the early part of the 20th
>>>>>> century supported eugenics; does that mean that all the scientific
>>>>>> knowledge we have gained relating to Evolution should be discarded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even suggesting that a person's worldview *might* somehow impact on
>>>>>> the veracity of their findings is utter nonsense and simply reflects
>>>>>> your own worldview and your insatiable need to somehow undermine
>>>>>> scientific discoveries that contradict that worldview.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have an oversensitivity here which is leading you
>>>>>>> misconstrue my words (again).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider your suggestions an insult to me and other theistic
>>>>>> evolutionists, implying by association that we are following an
>>>>>> atheist-driven path. Any "oversensitivity" is that despite having the
>>>>>> faults in your insulting argument pointed out on numerous occasions,
>>>>>> you persist with it, apparently thinking you can get away with it by
>>>>>> segueing from "is" to "might be".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regardless, isn't it a reasonable generalisation to say that with OOL,
>>>>>>> atheists will strongly/exclusively look to naturalistic explanations,
>>>>>>> and theists more often than not to supernatural ones?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's not a reasonable generalisation. You completely ignore the
>>>>>> fact that until roughly the later part of the 19th century, the vast
>>>>>> majority of scientific work was carried out by committed Christians,
>>>>>> Isaac Newton being a prime example. You also ignore that some of the
>>>>>> biggest steps in science were achieved by individual religious
>>>>>> believers. Copernicus was a cleric who did not let what was said in
>>>>>> the Bible restrict his work oh heliocentrism. Gregor Mendel, the
>>>>>> "father of genetics" was an Augustinian monk. Georges Lemaître who
>>>>>> first proposed the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. Even today, the
>>>>>> Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences meets regularly with the
>>>>>> world's leading scientists, both religious and atheists to discuss
>>>>>> advances in science and how they might impact upon religious beliefs..
>>>>>> Leading atheist scientists of the level of Stephen Hawkins have been
>>>>>> perfectly willing to take part in that engagement despite any distaste
>>>>>> they might have for the Church.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T repeat what I said above, this idea that scientific advance is
>>>>>> somehow affected by worldview is simply a result of your own
>>>>>> entrenched worldview.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't say this to be insulting or dismissive, but I'm calling you out
>>>>> here. Ironically, your response demonstrates the oversensitivity I
>>>>> ascribe. And I flatly disagree with your assertions, but we've around
>>>>> the block on this enough times to recognise that, well, we tried.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disappointing, but that's often how it goes here, as we both know.
>>>>> Sincerely though, for what it's worth, no hard feelings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The vacuousness of your claims are highlighted by  your failure to
>>>> even recognise let alone address the points I made about the
>>>> contribution of religious believers to science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With the assessment of our discussion that I've just made, why would I
>>> continue and address your points? Again, I don't say this with acrimony,
>>> just resignation.
>>>
>>> I have attempted with considerable effort to engage with your concerns
>>> and perspectives in previous responses.
>> 
>> No, you most certainly have NOT done so. I have asked you a number
>> times about Theistic Evolutionists and you have mostly ignored my
>> questions or tried to divert the discussion with one of your "Which of
>> these scenarios …." questions. The most I have ever got from you is "I
>> haven't ruled out Theistic Evolutionism".
>> 
>> In a recent post on this thread, I asked you "There is nothing in stop
>> anyone *right now* investigating direct intervention by God in OOL,
>> why should they have to wait until science runs out of steam?" In
>> response you said you would address it below but you didn't, you just
>> went on another of your rambles about detecting intervention and what
>> you see as the improbability of OOL through natural processes,
>> concluding "we each form our own beliefs and make our own choices"
>> 
>> I went into great length explaining my own ideas from a religious
>> aspect about how OOL could have happened, heavily influenced by the
>> ideas of Teilhard de Chardin, a  committed religious believer who did
>> try to expand our understanding of God alongside science.  All that
>> you could say was that my language resonated with the Bible, but
>> whilst you found my idea of a kind of "god field" interesting,
>> Teilhard's ideas are just another rabbit hole.
>> 
>> Despite that, I enlarged further my own interpretation of Teilhard's
>> ideas and how they could relate to OOL but you have simply ignored
>> that.
>> 
>> What you have to resign yourself to is that your worldview does not
>> square up with reality. You can have two choices. One is that you can
>> continue to form your own beliefs and focus on the easy target of
>> attacking those who you think are driven by an atheist agenda,
>> ignoring the inconvenience of those who are every bit as religiously
>> committed as you are. The other choice is that you stand back and
>> examine your current worldview but I guess you are just not ready for
>> that.
>
>I could write a similar analysis of my perceived inadequacies of your 
>responses. In fact I have at certain points in our various exchanges.

Please identify any points you made to me that I did not address. Just
one will do.

>
>Disagreement is not the problem per se. It's the way we reason and 
>communicate about this disagreement: we have mutually found that to be 
>unworkably flawed.
>
>Who is more right/reasonable here? We'd need to a third party to 
>adjudicate.
>
>However, the fact that we have reached this point means that these very 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========