Article <vnfonc$2tuvu$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vnfonc$2tuvu$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Paradoxes
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:44:44 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vnfonc$2tuvu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jebapj5i6aku8rtqsscka5rriplua5itba@4ax.com>
 <vn48vk$38qmu$1@dont-email.me> <1abbpj17tuh66eujbpl1m6dldnuf7n2vun@4ax.com>
 <vn4f6v$3edug$1@dont-email.me> <bcnbpjh50r4v9v8igrfkq298etk7gs0e8n@4ax.com>
 <vn5584$3mhc6$1@dont-email.me> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="51274"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:snEVo9N3klCNbFYNerVCQRg8Im8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <hb7kpjt1es1r8hf2r1f2h7ut28f18843ho@4ax.com>

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.