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 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: References: <8a7npjlromvn6bm5d0687ghs7qfbtho2bo@4ax.com> 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 Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 211C722978C; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 04:37:45 -0500 (EST) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2E16229783 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 04:37:42 -0500 (EST) by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.98) for talk-origins@moderators.isc.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1testf-00000003PlU-33S9; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 10:37:40 +0100 by nntpmail01.iad.omicronmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB6C6E1877 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 09:37:36 +0000 (UTC) id 4B0234C0182; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 09:37:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Path: fx39.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail X-Original-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 09:37:35 UTC Bytes: 11001 On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 17:43:42 +1100, MarkE wrote: >On 31/01/2025 8:44 pm, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 11:26:01 +1100, MarkE wrote: >> >>> On 31/01/2025 2:44 am, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> rOn Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:44:44 +1100, MarkE >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29/01/2025 11:59 pm, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:57:03 +1100, MarkE >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 29/01/2025 2:58 am, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:29:24 +1100, MarkE 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 ==========