Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ROK
Came across this on a site when I googled biblical age of earth, more info to convince me I will never know the true age of the earth …… unless I am shown by God!!
Looks like I will have to learn Hebrew if I try go at Genesis alone!!
For the moment I will concentrate on the future!!!
“Computing the age of the earth and universe from the creation date of Adam & Eve:
There is a further complexity introduced by the creation story in Genesis itself.
Even if one were to accept the biblical genealogies as truth, this only traces the creation of Adam back to perhaps 4000 to 8000 BCE.
But the time interval from the creation of the universe to the creation of Adam is a matter of intense debate among bible-believing creationists.
That is because of the ambiguity associated with the Hebrew word “yom” which appears frequently in the Genesis creation stories.
It is translated as “day” in all of the English versions of the Bible of which we are aware.
But it can also mean an indeterminate interval of time.
Most young earth creationists believe that “yom” means a day of 24 hours.
This puts the date of creation of the universe according to a literal interpretation of the Bible at 4000 to 8000 BCE.
However, old earth creationists suggest that each of the six “days” of creation might have taken many hundreds of millions of years.
Further, there might have been one or more long intervals of time between some of the “days.””
…. you see the problem with translation!!!
Here is a joke meant to lighten some heavy talk and highlight what translation …. in this case actually copying … can do.
I mean no disrespect.
If it makes you think for a moment and smile, it would have accomplished its intent.
A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old canons and laws of the church by hand. He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript.
So, the new monk goes to the head abbot to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up. In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.
The head monk says, “We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.” So, he goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held as archives in a locked vault that hasn’t been opened for hundreds of years.
Hours go by and nobody sees the old abbot. So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing, “We missed the “R”, we missed the “R”. His forehead is all bloody and bruised and he is crying uncontrollably.
The young monk asks the old abbot, “What’s wrong, father?” With a choking voice, the old abbot replies, “The word was CELEBRATE!”
I would not even go the route of arguing that they are all wrong but from the point of view that none can prove their belief, none should be favoured in a society where several exist.
Furthermore, religious persecution and intolerance should be against the law. Live and let live.
@John…..
Funny indeed….BUT….be very careful..ROFLMAO!!
Anonymous // January 3, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Technician,
It is humbling to read Luke 6: 27- 42 and Luke 13:25-27.
Oh…I know the verses, almost by heart.
But seeing that each is entitled to his own opinions and interpretation (as seen on this blog already) May I humbly ask you to explain to me (in laymans terms preferably) what you are really trying to say?
You see, even though you quote the Bible, it can be attributed to either side, should I then, use the fact that, it being your quote, assume how and to whom the verses are directed to, for and against?
Just speak your mind !!
@ Zoe….
It honestly does and I am sure you can see why.
How can they have this relationship?
Why would God allow this, knowing what they practice?
Look….this is real confusing and it is Sunday, I will look back at your replies later, hopefully GP could cut it up into bite-sized chunks for better digestion for me or a Sir Gary analogy….those work well…..time for NFL.
Technichian asked
How can you be part of the institution that worship crass idolatry (contrary to the “true” church re. Zoe’s) and still have a relationship with God?
VERY EASILY
One’s relationship with God is a personal thing and is NOT necessarily a function of their place of worship.
There was no church or institutions when Adam related to God, or Enoch walked with God before his translation (Gen 5:24).
There was no church or institutions when Noah or the Patriarchs or Joseph, Moses, Caleb, Joshua, Samuel, David, Daniel Ezra, Nehemiah or any of the good kings of Judah related to God.
There are many RC’s, Anglicans, Methodists etc who are saved and walk with God because they have accepted Christ as their personal Savior.
Do you know the thousands of folk around the world that sincerely gave their hearts to Christ in Billy Graham crusades, for example, who then returned to their apostate churches where they have not been taught the Word of God or properly discipled?
These folk are clearly part of institutions that worship crass idolatry (contrary to the “true” church) and still have a relationship with God?
@ GP….
These folk are clearly part of institutions that worship crass idolatry (contrary to the “true” church) and still have a relationship with God?
But isn’t this wrong ?
That is like a drug selling policeman or a pedophile pediatrician to me.
@GP….
Maybe what I should ask is….. do these people know or believe that these institutions to which they belong are practicing crass idolatry?
If they know and still belong, aren’t they then hypocrites?
Aren’t they then fooling themselves thinking that God does not know?
Why not then move away from the institution….. similar to what Zoe did?
Technician
@ GP….
These folk are clearly part of institutions that worship crass idolatry (contrary to the “true” church) and still have a relationship with God?
But isn’t this wrong ?
That is like a drug selling policeman or a pedophile pediatrician to me.
NO It is not necessarily so . Remember religion and church attendances and following Christ are not synonymous. You could not get a more ardent Anglican than I was. I saved my lunch money to ensure I had bus fare to get to choir practice and church on Sundays.
42 years later I still love Anglican hymns and the pointing of a psalm by Kings College Choir or any of the top English Cathedral choirs is still a delight to me.
But after the first Sunday morning I attended Sunday School at the Church at which I was discipled, I did not go back to the Anglican church, because there was teaching going on……..and I was interested in learning!
I was lucky to have got the teaching and methodology that I got.
Many folk who hear the gospel and are converted are never properly taught thereafter. It makes a difference.
Your Question .
Maybe what I should ask is….. do these people know or believe that these institutions to which they belong are practicing crass idolatry?
These people might not know or think that they are practicing idolatry. And even if they knew or thought so, they are not necessarily hypocrites., because to be Anglican or RC etc is part of your culture depending on where you live. Many of our Catholics in Barbados have origins in St Lucia or Dominica etc where the RC church is prominent.
People might sincerely want to relate to God and believe that the form in which they worship or place where they worship is the place to go. It is all they have ever known. It is not for us to condemn them but to enlighten them to what the Bible clearly teaches (that is if you are really going by the Bible.)
Re Aren’t they then fooling themselves thinking that God does not know?
They have probably not thought about it. The devil loves religious folk, and he seeks to keep folk religious; he just does not want them to get into the Word or continue in it. He persistently has his followers on BU scoffing at the idea of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES AS COMMANDED BY JESUS IN JOHN 5, or in STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES as clearly taught in 2 Tim 2:15. He does not want individuals to follow the pattern of the saints at Berea in Acts 17 , who searched the scriptures for themselves to see if what .
I was an ardent religious ignorant Anglican who knew his prayer book, had like John gone to confirmation classes and had become a confirmed sinner. But I was not once told that CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH TO DIE FOR MY SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.
I can still remember some of the collects I learn etc. Had I not gone to a church where there was SYSTEMATIC SEQUENTIAL STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES I would not know anything else either. But I went to a little church where they taught me the Word and how to learn it for myself.
Re Why not then move away from the institution….. similar to what Zoe did?
Some don’t for fear of being criticized or ostracized. Even in the contiguous RC dominated islands this might mean having to leave your home; even denied the privilidge of attending the best schools which are RC schools..
Some just love their church with the big organ some love the pomp and circumstance and ceremony and the robes and the vestments etc
“Even in the contiguous RC dominated islands this might mean having to leave your home; even denied the privilidge of attending the best schools which are RC schools…”
Imagine being denied an education because you don’t share christian beliefs… then let’s talk about evil.
Onlookers:
The above onward discussion — for want of a better term — aptly illustrates what happens when the habitual willful distorter runs into trouble on the facts at stake: change the subject, distort the new issue into a strawman, and attack the person.
Now, above, it is clear that ROK has resorted to slander, and on being corrected has doubled down to playing the Hitler card.
In short, sadly, he has chosen to act dishonourably.
(And, whoever tried to indulge a turnabout false accusation simply showed yet another tactic from the bag of rhetorical tricks: turn an accusation about if you can. in fact onlookers can see that I have scrupulously avoided use of specifically pejorative terms, rather than descriptive ones. Of course, such then will pretend that a descriptive term is a personal attack, in a further attempt at turnabout accusation.)
This thread is plainly over on the merits, and it is clear that ROK has been unwilling to be corrected on his false claim that the Hebrew tradition and the Christian faith are derivative of Egyptian paganism.
Not to mention his specific slander that GP, Zoe and the undersigned have taught that Jesus is a blondy blue eyed white man’s god.
It is also quite evident that he is unable to address on the merits the central warranting argument of the gospel, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth with 500+ witnesses and a church that has shown the outpoured spiritual power though that gospel ever since.
So, let ROK understand that such dishonourable conduct and unwillingness to face unwelcome truth goes strongly to character. And, not to his advantage.
So, he has some serious reflection to do, and some serious amends to make.
And, those indulging in enabling behaviour that directly or indirectly supports such dishonourable conduct, should reflect on what hey are doing to not just a blog thread but civil socie3ty in our region.
G’day
D
PS: While I have no intent to get into debates on origins science in this thread — previous threads having shown to the satisfaction of any serious onlooker that the evolutionary materialist case is irretrievably bankrupt — when we see such confident reconstructions on the remote past and such confidently attached dates, it would do well for those involved to assess the many circularities and known unreliabilities in the associated dating methods. And, beyond that, it would behoove them to reflect on the remarks of God out of the storm: Weer you there when i crated the heacvens and her earth? Plainly, not. So we should not darken cousel by pretending to a knowledftge of he unobserved, unrepeatable, past that we cannot have. And so it would be wiser to humbly propose models of the past, with all teh cavgeats that attach to modelling. We were not there,a nd it may just be that he who was there has something to say to us on the matter.
PPS: If anyone thinks that evolutionary materialist-dominated Wikipedia is credible on origins science, s/he is utterly naive and ill informed on the key flaws in Wikipedia. (And BTW this is where we have another angle on the Climate gate scandal: someone used moderator privileges to edit 5,000 articles to reflect the alarmist position [and related ideas and views], and eliminated 500 articles from Wikipedia. How naive we often are!)
Ouch on formatting, sorry.
@Dictionary
When you were cutting and pasting from the wiki, it was not seriously flawed, was it? But has become so very recently?
“…and it is clear that Dictionary is unwilling to be corrected on his false claim that the Hebrew tradition and the Christian faith are not derivatives of Egyptian paganism.”
@ROK……….Continue to cut them loose and use their own ignorance against them!
@Anonymous………..”But it is probable that the views of Zoe et al, Crusoe, ROK , Hopi and many others and are all invalid. Crusoe erred in claiming validity for all views. What should have been claimed is the invalidity of all views. That we err is the only truth”
Have you ever heard the sayings ‘that a picture is worth a thousand words’ and ‘it is etched in stone’? The evidence is there. The Ancients preceded all these johnnies-come-come lately. But don’t take my word go and do the research for yourself. And to say that ‘WE ERR IS THE ONLY TRUTH’ is based on what or whose truth? Yours? There must be some TRUTH against which we err.. What is it?
@Bush Tea…………Since when did Hopi claim any religion to be the correct one? Again I have always said that the Ancients preceded the johnnies-come-lately and despite the fact that the invaders tried to destroy all the evidence, some of it is still there. It still resonates with ‘SOME’ of us.
And Where does your brilliant starting point lead us?
Why don’t we just throw everything out the window and start with Bush-tea’s religion?
@Dictionary
“It is also quite evident that he is unable to address on the merits the central warranting argument of the gospel, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth with 500+ witnesses and a church that has shown the outpoured spiritual power though that gospel ever since.”
First and foremost, even with 500+ witnesses and a church of millions of people, this is no proof that jesus christ is god.
It is so funny that you speak of a world view, yet with a world that is hundreds of millions of years old, you are focussed on the last 10,000 years, not even a peephole view of this world. That is so narrow as to be minuscule.
One thing I will say from the experience of today …. it just gets clearer and clearer in my mind that the Creation story of the Bible is true and will stand against any theory thrown at it.
It just makes sense.
I got to thank you ROK for exercising my brain and watching what few “known” pieces of evidence exist fit so well.
Previously I just accepted it was true.
Now I know it.
Thanks.
You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which IS NO HEAT, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as ‘cold’ otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptibe to study when it has or transmits energy, and HEAT is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Therefore, zero (-458 F) IS the total absence of HEAT. In other words, COLD is only a word we use to describe the *absence* of HEAT. We cannot really measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because HEAT is energy. Cold IS not the opposite of heat, just the ABSENCE of IT!
Also, Darkness is NOT something; it IS the absence of SOMETHING. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, BUT, if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it IS called DARKNESS. That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness ISN’T. If it were you would be able to make darkness, darker, but you can’t!
Also, DEATH is not something, DEATH is not a substantive thing. Death is NOT the opposite of LIFE, DEATH is the ABSENCE of LIFE!
We all know that the world IS full of EVIL, crime, violence, murder, hatred, unforgiveness, and the list goes on and one. God did NOT create evil. Evil IS the result of what happens when mankind DOES NOT have God’s LOVE present through Jesus Christ in his heart. It is like COLD that comes when there IS no HEAT; or DARKNESS that comes when there IS no LIGHT!
Evil, Deceit, LIES, falsehood, etc, etc., all enter man’s heart, when God’s LOVE, in Christ IS ABSENT!
Almighty God IS LOVE!
Jesus Christ IS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD!
@John
I am happy for you.
Onlookers
First a few footnotes;
1] When you were cutting and pasting from the wiki, it was not seriously flawed, was it? But has become so very recently?
ROK here continues his slanderous strawman attacks. (Notice, no apology, no attempt to make amends for dishonourable conduct. Sad, but telling. If there is no civility, Civil Society will collapse. And so will its institutions and organisations. that is one way we know that incivility is morally indefensible, i.e. by an application of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.)
As ROK would know if he cared, I have stated in the basic primer on critical thinking, that 99% of practical arguments depend on authorities, starting from the dictionary. But, no authority is beter than his/her facts and logic, so, it is necessary to test and assess the facts and reasoning behind its claims.
In the case of Wikipedia (etc: even Britannica and Oxford dicitonary are not flawless!) onlookers will observe that I often cite it as a “humble” or “generic” or 101-level benchmark source, and do not cite it with approval save where I have reason to believe it accurate.
Perhaps ROK will recall where I have said that Wiki is now the benchmark of 101-level evolutionary materialistic, secular humanist thought, and that our remarks have to be in light of its claims, so that we are at least as informed, and are able to correct.
On topics such as origins science and climate issues, Wiki is utterly unreliable, as has been well proved; a problem that even extends to insistently slanderous biographies of those whose views its moderators do not like.
So, another slanderous strawman is exposed.
2] “…and it is clear that Dictionary is unwilling to be corrected on his false claim that the Hebrew tradition and the Christian faith are not derivatives of Egyptian paganism.”
A slanderous, naked turnabout false claim.
Above it is ROK whose claims have been exposed, step by step, complete with the actual legend of Osiris contrasted with the NT summaruy of he gospel and its prophetic underpinnings.
How does ROK respond? by trying a turnabout quip.
Utterly telling on his want of cogent argument on the merits of fact and logic, especially once the facts are in play for all to see.
3] The evidence is there. The Ancients preceded all these johnnies-come-come lately. But don’t take my word go and do the research for yourself.
But, we have looked at the star evidence, and have plainly seen that the alleged roots are a matter of distorted over-reading of the Egyptian thought, without proper regard for the sort of requirements for demonstrating actual rootedness.
That is, using the tests for the similar issues on the roots of the Homeric cycle, and inserting numbers:
“It is all too easy to run eagerly after superficial parallels which cannot really be sustained under a closer scrutiny. Accordingly, [1] the parallels must have similar ideas [i.e. worldviews and key concepts] underlying them and, [2] second, any suggestion of influence requires that the parallels be numerous, complex and detailed, with a similar conceptual usage and, [3] ideally, that they should point to a specific myth or group of related myths in Mesopotamia. Finally, [4] the parallels and their similar underlying ideas must involve central features in the material to be compared. Only then, it would seem, may any claim stronger than one of mere coincidence be worthy of serious consideration”[Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod. Charles Penglase. Routledge:1994.]
Coming out the starting gate, the Biblical worldview is Creational and Monostheistic, while the Egyptian is Polytheistic-pagan. Worse, there is a specific history of contention between the two views, rooted in the origin of the independent Israelite nation, so the likely linkages will be anti-parallels, i.e. specific positions of distancing — which are there all over the Pentateuch, the Wisdom writings and the Prophets, as well as the NT.
So, the Afrocentric Egyptian roots case stumbles coming out of the starting gate.
4] And to say that ‘WE ERR IS THE ONLY TRUTH’ is based on what or whose truth? Yours? There must be some TRUTH against which we err.. What is it?
Half marks.
That “[t]here must be some TRUTH against which we err” is correct. Indeed, that error exists is itself an undeniable truth and one that is warranted to demonstrative certainty so knowable truth exists. And, the truth that we err about is “that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.” [After Ari, Metaphysics 1011b.]
As already pointed out.
5] First and foremost, even with 500+ witnesses and a church of millions of people, this is no proof that jesus christ is god.
Onlookers, first, observe that ever so telling lack of capitalisations.
Now, let us go back about 750 years, and see a little prophetic context on the specifically predicted death, burial and witnessed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth [which BTW to moral certainty proves that he is Lord of Life and of Death, which run straight into the implications underscored in Jn 1:1 – 4: “1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it. “]
To wit, God’s taunt to the demons behind the idols of paganism :
Is 45:P 20 “Gather together and come;
assemble, you fugitives from the nations.
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood,
who pray to gods that cannot save.21 Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD ?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.24 They will say of me, ‘In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.’ ”
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.Is 46: 5 “To whom will you compare me or count me equal?
To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?6 Some pour out gold from their bags
and weigh out silver on the scales;
they hire a goldsmith to make it into a god,
and they bow down and worship it.7 They lift it to their shoulders and carry it;
they set it up in its place, and there it stands.
From that spot it cannot move.
Though one cries out to it, it does not answer;
it cannot save him from his troubles.8 “Remember this, fix it in mind,
take it to heart, you rebels.9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
there is but one Saviour, before whom we shall bow the knee and acknowledge his Overlordship, and it is the same who predicted step by step 700+ years ahead of time the rejection, salvific death, burial and witnessed resurrection of the Messiah.
Indeed, let us hear the words of a C1 creedal hymn that specifically applies that text from Is 45:
5 . . . Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
So, now that we know or should know just whom is the Saviour and Messiah and Lord — attested by the resurrection from the dead with over 500 witnesses and a stream of life transforming outpoured power and blessing for millions down to today — the real issue is what we will do about what we know, or should know.
[ . . . ]
6] t is so funny that you speak of a world view, yet with a world that is hundreds of millions of years old, you are focussed on the last 10,000 years, not even a peephole view of this world. That is so narrow as to be minuscule.
Hear again the prophecy of Peter, even on the eve of his own crucifixion for stalwart witness to he risen Christ whom he knew and conversed with, even over the breakfast that Jesus prepared by the Sea of Galilee:
2 Peter 3:3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a]
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b]That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation
As to the notion that a long age earth and cosmos would remove the significance of this, let us just say that one does not tell truth by the clock, nor significance and relevance by duration. For, the very kairos concept is that there are concentrated, pivotal times that are decisive. We live in such a time, and that is the key issue.
7] with a world that is hundreds of millions of years old
As to the fallaciously confident declarations on the age of the earth and cosmos etc, and the like, let us hear again that voice out of the storm that men like ROK would do well to heed:
Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels [a] shouted for joy?8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death [b] ? [After which of course, we face the bar of eternal judgement . . . ]18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years! . . .
The age of the cosmos and of the earth are irrelevant, once we know that we were not there, that we cannot observe the actual course of the distant past of origins, and that we cannot replicate that deep past.
In short, none of the canons of true, observationally anchored empirically tested repeatable findings of science apply to the scientifically informed study of origins. And, when we do look at the evidence we can observe, e.g. by the now famous comparison of the network of cellular metabolic reactions and a petrochemicals plant, we can easily see that both run past 1,000 yes/no design decisions in cascade. And, that as such the undirected chance + necessity search resources of the observed cosmos across its working lifespan would be utterly swamped by the configuration space implied by that specifically functional organised complexity and information.
But, as the petrochemicals plant highlights, such FSCI is routinely produced by intelligent agents; i.e the repeatable observations and reliable inductions from them that we can make point decisively to intelligence as the root of life as we observe it.
And, the physics of the cosmos that hosts that life is per the relevant models ROK was appealing or alluding to, show a miulti-dimensional fine tuning of the cosmos that strongly points to design and implementation by a powerful extra-cosmic intelligence intending to make a cosmos in which life is feasible. (And yes, that sounds very much like the God of the Bible. that is why there is so much controversy and censorship against the implications of the otherwise commonsensical inference from FSCI to design. Shades of Rom 1:19 – 32!)
A cosmos in which terrestrial, watery planets in spiral galaxy Galactic Habitable Zones and with the minerals of life in abundance will be extraordinarily rare on a hypothesis of undirected chance + necessity. (And I footnote, the very stratigraphic column that ROK is implying is WATER-LAID.)
In short, the appeal to great age of the cosmos and the earth is yet another red herring led out to a strawman, sustained by censorship of the relevant science and its true import.
7] Censorship”
Indeed. let us hear the Lewontin remarks in the infamous 1997 NYRB article, yet again — so hard is it to soak in:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . .
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
In short, these men KNOW OR SHOULD KNOW what the real results of science point to, and resort to censorship and irrationality to avoid it.
irrationality?
Yes: for, the epistemological claim that we are to be induced to accept — “Science, as the only begetter of truth” — is an epistemological, i.e. philosphical claim, not a scientific one. it contradicts itself and is both necessarily false and a reduction to absurdity or irrationality. Worse, when in the teeth of no empirically and logically grounded requirement, one imposes an absolute materialism on findings, one is indulging in censorship that subverts science from its true path:
Science, at its best is the unfettered (but intellectuality and morally responsible) pursuit of the truth about our world, based on observed evidence and reasoned, uncensored discussion among the informed . . .
___________
So, Peter was plainly right on the latter-day scoffers and their tactics.
G’day
D
PS: O/T but illuminating on what is going on: latest spin on the Dead Sea scrolls story. (Somebody infernal does not want the undisputable evidence in the public’s eye and is stirring up his dupes, folks . . . )
Footnote:
On spiritual warfare as worldview corrective argument.
We often quote part of the following text, but do not realise the import that can be brought out by the Amplified Bible:
2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (Amplified Bible)
4For the weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood], but they are mighty before God for the overthrow and destruction of strongholds,
5[Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) . . .
So, onlookers, kindly bear with the tedious work of addressing endless barrages of fallacious and too often slanderous objections. the principal weapon of eh Adversary is deception, and as we saw form the discussion of Jn 8, if he can get us to swallow lies we will be then inclined to reject the truth because it cuts across what we believe.
PPS: If ROK had troubled to be fair and accurate, he would for instance have noticed that in a footnote on the discussion of closed mindedness in my often-linked note on Selective Hyperskepticism [which he needs to read and ponder], I said this on Wikipedia about the problem of indoctrination:
* It is worth noting that it was unusually hard to find a serious, detailed, balanced and objective discussion of this key concept on the Internet; including in that well known generic reference, Wikipedia. It was therefore saddening — but utterly revealing — to then find the just following in that encyclopedia’s discussion on indoctrination: ” Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one’s own ideas.” (This is of course precisely a case in point of diverting the naive reader from being critically aware on a significant and dangerous possibility for abusing science for indoctrination in various avant garde schools of thought that are often precisely capital examples of propagandistic advocacy, misleading or outright deceptive manipulation and indoctrination. And, given the painful and at points horrendous history of Social Darwinism, the eugenics movement and several other claimed scientific schools of thought over the past 100 years, this is inexcusable. In our day, the self-referentially incoherent and amoral worldview of evolutionary materialism often operates under the false colours of “Science,” even seeking to redefine science to suit its agenda. The 2009 Climategate scandal shows through leaked materials how even leading research and international institutions are not immune to bias, manipulation of data and processing, selective reporting of findings, suppression of limitations, abuse of influence of the peer review process in Journals, Conferences and reports to suppress valid alternative views, and the subsequent indoctrination of the public through resulting deceptive iconic case studies and illustrations.)
Those above who naively thought that ROK had scored rhetorical points and so crowed about the hit scored by their champion, should take heed as well: rhetoric and soundness are usually on the opposite sides of the fence.
All they have shown is that they have fallen victim to a strawman fallacy, yet again.
Footnote, 2:
It seems I need to lay to rest the long since over-ripe corpse of the slander that I — and others for that matter, eg GP on Biochem and Zoe on theology, etc –am blindly citing authorities.
So, I will explicitly lay out — yet again — some basics on warrant, knowledge, discussion and epistemology, with particular reference to the proper use of authorities. This time, from the Phil toolkit session of my lecture course on intro to phil:
_____________
>> 1. Logic vs. Rhetoric
Aristotle, in his The Rhetoric[1], aptly but wryly observes:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . . [The Rhetoric, Bk I ch 2; HT the deeply appreciated Dr Mertel Thompson of UWI Linguistics and Use of English Dept, c. 1986; who first pointed me to this classical antecedent to what I had been slowly thinking out for myself.]
Thus, a clear distinction has long since been drawn between persuasion by proof (or apparent proof) and that by appeals to emotions and/or to the credibility of an authority or speaker, not to mention, outright spin/propaganda tactics. Since, there is a common tendency to either blindly follow emotions or authorities on the one hand, or else to — equally blindly — dismiss them when they do not tell us what we wish to hear on the other, it is worth pausing to remark further on this pattern of appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos:
1. Facts and Logic: Strictly, only the appeal to “facts” and “logic” actually has the potential to prove its conclusions [within limits . . . ]. For, the mere intensity of our feelings or even the depth of our feeling of “certainty” [or for that matter, our degree of doubt] cannot ground any conclusions. Likewise, no authority is better than the facts, assumptions and reasoning behind his or her opinions. This is why we should examine claimed facts and inferences from them carefully, to see if such “facts” are true and representative of the truth, and that conclusions follow logically from these premises.
2. Explanations: Of course, logic also plays a role in the “opposite” kind of reasoning: abductive explanation. For, sometimes, we need to provide an explanation for the credible facts. In that case, if facts F1, F2, F3, . . . Fn are puzzling, but if we accept explanation E, at once the facts follow logically, so E is an explanation for the facts, which provide empirical support for E. But, E has NOT been proved: there are often other possible explanations: E1, E2, E3 etc. So, we need to compare alternate explanations on factual adequacy, ability to predict new facts accurately, logical coherence and explanatory power, in order to infer that any given explanation is the best [current] explanation of the facts. That is how worldview analysis works, and it is how scientific models or theories and historical or jurisprudential explanations work as well. Explanations are, plainly, defeatable reasoning: for, “new” facts or issues over logical consistency and simplicity/ad hocness can overturn such an explanation.
3. Authority: Moreover, appeals to authority — starting with a good dictionary or credible eyewitnesses, teachers and other technical experts — are a practical necessity for almost all real-world arguments; so we must discipline ourselves to authenticate the “authorities” we appeal to. We should also be alert to bias, mistakes, debatable assumptions and other limitations. For, a good authority can save us much time and effort, and when in doubt, if an authority is credible, it may well be wise indeed to heed his or her opinion. (For instance, that is often the critical issue in matters of history, where selective hyper-skepticism can lead to systematic and foolish inconsistencies when one gives in to the temptation to be unreasonably skeptical about claims one is not comfortable with. Modern biblical studies, sadly, provides a capital case in point.)
4. Emotions and Perceptions: Even more subtly, an emotional response may well rest on an accurate perception of a situation, so we need to inquire carefully [where it is appropriate to do so — if you see an out-of-control car headed your way, JUMP!] into the credibility — trustworthiness, perceived and real — of the underlying perceptions, beliefs/doubts, intuitions and judgements that are the cognitive basis for our felt emotions. However, plainly, we must always be wary of being blinded by our feelings, fears, ideals, prejudices, assumptions, impulses, lusts, greed and/or envy, or even by unmet needs.
5. The appropriate place for Rhetoric: Having duly noted all of this, rhetorical approaches and issues — if only in self defense — are still vital, especially if the audience may not have the education, time or inclination to follow out a detailed demonstration, or may simply be unwilling [or, just as bad sometimes, is only too willing] to listen to a given presenter of a case. For, sadly, actual proofs and/or inferences to what is indeed the best current explanation are often the least persuasive arguments: they take too much time, effort and attention. So, credible persons should present cases, and in so doing, they should make appropriately logical but easy- to- follow, honest appeals to credible facts, authorities and sources or witnesses, as well as to accurate perceptions, to well-founded and upright motives of the heart, and to the conscience. For, as the key real-world example of the success against all odds of the antislavery movement of the C18 – 19 shows — and as 2 Cor 4:1 – 2 & 10:4 – 5 with Eph 4:9 – 24 (esp. vv. 14 – 15 & 17 – 24) discuss — these are proper, effective, and even vital in many all- too- important real-world situations.
Plainly, though, it is only when an argument is anchored in true fact-claims that represent the truth in a situation, and such facts are surrounded by good reasoning, that conclusions and proposals are correctly arrived at and/or wise. In short, we must sharpen and use well-formed epistemological, logical, ethics and dialogue tools if we are to achieve progress in loving and living by wisdom. We now turn to these tools.
2. Epistemology
It has been classically said that knowledge is “justified, true belief” — as the Oxford English Dictionary confirms. This leads to key questions: Can we know? Can beliefs be justified? Can we be confident that we know?
This issue is subtler than one might think. For, over the past several decades, so-called Gettier counter-examples have been identified: cases [sometimes, somewhat contrived] in which one is subjectively justified in holding a belief that happens to be true, but in fact objectively one is not warranted to claim the belief as knowledge. An example discussed by Moreland and Craig in their Philosphical Foundations for a Christian Worldview [Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003], p. 75, is that of a man believing he is watching a live championship match, and concluding that a certain team has won. But, in fact this is the second time that the same two teams have met, and due to technical difficulties, he is in fact seeing a rerun of the previous match that just happens to have the same outcome. Now, he is [subjectively] justified and believes what just objectively happens to be true, but it obviously hardly counts as a case of knowledge. To resolve this, Plantinga has introduced a slightly different terminology [and a massive, 3-volume technical discussion to back it up!] for an objective justification, i.e. warrant.
Warrant of course, comes in degrees, and is in at least some cases defeatable but credible at whatever level is appropriate. This is consistent with the implication of the above considerations on logic, explanation and proof, i.e. that there are at least some important cases where even confidently held knowledge is not absolutely certain. Indeed, that is also a longstanding conclusion of Simon Greenleaf, a father of the theory of evidence, as stated in his famous 1874 work, Testimony of the Evangelists — of course, using less technical language:
In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd . . . .
In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated:
A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.
By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt . . . . If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. [Testimony, Sections 26, 27, emphases added.]
[ . . . ]
Now, also, Science – “knowledge” in Latin – is today’s dominant contender for the title: “provider of reliable (or at least probable and credible) knowledge,” and it has a great inherent plausibility because Scientific methods are often glorified common sense: sophisticated extensions to how we learn from day to day experience. But, while such methods and their findings have a proven track record of success that has positively transformed our world, there are in fact many limitations to scientific knowledge claims.
A little deeper glance at Charles Sanders Peirce’s Logic of Abduction (also cf. here and here or even here) concept rapidly shows why:
1. Observations of the natural (or human) world produce facts, F1, F2, . . . Fn; some of which may seem strange, contradictory or puzzling.
2. However, if a proposed law, model or theory, E, is assumed, the facts follow as a matter of course: E is a scientific explanation of F1, F2, . . . Fn. [This step is ABDUCTION. E explains the facts, and the facts provide empirical support for E. In general, though, many E’s are possible for a given situation. So, we then use pruning rules, e.g. Occam’s Razor: prefer the simplest hypothesis consistent with the material facts. But in the end, the goal/value is that we should aim to select/infer the best (current) explanation, by using comparative tests derived from the three key worldview tests: explanatory scope, coherence and power.]
3. E may also predict further (sometimes surprising) observations, P1, P2, . . . Pm. This would be done through deducing implications for as yet unobserved situations. [This step, obviously, uses logical DEDUCTION.]
4. If these predictions are tested and are in fact observed, E is confirmed, and may eventually be accepted by the Scientific community as a generally applicable law or theory. [This step is one of logical INDUCTION, inferring from particular instances to — in the typical case, more general — conclusions that the instances make “more probable.”]
5. In many cases, some longstanding or newly discovered observations may defy explanation, and sometimes this triggers a crisis that may lead to a scientific revolution; similar to Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift.
6. Thus, scientific knowledge claims are in principle always provisional: subject to correction/change in light of new evidence and analysis.
7. But also, even when observations are accurately covered/predicted by the explanation, the logic involved has limitations: E => O, the set of current and predicted observations[2], does not entail that if O is seen then E follows: “If Tom is a cat then Tom is an animal” does not entail “Tom is an animal, so he must be a cat.”[3]
In short, scientific knowledge claims, at best, are provisional; though they are usually pretty well tested and have across time helped us make considerable technological, health and economic progress.
Other common bases for knowledge claims are similarly limited:
* Sometimes, it is felt that we can directly know some things, i.e. we have intuitive knowledge. For instance, we are immediately aware of our minds, memories and perceptions of our surroundings. This is challenged on the grounds that it is very subjective and our senses, memory, perceptions and feelings are notoriously unreliable at least some of the time.
* In other cases, some things are said to be self-evident: to understand the concepts involved and how they are tied together makes the conclusion immediately “clear”, e.g. 2 + 3 = 5. Of course, this leads to the questions: are the concepts properly defined[4], and are the conclusions as obvious as some allege?
* Other claims are held to be undeniable: for, to deny them ends in absurdity. E.g. try to deny that “Error exists,” or “Knowledge is possible.” Most famously, Rene Descartes – founder of modern rationalism and skepticism — said: “I doubt that I exist. But, to doubt is to think. I think, so I am.” But, not everyone agrees!
* Maybe, we can derive certain knowledge through correct reasoning from undeniable premises? This is the rationalist ideal. (But, not only will this severely limit what we can know – it would throw out 90+% of science, not to mention almost all of our ordinary knowledge about day to day life! – but also the very “undeniable premises” are often hotly contested. And, what is “correct reasoning”?)
* Those who are impressed with Science suggest that scientific methods are the gold standard of knowledge. Some follow A J Ayer and Antony Flew and assert that — apart from Mathematics-like claims where the truth is essentially a matter of definition of concepts — only what is verifiable/ falsifiable through empirical testing should be regarded as meaningful. But, such methods are at best provisional. Worse, the criterion refers to and contradicts itself as it is neither true by definition nor empirically testable.
* In many cases, we rely on “credible” authorities or witnesses or records. That’s inevitable, but sooner or later, we come across mistaken or even deceitful authorities, lying or incompetent witnesses, and missing/ misleading/ false/ corrupted records.
* Most controversial of all, if God exists and speaks, then what s/he says will reflect the undiluted, untainted Truth, Power, Knowledge and Wisdom of Divinity: absolute truth through revelation. But, there are many contenders to that exalted status, or what is subtly nearly the same thing: God’s [practically] error-free Prophet or teacher/interpreter. Sometimes, the list may include some of our more arrogant scholars, artists, entertainers, religious or cultural figures and community or political leaders . . . or even the face in the mirror. (Not to mention, the power to interpret can easily become the power to change meaning.)
So, our human knowledge claims generally embed limitations, gaps and possibilities for error and challenge. The best we can do is to be open-minded and critically aware, consistently applying the worldview tests: (1) factual adequacy [i.e. explanatory scope relative to the material facts], (2) logical coherence, and (3) explanatory power [relative simplicity, predictive/descriptive accuracy and comprehensive unity of thought].
Tom Morris also adds the principle of conservation of beliefs[5], also called the principle of credulity, as a counter-weight to unbridled radical skepticism. In essence, the principle asserts that:
it makes good sense to stick with your current body of beliefs — and to have confidence that your basic belief forming mechanisms are generally reliable — unless there are compelling reasons to accept a radical alternative.
For instance, consider Bertrand Russell’s 5-minute universe argument. We could not come up with empirical evidence to disprove the idea that the cosmos was created in an instant five minutes ago, complete with records, artifacts, memories, breakfast in our tummies, etc. So, which hypothesis should we accept: our present one or the 5-minute universe? Why?
Answer: to accept the 5-minute universe theory would require overthrowing not only nearly all of our current beliefs, but our instinctive, intuitive common-sense trust in the general — as opposed to absolute — reliability of direct perception, experience and memory, etc. So, in the absence of, say, actually discovering utterly convincing evidence that we live in the modern equivalent of “Plato’s Cave” — as is imagined in The Matrix — it would make no sense to take such a radical hypothesis seriously. However, this leads us to three key lessons:
* First, Lord Russell’s 5-minute old universe argument shows that empirical evidence, records, perceptions, memories and the reasoning that depends on such can never amount to proof beyond all rational dispute or doubt. For, it is always in principle possible to find a way to construct a skeptical argument that [if we were to accept it] could lead us to doubt any belief-anchored system of thought — and that inevitably includes any worldviews that implicitly assume the general quality of the testimony of our senses, reasoning faculty [including language capacity] and memories etc. (Hint to radical skeptics and/or rationalists: Try to construct a skeptical/rationalistic worldview that does not assume at least some of these things . . .)
* Secondly, we therefore have to:
(i) implicitly trust the general reliability of our common-sense, intuitive mental faculties [as Thomas Reid championed in C18 in rebuttal to David Hume’s empiricist skepticism]; and,
(ii) exert what William James called the will to believe [replying to W K Clifford’s C19 Evidentialism], as we make forced, momentous choices among the live options open to us.
* Thirdly, it is thus perfectly logical to use this necessity of trust as a basis for rejecting as implying absurdities such arguments or worldviews as may entail the general untrustworthiness of our common-sense mental faculties: if R then NOT-Q, but Q, so NOT-R, i.e. denying the consequent [NOT-Q] to reject the antecedent [R], is perfectly valid. [This of course includes the 5-minute universe argument, but it also may well count tellingly against far more significant cases. (E.g.: cf. here for a recent argument by Alvin Plantinga, that this reductio ad absurdum argument gives us a right to reject naturalism as a self-defeating worldview. My much simplified discussion is here.)]
In short, it is quite rational to hold to certain core beliefs — and to generally trust our basic belief-forming mechanisms — without asking for proof or evidence: such beliefs are properly basic.[6] >>
_____________
(And if you think that course excerpt is a mere matter of blindly stitched together mechanical citations, I invite you to easily find and link a similar summary of the issues, ideas, techniques and tips given on that page. [In short, we see here yet another case of a subtle, shameless, dishonourable slander against my knowledge base. So, let us correct it.])
BTW, a good citation of a competent authority on a subject where the facts and reasoning are there, is an excellent way to learn.
If we are teachable . . .
D
David:
Looks like the opening part is in the mod pile. Sorry to trouble you.
D
PPPS: A treasure from the vaults: Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief as a PDF. Call it my New Year Present to BU’s readers.
So other than the scientific method, what other approaches cause an increase in useful and morally responsible knowledge? Will you accept say Buddhist teachings?
Please clarify but you seem to trying to cast ‘science’ into a negative light. [I am aware that there are those seeking acceptance of their views by claiming that these are “scientific” when anything but scientific. However the same scientific community and its apparently deprecated methods usually exposes the sham.]
P4s: Some very familiar manipulative rhetorical tactics at work at global level on Climate science and on the polarised psuedo- consensus manufactured through those tactics. (In short, we are seeing a global level manipulative intellectual stronghold here that needs to be overturned a la 2 Cor 10:4- 5.)
Science does indeed seem to accept the Adam and Eve story …..
…. as it stumbles from discovery to discovery.
Here is an example of what dna is showing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/999030.stm
The problem is that the human body did not come with a technical manual so the best science can do is stumble!!
No doubt science will zero in as Sir Humphrey used to say in Yes Prime Minister … in the fullness of time.
By then it might start to twig that Adam and Eve could also be Noah and Naamah or more correctly, Noah and Noah’s wife.
Anonymous:
You know or should know by simply following an already given link — see the pattern of discourtesy and strawmanising, onlookers? — that I have laid out a framework for evaluating warrant, at comparative worldviews level.
Buddhism will need to address issues of comparative difficulties, starting from outlining its frame of the world and presenting its key warranting argument then justifying on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power, on its own terms and compared with other major live options.
[And in turn the way that has to be handled depends on just which kind of Buddhism we are dealing with. Just as one try-point, should we be dealing with Monist wordviews in which “one is the number of truth and two that of error,” then we have to address the deep challenge of the problem of he one and the many. Cf how Redemptive trinitarian Monotheism does so, in a quick intro-level survey, here.]
Excerpting a bit above the sections just presented — since those who wish to object, sadly, refuse to do the basic courtesy of following a link:
__________________
>>INTRODUCTION: The heart of philosophy is worldview analysis: assessing the factual adequacy, logical coherence, and explanatory power of individual worldviews, and also on a comparative basis across alternative systems. For, as Hasker [Metaphysics. IVP, 1983. Ch. 1] summarises, such testing properly focuses on three key issues:
1. Factual adequacy: Does a worldview’s scope of explanations/insights (and predictions) account across time for and comfortably agree with the material “facts”– those that make a difference to our conclusions and decisions? Are there key gaps, and/or contradictions to such “facts”? Are these claimed “facts” warranted to an appropriate degree? Relative to competing worldviews, are there fewer gaps and/or contradictions to such credible, well-warranted “facts”? But also, sometimes, quite diverse views are empirically equivalent, so “facts” generally under-determine the truth. That means that the two further tests are vital:
2. Logical Coherence: Do the claims within a worldview (and their implications) support or deny one another? For, if two such claims/implications contradict, at most one can be true. (NB: Both may be false, or may refer to empty sets and so are vacuous. If a contradiction is important and cannot be excised without utterly changing the worldview into something else, this issue can be decisive. That is why the problem of evil is so important, and why the question of the evident incoherence of naturalism is also important, as has been ably discussed by Alvin Plantinga.) On the other hand, is the worldview’s key warranting argument merely circular; i.e. is it self-consistent, but at the cost of assuming what should be proved? However, on pain of absurd infinite regress, it is also manifest that the chain of proofs, explanations and evidence has to stop somewhere. So, is the resulting faith-/ presuppositions- point at least comparably credible to that of “live option” alternatives? Now, too, as systems rub up against alternatives and more and more credible facts, they are often “patched,” over and over, to keep them “viable,” i.e. matching facts and avoiding circularity or self-contradiction. But, too often that is at the expense of becoming a patchwork of ad hoc assumptions. Thus, the third test arises:
3. Explanatory Power — i.e. simplicity vs ad hocness: Credible worldviews UNIFY the facts/entities of reality as we discover them across time, showing how they relate, interact and/or work together; thus, giving us powerful insights, clear vision and solid, sustainable guidelines/principles for thought, decisions and life. [Cf. Prov. 1:1 – 7.] This helps equip us to know, love and live by, wisdom — the ultimate goal of philosophy. In turn, wisdom allows us to understand, predict and influence/shape the world, to the good. To do that unifying task well — as William of Occam argues, in his famous “Razor”: hypotheses should not be multiplied without necessity — worldviews should use a relatively few, plausible but powerful core beliefs that are consistent, tie together the material facts, bring out the dynamics that drive how the world “works,” and give us “handles” by which we can influence the course of events towards the good. Thus, such a worldview should avoid the continual need to patch newly discovered gaps by repeatedly tacking on yet another assumption or assertion. For, if that happens, the resulting view soon becomes an ad hoc patchwork of after-the-fact claims, “justified” by the argument that these additions patch holes in the system. (Ignoring or suppressing such gaps and/or censoring discussion of them is even worse — and, too often resorted to by those whose credibility and interests are invested in a socially powerful but failing system. Cf. Plato’s Parable of the Cave, and also Matt. 6:22, John 3:19 – 21, Rom 1:18 – 32, and Eph 4:17 – 24.) But equally, Einstein aptly observed that every theory should be as simple as possible — but not simpler than that. That is, there is a difference between being simple (or, “elegant”) and being simplistic: failing to come to grips with the credibly established complexities — and sometimes just plain strangenes and mystery — of the world. So, relative to the live options, is the view more or less elegant or an ad hoc patchwork; or, is it simplistic?
Now, since worldviews notoriously bristle with difficulties relative to these three challenges, a process of comparative testing is a key element in practical philosophising. At its best, this comparative difficulties process is carried out through dialogue constrained by logic; while bearing in mind associated issues of knowledge and ethics. Therefore, at least a basic ability to effectively use such tools in the community of the informed (and in the general public!) becomes critical to success in loving and living by wisdom; raising the challenge of:
1. Logic vs. Rhetoric . . . . >>
_________________
So, poof, on the invited inference that I — and evangelicals generally — am being narrow- minded. (Remember, this is from a compulsory course in a leading theological seminary in the Caribbean.)
So, good ole Peter is still “batting 1000” on his predictions on the latter-day scoffing objectors, folks!
G’day
D
Thanks David
ROK
Why is science looking for an Adam and Eve?
@Dictionary
“So other than the scientific method, what other approaches cause an increase in useful and morally responsible knowledge? Will you accept say Buddhist teachings?”
What is wrong with Buddhism? They are Buddhist who have live fulfilled lives and many other peoples of various who live fulfilled and spiritual lives without christianity.
As a matter of fact, Buddhist faith is a lot more spiritual rewarding than christianity. You barking up the wrong tree here, because you are insinuating that Buddhism is satanic or demonic.
If that is your view, it speaks to your lack of respect for others. You only believe that your faith is true but there is absolutely no truth in that.
Christianity is about materialism. See them in their Sunday-go-to-meets. See how they frown at poor people. See how they are embarrassed if they can’t put anything in the collection. How many don’t go to church because they don’t have the clothes.
When it comes to spiritual food, christianity is at the bottom of the ladder. Christianity teaches you not to pay attention to your spiritual self.
Dreaming is taboo, for example, and they don’t recognise dreaming as part of the natural make-up of man but we cannot deny that it is. Praying is an outward thing, spoken pre-determined words, rather than from the heart.
There is not much spiritual fulfillment in Christianity. The philosophy is one thing, but the spirituality is completely void. It is as if Christianity really don’t care about the spiritual self so long as people’s behaviour conforms to expectations.
The teaching that the body is the temple is mere idle words. Christians fill their bodies with all the excess and corrupt foods that the west sells them. Except for the Seventh Day Adventists, all the rest of christendom continue to sin against their bodies, big time.
The wages of this sin is long suffering, pain and poor quality health especially in senior years; both mentally and physically.
The Buddhist can teach you a thing oe two fella!
@John
Why is science looking for Adam and Eve? Well you may refer to it as Adam & Eve, but basically I interpret that to mean that they are seeking to find the cradle that bore the first man and the first woman.
Don’t get tied up. Within the context of the biblical characters, such a description cannot be taken as literal.
let’s put it this way. There is a theory that some higher intelligence modified the genes of homo erectus to make homo sapiens. Just as we messing with genetic modification today. Adam & Eve would therefore be referring to the final results of that first experiment.
By the way John, we talking about 500,000 years ago.
ROK
Here is the first link that came up when I googled oldest skeleton.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/01/oldest.human.skeleton/index.html
It is supposedly 4.4 million years old. Found in what is now Ethiopia.
It is interesting that the article on dna has an age of the oldest woman at 150,000 years and that she lived about 70,000 years before the first man!
Don’t put too much reliance in science.
It has served us well but doesn’t have al the answers.
@John
You know a song that goes something like, “You’re so vain, you think I am talking about you.”
You remind me of that song with your question.
Onlookers
The irresponsible scoffing continues, sadly.
After serial slanders, unapologised for — and without correction from the blog’s leadership, David — ROK now tries yet another strawman.
Instead of even more fallacies, he needs to take the time to read on the process of informed choice of worldviews based on comparative difficulties. (FYI, ROK, I have practiced this procedure for decades, and have come to my own conclusions for myself on serious and searching examination of alternatives.)
ROK, sadly, evidently wishes to short circuit that process and simply rhetorically dismisses — ex cathedra — the millions over he 20 centuries who have found the Christian faith answers to their deepest needs, and has poured forth into our lives the resurrection power of him who proved himself Lord of Life and of Death by rising from death with 500+ witnesses. One through whom we have met and been trasnformed by God.
but no, ROK imagines he can sweep this all away with a closed-minded dismissal:
There is not much spiritual fulfillment in Christianity. The philosophy is one thing, but the spirituality is completely void. It is as if Christianity really don’t care about the spiritual self so long as people’s behaviour conforms to expectations.
Has ROK troubled to consult the annals of 20 centuries of the lives of the great saints and Christians, or even just his neighbours who have met god, even people who comment in this blog thread?
Take, for instance Pascal who encountered the living God on Nov 23 1654?
MEMORIAL
In the year of grace, 1654,
On Monday, 23rd of November, Feast of St Clement, Pope and Martyr,
and others in the Martyrology,
Vigil of St Chrysogonus, Martyr, and others,
From about half past ten in the evening until about half past
twelve,FIRE!
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, (Ex 3:6; Mt 22:32)
not of the philosophers and scholars.
Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
“Thy God and my God.” (Jn 20:17)
Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except God.
He is to be found only in the ways taught in the Gospel.
Greatness of the Human Soul.
“Righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee,
but I have known Thee.” (Jn 17:25)
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have separated myself from Him.
“They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters.” (Jn 2:13)
“My God, wilt Thou leave me?” (Mt 27:46)
Let me not be separated from Him eternally.
“This is eternal life,
that they might know Thee, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.” (Jn 17:3)
Jesus Christ.JESUS CHRIST
I have separated myself from Him:
I have fled from Him,
denied Him,
crucified Him.
Let me never be separated from Him.
We keep hold of Him only by the ways taught in the Gospel.Renunciation, total and sweet.
Total submission to Jesus Christ and to my director.
Eternally in joy for a day’s training on earth.
“I will not forget thy words.” (Ps 119:16) Amen.
That refusal to face the truths he knows or should know, and that are easily accessible to him were he to simply be willing to investigate with an open mind — including on comparative difficulties — is absolutely telling.
But not unexpected on the now prolonged track record of slander and disrespect amounting to — sadly — dishonourable conduct.
Sad, ever so sad.
(And a case that has plainly gone well beyond mere issues over reason and fact to strong diagnostic symptoms of spiritual problems requiring prayer. So — on the explicit instructions of our Lord — I must now request that the reader pause for prayer for this sadly deluded man. For, there is One who breaks the strongholds of Strong men, and sets free the most deeply captivated and bound.)
G’day
D
There is nothing more dangerous than an overgrown ego in people who takes themselves too seriously!!
@ john
It reallllll whitish so it would sound true to you!
Stupse!!!!
Such as y’self Techie?
(In short, onlookers, yet another rhetorical fallacy on personalities; in a context that — as was put up step by step this morning so no excuses about “I did not notice/click the links” can be made — demands serious comparative difficulties analysis on the merits. What does that suggest on the actual balance on the merits? And,as to the gravity of what is at stake, Our Lord wants that it is no profit to gain “the whole world” but lose one’s very soul. these are issues over truths that we know or should know and where they point on our duty tot he truth and the right. [Diversions on personalities are simply distracting red herrings.])
When I was a little boy it was fashionable to read, to learn to excel.
My father taught us if you are going to be a garbage collctor, be the best!
Today we scoff at those who have read, who have learned, and who have excelled in the areas of thier preference.
We major amd wallow in mediocrity and are satisfied that we have arrived thereby.
I have been mocked repeatedly on this blog for being bright and havig attended HC (things about which I had no control). I have been mocked for having been exposed to , and having embraced a methodology to studying and searching the Scriptures,, and being able to rightly divide it.
Zoe has been scoffed at because he declares the truths of God’s word fearlessly and acurately to readers who have learned nothing in their years of religion and chuyrch attendance.
Dictionary has been mocked repeatedly because the has read widely on Bible, Science, Logic, Philosophy etc
And some have sucessfully and deliberately hijacked the tenets introduced for discussion that JESUS IS COMING SOON TO JUDGE.
BUT the fact remains that
THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
is IMPORTANT
IMMINENT
IMMIGRATINAL
IMMORTALITY
IMMANUEL
IMPENDING , and that it will have
IMPLICATIONS for BOTH believers and unbelievers.
You can talk all the rubbish you like, you can scoff as much as you like, but you cant change the facts, because all the activities in our contemporary world indicates that JESUS IS COMING SOON!
The Eternal Word.
“In the beginning *was* the *Word* and the *Word* WAS with God, and the *Word* was God.”
He was in the *beginning* WITH God. ALL Things were *MADE* through Him, and without Him, *nothing* was made.”
In HIM was *LIFE* and the *LIFE* was the *LIGHT* of men.”
“And the *LIGHT* shines in the DARKNESS, and the darkness DID NOT comprehend it.” (John 1: 1-5) emphasis added.
1:1 ‘In the beginning’ An allusion to Genesis 1:1, with the intention of identifying JESUS, the Word, with the God of Creation. The event, therefore, of Jesus Incarnation, has *cosmic* significance. The WORD *IS* Jesus Christ, the *ETERNAL* ultimate expression, and exact *LIKENESS* of Almighty God.
Exegesis:
‘In the beginning’ (en archei). Arche IS definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and similar Hebrew ‘be reshith’ in Gen. 1:1. Here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of *Creation* in time to ETERNITY. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God, any more than in Genesis. It is simple assumed. Either God exist and IS the Creator of the universe, as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume, or matter is eternal, or it has come out of nothing.
“Was’ (en) Three times in this sentence John uses the imperfect of ‘eimi’ to BE, which conveys NO idea of origin for God or for the Logos (Jesus), simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egento, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos (Jesus). See the distinction drawn in 8: 58 ‘before Abraham came (genesthai) I AM’ (eimi, timeless existence).
‘The Word’ (ho logos). The term ‘Logos” is applied to Christ only in John 1: 1, 14 and Rev. 19: 13 and I john 1:1 ‘concerning the Word of LIFE” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). But, the personal Pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:66f.; Col. 1:17) and in Heb. 1:2f. and in John 17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than ‘sophia’ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the ‘aeon’ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics).
The pre-existent Logos “became flesh’ (sarx egeneto, verse 14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
‘With God’ (pros ton theon). Though existing *eternally* with God the Logos (Jesus) was IN perfect fellowship with God. ‘Pros’ with the accusative, presents a plane of *equality* and *intimacy* face to face with each other. In I John 2:1 we have a like use of ‘Pros’: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (parakleton echomen pros ton patera0. See ‘prosopon pros prosopon (face to face, I Cor. 13: 12), a triple use of ‘Pros.’ The absolute knowledge of our intimacy with one another, that IS the Eternal relationship between the Logos, Jesus, and the Father, Almighty God.
“And the Word (Jesus) WAS God” ( kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language, John denied Sabellianism, by NOT saying ‘ho theos en ho logos’. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ‘ho logos’ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. However, the SUBJECT is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24, ‘pneuma ho theos’ can only mean “God is Spirit,’ NOT “spirit is God.” So, in I john 4:16 ‘ho theos agape estin’ can only mean “God IS Love,” NOT, ‘Love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.
So, in John 1:14 ‘ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the WORD became flesh,’ NOT, ‘the flesh became Word.” The Logos, Jesus, who BECAME flesh, WAS eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son.
‘The same’ (houtos). ‘This one,” the Logos of verse 1, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John’s style. He links together into one phrase, two of the ideas already stated separately, ‘in the beginning He was with God,” ‘afterwards IN TIME, He came to be with man.” Thus, John clearly states of the LOGOS Pre-existence BEFORE Incarnation, Personality, absolute Deity.
“All things” (panta). The philosophical phrase was ‘ta panta’ (the all things) as we have it in I Cor. 8:6; Rom. 11: 36; Col. 1:16. In verse 10 John uses ‘ho kosmos’ (the orderly universe) for the whole. “Were made” (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of ‘ginomai,’ the constative aorist, conveying the *Creative* activity looked at as one event, in contrast with *HIS* continuous, eternal existence of ‘en’ in verse 1 and 2.
All things “came into being.” Creation IS thus presented as a becoming (ginomai) in distinct CONTRAST with *HIM* being (eimi). ‘By Him’ (do autou). By means of HIM, Logos, Jesus in the work of Creation.
What is here presented, IS, that the Logos, the Word of God, who Jesus WAS and IS, Created the Universe. This is again echoed in Hebrews (1:2) names God’s Son, as the one “through whom He made the ages.” Paul pointedly asserts that “ALL THINGS stand Created THROUGH Him, and unto Him” (Col. 1:16).
“With out Him” (choris autou). Old adverbial preposition, with the albative as in Phil. 2:14, ‘apart FROM.” John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in John 1:20 and I John 1:5. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal, and that the angels or aeons had a share in creation.
‘Not anything’ (oude hen). “Not even ONE THING.” The verb is second perfect active indicative, of ‘ginomai.’ NOT one single THING, came into *existence* without HIS Creative, Eternal Power!
‘In Him was LIFE” (en qutoi zoe en). That which HAS come into being (verse 3) in the Logos (Jesus) WAS LIFE. The power that Creates, and *SUSTAINS* LIFE, in the Universe, *IS* the Logos, Jesus Christ. This IS what Paul means by the perfect passive verb ‘ektistai’ (STANDS CREATED) in Col. 1:16. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (John. 11:25). This is the idea in Heb. 1:13 “bearing (upholding) the ALL THINGS by the *Word* of His *POWER*.
Once, this language might have been termed unscientific, but, not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans, et al. Usually in John ‘Zoe” means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited, and includes ALL life; only it is not ‘bios’ (manner of life), BUT, the very principle or essence of LIFE. That is spiritual behind the physical, and to this, great scientists to day agree.
It is also *personal* intelligence and power.
“And the LIFE was the LIGHT of men.” (kai he zoe en to phos ton anthropon). Here the article with both ‘Zoe’ and ‘Phos’ makes them interchangeable. “The LIGHT was the LIFE of men” is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists, who find electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call Himself the *LIGHT* of the world (John 8:12). John is found of the words LIFE and LIGHT, in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos (Jesus) in His relation to the race. He WAS and IS the LIGHT of men ( ton anthropon, generic use of the article) and the LIGHT of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.
“Shineth (phainei). Lenear present active indicative of ‘phaino,’ old verb from ‘phao,’ to shine (phaos, phos). ‘The light keeps On giving LIGHT.” In the darkness (en tei skotiai). Late word for the common ‘skotos’ (kin to ‘skia’ shadow). An evident allusion to the darkness brought on by SIN. In II Peter 2:17, we have ‘ho zophos tou skotou’ (the blackness of darkness).
The ‘Logos’ Jesus Christ, IS the only real moral LIGHT, for HE keeps on SHINING, both in His Pre-incarnate state, AND, after the Incarnation, in His Glorious Resurrected, Ascended seated position, at the Right hand of the Father, in absolute, Majestic Glory.
John uses ‘skotia’ (skotos) for the MORAL DARKNESS of Sin, and ‘phos’ )photizo, phaino) for the LIGHT that IS in Christ Alone. In I John 2:8, he proclaims that “the darkness is passing by and the TRUE LIGHT is already shinning.”
“Apprehended it NOT” (auto ou katelaben). Second aorist active indicative of ‘katalambano’, old verb to lay hold of, to seize. This very phrase occurs in John 12: 35 (hina me skotia humas latalabei) “that DARKNESS overtake you NOT.” the metaphor of night following day and in I Thess. 5:4 the same idion (hina katalabei) is used of day overtaking one as a thief.(Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol V, pp. 3-7) emphasis added.
Yes, spiritual DARKNESS, blinds the souls, minds of men, from apprehending, the LIGHT of the world, which IS Gloriously manifested, and radiated through JESUS CHRIST *Alone* without HIM, one CANNOT comprehend OR apprehend Truth, as DARKNESS, is the absence of His LIGHT!
AMEN
Let me now with sarcasm say to all that Zoe has sinned grieviously by being able to exegete the opening verses of John’s gospel and compare it with other related scriptures, in the manner that he has done.
No Bajan ought to be able to do that! And furthermore dare to post it on BU. That is showing off, for on BU it is illegal and sinfull to display any sort of scholarship or evidence of having studied God’s word.
It is far better to quote Wikipedia- which all US schools tell their students up front IS UNACCEPTABLE AS A SOURCE. Thus Wikipedia can not be quoted as a reference.
It is far better to stray from the topic at hand and rant and rave about all irrelevant matters under the sun.
Most hilarious!
Zoe I thank you again for this most excellent, exquisite, edifying , educational and eridite exegesis of the opening verses of John chapter 1.
NEVER let the unwarranted scoffing and mocking of your detractors, deterr you from presenting the WORD of TRUTH and about the One who is TRUTH, in season and out of season.
May God bless you richly in 2010 for declaring the riches of his grace.
Continue to SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES, CONTINUE IN HIS WORD as commanded in John 8:31, and STUDY to show yourself approved and continue to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH.
Some will learn, many will scoff and hate you, because you chose to be not of this world, even though being in the world.
Alas it is true as my late departed granny drill into my little head in the mid fifties, “You can take a horse to water, but you cant make him drink; you can send a fool to college, but you cant make him think.”
Surely as is written “the god of this age” has blinded the eyes and the minds of many, so that they prefer to remain in darkness, rather than coming to the light. He has blinded thier eyes such that they remain in his grip, rather than in coming to the blessed Savior, whom to know is life eternal.
The three of you like you running a relay race.
@GP, you scoff at everybody calling them ignorant, idiot and however you feel like putting them down. You can share but can’t receive. You are no respecter of any person that speaks different to you.
What therefore are you complaining about? I am sure that I have gone on record on this blog several times appeal for the abuse to stop but it went on. Now I hope you understand that you don’t have any monopoly on abuse.
Abuse is abuse, whether you think that it is for a god-given reason or not. Being “god-given” does not excuse the abuse, as a matter of fact makes it worse.
The problem with you is that somebody tell you that to read is to know all, and because you have read you think you should know all and that your reading has taken you to excellence in all things.
Sadly you have not demonstrated that reading alone can bring excellence, especially when you read narrowly, scoffing at what you consider to be not of your quality or standard. Scoffing at knowledge is not good by any standard.
@GP
“And furthermore dare to post it on BU. That is showing off, for on BU it is illegal and sinfull to display any sort of scholarship or evidence of having studied God’s word.”
So you want your bat and your ball because you get out? Certainly that is not a fair comment. You want to come in here and run slip-shod over people and now you see that can’t happen you gone with your tail between your legs.
left to you it would be illegal to have another faith except christianity; just what you charging above. Let me say that all you have is a faith and until the day that you can understand that, you will surely be miserable. There is no absolute truth in Faith and I will die saying that because it is true.
If you truly understood what belief and faith mean, you would be at peace with yourself, but obviously you want something confirmed to be the truth, you not interested in faith.
So you think you can go and buy it at the supermarket or order it and it will appear. The stark reality is that such truth does not exist and the only thing you can do is believe that it exist; nothing more. You can’t get blood out of stone.
You have no shame. After all the pompesetting that you do, look what childishness you come back her with?
But you know what? This behaviour is telling me that in your judgment, I and others have cast some doubt where it matters most. I do not think that I have converted one single soul away from christianity in this forum and that was not my goal.
My goal here is to make you understand that what you have is a belief and that in the same way you hold your belief, others must be respected for theirs.
My goal also is to curtail the dishonesty of christians telling people they have absolute truth and then begin by saying “I believe”. It is not logical and it cannot stand. It is deceptive. People have free choice.
For me, you can believe in a million christs and gods, that is your business. I know where I stand and has as much right to remain there as you have to believe in christianity.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.