I sometimes wonder if Creationism erodes the credibility of mainstream Christianity.
I once asked what I thought was a simple question: "How old is the earth in your opinion?"
During this discussion on Creationism, the question is asked of a Religious Apologist at least 12 times before he provides an answer. A pantheist and a Unitarian also enter the debate. They don't seem to have a problem answering the question...
I once asked what I thought was a simple question: "How old is the earth in your opinion?"
During this discussion on Creationism, the question is asked of a Religious Apologist at least 12 times before he provides an answer. A pantheist and a Unitarian also enter the debate. They don't seem to have a problem answering the question...
Re: Is creationism counter productive?
Posted by JimC on 31 May 2012 at 8:11AM
Your usage of "transcendent reality" is a term that is impossible to define, and is therefore, literally - meaningless. However - science and mathematics do discover and explain transcendent phenomena on a regular basis - assuming we can agree the term "transcendent phenomena". This is not the same as "transcendent reality". I have suggested "things beyond our every day experience" as a definition. Posted by A Religious Apologist on 1 Jun 2012 at 2:19AM
"Transcendent reality" refers to those manifestations and processes of reality that are beyond the scientific purview: that is to say, those that cannot be quantified, measured and analyzed within such purview. Science only deals with mindless mechanical processes. As a result of such, many scientists assert that such mindless mechanical processes constitute the totality of reality (even though such claim is beyond the purview of this tool).
"Transcendental reality" refers to manifestations of reality within our experience beyond such parameters. I pointed out intelligence, reasoning, preferences, choices, etc. that are a manifestation of such.
Posted by JimC on 1 Jun 2012 at 7:03AM
Your definition of transcendent reality is, essentially, things that science cannot explain. Do you agree?
a) Thousands of years
b) Millions of years
c) Billions of years
d) Don't know
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 2 Jun 2012 at 2:24AM
Transcendent reality is distinct from science because it is beyond its purview. Science and scientific processes--at least when applied honestly--can only analyze, verify and/or refute that which can be quantified, measured and subject to its verification processes. Transcendent reality--in its pure sense--is distinct from that.
I have been well aware of the facts of science and math that you mention since junior high school, thanks. Furthermore, my understanding of science transcends the need to make one "scientific" claim in response to one point and a contradictory one in response to another. I don't care to respond further here unless we can have an honest discussion--thanks for understanding!
I have been well aware of the facts of science and math that you mention since junior high school, thanks. Furthermore, my understanding of science transcends the need to make one "scientific" claim in response to one point and a contradictory one in response to another. I don't care to respond further here unless we can have an honest discussion--thanks for understanding!
Re: Is creationism counter productive?
Posted by JimC on 2 Jun 2012 at 6:40PM
You say "transcendent reality" is beyond the purview of science. Therefore "transcendent reality" consists of things that science cannot explain. Is that correct? By the way do you have a reference for a definition of "transcendent reality" or is it a term you've invented? a) Thousands of years
b) Millions of years
c) Billions of years
d) Don't know
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 4 Jun 2012 at 12:16AM
Your amended statement is now correct--yes. Previously you stated transcended reality was not yet explained by science whereas I maintain that understanding of such is beyond the scientific purview. Scientists may be able to measure and quantify to a certain extent how our human receptors respond to such, but that is not the same as accounting for its existence in the first place, nor its likely manifestations elsewhere--even/especially on a grand scale.
Transcendence refers to manifestations of reality beyond the purview of that which can be analyzed, quantified, measured, tested, or otherwise accessed by the limited tool of science and its verification/refutation processes.
I am honest and present my points to the best of my ability within my own understanding. An interesting claim on your part since I have already caught you in contradictory posits you claim are "scientific", but which vary in a contradictory way depending on what point(s) you are arguing against. I never claimed advanced physics or mathematics at the junior high level--only that I was taught that travel at speed slowed down time for whoever/whatever was engaged in such. Not a lot of explanatory theory--just a presentation to pique our interest in the subject perhaps. It worked.
Posted by JimC on 4 Jun 2012 at 12:49AM
You agree that "transcendent reality" consists of things that science cannot explain. So transcendent reality is just another term for the fallacious "god of the gaps" argument.
2) How old is the earth, in your opinion?
3) Do you agree that mathematics and science have discovered and defined transcendent entities, such as hypercubes, space-time and many other examples that I can provide?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 5 Jun 2012 at 1:01AM
When I refer to "transcendent reality", I refer to that which we access as thought, emotions, choices, etc. and its manifestations. The realm of science is limited to analysis of quantifiable and measurable mindless mechanical processes. I have pointed that out several times and you ignore it. Constantly referring to past misunderstandings of these processes as if that makes science capable of explaining aspects of reality beyond its purview is a false argument.
Hypercubes, space-time, wave functions, etc are also mindless physical processes with the extra dimension of time added to the equation. They do not address pure intelligence or its manifestations.
Posted by JimC on 5 Jun 2012 at 1:39AM
I'd be interested in your opinion on these creationist websites.
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 5 Jun 2012 at 2:17AM
Transcendent reality to me would consist of matters beyond the scientific purview, incapable of being quantified or analyzed by such. "Brain function" in the mechanical sense would be subject to scientific study and analysis--but only in studying the mechanics of how individual receptors access such. That still does not address the issue of the existence of intelligence, thought, etc. in a universe which some see as being constructed by mindless physical processes..
Posted by JimC on 5 Jun 2012 at 10:02AM
I'm assuming your avoidance of the main topic is an example of cognitive dissonance. In other words, you're not avoiding the question as such, rather it's impossible for you to answer because faith is colliding with fact. Here's the question again, just in case you missed it...
I can only assume the concept of transcendent reality is unique to yourself as you seem unable to provide any kind of reference or citation. Your definition seems to rest on the assumption that the human mind could not possibly exist unless it was designed and created by another mind. Is that right?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 6 Jun 2012 at 1:38AM
I have told you several times what I refer to when I mention transcendent reality. Why would i need to provide references or citations from others in doing so?
Our human mind accesses a realm of reality--intelligence, etc.--beyond both the purview of science and unexplainable through its analysis of mindless physical processes. A corollary--ironically supported by Stenger and even posited by yourself--is that life forms need not necessarily be carbon based. If life and intelligence exist in other conditions, that's my point: there's no reason to assume that it doesn't also exist on a macro scale, nor to assume that such intelligent force wouldn't be responsible for governance of physical laws as they exist.
I have never said that such was exclusive to the human mind, nor that it was limited to the physical processes of that mind's receptors--you are the one who keeps trying to put it back into that box! My point--and assumption--is that intelligence is manifested elsewhere--even on a grand scale. Please reread my posts and actually respond to their content--thanks!
Posted by A Pantheist on 6 Jun 2012 at 5:03AM
Well my beliefs were widely accepted 30,000 years ago - so the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old are clearly nonsnense
Posted by A Unitarian on 6 Jun 2012 at 6:07AM
I agree. It demonstrates the fallacy of taking the Bible literally
Posted by JimC on 6 Jun 2012 at 8:58AM
The old earth theory is the best explanation, and it's been widely accepted for a long time now.
Posted by JimC on 11 Jun 2012 at 9:08AM
I started this topic by suggesting that creationism is counter-productive, but I'm beginning to think it's worse than that - it's downright cruel. So many creationist authors and websites create spiritual hope from a basis of pseudo-science, unjustified assumptions and fallacious arguments, thereby encouraging people of faith towards ignorance. For example, has there been a crueller hoax than taking advantage of people's faith to make them believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Another example: You agree that God's existence cannot be proven, but look at the snake oil creationist websites are peddling...Re: Is creationism counter productive?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:26AM
God IS a part of transcendent reality from my perspective--but you are bringing up different issues. I never stated that such could be "proven." However, strong evidence points in that direction.
Posted by JimC on 13 Jun 2012 at 7:50AM
This is the issue with the sources of creationist information - they state hypothesis as fact, obfuscated with pseudo-scientific terms they've invented, exploiting the beliefs of people of faith who assume it has substance. Here's an example of how people's faith is being exploited to make them believe the earth is 6,000 years old...
xRe: Is creationism counter productive?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 16 Jun 2012 at 2:16AM
Creationists--as theists--must always rely ultimately on faith in making the case for God's existence. They most certainly can--and do--present evidence which leads to their conclusion. You merely choose to ignore evidence presented, and ask US to accept on faith your word that there is no basis for the evidence they present. Who--in reality--is the one refusing to discuss issues, and who in reality is thus the one making absolutist claims?
My stating that "I believe God is a fact" is no different from stating "I believe God is real." My belief rests on evidence, as I have presented. I never claimed that such evidence is absolute proof, and I have stated this many times. You are again twisting my words to appear as if I claimed something other than what I did, and you are again arguing against a construct of your own making.
Posted by A Pantheist on 16 Jun 2012 at 7:28AM
You have failed to answer the question several times now, that two creationist claim the earth as 6000 year or many millennia old and how can they both possibly be right?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 17 Jun 2012 at 1:26AM
Yes, you are right that this is a specific issue that I do not care to discuss at this time--but all I am doing is ignoring the issue, not presenting a false representation of opposing views expressed nor responding to a false reconstruction of such. I am also not presenting false logic--that is jumping from point "A" to point "Z"--nor relying on denigration of an opposing viewpoint a priori without addressing and responding to the actual specific issues of that viewpoint. It is one thing to ignore an issue--we all have the right to pick and choose whatever issues we do or don't care to discuss at any given time--but misrepresentation and dishonest debating tactics are other matters entirely. Now, once again: if we would all only quote whatever issues we choose to respond to and address such clearly and honestly...
Posted by A Pantheist on 17 Jun 2012 at 5:18AM
I find it rather hypocritical therefore to accuse someone of not responding to your posits, when you yourself choose to ignore some. Why do you choose not to answer anyway, is it too uncomfortable for you to do so?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 17 Jun 2012 at 6:05AM
I'm not so much accusing someone of not responding to a specific post on my part as pointing out the fact that in their posit they (1) pretend that I have not actually responded, and (2) present their own posit dishonestly as a result of their pretense.
Posted by A Pantheist on 17 Jun 2012 at 6:09AM
you haven't responded to my question
Posted by A Unitarian on 17 Jun 2012 at 6:14AM
I have noticed this pattern in most of A Religious Apologist's latest posts also. He spends more time whining about Jim's "tactics" & going into elaborate rationale as to why a question is unfair than responding to the question at hand, particularly in this specific thread. Its getting old. I'm about to uncheck this board.
Re: Is creationism counter productive?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 17 Jun 2012 at 6:26AM
I only do so because of non on topic responses and insinuations. I'm getting tired of this all as well. I posted to the science and technology board seeking fresh input from others for honest and on topic posits and responses from a dispassionate scientific perspective. I would love to have an on topic discussion here, minus dismissive condescending posits which ignore actual issues and invite a priori prejudice. If you believe I'm wrong, please challenge me on topic--thanks!
Posted by A Unitarian on 17 Jun 2012 at 7:25AM
Very well. I percieve Creation Science to be a dangerous hoax. I see strong arguements here supporting that perception & nothing to refute it.
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 17 Jun 2012 at 7:32AM
Can you be more specific?
Posted by A Pantheist on 17 Jun 2012 at 9:17AM
what is off-topic about my question?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 19 Jun 2012 at 2:05AM
I still choose not to respond to this specific issue. However, I have quoted on topic and responded to on topic a multitude of questions and insinuations from the opposite perspective of mine. I have done so, of course, by letting those of an opposite perspective set the agenda--yet I have still chosen to respond to such. Those of an opposite perspective of mine have not responded on topic to actual posits I have presented, have not quoted me directly and responded to such on topic, and have misstated and misrepresented my posts. What I have seen in response thus far from you and others is a claim that (1) I am a "whiner" for pointing out this disingenuous tactic, and (2) that you and others are only concerned with that which I have not addressed rather than what my opponents have not addressed, much less facts and representations on their part that are dishonest. It is your right to post whatever you want to. It is my right to do the same-and my right also to point out discrepancies in honestly judging and responding to all posits presented here. Thanks for understanding!
Posted by A Pantheist on 19 Jun 2012 at 4:51AM
I have never failed to answer any question directed at me truthfully and to the best of my ability, I would be grateful if you could show me the same courtesy.
I will therefore ask you for a 3rd time.
"Why do you choose not to answer anyway, is it too uncomfortable for you to do so? "
My beliefs (or those similar to mine) have been practised for over 30,000 years so it is therefore impossible for the earth to be only 6,000 years old.
What is your opinion on the age of the earth, and how can both creationist claims be correct?
Re: Is creationism counter productive?
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 20 Jun 2012 at 4:22AM
I don't believe both creationist claims are "correct"--but to address such would lead to another very involved discussion and my allotted time is tied up in current discussions as it is. If we ever resolve the current "science" issues--or at least get to the point where issues are presented honestly from both sides and where perhaps it will at least be clear what we "agree to disagree" on, then it is my hope that we can move on to other issues--and topics!
Re: Is creationism counter productive?Posted by
A Religious Apologist on 25 Jun 2012 at 2:29AM
I did say that I would respond to this question given allotted time, so for the record--now that things have slowed down here--I have no problem with scientific explanations regarding the age of the earth. Science is a wonderful tool, and theories regarding the age of the earth are well within its purview. That said, from a religious standpoint, it doesn't matter whether one subscribes to science or any other academic theories--all could be wrong, or at the very best irrelevant. As stated before, what matters to God is how we live our lives and respond to His challenges to love, forgive and serve others. I would assume that most other professed Christians might do a better job than I do in this regard--but at the same time I will posit that I do a better job of such with Jesus in my life than I would have done without Him and His word!
Posted by A Pantheist on 25 Jun 2012 at 5:24AM
Why have you still not answered the question, but circumnavigated it with a "politicians" answer?
"which claim do you believe is correct, and how old do think the earth is?"
"Why do you choose not to answer anyway, is it too uncomfortable for you to do so?"
I never asked for a scientific answer to the question, I'm not interested in your opinion of a scientific explanation, but from a religious perspective.
The original question of this thread was, and still is "Is creationism counter productive?"
Also the question has nothing to do with Jesus, as He didn't create the earth.
Posted by A Religious Apologist on 25 Jun 2012 at 5:47AM
Your stating "Is creationism counter productive?" is prejudicial because it is too vague and relies on stereotypes, not facts--not to mention that the original posit was phrased negatively, implying the need for an a priori defensiveness before discussing any facts.
I have already stated that I accept the scientific explanation of life on earth evolving over billions of years. What now is your point?
Posted by A Pantheist on 25 Jun 2012 at 6:42AM
So you don't believe in creationism at all then?
Science is very good at explaining the mechanics of how things happen, but not the reasoning behind them.
It's possible to create a microscopic "universe" that lasts for a fraction of a second with a hadron collider, but although that proves it is possible doesn't really expalin how the universe got to the way it is.
Re: Is creationism counter productive?Posted by JimC on 25 Jun 2012 at 7:45AM
You need to appreciate the problem faced by A Religious Apologist (and the creationist authors that he relies on). The reason this thread, among others, go on forever, is a result of cognitive dissonance. And the root cause of that is their axiom that the bible is truth and any hint of uncertainty demonstrates a lack of faith. They therefore have to support conflicting ideas, emotions and beliefs simultaneously. So Genesis has to be true, young earth creationism has to be true and old earth creationism has to be true, and any number of hypotheses are presented as fact with no room for uncertainty. This thread (and others) show this dilemma in practice.
More info here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Posted by A Pantheist on 25 Jun 2012 at 8:32AM
I understand the dilemma A Religious Apologist is in, but accusing everyone else of evading his questions then doing exactly the same to mine doesn't really help.
As you know, I lean towards pantheism. God is Mother Nature, and is one & the same thing as the universe. We are all instruments of our own destiny and need to consider how our actions effect the universal balance.
Whatever we do, we will never manage to beat nature, we are part of it and need to remember that and adapt to keep the balance.
When people ask "why did God let xxx happen?" the answer is simple, the universe was out of balance and nature is trying to restore the balance.
I also believe in animism and feel everything has some sort of spiritual connection to everything else. Currently there is no scientific evidence to either support or refute that belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment