Go to THRAWN RICKLE
- Add a comment
- Go to WHY I BELIEVE - AND WHAT
Gomedome...
I don't deserve your praise. I'm but a duffer in the world of letters. I, too, have spend a great deal of time buried in manuals. My only "literary" salvation was (and is) my continued desire to read all the time. Interestingly, whenever you state a definitive opinion, I find you are where I am (or visa versa). Should you ever leave BN, PLEASE supply me with your actual email address before you leave so I can maintain contact.
posted by
arGee
on November 2, 2003 at 2:20 PM
| link to this | reply
After reading this posting I have come to one conclusion.
I am merely a muttering, drivling fool with no hope of achieving the articulation you put forth so easily. Humbling in that after an adult life of having my head buried in technical manuals and such I realize what I have missed in terms of personal thought process expansion but encouraging in the fact that your views are my own regardless of my inability to express them as you do.
posted by
gomedome
on November 2, 2003 at 12:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Check your email, Inkling
posted by
arGee
on October 27, 2003 at 7:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Thank you, Shawn.
I appreciate your taking time to read my post. I rather suspect that on this matter at least we see relatively eye to eye.
posted by
arGee
on October 27, 2003 at 7:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Argee
they fixed the technical problem. As for my paper, my computer wiped out a bunch of my files not long ago, and I just discovered that unfortunately it was among them. I do have the hard copy but it is not at the top of my list of things to retype (especially because of its length) so the best I could do would be to mail you a copy, which at my rate of procrastination would probably reach you, with any luck, some time in the next year. The part of it that I thought was the most interesting was how the creation account of Genesis matches the scientific theory of what happened after the big bang.
posted by
Inkling
on October 27, 2003 at 12:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Nicely Written!
As Krishnamurti would say, "A religious mind is completely different than one who believes in religion."
posted by
ShawnMichel
on October 27, 2003 at 12:04 PM
| link to this | reply
I accept your description of Johnson and Ross, Inkling...
What this means is that neither of these gents understands how scientists really work. They are guilty of perpetrating an unintentional fraud on the Christian population. I accept their sincerity, but they are sincerely incorrect. It would be wonderful if they would get their acts together with respect to this subject. Since they have so much influence, they could do a lot of people a great deal of good.
What about your paper?
posted by
arGee
on October 27, 2003 at 11:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Everyone
the problem I mentioned to Argee is happening in all member profile blog links (I just posted it in help). Anyone know what's going on?
posted by
Inkling
on October 27, 2003 at 10:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Argee
When I tried to click on this blog from your profile, the link was wrong. So I altered the link (removed the directory entitled "people") and it worked, but I'm not sure what's going on so you may want to check it out. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As for Johnson, I have had personal dealings with him (I interviewed him for the SF Chronicle during my stay at Berkeley--the article is on my website) and a friend of mine (a postdoc biochem student and Christian) was good friends with him and actually rented a room from him and his wife for a season, so I disagree with your assessment of him. I think he is one of the most intellectually honest Christians around. I don't see him or Ross as being any different from me as far as motives go--they are not trying to put the wool over fellow's sheep's eyes, to to speak--How would that benefit them? They're not employed by the church (in fact, just the opposite with Johnson). Yes, they make money off their books but as we both know, that's not the easiest way to make a living. They didn't start out thinking--oh, I'm such a great writer that I'll make a bunch of money if I do this, because I know all the Christians will gobble up my books. Finally, I do agree that God gave us our minds because he made us in his image and likeness with creative and intellectual abilities, and I think it is a trap (of Satan) to regard our minds as supreme. We cannot be objective about our minds, no matter how much good science we practice. We cannot trust the human mind because it is not perfect as mental illness and every day unwise decisions (even when we know better) prove. This is a huge topic so I will probably have to blog about it on my own bandwidth, but thanks for inspiring me to write about it.
posted by
Inkling
on October 27, 2003 at 10:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Thank you, Inkling, for your thoughtful comment.
As it turns out, I just discovered your post wherein you detail your personal background. You are fortunate to have come through all that and still be the person you obviously are. I think I would enjoy knowing you personally.
Please do not lay too much store in my "vast scientific knowledge." While it is useful to have a lot of information at my fingertips, an encyclopedia will work nearly as well. The difference is, perhaps, that I can use this accumulated information subconsciously, in the background, so to speak.
I suspect that most scientists would concur completely with your statement: "...I don't accept all supposedly scientifically drawn conclusions...," but most would take you to task for rejecting "macroevolution." I do not intend to get into a discussion with you about this, primarily because I am uninterested in changing your mind. But let me make a small point.
Probably the most thoroughly researched and most widely accepted scientific theory (I presume you understand the scientific use of this word. If you want to update your understanding, read this short article) is biological evolution. What you call macroevolution is not really differentiated in the way you think of it, except by those who do this in order to say they accept microevolution but reject macroevolution. If you have followed my posts, you will know that I abhor spin, which I define as the purposeful distortion of material for the purpose of making an otherwise invalid point. The arguments of Johnson and Ross appear scientific, but are really only disguised religious (philosophical) arguments.
In an ideal world, a scientist collects data, and then creates a theoretical construct that explains their existence. Following this, the construct is tested by various means to establish its ability to hold up to reality. Over time, the original construct typically undergoes modification as additional data become known. Occasionally a construct has to be discarded and replaced with something else, because new data cannot be fit into the old framework. (A good example of this is the old phlogiston theory, wherein a substance called phlogiston was believed to be consumed when something burned. Priestly discovered that, on the contrary, nothing was consumed, but a new substance he called oxygen was actually added during combustion. Consequently the phlogiston theory was discarded in favor of Priestly’s new theory.)
Philosophical (and religious) arguments typically go the other way. You start out with a construct (theory) which you then attempt to verify with data. If the construct really does reflect the outside world, then the data will tend to verify the construct. Unfortunately, when the data are at variance with the construct, ideologues typically will either ignore the data or twist and modify them so that they fit. Only very rarely do they modify the construct to fit the data.
In the case of biological evolution and its relationship to fundamental Christianity as currently expressed by the so-called religious right in America, the Biblical construct currently is considered more important than the data. Johnson and Ross, and all the others who ride this particular bandwagon, have decided that the Biblical Old Testament “explanation” for how humans came to be is “absolutely” correct. Consequently, they are forced to modify their and the public’s perception of the overwhelming data that supports biological evolution as scientists currently understand it. One of these modifications is the differentiation of macro- and micro-evolution. They didn’t create this differentiation, but they have exploited it to their own “advantage.”
This is so very unfortunate, because they accomplish two things: (1) They convince honest people like you who do not have the background to see through their scam; and (2) they completely discredit themselves to the traditional scientific community, and thus further the schism that already separates believers from things scientific. From my point of view this is especially ironic, because there is absolutely no reason why a person cannot believe in the underlying precepts of Christianity as both you and I understand them, and simultaneously accept the modern theory of evolution in its full-blown glory. The God in whom you so ardently believe could be the architect of biological evolution without impacting in any way the fundamentalist Christian concept of original sin and ultimate redemption. The fight exists solely because of the private agendas of the Johnson’s and Ross’s of the Christian world.
On another point, Johnson is incorrect in his description of how modern science works (I still have not completely decided whether he really is mistaken, or whether his private agenda drives his deceptions). Modern science does not reject the supernatural. In essence, modern science does not reject anything. Modern science accepts things—data, information, etc. The reason scientists do not accept the supernatural is that, to date, there has been no need to impose this particular explanation on any data set. One of the underlying principles of the Scientific Method is the concept of Occam’s razor. Without going into any details here, this principle states that given a choice of explanations for a data set, one always chooses the simplest explanation that explains the entire set of data.
Scientists are very reluctant to apply a supernatural explanation to a data set, because this immediately introduces a host of unknown variables that can never be measured. This has nothing to do with belief, disbelief, or any other philosophical or religious bias. Without this principle firmly guiding scientific research, we probably would still be using candles to light the path our horse-drawn carriages follow.
I would be very interested in reading your paper on intelligent design of the universe. I know of several astronomers who arrived at this conclusion, based on their examination of all the data. In effect, applying Occam’s razor, they concluded that intelligent design was the simplest explanation. Note, however, that I did not use the word “supernatural.” Harp back to my post: At one point, I speculated that eventually we, or another intelligence, would be able to manipulate the universe itself. This certainly falls into the category of “Intelligent Design.” Did this already happen?
Concerning my past personal relationship with God, since I initially believed as you do, I also believed that I underwent personal experiences or interactions with God. Once I made my paradigm shift, I found other explanations for these “experiences” that fit into my new framework. I carefully and consciously avoided any hint of spin in this process, since I diligently wanted to avoid the kind of thing perpetrated by Johnson and Ross in the following years.
I don’t claim to know everything; I don’t even claim to be right. I do, however, claim intellectual honesty. In a conversation with my mother before she lost her mind to Alzheimer’s, I asked her if she believed in my intellectual honesty. She said she did. I then argued that if she was correct, and if God was as she believed, then He was responsible for giving me my mind. So long as I remain intellectually honest, and use the mind God gave me to discover His universe, whatever I find, and however I interpret these data, God cannot fault me. To do so would be intellectually dishonest on His part, and in Mom’s conception of God (and yours, I suspect), God is incapable of such dishonesty.
I am, therefore, at peace with myself and with what I used to be. I accept other people’s faith so long as it doesn’t negatively impact on me and the world I love. In part, this is why I am so militantly opposed to Islam in general, and especially to Wahhabi Islam. Simply stated, these guys want to kill me (and you). I won’t let that happen!
Thank you for exchanging your thoughts with me. I look forward to reading your paper.
posted by
arGee
on October 26, 2003 at 8:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Argee
I applaud your originality and I feel very small in the shadow of your vast scientific knowledge. I also find it interesting that your mental construct has its origin in Jung's theories. I have been very curious about him because Myers-Briggs personality typing is traced back to his work--I know he had a religious background but I've heard various things, so I'd like to find out for myself. I found your reference to us becoming "gods" to have particular significance in the light of my own beliefs, which as you know, are founded on the Bible. The very first sin was that of God's creation aspiring to be God (lucifer's fall from heaven) and original sin has the same root. Otherwise known as pride. I, too, believe as you did before your ideological shift, that science is the explanation for God does things. But because we are human, and no system we devise is ever perfect, I don't accept all supposedly scientifically drawn conclusions, like macroevolution. I do believe in microevolution. I also don't believe in a literal 7 day creation, because the Bible also says that a day is like a thousand years. But I don't want to try to tackle the Darwinist stuff (I'll leave that to Philip Johson, Hugh Ross, and others like them). Johnson argues that all science is based on naturalistic assumptions (supernatural is ruled out) and that is why it is flawed. I wrote a paper which argued for the evidence for the design of the universe, using Einstein's theory of relativity and the second law of thermodynamics. I'm sure it's pretty petty in light of everything you've read, but let me know if you'd like to see it -- my astronomy professor gave me positive feedback, though he was also an atheist. Looks like I'm writing a novel here, so I'll just ask you one question before I leave. In all your prayer times with God when you did believe in him, did you ever sense he was listening to you, or that he was answering you, or that he was there at all?
posted by
Inkling
on October 25, 2003 at 8:07 PM
| link to this | reply