tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post3337236233453793202..comments2024-02-18T12:18:45.788-05:00Comments on Sun and Shield: Science & the Search for God: A ReactionMartin LaBarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-81255444692349090782010-08-23T02:44:13.790-04:002010-08-23T02:44:13.790-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Zieghttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-82805594710827327582010-07-13T16:30:10.681-04:002010-07-13T16:30:10.681-04:00Thanks, Pete.
It is true that there are some stor...Thanks, Pete.<br /><br />It is true that there are some stories in the Old Testament that are strange to read. But, if those are to be taken seriously (as apparently you do, at least to use as a source for debate) why not also take seriously the story of Christ's coming to earth in human form, and dying for the sins of others, so that they didn't have to be punished, because of God's love?<br /><br />To me, the convincing evidence is multiple, and includes the evidence of nature, but the most important evidence is perhaps that Christianity works radically, so much that it can be noticed, in some people, whose behavior changes, in ways almost everyone, even non-believers, would agree was for the better, after a conversion experience.<br /><br />When I see someone's transformed life, or see that my own life has been transformed in such a way as to be kinder and less selfish, that is evidence for me. I understand fully that such matters are subjective, and don't necessarily meet "any critical level of scrutiny." I think God respects us enough that He allows us to make up our own minds about His existence, and if His existence could be proved like a Euclidean theorem, we would almost be forced to believe in it.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-79840329181595435352010-07-13T08:42:26.136-04:002010-07-13T08:42:26.136-04:00My own opinion may be an example of free choice, b...My own opinion may be an example of free choice, but that does not mean it stems from any god. God is clearly a cosmic bully in the stories about him as those who do not conform to his will are inevitably punished by him. Even those who he compels to act against his will are punished for doing so.<br /><br />It is curious to me that god's followers cannot produce convincing evidence that meets any critical level of scrutiny.Pete DeSantonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-49924782179621769392010-07-10T14:00:56.483-04:002010-07-10T14:00:56.483-04:00Thanks, Pete.
I have made a practice of respondin...Thanks, Pete.<br /><br />I have made a practice of responding to comments using whatever name the commenter uses, but can make an exception.<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion of God. To me, that's an example of free choice! I don't see God as cosmic bully, however.<br /><br />I do not doubt that we pretty much agree on what science is supposed to be about. We disagree about God, and there's probably nothing I can say here that would change your mind (or the reverse).<br /><br />Thanks again.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-4007420518098602082010-07-09T21:56:51.264-04:002010-07-09T21:56:51.264-04:00I don't think we are in disagreement on a lot...I don't think we are in disagreement on a lot of things regarding the science part of things Martin. BTW - you can just call me Pete.<br /><br />I understand that there are many denominations that agree on fundamentals. Where they disagree though there is no way to reconcile them without relying on subjective interpretation of imprecise language. The situation is much different when one is able to access objective evidence.<br /><br />Establishing a possibility requires some form of description of how there is a likelihood that something may happen or could happen. Religion does not even attempt to address that, it merely claims that something did happen and will happen. It is only through the human endeavours of science and philosophy that apologetics can even begin to make a case for the possibility of god. Revelation and faith are now demoted in favor of attempts at logic and reason when it is necessary to present a nearly rational argument for the possibility of god. Yet when those arguments are countered, revelatin and faith once again regain their importance. This is also somewhat of a theme in Ferguson's book so far. Logic and reason when addressing science, faith and revelation when addressing religion. While she wishes the two would not be in conflict, her approach is self defeating so far.<br /><br />I would not characterize Christianity as offering much freedom of choice. What you call freedom is perhaps more appropriately called coercion. Believe or burn for eternity is not much of a choice. There may be freedom of choice afforded in this world, but the story is clear that once you are in god's world there's no more Mr. Nice Guy.<br /><br />I will caution that I have only been able to read excerpts using Amazon's preview feature and I may change my mind when I read the book more fully.Pete DeSantonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-64983540582077603522010-07-09T16:32:49.206-04:002010-07-09T16:32:49.206-04:00Thanks, Pete DeSanto. Perhaps you are right about ...Thanks, Pete DeSanto. Perhaps you are right about Ferguson's motive. I don't know.<br /><br />As to the splintering of Christianity, as I indicated in the post, that's a problem. But there are many denominations that agree on some common fundamentals, such as those found in the <a href="http://sunandshield.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-christians-believe.html" rel="nofollow">Nicene and/or Apostle's creed(s)</a>.<br /><br />It is also true that Christianity tends to be conservative -- meaning resistant to change. Nonetheless, there have been some significant changes in at least some bodies that call themselves Christian, such as the rejection of slavery.<br /><br />As to your statement "religion cannot establish the possibility of god," that depends on what you mean by possibility, and what you mean by establish. I agree that I have, nor do I think others have, a knock-down, unassailable rational argument for God's existence. This does not bother me. If there was such a proof, freedom of choice and faith would be a sham.<br /><br />As Paul said, in Ephesians 2:8, "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,"<br /><br />Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews said, in 11:3, "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." (Both quotations from the WEB.)<br /><br />You may be correct in your second comment, in that Ferguson's fundamental assumptions are not assumptions, but conclusions. Either way, there are, as you say, scientific challenges to them.<br /><br />I agree that there are times when ignorant (or perhaps not so ignorant) laypeople have attacked science as not being able to know when they should not have attacked it. That's wrong. But it is also wrong to suppose that science has, or can find, all the answers, or that there is no valid place for faith.<br /><br />Thanks again.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-2710579162295583762010-07-09T13:23:24.777-04:002010-07-09T13:23:24.777-04:00My other point was that the characterization of it...My other point was that the characterization of items on Ferguson's list as assumptions of science is just wrong. As I said before, these things were not simply proposed a priori and taken as true. They evolved over time as evidence emerged suggesting they were valid. I do not think the challenges to those items come from religious attack, but the conclusions drawn (e.g. science CANNOT know) based on them by religious individuals are used to attack science by laypeople whose only encounter with science is via Ferguson's incomplete framing of the situation.Pete DeSantonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-58687537953754730912010-07-09T11:34:38.435-04:002010-07-09T11:34:38.435-04:00Ferguson would not be writing this book if it were...Ferguson would not be writing this book if it were not to defend the possibility of god from scientific inquiry. So it is very much about religion in general and Christianity specifically as is evident from her reliance solely upon Christian scripture and characters. If this were primarily a book about the limitations of science, I doubt the title would be "The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion, and the Search for God." <br /><br />The main point of my preceding posts is that Ferguson describes all the limitations of science that prevent science (in her opinion) from eliminating the possibility of god and ignores the fact that those same limitations are much more damaging to religion. Assumptions? Preconceptions? Religion has those in spades! What makes matters worse is that the basis upon which religion is built is bare revelation with no mechanism for revision. So the result is that there are thousands of claims as to which religion-based reality is the One True Faith. That was the reason I mentioned the splintering of common faith to many uncommon faiths, to illustrate the dead end to which religious inquiry fundamentally based upon revelation leads. Ferguson's conclusions are incomplete. In addition to "science cannot eliminate the possibility of god" it should include "but religion cannot establish the possibility of god."Pete DeSantonoreply@blogger.com