From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:18:53 GMT

My apologies to all and sundry for the atrocious length of this
posting.  I have attempted to edit it for brevity and I hope that I
have not deleted more than I should have.  It remains too long
nevertheless.  I probably should have deleted more and omitted
responding to more of Drew's comments.

In article <1992Aug24.162037.5468@acuson.com>, 
 lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.155926.8939@bsu-ucs.uucp> 
>  00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.173540.444@acuson.com>, 
>> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>> The misconception is that omniscience implies that God is forcing
>>> actions upon us.  Simply knowing that we will do something does not
>>> imply that God intends us to do it.
>>
>>This has been coming up almost often enough to qualify as a FAQ. 
>>There is a major misconception here, Drew, but you are seriously
>>confused about what it is.  Noone is claiming that God is "forcing
>>actions upon us."  However...
> 
> Then it would be polite of you to state what the misconception is, since you
> state that I am falling prey to it.

I *did* state it.  The misconception (yours) is that someone is
claiming that God is "forcing actions upon us."  No one is making that
claim.  OK?

>>Let's try to clarify the meaning of "deception" here.  Can we agree on
>>the minimal requirement that someone who [1] intentionally [2] does
>>something that he [3] knows will [4] result in your coming to believe
>>something that is [5] untrue is practicing deception?  That is, can we
>>agree that the 5 elements listed (intention, action,  knowledge of the
>>consequence, causation and false belief) is sufficient to assert
>>deception?
> 
> Sorry, I don't think we can.  Your 5 points state nothing about intent.

Huh?  What do you think point [1] is?  Or are you quibbling about the
difference between "intention" and "intent"?  Do you claim that
"intent" is required for deception and that "intention" is different
and insufficient?  Do you speak English?

If you can't even agree that my description is sufficient to assert
deception, how about you giving it a try?  I'm not even requiring a
minimal set of conditions.  Just give us any scenario that you think
would exemplify deception and let us know how and why you consider it
deception.  That would at least give us a place to start a sensible
discussion.  I am rapidly getting the feeling that you are going to
turn out to be the biggest BS artist we have had here for a long time. 
(And that is really saying something!)  I hope I'm wrong.

>>different words.  Using forms of expression that I *know* will result
>>in misleading your honest efforts to understand me would be deceit on
>>my part.
> Here, you are making the assumption that your listener is trying to
> understand you.  I feel that that is a flawed analogy for this topic.

Then you have done little or no reading about the history of science. 
A significant (though far from the *only*) motivation for the study of
the natural sciences was an attempt to better understand God through
His handiwork.  (Admittedly this motivation has declined significantly
over the last couple of centuries as it has become increasingly
obvious that this is not terribly relevant to getting to heaven.  :-)

> The evolutionary/old earth camp is not (apparently) trying to
> understand God's intent or purpose.  I say this because the response to
> new physical evidence is, "I don't understand how this fits in, so
> obviously God lied."

Not at all.  The typical Christian scientist's response would be more
like "If I don't understand how this fits in, then obviously I have
misunderstood (either the evidence or the _Bible_)."  (An atheist's
response might be more like "This does not fit into the Biblical
story, so obviously the men who wrote the _Bible_ were wrong.)

> If I make a (for example) medical statement to a group of people where
> half are medically trained and the others are not, the statement is
> likely to be misunderstood by half of the crowd.  However, if it is
> intended for those who are trying to learn about medical matters, the
> confusion of the others is irrelevant.

Not a bad point.  The only problem (for you) is that it argues
*against* creationism.  (How many 2nd millenium BC Isrealites were
scientifically trained?  How does their confusion bind us to the
confused account that they recorded?)

>>Therefore, if such a God chooses to act in a certain way, knowing the
>>consequences, it is bizarre to assert that the consequences were
>>unintended.  
> 
> The consequences were, of course, forseen.  That does not mean that
> they were intended.  God gives each of us the chance to make choices.
> The decisions are ours to make.  The consequences are there to follow.
>
> I am free to choose to let go of an anvil over my foot.  Does this mean
> that God _intended_ me to be crippled?

Bad analogy.  Your analogy would hold only if you asserted that God
took some specific actions that caused you to believe that letting go
of that anvil would not cause harm.

>>Your actions or my actions can produce unintended consequences.  If
>>you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God, then you cannot
>>assert that His actions could produce unintended consequences, since
>>He would be in a position to both know the consequences of any action
>>and avoid such consequences if He did not want them to occur.
> 
> Let me ask you a question about this.  Lets say you have two children,
> about 5-7 years old.  Through some course of events, the three of you
> are high up on a building, and slip.  You manage to grab each by the
> wrist, but you haven't the leverage to pull them up, and both grips are
> slipping.  You _know_ that if either falls, he will die.  You _know_ that
> if you try to hold with one hand, each will slip.
> 
> Do you _intend_ for your children (or one child) to die?
> 
> God doesn't _intend_ for us to fall, even though He knows whether we
> will.  If He didn't allow it, though, the choices would not be ours to
> make.

This is another stupid analogy.  I am not omnipotent.

>>If God [1] intentionally [2] does something which he [3] knows will
>>[4] result in our coming to beleive in [5] evolution, then if
>>evolution is false, God would have deceived us.  Right?
> 
> There are many people in the world.  Do not confuse your belief with
> universal belief. (BTW, it is nice to see you say "_believe_ in
> evolution")  We are allowed to make mistakes.  You are assuming that

This is another classic (and underhanded) trick of creationists:  the
assumption that all forms of "belief" are equal.  There is
considerable difference between "religious belief" and the kind of
"belief" that means something more like "provisional acceptance after
examining considerable evidence".

... [extensive deletions]
>>world.  In other words, the world does not merely contain "a few
>>artifacts" that, by chance, happen to allow us to make an honest
>>mistake about the history of the world and life upon it.  The physical
>>evidence is pervasive and consistent in a way that is beyond what
>>could be discounted as accidental features that God declined to alter
>>and merely "allowed" to exist.
> 
> If this "evidence" were not there, would you have any choice about
> accepting the story of the creation?  You cannot have a choice unless
> there is an alternative available.  God makes two doors and says, "Go
> through door #1."  When you go through door #2, you say, "God didn't
> make this door.  It made itself."
> 
> What is lacking from this discussion is that, while mistakes are
> allowed, choices are _essential_.  We cannot get from this life the
> kind of growth we need without the oppurtunity to choose between right
> and wrong.

Jim Lippard has already responded to this.  (Like I have said more
than once, my newsfeed is embarrassingly slow.)  However, I don't feel
that I can let it go by without commenting on its extreme perversity. 
What you appear to be claiming in your 2 immediately preceding
paragraphs is that God has manufactured a second door for us, and not
content with merely leaving us the alternative of simply not accepting
your Biblical interpretation (which says to choose door #1), He has
also deliberately created physical evidence for us that strongly
suggests that door #2 is a better choice.  How anyone could fail to
understand that deliberate creation of highly persuasive evidence
(*specifically* so that we would have a reason to come to a false
conclusion) would constitute deception is beyond me.

>>point is that creationism is simply not tenable.
> 
> Do you mean by "creationist," one who believes in the Biblical creation, or
> one who promotes Creation Science?  I have previously declared that I find
> Creation Science to be political, not theological or scientific.

Since we have not been discussing the merits of the physical evidence,
but merely assuming that it has merit, I think you could safely assume
that this discussion is more in the theological or philosophical realm
and that I have been referring to anyone who holds (and especially
anyone who promotes) the belief in Biblical creation,[*] not just those
who promote it _as_science_.  That is, in fact, what I have been
doing.

[*] The term "Biblical creation" implies to me the belief that the
accounts in Genesis are accurate in detail.  It (usually) includes the
beliefs that the order of events is accurately portayed (though The
word "yom" may or may not be interpreted to refer to a 24-hour
period), that the earth is younger than 10000 years (and more like
6000 years), that there was a global flood, etc.

>>The point is that by
>>the creationist interpretation of Genesis, which the creationists
>>claim is the only straightforward interpretation, God *directly*
>>created the world (universe).  Let us assume that (A) God is (perhaps
>>indirectly) the author of Genesis, that (B) Genesis is to be
>>understood in a straightforward, literal (creationist) sense. Then,
>>with the additional assumption that (C) God would not lie (required to
>>guarantee that Genesis is true), it is clear that (D) God is
>>(directly) the author of the world.  
>>
>>However, a similarly straightforward reading of the world (which, by
> 
> from the perspective of a fairly short sighted creature

You have missed the point again.  The point is that it is *only* a
"straightforward" and "literal" interpretation of Genesis that favors
(indeed, constitutes) creationism, and that an *equivalently*
straightforward interpretation of the world favors evolution.  This
leads (below) to the inevitable conclusion that at least one of these
interpretations must be wrong or mistaken.

>>(D) is a *direct* product of a truthful God) reveals strong evidence
>>of a history that is far longer, much more detailed and quite
>>different than indicated in (a simple, straightforward, literal
>>interpretation of) Genesis.  This physical, historical evidence is
>>available to be read by anyone who cares to read it and although we
>>have not managed to read all of it, it is quite clear on many points
>>that conflict with the creationist reading of Genesis.  It has already
>>been established (above) 
> 
> asserted, not established

Let me get this straight.  You are appear to dissenting (with your
insertion of "asserted, not established") from the proposition 

>>that an omniscient, omnipotent God would know
>>the consequences of His actions in creating this physical evidence. 

I was under the impression that this follows from the definition of
"omniscient".  I must ask again, do you speak English?  Assuming that
the answer is "not very well", would you mind clarifying whether you
are in fact dissenting from the usual definition of "omniscient" or
whether you have merely misparsed the sentence that you have split and
believe that what I asserted was "established" related to the nature
of the evidence rather than the nature of omniscience?  If the latter,
then a discussion of the evidence can be followed up in a separate thread.

>>Thus, assumptions (A), (B) and (C) lead to a contradiction when
>>confronted with the world.  Either the world really is old and life
>>did evolve or someone intentionally took specific actions to make it
>>look that way.
> 
> Or took actions to create things which some consider to make it look
> that way.

Here you are apparently disputing the quality of the evidence.  Many
people will be happy to discuss that with you, but this post is
already far too long.  For present purposes, though, it is sufficient
to say that the evidence has been sufficient to convince virtually
everyone who has made any serious attempt to examine it in detail. 
Note that I am *NOT* making an argument from authority of the form
"evolution is true because X believes it."  I am instead pointing out
the indisputable fact that evolution and an old earth are
overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community as a *result* of
the physical evidence.  That is, I am supplying what was merely
implied in my previous post, an observer.  Anything only "looks that
way" to some observer.  In this case, the observers are virtually all
of the people who have devoted their careers to looking closely at the
relevant portions of the world.  You can certainly say that they are
wrong, and (almost) all of them will gladly admit that they could be
wrong.  What you would have a harder time with, though would be
claiming that the evidence (and its straigtforward interpretation) are
not present at all.  The mere fact that so many (and such a high
percentage of) scientists have been convinced by the evidence
constitutes a prima facie argument that the world *does* look as
though it were old and evolution happened.  And that is sufficient for
my point.

>>That someone, by assumption (B), could only have been
>>God, and if God did take such actions, knowing the consequences
>>(omnisciently), then God would be deceiving us.  But that contradicts
>>assumption (C).  Since no Christian is prepared to deny (C), something
>>else must go.  Assumption (A), that God is the ultimate source for
>>_The_Bible_ is also central to Christianity.  Without (A) and (C),
>>Christianity is simply not possible at all.  Assumption (B), however,
>>is far less clearly required.  Every Christian that I have ever known
>>has been willing to concede that _The_Bible_ contains passages that
>>are not intended to be taken literally.
> 
> Not everyone who believes in the Creation is an inerrantist,
> literalist.  I am not.  And BTW, Genesis was writen by Moses,
> presumably working from earlier records.

At least Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses.  This point is
not critical to the present discussion, however.  It is abundantly
clear that whoever wrote down the accounts in Genesis was not
personally present at the creation.  Various Christian theologies
differ in respect to whether God personally dictated or supervised
every word and phrase of the _Bible_ or whether he simply inspired a
human (e.g. Moses) to write an account as he (the human) understood
the story.  The argument of the present post is that the former is bad
theology because it would require the conclusion that God is deceptive
either in the _Bible_ or in his creation of the world.

>>If the first couple of
>>chapters of Genesis are among those passages, then Christianity is
>>still possible.  If not, then you would have to deny (A) or (C).  Take
>>your pick.
> 
> I see.  God is honest and the source of the Bible, but He didn't create
> the world or life.  So what are we doing here?  I guess we're just
> bacteria with an attitude.

Speak for yourself on that one.  :-)  The point is that it is possible
(in the sense of logically consistent) to accept God as "honest and
the source of the Bible" *and* simultaneously as the "source of the
world" only if one takes the Biblical story presented in Genesis as
(another) story that is intended to be interpreted figuratively rather
than as a story that is intended to be taken as literally and
historically accurate in detail.

-- 
Paul Neubauer   00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  00prneubauer@bsuvax1.BITNET
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP