From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:29:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.151959.11603@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.021757.9487@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
writes:
> 
> >>>What if they were created for another purpose entirely, one which people
> >>>(in general) have yet to discover?
> >
> >  Drew, why is that "what if" any more privileged than "What if the
> >whole thing really IS just a trick by a malign supernatural being, to
> >confuse us as to the age of the Earth?"  That is, why should anyone
> >who hasn't had your personal spritual experience accept that postition?
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that my "what if" had greater standing than your
> "what if." I was only trying to assert that my "what if" is not without
> merit.  The tone of many postings here (in my reading) is that since
> there are fossils, if there is a God, the fossils were MEANT to
> indicate an ancient existence.
> 
> I was just trying to point out that they might have been created for an
> explicit purpose, just not the one that has been guessed at.

	So is what you are trying to tell us is that all science is (or could
be) wrong.  I start counting tree rings; you say "no, stop that, that's not
what tree rings were MEANT for".  So how are we supposed to arive at this
knowledge of things were MEANT for?  And if it from some religious viewpoint,
why should it be YOUR religious viewpoint.  (More on this below.)
  
> >  And I believe you misrepresent the position of science on evolution, in 
> >the following paragraph:
> >
> >>>What I was trying to point out here is a logic trap.  The "evolution"
> >>>side of this debate takes the approach of:
> >>>    - We will start with the assumption that there is no God, or that
> >>>      God is not relevant to the topic at hand.
> >>>    - We will not allow religious doctrines to guide our thoughts or
> >>>      provide possible interpretations.
> >>>After this, they reach a conclusion which they find logicly consistant
> >>>and branch out from that to the conclusion that their first point (no
> >>>God) is proven.  That is not logically sound.
> >
> >  Drew, I don't think anyone in this discussion has tried to disprove
> >the existence of God.
> 
> True.  I haven't seen any explicit attempts at disproving God's
> existence.  But I have seen many postings with the attitude of "We have
> explained this through science, without using God.  So God has nothing
> to do with it."  That may not have been the intent of the posters, but
> that is how some of them (the postings) come across.

	Sorry, that's the way things seem to work.  The lack of God is an empircal
observation, not an axiom, of science.  Science does not claim to know 
the mind or nature of God.  Science DOES claim to know a little about how the 
physical universe works, and it can be explained without invoking the unex-
plainable, i.e., God.
 
> >In any case, absolutely no one has started from the assumption that
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >there is no God.
> 
> I think that is wishful on your part.
> 
> 
> >  Drew, an honest and nonsarcastic question:  why should YOUR religious
> >beliefs be used as a guide to scientists, and not other religions?
> 
> A good question.  If I may counter it with another question.  Why
> should my religious views be excluded from a scientific endevor in
> which I am involved?  I do not ask for my views to be imposed on all of
> science.  I do ask that the veiled hostility toward religion be removed
> from science.

	And I ask that the veiled hostility toward science be removed from
religion.  Again, science tries to explain the physical world around us.  You
don't like your perception of some of the implications of this, and try to
change science.  There are many scientists who are simply amazed at the
subtlty and creativity of such a wondrous God who created this amazingly
complex universe, and see his subtle fingerprint written in the complex
laws of quantum mechanics.  So to repete the question:  why should YOUR 
religious beliefs be used as a guide to scientitst, and not other religions?
 
> A researcher comes to a fork in the road (figuratively speaking), and
> has to choose between A and B, and chooses A.  If he is asked why he
> made that choice and responds that his doctrinal learning has told him
> that B is a dead-end, he is likely to be laughed to scorn.  That is the
> kind of thing I want removed.  Sure, he could be wrong, but so could
> the guy with the 300 page justification of choosing A over B.

	I don't care WHY he choose which fork.  I want to know what he got at
at the end of the road.  THAT is what he will be measured by.  Look at
Einstein; he had theological problems with statistical interpretations of QM.
All his fighting against it did was eventually strengthen QM.
 
> >Will you accept the Babylonian view of the world as a flat surface,
> >the back (as I recall) of a giant turtle swimming through an infinite
> >ocean?  The Egyptian view that the sky is a goddess, the earth a god, 
> >and so on?  The current view of many African groups that the Creator
> >made the Earth, but then lost interest in it and turned it over to
> >lesser divinities to rule?  Perhaps the current Eskimo belief that
> >a masculine god made the universe by masturbation?

	(Pardon, but I thought it was the world on top of 4 elephants riding
the back of a giant tortoise.  Or is that Hindu?)

> >  It's a real question, Sir:  why are your religious beliefs to be used
> >as a guide to science, and not theirs?
> 
> Let them worship as they please, but DO let them worship.

	But we are not talking about worship here; we are talking about using
religion as a base model of physical reality (what were fossils MEANT for).
And we want to know WHAT religious model to use, and why.
 
> -- 
> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

				    What about the beaker and stirring rod?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011