From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:34:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.192605.13417@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.212033.22158@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug24.172414.6036@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew
> >Lawson) writes:
> >[...]
> >>
> >>The world is very real.  It has existed in its current state (post-fall)
> >>  for roughly 6,000 years and will end its fallen existance and be returned
> >>  to perfection.
> >>We are on it for a purpose.
> >>We can know a lot about the world around us.
> >>We can also "learn" things which are not true and need discernment to
> >>  distinguish right from wrong.
> >>I feel that the idea that the world is millions of years old and life
> >>  "just happened" is one of these things which are learned but wrong.
> >
> >Ok, I think this is getting somewhere.  I agree, as should we all,
> >that one can learn things which are not objectively true.
> 
> I glad you do.  I had one response challenging me on that.
> 
> >But now I'm
> >having some trouble with this 'discernment' word.  It seems to rhyme
> >with 'direct revelation'.
> 
> Funny.  You must have a different dictionary than I do.  They don't
> rhyme at all. ;-)
> 
> >When I discern something that disagrees
> >with you (evolution/old earth), I'm being deceived (or deceiving
> >myself).  But when you discern something that disagrees with all known
> >science, you're not being deceived, because God revealed it to you.
> >Does this not strike you as a double standard?
> 
> What you describe is certainly a double standard.  You have one of your
> own.  It is the same one reversed.  You are right and I am deceived.
> 
> >Please explain how we can all obtain or enhance our ability to
> >'discern' what is true, and what is false.  This is a serious request.
> 
> I am not sure how serious this request is.
> 
> Discernment requires, of course, a basis or background to judge
> against.  If you have no value system, you cannot choose between
> options.  My value system is based on scripture, personal revalation
> (you knew it would be there, didn't you) and prophetic wisdom.
> 
> Some have a value system based on physical proof and consensus on
> interpretation.

> Tou can only judge within the system you accept.

	I almost had a nice long reply set up to this, and then I decided
against it.  Why?  Because, with the above, you are stating that you have
utterly rejected the use of logic and reason, and you are not here to debate 
but to evangelicize.
	You have stated what you believe and what you will except as
evidence.  The only thing that matters to you is your own internal revelation
and attitude.  No amount of physical evidence can possibly change your mind,
because you do not accept physical evidence as a valid method of acquiring
information or knowledge.  Likewise, no amount of philisophical discussion
can change your mind, because you are dependant on your own personal 
revelation and not on reasoned philisophical principles.
	In short, further communication with you is a waste of time because
you have rejected communication with the world as a means of acquiring 
knowledge.
  
> -- 
> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

				   But if a solution dissolves in the woods,
				   does the stirring rod make a sound?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet