Re: Electrical Engineering
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:00:07 -1000
I think Dick has a good point, and I can't come at your logic in refuting
it. You have likened the Dick's question to the following:
>Nevertheless, at Candler, the argument went something like this:
>unless you can find an authority who is not a Christian yet believes
>in the literal resurrection of Jesus, the resurrection is not
>admissible as fact but is "a faith interpretation to explain the
>death of Jesus." As I pointed out to them then, this is fallacious
>reasoning: belief in the literal resurrection is a pre-requisite for
>a person being a Christian - anyone who truly believes Jesus rose
>from the dead yet rejects His claims on their life is either insane
>or antagonistic. Either of these characteristics render the person
>unacceptable as a witness.
I cannot believe we can honestly equate these two questions. Forming
conclusions about the universe as seen from scientific research and
exploration cannot be put on the same level as belief in the resurrection.
I agree with you that one can't belief the latter without being a
Christian, but you imply that only Christians and Jews can believe in a
young earth by your reasoning.
Hence you dismiss the need for the question. How can one be comfortable
This would mean that science cannot be conducted truly, without the proper
religious belief; ie an apriori belief that the earth is young. This makes
scientific discovery as a mystical experience, only able to properly
engaged in by enlightened Christians or Jews.
What is there to hide from in this question? If the earth were young surely
there would be 'non-believers' would hold to it. It would be everyone's
interest to know the answer to this question.
Mr P.C. Leverenz