Re: What does ID mean?

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:57:01 -0500 (EST)

At 12:16 PM 4/17/98 +0100, William B. Provine wrote:
>Dear Glenn,
> You know I am not cynical, but very optimistic about the working
together of
>atheists and deeply religious people of all persuasions. I think we can
agree on a
>wide variety of social goals of behavior and hope to get on with it. This
weekend I
>have a meeting with Intervarsity Christian Fellowship to get a start going at
> I am not trying to pry Christians away from their faith. I am, however,
>interested in convincing them that their faith is a faith foremost. Most of my
>Catholic students say, "sure." Liberal Jewish students say "sure." And both
>religious observances and find them rewarding. Many of you on this listserv
say that
>your belief in Christianity is a faith. How could I have an argument
against this?
> By the way, students in the large evolution class I teach take me with
a deep
>grain of salt, and pay a lot more attention to my religious guests
speakers. They
>most certainly do not let me pry them away from their faiths. Ah, who among us
>academics has such power?
> Warm wishes, Will

Dear Will,

You speak as if you had no faith. I believe we all believe but we all place
our faith in different things or beings. You have to search your own mind
and find on what or on whom you place your faith. You make it sound that
having faith is a handicap. You must remember also that the Christian faith
is a worldview which encompasses everything. Much like Marxism does.

It is interesting that when David Hilbert used the method of axiomatics for
Euclidean geometry he introduced 21 postulates which defined certain
relations among points, straight lines, and planes. By applying the logical
principles to his postulate system he could deduce all the theorems of
Euclidean geometry without having recourse to any assumption not explicitly
stated in the postulate system.

You mean to say that you have thoroughly analyzed all your assumptions and
found them complete in the sense of explaining everything? Perhaps your
postulates are not sufficient just as the five Euclidean postulates are not
sufficient to derive all the theorems of Euclidean geometry.

Take care,