RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Mon Sep 06 2004 - 11:47:29 EDT

> Well, that proves it must be false. ... . :-)

One friend, when I showed him the picture said: I see you used
photoshop to edit a goldfish into your picture. :-)

> But frankly, it seems like everyone here is using some
> additional criteria to judge the validity of the bible. I've
> seen atheists use similar information theory models and their
> own opinions about god (their god) to supposedly
> "debunk" the bible and rationalize ignoring the most
> important message of the bible. I don't think the bible
> stands a (prayer of a) chance without faith.

This may be, but if we have to use fiat ruling out of everything else or
resort to what I view as a highly suspect form of divine communication
(accommodation), then the problem is worse. Sure we can't get by
without faith. As I said earlier, we have to have faith that our eyes
tell us the truth about the world and that is not a trivial
philosophical or psychomechanical problem.

If all we have is our feelings and there is no way to determine what the
message is, I do see little point in religion. Paul Seely asked me a
couple of days ago if he had started another crisis of faith with me.
He remembers well the reaction I had to his book when I read it. I saw
no reason to continue belief and it caused me a couple of years of hard
struggle. I told Paul no in response to his e-mail. But the continued
discussion is probably going to cause me to have to think deeply again
about these issues. Why believe a given set of beliefs, say, A, B, c...
When one can't be sure if one is supposed to believe them or another
mutually exclusive or partially exclusive set of beliefs, A, D, E, K and
Z? The fact that God doesn't make it abundantly clear what is and isn't
accommodation makes it impossible to know what the truth is.

Why should we expend such effort over something we simply can't know.
We can't know the right rituals, we can't know the right values, ethics
or anything when all is subject to accommodation. George claimed that
he judged accommodation by what it said about Christ, leaves us on a
relativistic plain of endless duration. Why is George's standards about
Christ to be extended to the whole of humanity to be able to judge
whether or not something is accommodation? Maybe God needs to
accommodated to George? Or to me? Maybe God tells me one thing and
George another and you a third? Is this why we have so many
denominations? God is saying different things to different people, none
of which can be counted on to be true? This is the epitomy of the noisy

The noisy communication channel does apply to God's communication
regardless of what those who deny its validity claim. There is no way
that such a physical law can't apply to physical communication and no
matter how God inspires, eventually it has to enter our brains and that
makes it subject to the laws of nature, which amazingly, those who
criticize YECs for ignoring physical law are now busy denying physical
law when it points in their direction.
Received on Mon Sep 6 12:01:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 06 2004 - 12:01:02 EDT