RE: Seely's Views 2

From: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 09:49:05 EDT

Hi Glenn,

Maybe this way will avoid the html, but some people don't
have the Japanese font support and this may end up unreadable.
The fonts are hard wired here.
 
Anyway, I can basically see what you are saying.

>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? &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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? &nbsp;Maybe God needs to
>accommodated to George? Or to me? Maybe God tells me one thing and
>George another and you a third? &nbsp;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
>channel.

This is one very good reason why people should ask what
kind of evidence they have before they fly planes into
buildings.

When I walk into a classroom with a physics book, I
try to show students from fundamental principles how we
can understand nature. I would be confident that even if
I don't know the answer to a question, there exists an
answer somewhere that can be found.

On the other hand, if I walked into a class room with
a Bible, even armed with F3 (in which you propose many
interesting ideas), I would not talk this way. I wouldn't
shout "turn or burn" here on the streets of Tokyo either.
I think we have to live with the fact that we don't have
adequate information.

Your labors sound a little like Emanual Kant's comments
on metaphysics. He was wrestling with the problem of
how to work between the "loquacious shallowness which
arrogates to itself the good name of popularity" and
the "scepticism which makes short work with the whole
of metaphysics". To my view, discovery, even down
home experimental science, does depend on a little brew
of metaphysics. We have to reach to discover and that
comfortable "shield of fact" is only for cowards. Of
course, scientists learn to temper their "reach", but
discovery is still a matter of reaching, as far as I
can tell.

But if I cut the link and reach for the great
beyond, maybe it seems right, but how can _I_
know?

>
>The noisy communication channel does apply to God's communication
>regardless of what those who deny its validity claim. &nbsp;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.

I can grasp your point. At some level, real communication has
to occur. I have to defer at this time because I really don't
understand how we know anything about God even at the personal
level. If there is a God, and particularly, if Christ was really
the son of God, there is definitely purpose, but if there is
no such God, what have I to say about people who fly planes
into buildings? There seems to be a difference, but why?
I cannot take the drivel I see from science reaching any
serious moral conclusion. Even at that level, one must start
from some principle such as survival. Yet why should we care
if we survive if there are no objective rules?

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Tue Sep 7 10:39:37 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 10:39:38 EDT