RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 10:33:56 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com [mailto:Dawsonzhu@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 8:49 AM

> >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.
>
Amen to that. This is why having some reason for confidence in the truth
of the message we receive is so important. Koresh also thought he had
a message as did the Rialians and Jim Jones of Guiana fame.

> 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.

And I wouldn't want you to shout turn or burn. I can't prove my views
but I can prove that they are consistent with modern science. But that
doesn't make them facts. In my view, they provide a reason to believe
that there is some form of historicity in the Genesis account. Other
approaches (YEC and otherwise) to this problem squeeze all the
historicity out of the account

>
> 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.
>

There is a lot of similarity between what Kant wrestled with and what I
am doing. Many of the issues are the same. Kant struggled with noumena
and phenomena, I struggle with message and meaning, truth and falsity,
fact and fantasy.

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

If we can't know, then we are capable of doing things like flying planes
into buildings or alternatively, of not flying planes into buildings
when that is what God wants us to do. While this sounds almost
blasphemous, if the islamic radicals have the correct understanding of
what God demands, then we are the ones in the wrong. Everyone will say
"oh no that goes against Christs' ethics" but that is merely begging the
question before the question has been asked.

>
> >
> >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?

This is truly THE fundamental issue in our wrestling with God and what
he wants. If there is no communication, we are adrift. If the
communciation is so noisy as to leave us in doubt about what he wants,
we are adrift. If there is no god, then survival alone becomes the game
followed closely by living well. But we wouldn't care much for letting
people who fly planes into buildings live. They interfere with living
well. Genecide would once again rule as it did throughout most of
history. 400 years ago, the action in Breslin Russia with those school
children would bring about the wiping out of Chechnia. Shoot, even 60
years ago when Stalin was in power that would have been the result.
Without our Christian God, that is where we as a society would go.

Without a God, why should we care if we survive? The alternative is
nothingness. Existence seems infinitely better although if the
nothingness is like sleep, that is not something to be feared.
Received on Tue Sep 7 12:00:18 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 12:00:19 EDT