RE: Defense of Theism pt 1

From: <>
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 08:58:33 EDT

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Winterstein []
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:04 PM
[Don Winterstein] Huh?  This sounds like you're defending the atheist's solution.  I didn't expect that or detect it in your "Defense."  If so, why?  
[Glenn Morton]  That post was conceived when I was faced with a bunch of atheists who were looking down their noses at theism. You know the type--the type that finds a religious evolutionist useful but also he findes them to be a useful village idiot who doesn't have enough sense to give up religion.  This type of individual thinks he is oh so scientific but he hasn't thought deeply about the issues.
[Don Winterstein] We don't understand their essences, but we can often describe their manifestations, sometimes in great detail.

[Glenn Morton] And that is called math. That is how we describe their manifestations
  [Don Winterstein]Behavior as described by math is one such manifestation, but in most cases it encompasses only a tiny bit of what we are capable of describing about the thing.  We can calculate Earth's relative motions from gravity math, for example, but that tells us only a small fraction of the things about Earth that we might find relevant.  Ultimately, you have to judge what's going to be most meaningful for your target audience.  The emphasis on math seems awfully narrow to me. 

[Glenn Morton]  Math is most certainly part of the qualities that the ur-stuff must contain. I really didn't think I spend more time on math than on the other qualities, but somehow you picked up that I did.  My target audience is atheists, not theists.
[Don Winterstein] Of course; but atheists I've dealt with don't seem willing to give the Bible a break--no doubt partly because they're aware of YECs and their interpretation.  If what they read sounds like just another ancient, tribal myth, they're not going to put in a lot of effort trying to understand how it might be something more meaningful.  They're going to assume any effort on our part to read meaning into it will be just a pathetic attempt to save a sinking ship, so to speak.  In conversations with atheists on religion I  steer topics completely away from the Bible's first several books--if they allow me the option.  Of course, you and I have very different attitudes towards this. 

[Glenn Morton]  Steering them away from Genesis is problem avoidance. I prefer to confront and try to solve the problem. Avoiding the issue won't make it go away.

Received on Mon Jun 27 09:01:58 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 09:02:01 EDT