arndt@lymph.DEC (04/12/85)
Ahhhh Lief. I gladly turn the other cheek and admit to faults before
one and all. I'm glad to see you on the net and have read your articles
with interest.
But a word.
Look big guy (pro), I'll take my road and you take yours. You call me
a missing link and I call people names, right??? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
You submit (forget already?) "obviously charged wisecracks" - your words,
and as you turn serious become "ashamed to have (me) on your side" - again
your words. Get down!!!
Tell me I posted stale humor, tell me it had no point you could see, but
"tell me, tell me, tell me that you love me . . . "
Please keep us informed with your postings. I have learned things in them
and have enjoyed them. You and rck are great. But you know . . . .
************************
One of the 7 day guys, eh? I might have known. Let me comment on some of
the things you said in "Why Creation?"
o "The scientific method requires that all ideas and theories be tested and
tried."
*** ALL rational thought (as theology - the bible - is) is required
to be tested and tried. The law of noncontradiction, eh? Otherwise it's
just sound! Arf! Arf! You know?
o "Another requirement for a scientific method is that all preconceived
notions must be removed."
**** Wrong, Wrong! Don't look now (later than 1700) but there IS NO
WAY to remove ALL, that's ALL preconcieved notions!!!! Rational thought,
science itself, math, etc, etc. is based upon 'notions' about 'reality'!!
Feynman's quote, given by Lew, about physics being a 'model', a WAY of
looking at 'reality', etc. etc. There is no non preconceived place to
stand - no absolutes from which to start thinking about the 'reality'.
o "In otherwords, the true scientist must be truly objective -- this is
extremely difficult."
*** Sorry. It appears to be IMPOSSIBLE!!!! Objectivity is a
construct of our imagination. Another model.
Your starting point seems to be God. "I believe in the all powerful God of
the bible . . ." Well, yes I know that's where many Christians DO start.
I think that they may be wrong in EXPLAINING their starting point if right
in their conclusions. May I refer you to TESTING CHRISTIANITY'S
TRUTH CLAIMS: APPROACHES TO CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Gordon R. Lewis ed.,
Moody Press, '76.
In particular the sections on the approach of Edward Carnell, p176ff. and
the section on Francis Schaefer.
ONE HAS TO BE VERY VERY CAREFUL JUST WHAT ONE MEANS WHEN ONE SAYS "I START
WITH GOD". Therefore I ask you to clear this up for us.
Let me tell you what I mean in the words of this book about Carnell.
"Carnell cannot agree . . . that the logical starting point is a direct
experience of God." "If experience of God is really self-authenticating
and beyond rational examination, theology as an informative discipline
is impossible."
"Analogously Carnell has a place in his approach for empirical evidence,
but perception of the physical world is not his starting point. The
attempt to come to the world with a blank mind to nature does not end in
knowledge, but skepticism. " . . . the best a pure empiricist can do is
to describe a series of disjointed impressions. No universal or necessary
laws can be derived from nature."
"Rational empiricism also fails to show God's existence." "Granting
causality, all one needs to explain a finite universe is a finite God."
"If the cause of the universe is greater than the evidence indicates,
however, empiricists have no way of knowing it." (Rich Rosen take notice,
a point he has made many times!)
"THE STARTING POINTS OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY, SENSE DATA, AND RATIONAL PRINCIPLES
ALL FALL SHORT OF ABILITY TO CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM TRUTHCLAIMS ABOUT ONE
INFINITE, WISE, AND LOVING GOD." (Italics mine)
So where to start?????
Carnell says, "The logical starting point is the coordinating ultimate which
gives being and meaning to the many of the time-space universe. For Thales
it was water; or Anaximines it was air, for Plato it was the Good; and for
the Christian it is the Trinity." AN INTRODUCTION TO APOLOGETICS, Eerdmans,
'48, p49-50;74-82.
This is the old problem of the 'one and the many'. That is, philosophers who
explained everything from one thing had difficulty accounting for diverse
character of the universe - and the old conundrum of what/who made God?
Those who started with many - atoms, etc - had difficulty accounting for
the unity of the universe. The Christian answer to the unity and the
diversity of the world is a God who exists as three persons in one essence!!
THE ULTIMATE EXPLANATION OF ALL THINGS IS ITSELF A MULTIPLICITY IN UNITY!!
The Trinity is a HYPOTHESIS used as a starting point!!!!
A second HYPOTHESIS is that this triune God has revealed himself in the
bible.
See the difference of this from just saying I assume the 'fact' of God,
even the God of the bible???
Now watch carefully. Hypothesis are 'true' only when 'verified' as not
contradictory and as adequate to account for all revelant data of
experience. That is a far cry from starting from 'exerience' and the
'fact' of God's existence, etc.
Someone like Van Til permitted no testing of his presupposition (of God)
by logic or experience.
And now the capstone!!! Carnell (my hero!) says; "All hypotheses are but
patterns of meaning which are thought out by the mind of the investigator
to explain the configuration of data which it faces. The hypotheses that
work well are called 'theories',and theories that stick are called 'laws'.
But let us not forget that these laws are but good hypotheses."
Is this not what science, and ALL thought is about. Ergo, what IS the
difference between a scientific and a 'religious' theory??? To put my
old question again.
But there is so much more in Carnell's book and the other book I reference
above. Look it up.
Warm regards,
Ken Arndt
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/13/85)
Ken Arndt says: > And now the capstone!!! Carnell (my hero!) says; "All hypotheses are but > patterns of meaning which are thought out by the mind of the investigator > to explain the configuration of data which it faces. The hypotheses that > work well are called 'theories',and theories that stick are called 'laws'. > But let us not forget that these laws are but good hypotheses." > Is this not what science, and ALL thought is about. Ergo, what IS the > difference between a scientific and a 'religious' theory??? To put my > old question again. One difference between a scientific and a religious theory is that a scientific theory must be capable, at least in principle, of being falsified. Thus, if I attempt to explain everything in the universe by saying "The universe is totally erratic, so there is no such thing as physical law," what I have said cannot qualify as a scientific theory, because there is no conceivable observation that could ever falsify it. On the other hand, it's trivial to imagine an experiment that, if "successful," would falsify F=MA.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/17/85)
> Is this not what science, and ALL thought is about. Ergo, what IS the > difference between a scientific and a 'religious' theory??? To put my > old question again. It is certainly valid to claim that religion and science are both examples of schools of philosophical thought. In our nation, however, the philosophies of religion have been awarded a special honor: none may be forced on us by the government, and therefore none may be taught in the public (government owned) schools. The philosopy of science has been awarded a special honor by reality: it produces results that work. While they are both philosophies, there is a vast difference between them.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/26/85)
> [Andrew Koenig] > Thus, if I attempt to explain everything in the universe by > saying "The universe is totally erratic, so there is no > such thing as physical law," what I have said cannot qualify > as a scientific theory, because there is no conceivable observation > that could ever falsify it. You'll supply us with references of creationists who use this as an argument, of course... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/29/85)
> > [Andrew Koenig] > > Thus, if I attempt to explain everything in the universe by > > saying "The universe is totally erratic, so there is no > > such thing as physical law," what I have said cannot qualify > > as a scientific theory, because there is no conceivable observation > > that could ever falsify it. > > You'll supply us with references of creationists who use this as an > argument, of course... > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- You'll supply us with a reference of where Andrew *said* that creationists use this as an argument, of course... -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This here's a story 'bout Minnie the Moocher. She was a low-down hoo-oochy koocher. She was the roughest, meanest frail. But Minnie had a heart as big as a whale." - idunno (mail me if you do!)
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/30/85)
>>> [Andrew Koenig] >>> Thus, if I attempt to explain everything in the universe by >>> saying "The universe is totally erratic, so there is no >>> such thing as physical law," what I have said cannot qualify >>> as a scientific theory, because there is no conceivable observation >>> that could ever falsify it. >> >> You'll supply us with references of creationists who use this as an >> argument, of course... >> Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > You'll supply us with a reference of where Andrew *said* that creationists > use this as an argument, of course... > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Jeff is correct to suggest that I did not say that creationists use the above argument in an attempt to explain the universe. I made up this particular argument as an example of something that does not qualify as a scientific theory.