Plantinga's argument for Design.

[OingoBoingo]

If you read Plantinga's application of his arguments, you'll come to a very similar conclusion.

True, but I didn't need to read Plantinga to know that shunyadragon was confused about what he believes. Previous conversations with him already cemented that in my mind.

[OingoBoingo]

Amused, not alarmed. Are you alarmed by Scientology's built-in excommunicative practices, as well? I'm not.

Of course I am. Their practices are horrifying. People locked up on ships or buildings for years with little to no contact from close family. People mysteriously disappearing for years and years. People who are excommunicated and lose everything, their family, their finances, their jobs. Their reputation tarnished, and their names blacklisted. What kind of monster are you that you don't care about something like that? Hell, whole nations care enough to prevent them from setting up shop.

You should be alarmed by Plantinga's support for ID, not minor religions and cults that threaten religious ostracism. Those are a dime a dozen. Meanwhile, ID brazenly indoctrinates young believers to be especially skeptical of an important epistemic fact.

I should be alarmed about the things you find alarming, and not, you know, things like people being spied on, locked away for years, and probably killed? Interesting perspective.

[whag]

I don't think he knows what he believes, honestly.

If you read Plantinga's application of his arguments, you'll come to a very similar conclusion.

[whag]

What are you talking about "irrelevant"? Is your attention span that short? You thought that shunyadragon should ignore the teachings of his faith. I replied that the very real consequences of such an action would be the threat of excommunication. When I said that I hoped the Universal House of Justice doesn't excommunicate him, I was being sardonic. I find any denomination that institutes with the following alarming,



Don't you?

Amused, not alarmed. Are you alarmed by Scientology's built-in excommunicative practices, as well? I'm not.

You should be alarmed by Plantinga's support for ID, not minor religions and cults that threaten religious ostracism. Those are a dime a dozen. Meanwhile, ID brazenly indoctrinates young believers to be especially skeptical of an important epistemic fact.

[OingoBoingo]

I don't think he knows what he believes, honestly.

[OingoBoingo]

You brought up the irrelevant topics of religious ostracism and heretical belief. I gather Shuny isn't intimidated by such a prospect, yet you think he should worry about it.

"Well hopefully the Universal House of Justice doesn't excommunicate him."

The hell do you care?

I'd say the same thing to Plantinga who confusingly straddles the fence, which can lead to grievous errors in thinking. Here's William Lane Craig calling evolution a "miracle" (because it's improbable) and citing Plantinga at the same time:


http://youtu.be/d9h-hmlMz5c

What are you talking about "irrelevant"? Is your attention span that short? You thought that shunyadragon should ignore the teachings of his faith. I replied that the very real consequences of such an action would be the threat of excommunication. When I said that I hoped the Universal House of Justice doesn't excommunicate him, I was being sardonic. I find any denomination that institutes with the following alarming,

The Board members must remain ever vigilant, monitoring the actions of those who, driven by the promptings of ego, seek to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the friends and undermine the Faith. In general, whenever believers become aware of such problems, they should immediately contact whatever institution they feel moved to turn to, whether it be a Counsellor, an Auxiliary Board member, the National Spiritual Assembly or their own Local Assembly. It then becomes the duty of that institution to ensure that the report is fed into the correct channels and that all the other institutions affected are promptly informed. Not infrequently, the responsibility will fall on an Auxiliary Board member, in coordination with the Assembly concerned, to take some form of action in response to the situation. This involvement will include counselling the believer in question; warning him, if necessary, of the consequences of his actions; and bringing to the attention of the Counsellors the gravity of the situation, which may call for their intervention. Naturally, the Board member has to exert every effort to counteract the schemes and arrest the spread of the influence of those few who, despite attempts to guide them, eventually break the Covenant.

The need to protect the Faith from the attacks of its enemies may not be generally appreciated by the friends, particularly in places where attacks have been infrequent. However, it is certain that such opposition will increase, become concerted, and eventually universal. The writings clearly foreshadow not only an intensification of the machinations of internal enemies, but a rise in the hostility and opposition of its external enemies, whether religious or secular, as the Cause pursues its onward march towards ultimate victory. Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian, the Auxiliary Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful eye" on those "who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the Faith", discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently the friends to the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each crisis in God's Faith has always proved to be a blessing in disguise, and prepare them for the "dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against the forces of darkness". - The Universal House of Justice, the Institution of the Counselors, p. 16

Don't you?

[whag]

To the contrary. I'm not a Baha'i, so I could give a care.

You don't have to be a Bahai to laud religious ostracism and excommunication, which you did and continually deny.

But you yourself think its a good thing for Pete Enns to examine his beliefs, to see where his beliefs contradict, to be skeptical of its source, and to eventually abandon the belief altogether, or at least embrace a version that's so watered down as to be almost ineffectual. I'm surprised you don't want the same for shunyadragon. After all, as you say, shunyadragon shouldn't worry about being called a heretic anymore more than Pete Enns should.

How one enacts Jesus instructions is much more important than theological pressure and absurd expectations to jibe with group think. Accusations of cheerleading for Enns' apostasy aside, you are correct.

[OingoBoingo]

No, I'm actually being consistent. Shuya shouldn't worry about being called a heretic by Bahai any more than Pete Enns should worry about being called a heretic by conservative Christians.

You seem to see value in such policing, which is odd.

To the contrary. I'm not a Baha'i, so I could give a care.

But you yourself think its a good thing for Pete Enns to examine his beliefs, to see where his beliefs contradict, to be skeptical of its source, and to eventually abandon the belief altogether, or at least embrace a version that's so watered down as to be almost ineffectual. I'm surprised you don't want the same for shunyadragon. After all, as you say, shunyadragon shouldn't worry about being called a heretic anymore more than Pete Enns should.

[whag]

You're going to straight up lie about me, when anyone can look back 2 or 3 posts and see what I actually said? Wow. This from the guy gloating over the fears you imagine Plantinga is suffering from.

You brought up the irrelevant topics of religious ostracism and heretical belief. I gather Shuny isn't intimidated by such a prospect, yet you think he should worry about it.

"Well hopefully the Universal House of Justice doesn't excommunicate him."

The hell do you care?

I'd say the same thing to Plantinga who confusingly straddles the fence, which can lead to grievous errors in thinking. Here's William Lane Craig calling evolution a "miracle" (because it's improbable) and citing Plantinga at the same time:


http://youtu.be/d9h-hmlMz5c

[seer]

And that man is never an animal, ever. Oh, and that he was created by a God. Oh, and that he's a special species. Oh, and that he is biologically and spiritually united. Oh, and that he is destined for something great... Yeah, you know, and I know that the Baha'i Faith says more about science than you're letting on. Ultimately the Baha'i Faith is a faith that believes in a creator of the universe, and if you take that away from it then you're left with no theistic faith at all.

[OingoBoingo]

That sounds reasonable to me. Oingo Boingo wants you to fear "shunning and excommunication" for your views.
That sounds liberating, doesn't it? =P

You're going to straight up lie about me, when anyone can look back 2 or 3 posts and see what I actually said? Wow. This from the guy gloating over the fears you imagine Plantinga is suffering from.

[whag]

No, I'm actually being consistent. Shuya shouldn't worry about being called a heretic by Bahai any more than Pete Enns should worry about being called a heretic by conservative Christians.

You seem to see value in such policing, which is odd.

[OingoBoingo]

I have repeatedly provided the Baha'i doctrine and Dogma concerning the Baha'i view of science with citations, but he ignores it.

Nope. I've read everything you've cited. Its just that they don't refute what I've cited. I mean, again, that the Baha'i faith is inconsistent is not my problem, its yours.

The bottom line is that the Baha'i Faith considers science as an evolving knowledge of our physical existence, and takes precedence over any statements in scripture on the nature of our physical existence regardless of religion including Baha'i scripture.

The Baha'i Faith does not consider statements on the physical nature of our physical existence as infallible.

So when 'Abdu'l-Baha said,

The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has NEVER been an animal. It will NEVER be found. 'Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

He lied? Will the Universal House of Justice support you in that assertion? I mean never means never. I don't know how else it can be read, and we know that 'Abdu'l-Baha is an inspired and inerrant teacher in the Baha'i Faith. Shoghi Effendi tells us so,

the Moon of the Central Orb of this most holy Dispensation, paragraph 75

That's mighty high praise for someone you can dismiss willy-nilly, and still be a Baha'i.

It is acknowledge that the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdul'baha, and Shoghi Effendi are not scientists.

Well, no duh. Its acknowledged that Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad aren't scientists either.

The roll of religion is defined as the moral and ethical guidance as to how science is applied, and not revealing actual scientific knowledge.

So when the prophets and the religious leaders of the Baha'i Faith say that a God created the universe, that's not actual scientific knowledge? Yeah, you wouldn't let a Christian get away with that.

What is not considered in archaic ancient religions is that 'knowledge evolves' over time, and they cling to the past, and either rejecting science or selectively accepting science . On the other hand the Baha'i Faith acknowledges the evolving nature of human knowledge in both the understanding of the more universal nature of both the 'Spiritual Revelation of our nature, and the physical nature of our existence.

And that man is never an animal, ever. Oh, and that he was created by a God. Oh, and that he's a special species. Oh, and that he is biologically and spiritually united. Oh, and that he is destined for something great... Yeah, you know, and I know that the Baha'i Faith says more about science than you're letting on. Ultimately the Baha'i Faith is a faith that believes in a creator of the universe, and if you take that away from it then you're left with no theistic faith at all.

[OingoBoingo]

No, rather he put his eggs in the ID basket, then quietly backed away from that (exemplified in your quote) after evolutionists clearly pointed out his error.

Judging from his response to Jones as recently as 2006, there seems to be a pressure for him to still criticize science sans metaphysical causation. That's definitely two divergent positions.

Yep, talking out of your butt. Pretty much what I thought.

No, I'm thinking that Bahai doesn't put near the amount of pressure on its adherents that you imply. Conservative Christianity is more rigid and less likely to encourage "wandering off the beach blanket" (to borrow Pete Enns' terminology).

[whag]

Some of his statements border on a paranoid view o a conspiracy by scientists to subvert secular science with anti-God Philosophical Naturalism as in his description of GEM

His biggest error was saying this multiple times and continuing to imply it. The truth seems to be that ID burst out of the gate with nothing and got appropriately pushed back because of it.