Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Plantinga Changed His Mind

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I really don't get what you're getting at. Is this supposed to be a problem with the biology or how it would fit in a Christian worldview?
    I thought the discussion was about why non-lethal variance is seen as design, while birth defects and the like can be ruled out as such. I think this is related to lao tzu's can of worms statement?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by whag View Post
      I thought the discussion was about why non-lethal variance is seen as design, while birth defects and the like can be ruled out as such. I think this is related to lao tzu's can of worms statement?
      Okay. I don't think Christians would see all non-lethal variance as design - I certainly don't. Some? Possibly.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        Okay. I don't think Christians would see all non-lethal variance as design - I certainly don't. Some? Possibly.
        I don't see then why it's worth arguing that even lethal design can always be ruled out as design. That's the can of worms. Rather than reserve the term for when it's convenient, such as pretty new butterflies, better to keep it apart from the equation entirely.

        In short, your reserving the right to dismiss dysteleology as design isn't coherent from a scientific standpoint. This would be well and good if DI/ID kept discussion of it in church and the Christian university labs, not so much when they complain about having no seat at the evolutionary table.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by whag View Post
          On the contrary, I want you to participate. I've invited you to discuss this many times.
          Nah, you're not interested in discussing anything. You only want me to participate as long as I'm taking a position directly opposite or in line with yours, not when I'm calling you out for making up contradictions. Thanks, but I'll participate how I want.

          You called me out for not reading an about section that doesn't explain what the video is about. Watching the video is the best method for determining what it's about.
          I know its a novel idea, but maybe, just maybe, its good idea to watch the video and read the submitter's notes. Then you won't find yourself in the awkward situation of ignoring correction when its offered, or pretending that others didn't watch the video.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
            Nah, you're not interested in discussing anything. You only want me to participate as long as I'm taking a position directly opposite or in line with yours, not when I'm calling you out for making up contradictions. Thanks, but I'll participate how I want.



            I know its a novel idea, but maybe, just maybe, its good idea to watch the video and read the submitter's notes. Then you won't find yourself in the awkward situation of ignoring correction when its offered, or pretending that others didn't watch the video.
            The about section doesn't describe what the video is about in any way. The video makes no sense in light of clarification.

            Interestingly, Craig refers to theistic evolution as a "chic" position now, but still thinks it's unfair that Behe and Dembski aren't allowed to represent it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              Molecular alteration of the course of evolution invokes a hyper-Calvinistic determinism far beyond the scope of any human decisions, however. These are changes that precede the affected human, and directly affect the ability to make the human decisions a theistic god must oversee. Here I see an entirely intractable problem: suffering inflicted by a God on a perfectly innocent victim, not only through no fault of her own, but through no fault of any other human.
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              Molecular alteration of the course of evolution invokes a hyper-Calvinistic determinism far beyond the scope of any human decisions, however.
              I really can't see how it does.
              Because:

              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              These are changes that precede the affected human, and directly affect the ability to make the human decisions a theistic god must oversee. Here I see an entirely intractable problem: suffering inflicted by a God on a perfectly innocent victim, not only through no fault of her own, but through no fault of any other human.
              That's kinda the idea behind putting it into the same paragraph directly behind the thesis, as above.

              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Are you still discussing the case where God is not intervening to prevent a birth defect? If so, I'm sure I don't see how it's inflicted by God. Allowed, yes, but not inflicted.
              "Allowing" harmful molecular changes in a creation in which molecular changes are instantly governed by a Creator is indistinguishable from that Creator "inflicting" those harmful molecular changes.

              The way to see this is to consider a coherent, theistic alternative:

              À la Francis Collins, the existence of humanity, and perforce, individual humans, is contingent on the natural process of evolution. This is a Thomasite position, and responsible for the general rejection of ID by Thomasites. They don't want a God who needs to tinker with the created product in order to "get it right." This form of ID Creationism is still, in some sense, Theistic Evolution, but it preserves the innocence of the Creator, and, incidentally, the rational worldview that allows for confidence in tracing the work of that Creator.

              Even lacking belief in any deity, I can defend this view. Not so, its alternative.

              The problem of evil is only a problem to the extent that the evil is created by a God, and even then, only to the extent that that God is imputed benevolence. Removing divine benevolence still allows for a coherent deity, but one that can only be feared, not loved, and devolves justice from a principled position into a cosmic version of "might makes right."

              As ever, Jesse

              ps. As much as I'd like to continue this conversation, there shall be at least a hiatus here while I attend to other issues, and if the thread keeps moving at pages per hour, I'm afraid this could be my last response. Thank you for your thoughts.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by whag View Post
                I don't see then why it's worth arguing that even lethal design can always be ruled out as design..
                I think you meant "lethal variance"? Why should that be the case? The case is that some variance is design, so why can't lethal variance not be design? Sure, you may not accept the rationale as plausible, but a priori there's nothing that rules it out.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                  "Allowing" harmful molecular changes in a creation in which molecular changes are instantly governed by a Creator is indistinguishable from that Creator "inflicting" those harmful molecular changes.
                  I disagree.

                  To me it's boils down to a special case of the problem of suffering - which I am careful not to identify with evil- which you may not want to defend, but I think is defensible.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    I think you meant "lethal variance"? Why should that be the case? The case is that some variance is design, so why can't lethal variance not be design? Sure, you may not accept the rationale as plausible, but a priori there's nothing that rules it out.
                    Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for the correction. I think you're making the point that intention in creation cannot be coherently teased out in the lab.

                    If this were the case of a mere theological midrash, it's a great topic. As science, reading supernatural intention into structures is an impediment to research and the cannot worms Lao tzu described.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by whag View Post
                      Thanks for the correction. I think you're making the point that intention in creation cannot be coherently teased out in the lab.
                      Certainly it would be difficult. Whether it is impossible I'm not sure and don't care to make a judgment either way.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        Certainly it would be difficult. Whether it is impossible I'm not sure and don't care to make a judgment either way.
                        It's true that ID-confident universities might form the framework to begin research some day. For now, and since the days of Henry Morris, it hasn't presented that framework. Dover was its chance to shine.

                        That's really the whole issue summed up. It's a great midrash in church, but not near being a useful field of study.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                          What matters to me is that you posted both links as though DI was saying one thing and Craig was saying another (specifically about Behe and Dembski). But it turned out YOU were wrong. Both links agree that Behe and Dembski are Theistic Evolutionists. Listen. For the sake of your post #62, I don't care if they really are or are not. What I care about is that you were wrong for implying the links were contradictory. They're not. At least, not on that point.
                          Dembski isn't even a theistic evolutionist by his own definition. In this review of "The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions," Dembski defines theistic evolution:

                          Originally posted by Dembski
                          The product that's being sold is theistic evolution, the view that God brought about the complexity and diversity of living forms, once first life was here, via the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.
                          http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...offset=3&max=1

                          A microevolutionist or progressive creationist does not a TE make (not unless you're sloppily redefining terms to avoid minor controversies). It's a very specific thing DI clearly defines, using Giberson, Enns, Miller, and Collins as examples of its representatives.

                          This video is more interesting. In it, he calls TE a solution to a problem that doesn't need solved. Why would he say that if he held to it?

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYN8g...e_gdata_player

                          I will concede he does briefly refer to IDs who accept human/chimp common ancestry (he was thinking of Behe here, probably), but he's not referring to TEs. TEs by definition don't think evolution needs any tweaking, which is a clear point of disagreement between DI (the IDs) and BioLogos (the TEs).

                          And that's why Craig was pulling a fast one in his Triumph of Behe video. He's using a definition they both don't agree on.
                          Last edited by whag; 04-01-2014, 10:24 PM.

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                          39 responses
                          192 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post whag
                          by whag
                           
                          Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                          21 responses
                          132 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                          Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                          80 responses
                          428 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post tabibito  
                          Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                          45 responses
                          305 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                          Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                          406 responses
                          2,518 views
                          2 likes
                          Last Post tabibito  
                          Working...
                          X