Re: Paradoxes

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 14:53:17 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/01/2025 4:48 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 00:09:11 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 18/01/2025 11:44 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:59:26 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 18/01/2025 12:14 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:14:51 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 16/01/2025 9:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:46:59 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 16/01/2025 6:46 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:42:09 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
[...]
>

>
Sure, be careful to avoid a god-of-the-gaps.
Sure, knowledge of God lies outside the province of science.
Sure, do not rest religious belief on the science of the day.
>
But, I suspect the thinking you espouse is the product of an a priori
commitment to metaphysical naturalism. Which itself is a position of
faith, for example:
>
"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." (Carl Sagan)

>
>
I've already asked you this several times but you've always ignored
it; is there any chance of you addressing it this time?
>
How do you squareyour claim of an a priori faith-like commitment to
metaphysical naturalism with the many, many theistic evolutionists
like myself who are totally convinced of  their religious beliefs but
have no problem accepting the role of natural processes in both OOL
and Evolution?
>
As pointed out by Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center
for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism
is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant
seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church"
>

>
I assume you meant to say "metaphysical supernaturalism"?

>
I was quoting your own words.
>

>
Personally, I haven't ruled out Theistic Evolutionism. A have trusted
and respected friends who are orthodox Christians and hold to various
forms theistic evolution.

>
So why do you insist that acceptances of natural processes is "the
product of an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism"; does it
apply to those  "trusted and respected friends who are orthodox
Christians"?

>
That's not what I said.
>
What I did say was this: "I suspect the thinking you espouse is the
product of an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism". The
thinking to which I refer is the position of excluding the possibility
of agency outside the material universe, full stop.
>

>

>
However, to me, the scientific evidence does not support a
noninterventionist interpretation.

>
I'm not asking you about that. I'm asking you about your suggestion
that accepting a noninterventionist interpretation equates to atheism.

>
You're proposing "noninterventionist theism".
>
What does this noninterventionist do then in relation to the universe,
if anything?
>

>
Evasion doesn't cut it. As I've said to you before, you really should
think long and hard about why you find my questions hard to answer.
>

>
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine
wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of
theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be
characterised as:
>
1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable)
>
How would you express it, and where would you sit personally?
>

>
Trying to change the subject is a rather feeble attempt at evasion and
as I already told you, evasion doesn't cut it, it just highlights how
you can't answer my question with undermining your original argument.
>

>
I'm really not trying to be evasive. I'm coming at the topic from this
direction as I think it will help us progress the conversation. But
happy to answer a specific question if you'd like to restate it.

 
In your reply to Kestrel and on various other occasions in the past,
you have expressed the view that accepting OOL arose through natural
processes is the product of an a priori commitment to metaphysical
naturalism. You describe that itself as a position of faith which
implies the total exclusion of God. How do you square that with me and
many others, including your own trusted friends, believing in God but
accepting OOL through natural causes?
 

>
Perhaps I need to extend/clarify my position to something like this:

You are still not addressing my question. Let's make it simple for
you.

Your comments above and elsewhere suggest that you regard acceptance
of OOL through natural process as equating to a rejection of God. Is
that a fair summary of your position, yes or no?

>
"If OoL research were to find no plausible naturalistic explanation
after some large amount of research time and effort, would one then
consider supernatural action as a possible explanation? If your answer
is no, that suggests an a priori commitment to either metaphysical
naturalism or undetectable theism."

Definitions & clarifications:
>
- "find no plausible naturalistic explanation" = a general consensus
that all known hypotheses, mechanisms and pathways have been shown to be
implausible
>
- "implausible" = generally accepted as essentially physically
impossible or with vanishingly small probability
>
- "some large amount of research time and effort" = an arbitrary and
conservatively large allowance
>
- "consider supernatural action" = allow for this option, but with no
requirement to abandon further research
>
- "suggests an a priori commitment" - at this point an unwillingness to
even consider supernatural agency is rationally contrary to the balance
of scientific evidence, and therefore is based on other factors
>
- "undetectable theism" - the position that any and all divine action is
not detectable or unable to be inferred from observation/analysis of
physical phenomena
>
- Would this situation provide any information about this hypothesised
agent? No; that's the domain of theology, philosophy, personal
experience etc
>
Thoughts?

I responded to more or less the same question back on 21st Dec but you
ignored it. The only thing you have changed from your question at that
time is that you have replaced "!!0,000 years" with an unspecified
"some large amount of research time and effort". I will accordingly
modify part of my response at that time to:

"I can't locate myself in any of them because I cannot see any
rationale in your what you are asking. It took mankind over 2 million
years to figure out what that bright disc is that crosses the sky
every day; what is the significance of your [change 10,000 years to
some large amount of research time and effort] in regard to abandoning
scientific research into OOL (or any area of knowledge for that
matter)?"

>

>
Equally, I'd value a response to my question on intervention and
theistic evolution.

 
You first, please.
 
 
>