Re: Paradoxes

On 31/01/2025 2:44 am, Martin Harran wrote:

rOn Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:44:44 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 29/01/2025 11:59 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

   On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:57:03 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 29/01/2025 2:58 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:29:24 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[…]
>

An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part, on
our belief.

>
Just over a week ago, I asked you if you regard acceptance of OOL
through natural process as equating to a rejection of God. You said
no. yet here you go again relating the acceptance of natural forces to
atheism :(
>

>
Are you interpreting my statement
>
      "An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options..."
as
      "acceptance of OOL through natural process [equates] to a
       rejection of God"?
>
The key phrase in my statement is "may preference", which is nowhere
near equating OOL through natural process with a rejection of God.

>
Your "may preference" is a weasel-worded way of suggesting the
relationship whilst trying to avoid looking as if you are suggesting
it. Do you think that a person's worldview "might" somehow affect the
veracity of their scientific findings? James Watson in his later
years, has expressed some extremely racist views about genetics; does
that mean the results of his pioneering work on the DNA double helix
should be disregarded? Many scientists in the early part of the 20th
century supported eugenics; does that mean that all the scientific
knowledge we have gained relating to Evolution should be discarded?
>
Even suggesting that a person's worldview *might* somehow impact on
the veracity of their findings is utter nonsense and simply reflects
your own worldview and your insatiable need to somehow undermine
scientific discoveries that contradict that worldview.
>

>
You seem to have an oversensitivity here which is leading you
misconstrue my words (again).

>
I consider your suggestions an insult to me and other theistic
evolutionists, implying by association that we are following an
atheist-driven path. Any "oversensitivity" is that despite having the
faults in your insulting argument pointed out on numerous occasions,
you persist with it, apparently thinking you can get away with it by
segueing from "is" to "might be".
>

>
Regardless, isn't it a reasonable generalisation to say that with OOL,
atheists will strongly/exclusively look to naturalistic explanations,
and theists more often than not to supernatural ones?

>
>
No, it's not a reasonable generalisation. You completely ignore the
fact that until roughly the later part of the 19th century, the vast
majority of scientific work was carried out by committed Christians,
Isaac Newton being a prime example. You also ignore that some of the
biggest steps in science were achieved by individual religious
believers. Copernicus was a cleric who did not let what was said in
the Bible restrict his work oh heliocentrism. Gregor Mendel, the
"father of genetics" was an Augustinian monk. Georges Lemaître who
first proposed the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. Even today, the
Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences meets regularly with the
world's leading scientists, both religious and atheists to discuss
advances in science and how they might impact upon religious beliefs..
Leading atheist scientists of the level of Stephen Hawkins have been
perfectly willing to take part in that engagement despite any distaste
they might have for the Church.
>
T repeat what I said above, this idea that scientific advance is
somehow affected by worldview is simply a result of your own
entrenched worldview.
>

>
I don't say this to be insulting or dismissive, but I'm calling you out
here. Ironically, your response demonstrates the oversensitivity I
ascribe. And I flatly disagree with your assertions, but we've around
the block on this enough times to recognise that, well, we tried.
>
Disappointing, but that's often how it goes here, as we both know.
Sincerely though, for what it's worth, no hard feelings.
>

 The vacuousness of your claims are highlighted by  your failure to
even recognise let alone address the points I made about the
contribution of religious believers to science.
 

With the assessment of our discussion that I've just made, why would I continue and address your points? Again, I don't say this with acrimony, just resignation.
I have attempted with considerable effort to engage with your concerns and perspectives in previous responses. You have been clear about your dissatisfaction with these efforts, so I'll be clear here: that dissatisfaction most certainly goes both ways. Hence my conclusion of, well, we tried.