 |
DarwinTalk.com
Evolution Debate and Public Discussion Forum
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | But let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that your use of the word "methodological" was an honest, ignorant error, and that what you really meant to say that "evolutionists" are just plain atheists, end of discussion. In that case: Exactly which "evolutionists" are you talking about when you make noise about how they're just plain atheists? I mean, are you talking about Charles Darwin, who (in Origin of Species) wrote that he feels this evolution stuff |
Again, my apology. My quotation of "methodological atheism" was derived from the debate between William Lane Craig and a New Testament Scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman. The manuscript can be found here:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
Please take your time to read. And if you did, I hope you would understand my point why I quoted the word "methodological".
"AND" its supposed connection to the worldview of Richard Dawkins an ardent outspoken atheist. I am not saying that all evolutionists are plain atheists. Your question of "which evolutionist are you talking about for making noise of how they're just plain atheists"? has already been answered from my post above. I am talking about Richard Dawkins an evolutionary biologist who keep on writing books debunking Christianity. I replied to counter an argument of the supposed "strawman" version of evolution theory, ya its true, but it is the same true as there are strawman versions of Christianity among evolutionary biologists like RD, just to make a balance.
| Quote: | | Not as long as people like you keep on yammering (dishonestly or otherwise) about how evolution is strictly an atheist thing, there won't be... |
I don't have to say peace this time until you know what I mean for methodological atheism. I am not strictly speaking that all of you are atheists, but I am pointing my finger to those people involved like Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.
Thank you... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Cubist
Pit Bull
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| darwin_on_trial wrote: | | Quote: | | But let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that your use of the word "methodological" was an honest, ignorant error, and that what you really meant to say that "evolutionists" are just plain atheists, end of discussion. In that case: Exactly which "evolutionists" are you talking about when you make noise about how they're just plain atheists? I mean, are you talking about Charles Darwin, who (in Origin of Species) wrote that he feels this evolution stuff |
Again, my apology. My quotation of "methodological atheism" was derived from the debate between William Lane Craig and a New Testament Scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman. The manuscript can be found here:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
Please take your time to read. And if you did, I hope you would understand my point why I quoted the word "methodological". |
Okay, after reading that manuscript, I see where you're coming from. I also think that Ehrman blew Craig completely out of the water in that debate. Craig assumes, right from Square One, that there is, in fact, historical evidence that actively supports the proposition that Jesus was ressurrected -- and since he assumes that from Square One, Craig's whole schtick is neither more nor less than Assuming One's Conclusion on a grand scale. Since Craig assumes that the Bible is historically, literally accurate, he cannot address the question of whether or not Scripture could possibly be other than literally, historically accurate; having "the Bible is literally, historically accurate" as a fundamental baseline axiom, Craig must necessarily ignore, misinterpret, or explain away all evidence that might otherwise refute his baseline axion, regardless of how valid that evidence actually is!
I think Craig is right to claim that Ehrman is a "methodological atheist". I also think that "methodological atheism" is flatly necessary to anybody who actually wants to investigate events that occur in the mundane, physical Universe. A "methodological theist" can certainly entertain the notion that the God of the Bible did [fill in the blank]; but how, exactly, does a "methodological theist" establish that [fill in the blank] was not actually done by the God of the Bible, but, rather, by Loki, or Ahura-Mazda, or any of humankind's untold thousands of other deities?
Trickster deities (such as Loki, Coyote, etc) are particularly difficult to rule out, since Deceiving Us Puny Mortals is exactly and precisely what a trickster deity does. Serious question: How would you go about establishing that the Resurrection wasn't just an elaborate jape on Loki's part? You can certainly assume that Loki didn't do it, and you can construct arbitrarily detailed models based on that assumption; but then you can also assume that Loki did do it, and you can construct arbitrarily detailed models based on that assumption. So how do you decide which model, which assumption, is the more accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Okay, after reading that manuscript, I see where you're coming from. I also think that Ehrman blew Craig completely out of the water in that debate. |
Of course, but I favored Craig to have won the debate.
| Quote: | | Craig assumes, right from Square One, that there is, in fact, historical evidence that actively supports the proposition that Jesus was ressurrected -- and since he assumes that from Square One, Craig's whole schtick is neither more nor less than Assuming One's Conclusion on a grand scale. |
There are four facts stated that supports the historical evidence of the resurrection. All other supposed "possible" evidence as indicated later by Dr. Ehrman are called fantasies and are not possible, considering the historical context of the time - 1st century Palestine.
| Quote: | | Since Craig assumes that the Bible is historically, literally accurate, he cannot address the question of whether or not Scripture could possibly be other than literally, historically accurate; having "the Bible is literally, historically accurate" as a fundamental baseline axiom, Craig must necessarily ignore, misinterpret, or explain away all evidence that might otherwise refute his baseline axion, regardless of how valid that evidence actually is! |
As being argued, the Biblical inerrancy is out of topic of their debate. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was signed by nearly 300 noted American evangelical scholars - however, there is no absolute consensus among evangelicals regarding Biblical inerrancy, but there is a general acceptance of Biblical authority. Therefore, Craig's arguments rest on Biblical authority rather than Biblical inerrancy. To assume that there are big errors on the Bible especially on the resurrection portion of the New Testament is like claiming to have the infinite possibilities happened at the empty tomb, rather than what was described in the Bible. What I mean is we cannot debate with infinite possibilities, but with common agreement. If the debate is about Biblical inerrancy, then that needs to have a separate debate. Most of these possibilities again are called "fantasies" and may not be counted as evidence. You can't just create scenarios of what happened to the Body of Christ compromising the historical context of the 1st century Palestine. Example, the body may have been stolen, but Pilate sending detachment of Roman guards at the request of Jesus' enemies made this an impossible scenario. So whatever possibility you may have in your mind at the empty tomb, it must coincide or at least to "be likely" what happened between Friday night until sunday morning of the 1st century Palestine with heavy Roman guards on site.
| Quote: | | I think Craig is right to claim that Ehrman is a "methodological atheist". I also think that "methodological atheism" is flatly necessary to anybody who actually wants to investigate events that occur in the mundane, physical Universe. A "methodological theist" can certainly entertain the notion that the God of the Bible did [fill in the blank]; but how, exactly, does a "methodological theist" establish that [fill in the blank] was not actually done by the God of the Bible, but, rather, by Loki, or Ahura-Mazda, or any of humankind's untold thousands of other deities? |
Yes Dr. Ehrman is an atheist. I gave him credits for being an atheist and at the same time a New Testament Scholar. He has the credential and the credibility to critique the reliability of the resurrection accounts of the NT.
I hope I can be a NT scholar someday, but not an atheist of course.
And we are talking of the traditional God of the Hebrews to whom they claim the God of their Patriarchs. Then we must argue based on the context of this God of Israel, "NOT" to anybody pagan gods. Therefore, those Loki, Ahura-mazda you are talking about is not relevant to the argument. The reason why Jesus had to be killed by His enemies was his Claim to be the Son of God = claiming "My Father" in direct reference to the God of the Hebrews. So the cause is Jesus' claims. He was killed and before that, He claimed that He will resurrect Himself in the third day. The enemies sensing that the followers may stole the body, they let Pilate send a detachment of troops to guard the tomb. The resurrection event is straightforward, but if you mix it with out of context assumptions, it becomes clumsy and is not believable. So the actual noise are those other models you mentioned, but the obvious evidence still remained intact.
| Quote: | | Trickster deities (such as Loki, Coyote, etc) are particularly difficult to rule out, since Deceiving Us Puny Mortals is exactly and precisely what a trickster deity does. |
Same as above.
| Quote: | | Serious question: How would you go about establishing that the Resurrection wasn't just an elaborate jape on Loki's part? You can certainly assume that Loki didn't do it, and you can construct arbitrarily detailed models based on that assumption; but then you can also assume that Loki did do it, and you can construct arbitrarily detailed models based on that assumption. So how do you decide which model, which assumption, is the more accurate? |
I think I already answered the question above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| politas wrote: | | SimEarth (Wolli, I must get my copy back from you one day) |
If I can still find it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
politas
Tadpole
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| darwin_on_trial wrote: | Ah no dispute. I stand corrected. Straw-man versions of evolution do exists you are correct. But i don't know where these straw-man versions comes from except from the faulty understanding of what really evolution is. In that case, evolutionists should teach the public, not Richard Dawkins' way of publishing books of debunking Christianity (obviously an ignorant of Christian theology, he must be a polymath or a theologian for doing so!). That is a "strawman's" version of Christianity. "Now" for the "moment" I don't have to go to the extreme for putting my faith in evolutionary model of reality and to the other extreme of debunking it (for I have no authority for doing so). What I don't like about evolutionists is most of their model of reality were founded upon methodological atheism of course.
Peace... |
And now you're creating a strawman of Richard Dawkins. Most of his books have been explaining evolution. I haven't read "The God Delusion" yet, and that one sounds like it may be "dubunking Christianity", but the books of his that I have read (Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker and Unweaving the Rainbow) have all been excellent popular science works explaining Neo-Darwinistic evolutionary theory.
Your last sentence is of course nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Methodological atheism" is weasel-speak for "The God hypothesis is not required to make the science work".
It would be much better described as "methodological agnosticism", since God might or might not exist and it has no effect on the science.
Most scientists are not atheists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arthwollipot wrote: | "Methodological atheism" is weasel-speak for "The God hypothesis is not required to make the science work".
It would be much better described as "methodological agnosticism", since God might or might not exist and it has no effect on the science.
Most scientists are not atheists. |
The God hypothesis is required when in the context of theological debate. With respect to the historicity of the resurrection event, it alone cannot be explained by natural phenomena as much as life in itself remained a mystery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| darwin_on_trial wrote: | | Arthwollipot wrote: | "Methodological atheism" is weasel-speak for "The God hypothesis is not required to make the science work".
It would be much better described as "methodological agnosticism", since God might or might not exist and it has no effect on the science.
Most scientists are not atheists. |
The God hypothesis is required when in the context of theological debate. With respect to the historicity of the resurrection event, it alone cannot be explained by natural phenomena as much as life in itself remained a mystery. |
Agreed. But now you're talking about theology, not about science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
