Originally Posted By: redewenur
Correct me if I'm wrong:- you believe in a god that created the universe with all the requisite programming for evolutionary progression (as described in Darwinian evolution) built in. After which he left it to come to fruition of its own accord. Is that right?


Hiya Red,

Something along those lines. I don't really know what I believe - it seems we need an incredible amount of information to come to a firm conclusion.

I have talked alot about the difficulty of knowing anything objectively and I certainly don't exclude myself from that.

I may appear to be dogmatic at times, but it is only for the sake of argument and is in a sense playing the devil's advocate.

I am simply not sure of many things and this is what leads me to be suspect of the materialist atheist (like Dan Morgan, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris). They simply do not have enough evidence as far as I can see for their dogmatic beliefs, and the fact that they appear to have all the zeal of a fundamentalist and non of the doubt, makes their motives for holding their views suspect.

Our beliefs are founded upon some very basic assumptions that are not subject to empirical falsification. This is the whole problem with science when it makes pronouncements upon what really are metaphysical issues. It cannot effectively examine the very assumptions that bring it to interpret evidence in a particular way.

In truth, I doubt God, and I also doubt materialism. I find them both equally hard to digest. I was not brought up religiously and started going to church with my mates when I was in my teens and we used to sit at the back and take the mick out of the 'religious freaks' and even used to laugh and heckle them when they preached their lunacy. Then I had a powerful experience of God. It was unasked for, unwelcome and unbelievable but has since been followed by more. I instantly saw an incredible change in my character and the inner workings of my mind. The experience I have found is common to many others, in ways that are so particular and counter intuitive, that for me, it precludes this being a phenomena associated only with the power of imagination.

What do I do with this? When all else is subjective and relies upon other people interpreting reality for me. If I want to know about apparent fine-tuning in the universe then I must listen to others, who either think that it is evidence for God, or will fall clearly into the anthropomorphic principle camp. If I want to know about whether it is reasonable for a material process to result in the seemingly miraculous process of creating mind, then there are people on both sides. If I want to know whether the gospels are reliable, then I have exceptionally intelligent and well informed people people on both sides.

In short if I want to know anything, there is someone there to tell me what they 'BELIEVE', including what I should do with my experience of God (delusion/reality).


I saw these definitions of life positions:

Quote:

1. Rigid Theism
2. Open-minded Theism
3. Open-minded Agnosticism
4. Open-minded Materialism
5. Rigid Materialism

Rigid Theism describes a theistic worldview that constrains the way the person views the empirical evidence. Creation Science advocates generally believe that Genesis chapters one and two in the Bible must be understood as a literal six twenty-four hour day history of the creation of the earth and life on it. Because of this understanding of what the writer of Genesis intended, the Bible gives controlling guidance as to how the scientific evidence must be understood.

Open-minded Theism describes a theistic worldview that does not constrain the way the person views the empirical evidence. The person believes that there is a God who is ultimately responsible for creating the world and life on it, but that God could have used macroevolutionary processes and mechanisms to do it and could have done it over millions of years. The person might have a very conservative view of Biblical authority, but does not believe that the Bible necessarily intends to convey that God created the world in six 24 hour days.

Open-minded Agnosticism describes a worldview in which the person is has no position on whether there is a God or not, and this worldview does not constrain the way the person views the empirical evidence.

Open-minded Materialism describes a materialistic/naturalistic worldview that does not constrain the way the person views the empirical evidence. Such a person will look for an explanation that comports with a materialistic framework, but will not assume that there necessarily must be a materialistic explanation. Such a person recognizes that science has not proven that there is no God or that there is no supernatural realm, so that it is presumptuous to assume that there must be a naturalistic explanation for all phenomena.

Rigid Materialism describes a materialistic/naturalistic worldview that constrains the way the person views the empirical evidence. If such a person encounters evidence that does not fit a materialistic explanation of nature, he will develop an explanation to make the evidence fit that framework. Only a naturalistic answer is acceptable, and all evidence must fit within these starting assumptions.


I sit somewhere between 2 & 3, but my approach to science definitely sits at 4. Dan and most others here sit at 5.

Red, I hope this explains my position (or lack of one) adequately, and I hope that when you see me defending Christianity you will not label me as a fundamentalist but will understand where I am smile

Blacknad.

Last edited by Blacknad; 03/19/07 05:11 PM.