Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Getting Deeper Into Sam's Mind

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on October 11, 2002 20:13:22 UTC

Hi Aurino,

Well, I hope Sam doesn't mind, but we're gonna have to dig deeper into that mind to find the source of his irrational thoughts (chuckle).

***I agree, which is why I said it's easier to turn him into an atheist. It happens in 90% of the cases, and that is another obvious fact.***

I somewhat agree, since most atheists, it seems to me from my own experience, have come from a very staunch fundamentalist past. I think 90% is exaggerated, but I agree it might be easier for fundy's to reject God and religion altogether than take on a more moderate and acceptable view of God and biblical based religion.

***Isn't that funny? I always had, and still have trouble with evolution because I can't see how God can be excluded from a process that obviously needs him. So I do have some sympathy for the creationist cause, my only difference with them is I don't think they're questioning evolution for the right motives.***

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that evolution looks fine with purely blind mechanistic causes. I would agree that there is
'Mind' behind evolution, my contention is only that whatever 'Mind' must be contrasted the apparent natural background of evolution which I think is absolutely a fact. I too could not conceive of 'all of this' happening in a purely materialist setting anymore than I could expect any miraculous events happening so wonderfully as it has. In that sense, I have sympathy for creationists like Sam, however I quickly lose that sympathy because of the arrogance.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that someone comes to you and says: "Aurino, I'm sorry to tell you this, but I damaged your car when I was backing out of my parking spot." Now, as unfortunate as this event is (not terrible, but just unfortunate), the appropriate response is to take it as an unfortunate event and deal with it by trying to cope with it the best way possible (e.g., ask the person if they have car insurance, ask what was damaged, etc). The worst way to deal with the situation is to deny the accident. What if your response was: "I'm sorry, but you must be mistaken. I own a car, but it cannot possibly sustain damage given my beliefs about my car and its infallibility". Now, as ridiculous as a response that would appear, this, I think, is the creationist response to science in their uncovering about the past. Rather, than deal with the facts they deny the facts and spout ridiculous notions that cannot possibly be true. They simply want to believe something about their car's infallibility and indestructiveness which can't possibly be true. This is arrogant and very misled by the facts. I cannot sympathize with that kind of attitude and response.

***I have no idea why, and I'm not kidding. Where exactly is the error in logic? (we're talking algorithms here so logic is the only rule, right?) For instance, where is the logical proof that "the Bible is completely true" is false? Worse, what stands in your way of accepting (1) as an axiom?***

There's numerous logical fallacies in this kind of 'logic'. Is that what your question, what are the fallacies?

***Truth... what a stinking business. The problem with Sam's algorithm is not that it is wrong, the problem is that, in my very own personal opinion, it sucks.***

I promised to get deeper inside Sam's head. Let me grab my flashlight. Okay... Let's probe.

The algorithm is what is wrong with Sam's thinking. If he was willing to question what he was taught as a young boy (even younger than he is now), I think he would realize that he did grow up in a very nuturing environment. There is nothing wrong with abiding by the precepts and teachings of your parents, but at the same time, one must be honest to the truth. It is all well and good that Sam wants to defend what he was originally taught, but he risks more damage to his overall beliefs by not taking truth more seriously than he does. It is very, very difficult for him to question (1) since what his parents want most is for him to accept (1) throughout his life. We know that the effects of compromising (a bit) with (1) can be tramatic -especially at 17. He might risk family tensions, tensions with friends, his church, even the college he might attend and the girls he likes at summer camp. I can sympathize with this. However, at the same time, where is the truth in all of this? What happens to the notion that God is truth? How big of a sacrifice is that?

Okay, the flashlight's off now and I'm out of Sam's head. But, I think what I found in that probe is that Sam needs to have more courage and be more willing to question some 'unquestionable truth'. The shortterm aspects of his life might be impacted, but the longterm he has much greater to gain.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins