paleonet Re: Ken's comments

["Peter & Nancy" <hosier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ken,

I think your question about rationality is a good one I will have to try and
find time to look into it. With regard to emotions and belief I think
emotions need to be kept strictly under control but I am not sure that we
can think at all without belief. To think it seems to me that we need at
least some idea of the rules of logic and mathematics as has to be built
into computers. How could we get that without believing? I think that
believing in something that we are told or that we have observed is how
thinking starts. Faith as I see it is something that grows out of experience
with an object or an idea. I think that believing grades into faith and
faith into knowing. Knowing is the end result of a progression but I don't
think we can ever eliminate an element of each.  I don't think we should
ever be satisfied with believing we should always be aiming to know. I think
knowing can never be absolute or beyond all question  It is like measuring.
Measuring is never absolutely accurate we have to make do with the best we
can manage and continually try to do better.
 I think that people who call themselves believers are that in name only. I
think that small children are real believers. I think they tend to accept
what they hear and see without objection and that makes learning easy. I
understand that science tells us it is when we are small children that we
learn faster than we ever will again. I think being skeptical makes learning
difficult and slower. Small children don't worry too much about testing
their ideas. That happens when they try to make use of their knowledge but I
think as we grow up we must become more systematic and deliberate about
testing to avoid serious mistakes. My main purpose in putting my ideas on
paleonet is to get them tested by others thinking about them. It would also
be nice if they proved to be helpful to others as Peter Kaplan suggested.

I hope no one feels under any obligation to consider my ideas just that
someone will find pleasure in doing so.

It might be a small point but I didn't mean to say that God created through
evolution but that evolution is the inevitable result of His continuing
creation work. That He is continuing this work fits with the Lord statement
that "The Farther worketh hitherto" John 5: 17.

I think the matter of God's existence depends entirely on what we mean by
the word.

I am not familiar with Daniel Dennett's book.

I hope you are not upset by all my disagreements Ken (and Jack too). I seem
to have a terrible habit of seeing things differently.

Peter,

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth A. Monsch <kmonsch@biol.uni.wroc.pl>
To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: paleonet Thanks for replies


> Is rationality the issue here? What is rationality? In unscientific terms,
I
> understand it to be: a way of thinking based on observed facts. Emotions
and
> beliefs, hence, play no role in rationality. From this results that
> creationist viewpoints are irrational. What Peter has been trying, as I
> understand it, is to demonstrate that accepting the evolutionary theory
does
> not need to contradict what the Bible says. In doing so, justifiable
> assumptions (at least they seem justifiable to me) are made about the
> symbolism of the Bible and what that symbolism means. Sound all rational
to
> me. Peter, I don't know what you're on about concerning Plate Tectonics,
so
> let me just stick to your piece about evolution. I don't remember your
exact
> words, but maybe there were no errors of fact about the evolutionary
theory
> there. Whether folks in the PaleoNetwork accept Peter's thoughts that God
> created everything through evolution is I think irrelevant. We may accept
> it, we may not. What I find relevant here though, is that a Christian
> approaches the 'evolution issue' from a rational point of view and seeks
to
> bridge a gap without compromising his faith. The most influential
Christians
> unfortunately act in the opposite way. But consider this point: we should
> educate the masses, convince them that what we do is relevant, even to
them.
> We are of course to promote that evolutionary theory has absolutely
nothing
> to say about the exisitince and works of God, but I think it's worth it to
> get across that evolutionary theory doesn't imply that God doesn't exist
and
> does not contradict the Bible (if this is how you see it-I certainly do. I
> personally don't agree with Daniel Dennett who claims that from
evolutionary
> philosophy follows that God doesn't exist -that's how I understood his
> conclusions in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"-, but I'm not going to dwell
> further on that issue here).
>
> Ken
>
>