14-March-2007, 06:00 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio, Tx.
Posts: 7,211
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou427
|
I don't remember if this article has been dissected and refuted, but it certainly could rather easily.
It is the horse pushing the cart. When you cut deep ruts in the road to restrain the cart, then the horse can push a cart. It is bad science, and bad religion, when religion tries to squeeze a scientific direction by using vague religious sources in order to force the cart to go only in their ruts of interpretation.
Since you are interested in the Copernican Principle application, let’s just look at his #10 item. He quotes Gott: [I'll use blue for Humphreys.]
“In astronomy the Copernican principle works because, of all the places for intelligent observers to be, there are by definition only a few special places and many nonspecial places, so you are likely to be in a nonspecial place’ [emphasis mine].50”
My approach to this would be to argue that we (our planet, really) are in one of the special places since only a tiny fraction of all the space in the universe would likely allow for existence of intelligent observers. The Drake Equation addresses this.
Obviously Humphrey takes a different approach with Gott’s statement:
“The word ‘likely’ above reveals a lot. Richard Gott evidently believes we
are where we are by accident!”
I disagree that Gott is saying this because his statement doesn’t require an accidental view. One can easily hold to the teleological idea that the ultimate reason for the emergence of intelligent observers is due to divine engineering; thus it would not be accidental. Even though there is only a tiny fraction of habitable regions in the universe for intelligent life, it is a very big universe. There are plenty of other places our planet could find itself and, still, we would be fine. God is not restricted, nor is science, to place us in the center of the universe, and the alternative is not limited to an accidental view. Of course, I admit that a Geocentric universe would offer much stronger argument for humanities likely uniqueness, but it also hints at a self-centeredness that is contrary to the main tenets of the faith they are trying to support.
“It apparently doesn’t enter his head that an intelligent Designer, God, might have placed us in a special position in the cosmos on purpose. Thus the ultimate motive behind the Copernican principle is atheistic naturalism.”
This statement of his may be classified as argument by assumption, right? [I am not a logician.] The problem is his assumption of what is not in Gott’s head is only assumption and one that I have already argued to the contrary.
“Since that is the driving philosophy behind naturalistic evolutionism, Gott’s reference to Darwin is appropriate. The big bang and Darwinism are two halves, physical and biological, of an atheistic origins myth. “
This is more of the same. Gott could just as easily be a Christian simply stating what evidenciary science has discovered. Humphrey does a poor job of arguing for a Geocentric universe. If what he says is so scientific, where are the other scientists that will agree. The problem isn’t in the basic theology, but in his cosmology and the issue of trying to use theology to dictate terms to science.
“Thus, Christians who support the big bang theory should realize that they are unwittingly denying their God and compromising with a godless worldview.”
Ironically, seeking the truth seems secondary here. If God used the Big Bang method to accomplish His will, then he needs to argue that with Him, or demonstrate substance to support his arguments against Big Bang.
My concern with all this is how his view makes Christianity look silly. It is unfair to claim that a very, very small portion of scripture must be interpreted in his way of seeing it, especially when it is becoming more and more unlikely. Why do these people not seem to take what science learns and add that as context to their interpretation? IMO, they just might be surprised at their compatibility
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.
"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.
|