tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post6534250282876233058..comments2023-10-24T03:46:41.971-07:00Comments on Contingencies: Belief, Polkinghorne-styleJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-14319231032328382662010-03-11T18:35:21.047-08:002010-03-11T18:35:21.047-08:00Anny-sattva
I mistook you for Spam...
Now, havin...Anny-sattva<br /><br />I mistook you for Spam...<br /><br />Now, having checked yr links....<br /><br />we await stories about the dhammas of Avatar Adi Da.<br /><br />Serio, I haven't made up my mind on Polkinghorne (tho' tending to the...thumbs down), but he's reputed to be a genius of sorts, at least the british sort.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-85646643009066961222010-03-11T18:11:39.167-08:002010-03-11T18:11:39.167-08:00Polkinghorne is a twit.
As are all Christians wh...Polkinghorne is a twit. <br /><br />As are all Christians who try to reconcile science with their meat-body based reductionist religion.<br /><br />He is thus also entirely convicted of the mortal vision. <br /><br />The religion that he proposes lies entirely within the parameters found in the set of essay on this site.<br /><br />www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx <br /><br /Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-36904225525716238152010-03-10T11:49:56.550-08:002010-03-10T11:49:56.550-08:00...The design contains within it freedom, chance, ...<i>...The design contains within it freedom, chance, and dare I say contingency? If the desire for authentic relationships initiated God's creation of the Universe, then it seems that authentic freedom within creation was part of the intended design. So how is it that I'm limiting the creator's power via my claim that he did what he set out to do?</i><br /><br />He decides to limit Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-47227385332312592462010-03-10T11:02:27.837-08:002010-03-10T11:02:27.837-08:00Likewise, our theologies may or may not be correct...<i>Likewise, our theologies may or may not be correct, and even if they are correct, they are certainly incomplete. But this is hardly grounds for throwing them out. The figure of merit is whether or not they help us in relating to God. Now I happen to prefer that my theories be true, but that is a secondary consideration in this case.</i><br /><br />Well, what does it mean to have a "true&Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-7968426722750272442010-03-10T10:23:02.881-08:002010-03-10T10:23:02.881-08:00J,
But it seems odd to say at once as Polkinghorn...J,<br /><br /><i>But it seems odd to say at once as Polkinghorne does, why man, it was all Designed, AND then claim the Designer doesn't know how it works (ie, over millenia), or turns out. </i><br /><br />Not at all. The design contains within it freedom, chance, and dare I say <i>contingency</i>? If the desire for authentic relationships initiated God's creation of the Universe, then stuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05190631846507740664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-56461805483102565332010-03-10T10:07:36.197-08:002010-03-10T10:07:36.197-08:00J,
Now you're exaggerating.
My point about a...J,<br /><br />Now you're exaggerating.<br /><br />My point about a hypothetical ant's theory of man is that it is necessarily incomplete. This does not mean that it is useless to ants. Indeed, we're both well aware that Peano arithmetic is incomplete, yet I hope you'd acknowledge that PA is useful. Likewise, ants might entirely lack the ability to conceive of human aesthetics orstuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05190631846507740664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-48214707222081259892010-03-10T09:52:59.059-08:002010-03-10T09:52:59.059-08:00I also find it puzzling that the fine-tuning types...I also find it puzzling that the fine-tuning types (common among religious scientists) are ok with indeterminism--that seems nearly contradictory. (While I don't agree to the fine-tuning hypothesis, I grant it has a certain force, though anthropomorphic. And also implies a ...Plaguemaster). <br /><br />But it seems odd to say at once as Polkinghorne does, why man, it was all Designed, AND Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-76353443927731830472010-03-10T09:30:20.597-08:002010-03-10T09:30:20.597-08:00That seems to be an anti-rationalist position; ie....That seems to be an anti-rationalist position; ie. you suggest G*d's far beyond our human (or ant-like) understanding.. Then any claims whatsoever seem rather meaningless, including even Polkinghorne's ideas of G*d's limited knowledge (which are not orthodoxy, as far I understand them...thus he seems to concede a great deal to skeptics...). <br /><br />Then what are monotheists Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-50480286565790758202010-03-10T09:01:26.842-08:002010-03-10T09:01:26.842-08:00J,
It seems to me that the consensus omni's ...J, <br /><br />It seems to me that the consensus omni's represent human attempts to explain and understand God. But these explanations are not God, they are human constructs. We can in good faith look for other ways to explain and understand God, and see if they suit our purposes better.<br /><br />From my perspective (allow me to describe that as <br />"rational Christian apologist&stuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05190631846507740664noreply@blogger.com