betty boop. Of course you have the capability to identify and distinguish existents and to conceptualize patterns. You’re making my point. Most simple identification has been done subconsciously since you were an infant. Some is probably instinctual. But Plato and Aristotle didn’t have the science to understand molecules, forces, protons and neurons so they imagined otherworldly mechanisms (divine intervention) that reflected form onto matter or that allowed us to perceive an “essence” in it. Rand used the term “essence” tongue in cheek in that quote above.
That example of a line for instance… It’s composed of existents that we’ve distinguished and named electrons and protons. We’ve identified their various arrangements and forces in their relationships and named them molecules. We rearranged them into a new version of what we call pigments, and ordered them into a specific instance of a pattern that we conceptualize as a line. It’s an amazing process, but there’s no reason I’m aware of to believe that it doesn’t occur naturally. Absent that, evidence supporting natural explanations is compelling.
The term “divine intervention” is not a slight. There should be no problem with people believing in it, only with calling it evidence based. Just don’t misrepresent evidence supported natural explanations as misguided or faith-based. Have enough confidence in your ideology without needing to misrepresent mine.
I'm pretty spent after my last, so will be brief here. (Yay!)
WRT the above italics: Granted Plato and Aristotle did not have knowledge of "molecules, forces, protons and neurons" [they did have atoms, thanks to Democritus and Leucippus]. Does this mean they were not world-class thinkers, or that their ground-breaking work — on which so much human knowledge rests throughout history, across all knowledge disciplines — really has no value? You say it was from "ignorance" that they posited "otherwordly mechanisms." What they were saying is that, on the basis of their own observations and rational analyses, the purely "natural" does not explain itself all by itself. A logos — a rational principle — is involved in some way in everything that exists. Rational principles are not supplied by nature itself; nature, rather, is the manifestation of them. What occurs "naturally" is that form manifests as existent beings. But form itself is a "non-existent entity" — it has the quality of a universal.
I wouldn't sneeze on an analysis like that. To me, it accounts for a very great deal of what I observe and experience in Nature.
My real point in raising the Christianity issue in the first place was not because I feel I have to justify myself to you as a Christian, but because I object to anti-Christian bigotry. I find it utterly irrational. (Not to mention ignorant.) And I think to the extent that Libertarians indulge in this sort of thing, they alienate a great many potential allies.
But maybe thinking Libs and Cons actually working together for a change is too much to ask for. Personally, I'm usually with Libertarians on most issues. But I have to draw the line on Life issues. And that's non-negotiable.
Thanks ever so much for writing, elfman2!
‘If “A” equals “B”, and “B” equals “C”, then “A” equals “C”.’ Does that appear to be a syllogism of two premises and a conclusion which is valid, to you?
Thank you, elfman2, for the thought and care you've put into this discussion. When I was much younger, I would have agreed with your premise that "divine intervention" was not evidence-based. Based upon experience and learning, I realize that I was wrong.
When I was a child, I was more or less taught that placing one's faith in God was an irrational move. Faith was stepping off a plank and hoping that there was something below to catch you. Reason could only take you so far and there was a final, irrational step of faith that you had to take in order to believe in God.
When I began college, I decided that faith had to be something more than blind faith. I never left Christianity, but I searched to find for myself whether it was true. I still believe that is good to continually examine one's faith. Am I placing my faith in God or am I placing my faith in what I think God ought to do?
I researched over a period of several years all of the major religions, philosophies, and even atheism in hopes of finding something of substance to latch onto. I found some good things in many religions and philosophies. For example, I liked the meditational aspects of Buddhism. However, I could not rationally accept the Four Noble Truths and how they speak of the cause of and remedy for suffering (disquietude).
The concept of Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism
As I continued my research, I ultimately came down to two religions that satisfied my yearning for something that accurately described reality: Judasim and Christianity. Both evidence-based beliefs.
I have been blessed most of my life to have been close friends with observant Jews. I love them and admire them. But the decision between Judaism and Christainity boiled down to the question of Jesus. Who was he? Is the information we have about him reliable? Did he really satisfy the prophecies and was he really the son of God?
As a result of much reading, thought, and prayer, I decided that Jesus was a historical figure, that the records we have of his life were accurate, and that he really is the incarnate son of God the father.
If you want to read the account of a hardcore atheist who set out to disprove Christianity and found God, I highly recommend Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.
I have two degrees in the hard sciences -- chemistry and chemical engineering -- and am by nature a highly rational person. When I see something that I don't understand, I always seek out a rational, natural explanation. That's the proper place to begin. It is not incompatible with Christianity either. God created the natural laws and almost always chooses to perform his work according to these laws. There is no need for God to continually tweak his creation to make certain that the earth rotates every 24 hours. When I take a Zyrtec for allergies, it works because it affects my body chemistry, not because it causes some miracle to take place.
As I have grown in my faith, I have come to learn that divine intervention is not only real, but happens often. I have become a soft charimatic Christian and have many stories to tell you about prayer being answered, often immediately. God answers every prayer: He says yes, he says no, or he says later. When he says yes and right now, the results are startling, even frightening.
The Apostle Paul wrote:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:1-3)
When I was a less mature Christian, the key words in the passage for me were not seen. Now, the key words are assurance and conviction of things not seen. Even though something is not seen does mean it is not real. I cannot see the air I breathe but I am convicted that it is real because I can see its effects. Similarly, I believe that God is real because I see how we works in my life and the lives of others.