If or when the intelligent design question comes before the Supreme Court, IMHO, the decision may turn on whether atheism has been established as the State religion.
Not sure this is the case. I believe the naturalist paradigm in science (biological sciences in particular) has very little to do with "evangelical" atheism on the part of scientists. If a sort of passive atheism is the norm where scientific research and pedagogy are concerned, this is merely for practical reasons. For science, a general skepticism regarding ALL ideas, explanations, conclusions, is not only useful but, in my opinion, indispensable to progress. I imagine there would be little difficulty making this case before the SCOTUS - then again, I'm hardly an expert in case law.
One who is living in a Second Reality does not permit any outside information to enter his world - he has sealed himself off from anything that would conflict with his imagination... We who live in the First Reality are open to such information - whether by our own reasoning, the counsel of other mortals, other sensory perceptions or most importantly, Spiritual revelation.
Thanks for pointing out this important distinction. The key here seems to be "one who... does not permit": rather different, as you are right to note, from simply "one whose knowledge is limited." Spiritual revelation, however, seems terribly tricky to me in this context, as it would seem, in those who claim to have experienced it, to prohibit the incursion of outside (i.e. observed) information (reason, counsel, sensory perception) in favor of, if not the imagination (though I do not know where else revelation might take place), whatever has supposedly been revealed. In other words: if, when the two come into conflict, revelation always trumps perception (and it must), then we will always have trouble (and for this reason we have always had trouble) separating the "pathological" from the "divinely inspired." Or can one live in the First Reality, having experienced an authentic spiritual revelation (and I am happy to assume the possibility of authenticity here), and still remain open to information that might contradict it?
Whoa.. heavy concept there.. but not if the "revelation" is to you for you... Any Epiphany is pathological(abnormal in that sense).. and must be taken on/in faith.. Else, God is just a big database or the "Gnosis".. Some could say an epiphany is one thing, a revelation another.. Whos right.?.. I say its both.. An epiphany mixed with faith is revelation.. Whos the agent of revelation.?.
" How bout the guy that drowned waiting for the lord to help him.. Upon quizzing "the Lord" about his death.. the Lord said I sent a helicopter and you rejected it, Then I sent a boat and you rejected that.. Then I floated a rubber raft by and you stuck your nose up at that.. THEN you drowned.. "..
Just so, I say revelation can be.. even when given personally and direct, faith is need to accept it as what it is.. Any good teacher knows how to fool or trick his students into educating themselves.. Teaching is a rare talent maybe a gift from God.. Is God a fool.?...
Seems to me that the atheists and some scientists may be “playing into” the theists’ legal hands by not being cautious how they argue against intelligent design – or treat those who support intelligent design - while in their official capacity as agents of the universities, public schools, etc.
And there are many who have experienced Spiritual revelation and simply don’t care about any other information which might contradict what they know to be Truth. And certainly there are others – who are less sure-footed in their Spiritual revelation – who don’t want to look and thus are not open to any information which might contradict the revelation.
But then there are also those of us who eagerly explore information without regard for whether or not a contradiction to the Spiritual revelation might rear its head. We expect every such contradiction to be reconciled because God is not only the author of Creation but also of Scripture and is the indwelling Spirit. We’ve never been disappointed either.
Take the age of the universe v Scripture which is often cited as just such a contradiction. The issue among Christians does not stem – as many suppose – as much from Genesis as from Romans 5:12–14 and I Corinthians 15:42–48. The issue is whether Adam was the first mortal man or the first ensouled man which is a matter of mortal doctrine (musings) beyond Spiritual revelation – often catch-phrased as “interpretation of Scripture”. Nevertheless, the Spiritual revelation of Jesus Christ is the same with all Christians regardless of such “doctrines of men” .
One group muses that Adam was the first mortal man and asserts that the physical evidence must support a 6,000 year old universe. To these “young earth creationists” it is a matter of doctrine, so contradictory evidence would be trumped anyway. There is no point in arguing with them.
Likewise, those whose musings are based on the Gosse Omphalos hypothesis (God created an old looking universe) also may have as a point of doctrine that Adam was the first mortal man. There can be no contradictory evidence in this musing, it is a “no bones about it” statement of faith, they don’t expect the physical evidence to comport with it – so there is no point in arguing with them either.
The Catholics – and perhaps the majority of Christians – accept that the universe is some 15 billion years old and muse that Adam was not the first mortal man, but the first ensouled man. There is no contradiction to be argued with this group.
My group of musers is probably the tiniest. We assert that God was the only observer of creation week and the author of Scripture. And therefore, the six days of creation must be viewed from the inception (beginning) space/time coordinates using inflationary theory and relativity. As Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder has shown, using that formula, six equivalent earth days at the inception space/time coordinates is equal to approximately 15 billion years viewed retrospectively from our space/time coordinates. For those who wish to calculate it for themselves, Schroeder provides this tip:
As a final point, the Spiritual revelation concerning contradictory information is this: