Mohler takes on 'theistic evolution'

Associated Baptist Press ^ | January 13, 2011 | Bob Allen

[D-fendr]

How does he explain Creation?

I've tried to be in accord with Aquinas' view where it can be applied - avoiding the necessity of the name "God" when possible. The Summa Theologica is more an explanation of God, but creation is mentioned over a hundred times. Another section that might have just a bit relevance in our context:

Since therefore God is outside the whole order of creation, and all creatures are ordered to Him, and not conversely, it is manifest that creatures are really related to God Himself; whereas in God there is no real relation to creatures, but a relation only in idea, inasmuch as creatures are referred to Him. Thus there is nothing to prevent these names which import relation to the creature from being predicated of God temporally, not by reason of any change in Him, but by reason of the change of the creature; as a column is on the right of an animal, without change in itself, but by change in the animal.

[D-fendr]

Then what is 'knowing"?

That's a huge subject in itself with a lot of debatable points and many foundational terms of art to be agreed upon. I was not very skillful in my reply and thanks for the opportunity to try to be more so.

My position here was not to go against the term cognition, but not to limit it to conceptualization, naming, internal narration, verbal communication - intellectual activity.

A dictionary definition of cognition is: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

Knowledge has to be accessible to consciousness,

I think so too.

and therefore must be a cognitive function, even if you are talking about knowledge as mere "awareness".

Cognitive as defined above, yes.

For example, you don't know your blood pressure or your blood sugar levels. This goes beyond mere "awareness" of such concepts. Knowing them implies having a cognitive idea if they are high, low, normal, etc.

It can, but you can also be aware that you're getting dizzy and will pass out unless you eat something. You can know this too, whether or not you know blood chemistry or the names or causes.

To put it back more relative to our context way back: the first time I fell in love I didn't what it was, but I knew I was having a very unusual experience physically and beyond. I told my best friend about it in detail and he said, "Oh, you're in love."

I knew, was cognitive of, love before I knew that was what the word love (could) mean.

[D-fendr]

In fact I did read up on the time dilatation and all I find in it is something that is regularly misinterpreted by everyone, imo.

Very much appreciate your post, and it is a fascinating subject.

That the point is that this doesn't change the absolute length of the object measured.

The measurement of a Lorentz contraction is real. I think it depends on whose frame of reference you take as "real" giving meaning to the term relativity. There's a lot more to this subject, some paradoxes and rigidity debates.. I'm way over my head pretty quick. But I see your point, I think. The object itself has not "changed."

The reason I asked how did Einstein define the speed of light is because in it there must be time.

You make me think of this result of relativity: From the reference point outside, say "at rest," how much time passes on an object raveling at the speed of light?

but the true nature of it is incomprehensible to us at this stage of our evolutionary capacity, and it may never become…We only know about it because our working models account for it.

I think you can draw a parallel with the part of theology we are discussing. Incomprehensible but capable of being more "known" using models.

For example, I see this in St. John Damascene:

"But the knowable belongs to one order, and the utterable to another; just as it is one thing to speak and another thing to know. Many of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of God we use the terms sleep, and wrath, and regardlessness, hands, too, and feet, land such like expressions."

The best thinkers or philosophers among scientific greats are aware of this, incomprehensibility and modeling, to evidenced by their writings on it outside pure science.

[D-fendr]

I prefer to live in here and now,

That's good spiritual direction also. :)

[D-fendr]

Who or what is "creating" being mindful that whatever is creating is not unchanging.

I don't think I'm understanding the question, because all I have is: something that exists that is eternal, unchanging and uncaused. Without going out into either more theology or experiential religion, that's all I got.

[D-fendr]

All Christians agree that God said "Let there be light!"

I don't know a serious (in my opinion) Christian theologian that believes God has vocal chords.

[D-fendr]

I thought of a much better way to describe this that I posted earlier:

From the reference point outside, say "at rest," how much time passes on an object raveling at the speed of light?

Einstein used this thought experiment: Imagine you are traveling on a beam of light away from and looking back at a clock tower. Do the hands of the clock move?

[YHAOS]

“If someone comes here to promote their flat earth theory I am not obligated to believe that drivel just because some people believe it.”

Nor am I obliged to accept the drivel that talking snakes are central to Biblical Instruction. You would have us believe for the sake of your argument that sin was caused by a talking snake. Since talking snakes cannot exist according to materialistic theory, ergo, sin cannot exist. That at least has the virtue of being consistent with materialistic dogma.

My observation was, however, that if you are to promote a dispute you are obliged to insist that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction, what you “believe” notwithstanding.

“my argument stands nonetheless, because it is objectively true . . . ”

from the Oxford thesaurus:
interpretation
noun
1 the interpretation of the Bible's teachings explanation, elucidation, expounding, exposition, explication, exegesis, clarification.
2 they argued over interpretation meaning, understanding, construal, connotation, explanation, inference.
3 the interpretation of experimental findings analysis, evaluation, review, study, examination.
4 his interpretation of the sonata rendition, rendering, execution, presentation, performance, portrayal.

By definition, interpretation is not objective (save perhaps the specialized application found in #3). However, according to materialistic dogma, the valid application of the term would be confined to #3, so your error is a natural consequence of that view.

You give the impression that your materialism entitles you to claim objectiveness for anything you opine, and that opposition to your view can not be objective. We share no common assumptions so, while speaking to one another is possible, discussion is not.

“Implying motives to another FReeper, as you did, is an ad hominem mind-reading, as per the RF rules.”

Look to the beam in your own eye, pilgrim. Your accusation of “mind-reading” with the hope the RM doesn’t catch it, is itself an instance of implying motives.

[D-fendr]

The reason I asked how did Einstein define the speed of light is because in it there must be time. And since it is a constant (in vacuum), then which time did he use (knowing that space is not just vacuum)?

I dunno if I can answer properly but the answer may lie somewhere here:

The speed of light is the same for all observers. It's independent of the motion of the light source and of the frame of reference of the observer. So maybe "which time did he use" is irrelevant.

How can the speed of light be a constant (absolute) if the time is relative?

Time is inseparable part of spacetime and space involves mass/gravitation. LIght has no mass. The speed of light constant is more generally the speed of all mass-less particles, which includes light.

Maybe the answers to your questions are in there somewhere; thanks for the question.

[kosta50]

Nor am I obliged to accept the drivel that talking snakes are central to Biblical Instruction

It's not drivel; it's obvious but I will repeat it one more time (I know it's difficult for some):

1. without the talking snake Adam doesn't sin.
2. without sin there is no death.
3. without death there is no need for the Savior to die for our sins.

Couldn't be any clearer.

You would have us believe for the sake of your argument that sin was caused by a talking snake

That's right. No talking snake, no sin, according to the Bible.

Since talking snakes cannot exist according to materialistic theory, ergo, sin cannot exist

The materialistic world doesn't believe the Bible story. Bible believers do.

By definition, interpretation is not objective.

What interpretation? All I said was "my argument stands nonetheless,  because it is objectively true." Everything I said is verifiable. Show me which of the three points I list is not objectively true.

We share no common assumptions so, while speaking to one another is possible, discussion is not

It's possible as long as we agree to disagree. But beyond the initial disagreement there is little to be gained from it.

Your accusation of “mind-reading” with the hope the RM doesn’t catch it, is itself an instance of implying motives.

Again, if I wanted the RM to catch it, I could have pressed the "abuse" button or simply pinged the RM.

 

[kosta50]

Light has no mass

Actually, photons do have mass, although some "purists" insist they only have a momentum, or as we used to say in the Navy "all vector, no force!" :). But we know they have mass because photons are affected by gravitational pull (see "light bending," as well as black holes).

[D-fendr]

Yes. I should have said c=speed of electromagnetic waves *and* massless particles.

As for photon mass, I don’t know how to square this with:
“In modern quantum physics, the electromagnetic field is described by the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED). In this theory, light is described by the fundamental excitations (or quanta) of the electromagnetic field, called photons. In QED, photons are massless particles and thus, according to special relativity, they travel at the speed of light in vacuum.”

Maybe it’s a wave/particle thing again.

But then when it gets down to quantum, I get lost pretty easily.

[James C. Bennett]

There is definitely a one-way arrow in Christianity that is not in Hinduism and other religions.

What would that 'one way' be?

[James C. Bennett]

I’m a bit late into this phase of the discussion, as the comments reveal, but hopefully I’ll catch up by tomorrow!

[kosta50]

Yes. I should have said c=speed of electromagnetic waves *and* massless particles.

Momentum is defined as p = mv, where "m" is mass and "v" velocity, and Einstein's famous E=mc² also applies to photons. It is, therefore, meaningless to speak of a particle having a momentum but not mass. In fact it is just as we used to say (jokingly) "all vector, no force."

The gravitational force (or "pit" in timespace jargon) that is required to detectably affect the photon mass is much greater than anything we can create on earth. The force is much greater than even our sun's gravitational pull.

This is why the discovery of the gravitational lens (predicated by Einstein) proves that photons are subject to gravity and therefore must have mass, otherwise the GR formula E=mc² does not apply to photons.

So if all this sounds a little bit like "lawyering" it's because it is! Which is why we can say there are is always some doubt, and no absolutes, and no one understands it and there are always convenient "loopholes" or "angles" from which these issues can be handled, sometimes leading to completely different conclusions, yet all of them true!

Let me give you an example in optics. Optical designs can be "optimized" by a series of reiterations on a "subatomic" level, so to say, as minute changes in element specifications. This is where entry-level integral calculus comes in handy, because that's what integration is—minute adjustments where even complex exponential entities can be treated as linear regressions over very short intervals.

A perfect example of this is your eprception of these letters as being curves (such as letters c, s, q, p, etc.) when in fact they are shapes ahcieved by miniscule dots (and the distance between each two dots is simply a straight line) which under a micorscope would lose their smoothness and continuous appearance. In your eyes they are "integrated" into smooth and continuous complex curves.

and the same image reduced 10 times (size=10)

This is no different than looking at your perception of taste on an electron microscope level showing how a molecule of orange juice gets attached to a molecule of your taste buds. Of course, this misses the "bug picture" of what orange juice tastes line on a macroscopic level, i,.e. how we "experience" it, but is not necessarily wrong.

And just as a single brick does not define a house, neither does quatum mechanics describe the world. Just as the photograph of the earth from space does not reflect what it's like to be on earth, neither does the Einstein's theory of relativity describe how we experience gravity (i.e. as spacetime "pits").

In terms of human experience, which is our reality, no science can capture or adequately describe it, and neither can words. But at the same time, we must never fall for the error of believing that what we experience is how things really are, although many do.

For each aspect of reality we must use the most adequate tool ("measuring stick"), and always be aware that it is only one aspect of what is really out there.

[kosta50]

errata:
we can say there are is always some doubt = we can say there are is always some doubt
bug picture = big picture
tastes line = tastes like
etc.

[kosta50]

But if I'm playing in the reason/logic sphere, I don't see a more compelling argument that existence ≠ caused

Observed reality suggests that all existence = caused. Which is the basis for Aquinas' premise. If that premise is true, then the opposite "all existence ≠ caused" is not true. If you want to play by reason/logic rules, this is why Aquinas' argument fails: the uncaused first cause cannot be said to exist if all that exists is caused.

[kosta50]

A dictionary definition of cognition is: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses

That sounds more as "awareness" then knowledge (understanding). The terms itself comes from Latin, meaning to "learn" or acquire information without understanding. That's why we can say that animals "recognize" things but don't necessarily know (understand) what it is.

When I say I know how to solve this math problem, I mean to say that I understand the problem and how I can solve it. It's not just mere cognition (awareness) of the problem.

In other words, to me, comprehension is an integral part of knowing. If you don't comprehend something you don't know it. You are merely aware of it, or you recognize it.

It can, but you can also be aware that you're getting dizzy and will pass out unless you eat something

Dizziness, like headache, is not diagnostic, but indicative of a range of possible causes. Eating may not help someone who's dizzy because he is undergoing a stroke.

To put it back more relative to our context way back: the first time I fell in love I didn't what it was

How do you know it wasn't lust?

[D-fendr]

What would that 'one way' be?

Past > Present

[kosta50]

The object itself has not "changed."

I think it does in the special theory of relativity.

From the reference point outside, say "at rest," how much time passes on an object raveling at the speed of light?

I am not aware that any object can travel at that speed without sucking up the energy of the whole universe.

as long as we understand that models are just that, not absolute truth.

The best thinkers or philosophers among scientific greats are aware of this, incomprehensibility and modeling, to evidenced by their writings on it outside pure science.

Well, that same St. John of Damascus says "This God, then, cannot be wordless..." (Exact Exp. of Orth. Faith, Book I, Chp VI). Are we to understand that God's Word is really not God's own begotten expression? They philosophers and scientists may be aware but they fall into their own pit.

The world is made up of many different levels, from molecular to galactic; they are often mutually exclusive and yet they are all true. We must never elect one level and declare it to be the absolute truth, i.e. as the world really is.