tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post9125187077367476685..comments2024-02-20T10:16:09.912+02:00Comments on Space Theology (Astrotheology): John G. Hartnett and New CosmologyAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-86549741299857912042012-04-05T13:59:42.468+03:002012-04-05T13:59:42.468+03:00Did you notice my many replies exhorting you to ch...Did you notice my many replies exhorting you to change track completely.<br /><br />Study Hartnett when he talks truthfully about time and cosmology in scientific publications and leave his pseudo-scientific religious remarks.<br /><br />instead, join me in studying Viktor Hambardzumyan. He was a genuine Soviet atheist and materialist with two Stalin Medals and an immensely important astrophysicist studying the Cosmos created by the God of Israel!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-74097771191442927552012-04-03T13:33:16.784+03:002012-04-03T13:33:16.784+03:00for example, look at my index page
http://utourgui...for example, look at my index page<br />http://utourguide.blogspot.com/<br /><br />and from there you find connections to various scientific subjects - for example, I was very impressed with Sam Gon III's work on trilobites and with his kind permission provide an introduction to his award winning pages tellingn about this crucially important early animal for the study of Cambrian life.<br /><br />Join in, fight me on the facts and interpretations, enjoy the Cambrian sees and forget the swamps of YEC pseudo-science. It is not interested in the truth out there, it is interested in proving a point.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-16524939737196773992012-04-03T13:29:15.793+03:002012-04-03T13:29:15.793+03:00I invite you Otto and everyone interested in deali...I invite you Otto and everyone interested in dealing with our faith in God of Israel and hard sciences to participate in the search for truth that is going on in these blogs. <br /><br />Instead of wasting ammunition to the lost cause of YEC you people could contribute here and write in your own blogs and Web publications good science.<br /><br />Your argumentation about RNA is on the line that stands scientific criticism and is actually true.<br /><br />Faith in God or the Old Book does not provide short-cut to knowledge about DNA. But the believing scientist can join the Christian congregation in praising God the Creator with very deep understanding, how great our God really is!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-41199053545559925102012-04-03T13:26:13.635+03:002012-04-03T13:26:13.635+03:00Otto
I agree that Christians should also defend n...Otto<br /><br />I agree that Christians should also defend natural sciences in the realm of Philosophy as professor Puolimatka is trying to do. Atheists tend to claim the hard sciences are exclusively their turf. Showing that it was not Einstein who made e=mc2 but God who created matter and energy and everything is very important and can be successful. <br /><br />However, and here is the point - such battle against the false claims of unbelief requires clarity. There must be open criticism of many good Christian fellows like professor Hartnett who suddenly cancels the laws of physics in order to prove his point. <br /><br />And I reject professor Puolimatka's approach as he mixes Nature and Grace and suggests that we should includ the God of Israel, the only real God there is, as an argument to our scientific debate and research. <br /><br />Not everyone believes in God. It is so important to realize that this is exactly how God wants it - the relationship between Him and us is not forced by some scientific proof of His existence but rather on believing the very strange message of Easter about a man who was executed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-2283403457552777292012-04-03T13:22:10.984+03:002012-04-03T13:22:10.984+03:00Hi Otto
thank you for the link, I read it with gr...Hi Otto<br /><br />thank you for the link, I read it with great interest and joy. I wish the editors God's blessing so that Cross Section could serve its purpose. As for me, here I feel the presence of that love for truth that is so important! (even if I disagree with some of the opinions)<br /><br />I fully agree and encourage you with your attack on the most stupid of claims "real natural sciences are materialistic". Such nonsense should not be in the curriculum. (http://spacetheology.blogspot.com/2012/03/materialism.html)<br /><br />I have also criticised the way the schools teach most amazing wonders of nature - such as the first organisms appearing on the fossil record some 3 billion years ago - or the origins of RNA as if it is something science has already solved (http://gdnaev.blogspot.com/2012/03/church-playing-god-let-there-be.html).<br /><br />It would be much more inspiring to Finnish high school students to learn that here are exciting worlds that are still to be explored and conquered - by simply saying "we do not know".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-49883682945624078042012-04-02T18:02:58.525+03:002012-04-02T18:02:58.525+03:00Hi Mikko,
Its been a while, but I happened to rem...Hi Mikko,<br /><br />Its been a while, but I happened to remember this quote you highlighted from Hartnett's article:<br /><br />"In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks."<br /><br />Do you think this suspending of some physical laws is somehow unusual when God is performing miracles? Or do you just think that this sort of suspending of physical laws would be quite ad hoc, or am I reading into your lines something that just isn't there?<br /><br />I'd also like to hear your opinion on a text that I wrote (in Finnish) last summer for our studentmagazine:<br /><br />http://cross-section.info/E11/voivatko_tiede_ja_tiedeopetus_olla_katsomuksellisesti_neutraaleja.phpOttohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02453602304002688008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-87775860928294536062012-03-07T16:03:58.036+02:002012-03-07T16:03:58.036+02:00Please, excuse me my French, but that website FAQ ...Please, excuse me my French, but that website FAQ reminds me mostly of the way Jehovah Witnesses approach innocents to "prove their case"<br /><br />it is also very far from the scientific work of professor Hartnett and I cannot understand how he gives his name in supoprt of this junk.<br /><br />In order to defend the Bible with outright lies?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-42502352883715805792012-03-07T15:55:54.057+02:002012-03-07T15:55:54.057+02:00http://phos-alethinon.blogspot.com/2012/03/grand-c...http://phos-alethinon.blogspot.com/2012/03/grand-canyon-and-young-earth.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-51157678086753971032012-03-07T15:26:58.229+02:002012-03-07T15:26:58.229+02:00Fair enough, better argumentation is always needed...Fair enough, better argumentation is always needed.<br /><br />However, with your permission, instead of getting into Philosophy let us stay in Nature and test Young Earth Creationism that you seem to support. As far as I know, Professor Puolimatka does not support that particular view of the world.<br /><br />Let me underline the fact that ID people and creationists raise a number of good points also from the scientific point of view, like Leisola with the cell motor etc.<br /><br />I keep this strictly separate from the YEC insistence on the Biblical genealogy chronology.<br /><br />So let us test the case with God's magnificent work of creation, Grand Canyon.<br /><br />I will write about it in another blog Phos to alethinon.<br /><br />As you wish, we can continue the debate on the chronology here or there.<br /><br />I intend to argue that YEC with their Grand Canyon Observatory are twisting the works of God in nature as they twist the Bible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-24065643089147813852012-03-07T14:54:15.622+02:002012-03-07T14:54:15.622+02:00This entry is - and the previous ones were - about...This entry is - and the previous ones were - about the relevance of Philosophy of Science specifically in the context of your current blogs. I did not expect you to open yet another blog, about Philosophy of Science this time.<br /><br />What I did expect, or at least hoped for, was that you'd be willing to update your positions towards the themes you already are interested in and blogging about, according to the pertaining recent developments in Philosophy of Science.<br /><br />That was precisely because those positions, first and foremost, are philosophical ones, i.e., they are concerned with what can and what cannot be scientifically honorable views or theories. Philosophy of Science is about just that kind of questions and considerations.<br /><br />AFAIS, you have engaged yourself in the business of "proclaiming the truth about the grave errors of YEC", yet lacking any solid grounding for that kind of enterprise.<br /><br />A brief summary of what I'm intending:<br /><br />(1) You had had these blogs with dire warnings against all Young Earth Creationists generally, and certain Finnish ones specially, the idea being that they must be something along the Dawkinsian view: "stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked" - or under demonic possession or some other kind of devilish influence, an extra-Dawkinsian, further option of your own.<br /><br />(2) After being introduced to the reality of there being Young Earth Creationists who hardly fit any of the named categories, you still continue claiming that they must be wrong because you must be right.<br /><br />(3) After being introduced to the reality that, according to the up-to-date Philosophy of Science, there is not - and, in principle, cannot be - any "wise, knowledgeable, sane, and benevolent" (and, I might add, godly) way of continuing claiming that, you seem to excuse yourself by saying that what you are doing is not about Philosophy of Science at all - an obviously true claim as such, but simultaneously a clear "shutting of eyes" from the true problem, i.e., the lack of solid grounding when speaking "for science, against YEC".<br /><br />But perhaps I am just missing something essential here?<br /><br /><br />FYI, I have not yet found nor read the other entries you were referring to. I might do it later, and am, in principle, interested in getting some further insight into your preferred interpretation of the Bible and the nature.<br /><br />Preferring some self-consistent view over others is, naturally, OK, and actually even a necessity within the up-to-date Philosophy of Science. Nevertheless, because of inherent limitations of humanly possible knowledge, clear distinction should always be made between (i) questions about ultimate truth, (ii) questions about scientific validity of any position, and (iii) questions about assessing some scientifically valid positions against each other.<br /><br />Hence, it's quite meaningful to insist that certain position is wrong, or unwarranted, without claiming it being "pseudoscience", "anti-science", "devious", or something like that. Arguments for a position against another should be presented as a comparison of all relevant facts, including the basic beliefs of respective researchers (which should be made public as part of scientific communications, and be mutually honored as necessary antecedents of any scientifically meaningful activities).<br /><br />One clear benefit of making these distinctions is that by clarifying what is at stake and what isn't, better argumentation is enabled.Petrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940221011794665408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-28859309283753031762012-03-06T05:42:01.154+02:002012-03-06T05:42:01.154+02:00Petri, Philosophy of Science would need another bl...Petri, Philosophy of Science would need another blog and other point of view and your link is an invitation to a significant field of human thinking and certainly quite important.<br /><br />My blogs are a collection of posts on people dealing with hard sciences of which professor Hartnett is a good example. <br /><br />However, you raise the critical point of "God of Israel" as I use this specific name for the only real God there is linking Him to the reality of the Jewish people.<br /><br />Recently I wrote in this blog some posts looking at the fundamental issues of materialism, idealism and why the Jews have no Philosophy of Religion. Epistemology and so on. <br /><br />Would be interesting to hear your comment on the themes raised there.<br /><br />For as I reject the hermeneutics of Young Earth Creationism claiming that they falsify both the Bible and the Nature (Grand Canyon), these posts explore what would be a correct and truthful look at Creation for a believer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-63553629048574818382012-03-05T16:49:03.062+02:002012-03-05T16:49:03.062+02:00To me, this seems like another interesting twist f...To me, this seems like another interesting twist from your part. First, I figured you were very interested in Philosophy of Science, so I offered what I considered a pertaining link to the matter. Now, you seem to implicate quite the opposite position, ignoring the link altogether. Alternatively, I might be missing something, just not being able to figure out the bulk of your message, in the context of what we had been discussing here.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I could ask you this: when you say God "is just so much more than we can comprehend", how can you, furthermore, know He is precisely "God of Israel" as well - in any Biblical sense of the designation, I mean? You know, there might only be some Unknown God, surely enough "so much more than we can comprehend", but never the least interested in any direct communications with the mankind, as Deists opine.Petrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940221011794665408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-49717550645433857092012-03-05T15:24:49.789+02:002012-03-05T15:24:49.789+02:00Petri, I would like to point out that in my blogs ...Petri, I would like to point out that in my blogs I am as a believing Christian taking a look at hard sciences - which Hartnett represents on a very high level. <br /><br />Because I am free of the basic error of the Young Earth Creationism in my hermeneutics there is no pressure to modify or twist the space-time continuum.<br /><br />Instead, I can wonder God's handwork in Nature and do what the Paul advices in his admonition to the Romans, the people he describes in Romans 1 do not praise the Lord.<br /><br />I do praise the Lord and His wisdom and invite all people to praise Him with me. <br /><br />So far on my tours to the world of Science I have not found anything that would negate the fact that God of Israel is great. <br /><br />He is just so much more than we can comprehend.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-20834795435895042612012-02-28T13:41:41.704+02:002012-02-28T13:41:41.704+02:00I guess you're right in your opinion about the...I guess you're right in your opinion about the scarcity of Philosophy of Science essays by natural scientists.<br /><br />On the other hand, there is plenty of philosophical (and historical) argumentation by philosophers of science themselves, and if interested (and capable of reading Finnish), you could find a summary of a survey, e.g., here: http://perustelu.fi/Larry_LaudanPetrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940221011794665408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-90560642118275778322012-02-28T11:39:45.698+02:002012-02-28T11:39:45.698+02:00Well, if you find something I am very interested. ...Well, if you find something I am very interested. For it seems to me that natural scientists do not write much about Philosophy of Science as they are very busy with what they are doing. And vice versa.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-88473135754823794912012-02-28T11:35:01.395+02:002012-02-28T11:35:01.395+02:00No, I don't. There might be something out ther...No, I don't. There might be something out there, though, I just haven't looked for it.<br /><br />There is also the fields-of-competence issue here - the question about what makes science science belongs to Philosophy of Science, not Astronomy or Cosmology.Petrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940221011794665408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-975306337164152382012-02-28T05:43:40.700+02:002012-02-28T05:43:40.700+02:00Do you have a reference to professor Hatnett discu...Do you have a reference to professor Hatnett discussing his views on Science in these termsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-15644614047725239662012-02-27T14:41:53.625+02:002012-02-27T14:41:53.625+02:00Thank you for your patience, Petri, I was for a mo...Thank you for your patience, Petri, I was for a moment doubting that you really are kidding me.<br /><br />I will look at the link you gave.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-31217601509069842542012-02-27T14:39:07.798+02:002012-02-27T14:39:07.798+02:00Well, thanks for the compliments, but I'm quit...Well, thanks for the compliments, but I'm quite sure Professor Hartnett and many other YEC professional scientists are a lot more cosmologically knowledgeable than myself.<br /><br />But for the up-to-date Philosophy of Science, you could follow this link for a second opinion (the text is in Finnish, I'm afraid, although the relevant information is initially taken from some English source materials one could possibly find via the Proper Nouns and Internet search engines): http://www.hs.fi/paakirjoitus/artikkeli/Evoluutioteoriaa+on+opetettava+kriittisesti+avoimella+tavalla/1135241111292<br /><br />Thomas Nagel is actually a renowned and openly atheistic professional philosopher, so, if in doubt, you could google a bit further and form your own opinion, whether Professor Puolimatka had been making full justice to the professional opinions of Professor Nagel, or not.Petrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940221011794665408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-41293634784283328692012-02-27T14:09:24.085+02:002012-02-27T14:09:24.085+02:00Petri, let me tell you that I am a very simple and...Petri, let me tell you that I am a very simple and naive man and it is as easy to fool me in the shop with the price as in the internet with false identity. A perfect fools day victim for some laughs!<br /><br />For I find it utterly impossible to believe that a person like you who can understand the time-space continuity would be so unaware of the basics of scientific research and merge an authoritative document of faith with scientific research and call it something "modern".<br /><br />So you must be fooling me, I am afraid.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-20160917227475146162012-02-27T13:55:40.121+02:002012-02-27T13:55:40.121+02:00I'm afraid I can't quite figure out precis...I'm afraid I can't quite figure out precisely what information you are after here.<br /><br />As a publically vocal YEC, Professor Hartnett clearly and openly does think the Bible is giving scientifically valid information about the age of the creation. As a cosmologist, he has offered a model for unifying this information with the data the empirical research has been able to gather. Science is about gathering data and modelling it, and the Hartnett model has been publicized and thus opened to any and all criticisms, scientific, ideological, whatever. What else could one hope for?<br /><br />Nevertheless, you seem to have some problem with at least some part of that "big picture". At any rate, I have to admit I cannot locate the precise problem here, if there is any. Is there one, really?Petrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940221011794665408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-53781960198286391742012-02-27T13:30:30.540+02:002012-02-27T13:30:30.540+02:00You wrote:
The demand of (Methodological) Natural...You wrote:<br /><br />The demand of (Methodological) Naturalism as a precondition of the "scientific validity" of one's intellectual achievements<br /><br />I ask: <br />What is the alternative to this that professor Hartnett is offering here? That Bible gives another fact that we need to include in determining the age of the Cosmos?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-66538710364708643492012-02-27T13:15:24.898+02:002012-02-27T13:15:24.898+02:00Now I think we are on the border line of the old a...Now I think we are on the border line of the old and the new Philosophy of Science. The old one tried its best to find a solid demarcation line between science and non-science. That project turned out to be a miserable failure, on the ruins of which the new one has then emerged.<br /><br />In a typical "Dawkinsian" fashion, the old Philosophy of Science had been eager to declare its victory even before the battle had been fought, and, AFAIS, the echo of that declaration gave rise to the kind of "peaceful coexistence between science and non-science" scenarios you seem to have bought into.<br /><br />As to the reasoning, there is absolutely no difference, why "a Hindu believing in Krishna and reading Veda" could not assess the Hartnett model we are supposedly discussing here: he could understand the narrative, he could check the math, he could compare the empiria.<br /><br />The demand of (Methodological) Naturalism as a precondition of the "scientific validity" of one's intellectual achievements is but a part of the ruins of the ideological "Great Wall of Science" the old Philosophy of Science was striving to build.<br /><br />On the other side of the "Great Ruins of the Wall of Science", the landscape is actually no different - the (nowadays ruined) Wall just managed to hinder the vision for a while.Petrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940221011794665408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-78083307374175598742012-02-27T09:57:52.534+02:002012-02-27T09:57:52.534+02:00There indeed are the worlds of Philosophy and Theo...There indeed are the worlds of Philosophy and Theology that generate so much discussions also on the net.<br /><br />I fully agree that faith and knowledge, science and religion, can live in peace and harmony - if they are understood correctly.<br /><br />For example, I wrote a blog introducing the resources at Einstein online and some of the work of Achim Weiss in the famous Max Planck Institute. He has specialized on Nuclear Astrophysics and especially on the formation of light elements and Lithium stars.<br /><br />I do not know what is his religion, his personal name Achim in Hebrew would mean "Brothers". <br /><br />Professor Hartnett is publishing scientific papers with a Korean researcher at the University of Western Australia. He may also be a Christian, I do not know.<br /><br />The point is that because belief systems play no role in the research they are doing, the question of what is the scientists religion is irrelevant.<br /><br />Weiss studies a proof to the standard models rising from Einstein's work and a Hindu believing in Krishna and reading Veda may verify if his results are correct.<br /><br />Petri, you say that I am mistaken and that a Christian studying the Universe with open Bible in the right hand gets different cosmology from an Atheist or Buddhist.<br /><br />This is confusion and that is what knocked me off because I was convinced that you can keep these things separate and yet see the complete picture: <br /><br />the difference between our knowledge about the world and our understanding of the world.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04690494548814761204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3266032577984853562.post-5098561463206051862012-02-26T16:01:43.715+02:002012-02-26T16:01:43.715+02:00All right, I think we are proceeding rather well. ...All right, I think we are proceeding rather well. Obviously, I must clarify my message quite a bit, though.<br /><br />What I said earlier was not meant to imply the kind of absolute "entente cordial" between Philosophy of Science and up-to-date Theology you wrote about. Rather, it implied full compatibility of classical Christian "believing in order to understand" and conducting research accordingly with what up-to-date Philosophy of Science can say about general human capabilities and restrictions towards advancing any kind of scientific research.<br /><br />In order to illustrate the point, I offer an analogy:<br /><br />The progress of science could be viewed a lot like the progress of the art of some kind of sports, say, ice hockey. What you typically see on an ice hockey arena is two teams trying their best to outperform each other. That is, their actions and strategies have quite opposite and incompatible (both figurative and concrete) goals.<br /><br />Nevertheless, every feat, every accomplishment of a player or a team in ice hockey is also a feat and an accomplishment for furthering the art of ice hockey itself; and any and all of the teams do well when learning from each other as best they can, to be able to outperform their adversaries even in the dimensions of the game these have traditionally been at their strongest.<br /><br />Thus, the traditional Christian goal of furthering knowledge under fully Biblical banners is at the same time one (but, of course, not the only) way of furthering human scientific knowledge generally; and the pursuit of enforcing some ideological (in practice, naturalistic) "rules of science" can be compared to an effort of imposing a rule of "one and only legitimate goal" to the game of ice hockey.<br /><br />It's easy to see what that kind of restriction would do to the general appeal, and to the very state of the art, of ice hockey itself. If the proof of the quality of a team is not in the game itself - i.e., in the successful performance of the team in matches against opponents who are both determined to gain the victory to themselves and by all means quite allowed to do so, if only they can - but in the activities of the referees in disqualifying all the hits into the "forbidden goal", who'd genuinely be interested in one team's "perfect seasons" without one loss? Under those rules, that outcome had been quite obviously foreseeable already before the seasons even started, and told next to nothing about the skills of the "champs"!<br /><br />The naturalistic rigging of "the Rules of Science" is, after all, not a bit better than that.Petrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02940221011794665408noreply@blogger.com