Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 31 2007,21:18)|
|GilDodgen, Hon, is the voice screaming: "I DESERVE CHOCOLATE!"? That's me. Sorry. :) I'm on page 20 of my 3rd attempt to get through this, that's why. (I'm farther than the other 2 times.) I've already blatted at my boyfriend about the nonsequitors. (I can hear his voice, too, in my head: "So why do you read that crap, then?")...|
I read this paper some time ago, and my anandamide receptors, long in retirement from external manipulation, screamed at me as well. That's because they are known to mediate forms of forgetting.
What I found entertaining, beyond watching WAD tie himself into knots to accomplish his apologetic purposes (even the knots have knots), is the solution he devises for 'the fall,' which is essentially a multiverse solution:
|In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve simultaneously inhabit two worlds—two worlds intersect in the Garden. In the one world, the world God originally intended, the Garden is part of a larger world that is perfect and includes no natural evils. In the other world, the world that became corrupt through natural evils that God brought about by acting preemptively to anticipate the Fall, the Garden is a safe haven that in the conscious experience of Adam and Eve (i.e., phenomenologically) matches up exactly with their conscious experience in the perfect world, the one God originally intended. In the originally intended world, there are no pathogenic microbes and, correspondingly, there is no need for Adam and Eve to have an immune system that wards off these microbes. In the imperfect world, whose imperfection results from God acting preemptively to anticipate the Fall, both pathogenic microbes and human immune systems exist. Yet, in their garden experience, Adam and Eve never become conscious of that difference. Only after they sin and are ejected from the Garden do they become conscious of the difference. Only then do they glimpse the world they might have inhabited but lost, a world symbolized by the tree of life. Only then do they realize the tragedy they now face by being cast into a world full of natural evil and devoid of a tree that could grant them immortality.|
If that makes sense to you, you'll agree that time and causality are not time and causality:
|Because God knows the future and is able to act preemptively to anticipate future events, divine action properly follows not a causal-temporal logic but a teleological-semantic logic. This teleological-semantic logic treats time as nonlinear (cf. kairos) and sees God as acting in the world to accomplish his purposes in accord with the meaning and significance of the events happening in the world. The causal-temporal logic underlying the physical world and the teleological-semantic logic underlying divine action are not at odds—they do not contradict each other. At the same time, they are not reducible to each other.|
(Which no doubt accounts for the fact that, for advocates of ID, the results are in before the science is done.)
Which brings us to GilDodg'em's question vis credibility:
|Friday Musings: The Credible Versus The Incredible|
...Thus, at least among many intellectual elites and others, the incredible is given precedence over the credible as the default position. How did we arrive at this curious state of affairs?
Gil - take a squint at Bill's paper, and I think you'll have your answer.
(Design is screaming at you because it is PISSED.)
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington