Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

The Scope of CTMU

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 12:52:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Langan has described his view of creationism with this statement: "I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind."

Supposing that a god, of the nature that his theory describes, does indeed exist, how is it that anyone would know of his existence, except through the rational deduction of his theory? Who are those that contributed to the doctrine of creationism? How is it that they knew anything about this god (such as to produce anything with ANY kind of truth - allegorical or otherwise) without performing any of the logical calculation that Langan is performing? And if one just supposed that someone or some people did perform this calculation already, then where is the evidence that they did? and why is Langan wasting his time re-stating what these hypothetical individuals have already discovered and explained?

I take serious issue with the idea that CTMU, whatever indeed it is, has any bearing on the truth of any religion, because whatever sort of God emerges from this theory will be heretofore unknown to man, and its attributes would be far less specifically defined than those within the god of judeochristian theology. Isn't it then misleading to purport that any relationship exists between God as is understood by most through religion, and god as is understood in his theory? Such a relationship would suggest an independent deduction of the CTMU by individuals other than Langan.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 1:15:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 12:52:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
Langan has described his view of creationism with this statement: "I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind."

Supposing that a god, of the nature that his theory describes, does indeed exist, how is it that anyone would know of his existence, except through the rational deduction of his theory? Who are those that contributed to the doctrine of creationism? How is it that they knew anything about this god (such as to produce anything with ANY kind of truth - allegorical or otherwise) without performing any of the logical calculation that Langan is performing? And if one just supposed that someone or some people did perform this calculation already, then where is the evidence that they did? and why is Langan wasting his time re-stating what these hypothetical individuals have already discovered and explained?

I take serious issue with the idea that CTMU, whatever indeed it is, has any bearing on the truth of any religion, because whatever sort of God emerges from this theory will be heretofore unknown to man, and its attributes would be far less specifically defined than those within the god of judeochristian theology. Isn't it then misleading to purport that any relationship exists between God as is understood by most through religion, and god as is understood in his theory? Such a relationship would suggest an independent deduction of the CTMU by individuals other than Langan.

You misunderstood his point. He was not saying that Christianity is confirmed by the CTMU, but rather, that some of its main tenets can be logically interpreted within the CTMU, and to whatever extent this can be done, it is metaphorically true. Langan is not a Christian, you know.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 1:22:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 1:15:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/22/2015 12:52:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
Langan has described his view of creationism with this statement: "I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind."

Supposing that a god, of the nature that his theory describes, does indeed exist, how is it that anyone would know of his existence, except through the rational deduction of his theory? Who are those that contributed to the doctrine of creationism? How is it that they knew anything about this god (such as to produce anything with ANY kind of truth - allegorical or otherwise) without performing any of the logical calculation that Langan is performing? And if one just supposed that someone or some people did perform this calculation already, then where is the evidence that they did? and why is Langan wasting his time re-stating what these hypothetical individuals have already discovered and explained?

I take serious issue with the idea that CTMU, whatever indeed it is, has any bearing on the truth of any religion, because whatever sort of God emerges from this theory will be heretofore unknown to man, and its attributes would be far less specifically defined than those within the god of judeochristian theology. Isn't it then misleading to purport that any relationship exists between God as is understood by most through religion, and god as is understood in his theory? Such a relationship would suggest an independent deduction of the CTMU by individuals other than Langan.

You misunderstood his point. He was not saying that Christianity is confirmed by the CTMU, but rather, that some of its main tenets can be logically interpreted within the CTMU, and to whatever extent this can be done, it is metaphorically true. Langan is not a Christian, you know.

Yes I know. But if that's the case, then this metaphorical truth is arrived by complete chance. It would be a coincidence that this theological invention happened to align in some symbolic manner with actions of the God of CTMU. If this is the case, then I think this coincidence should be made clear in Langan's statement. If, however, it is not a coincidence that this religious model and the principles of CTMU modestly align, then Langan should explain where its authors derived the knowledge that would lead to this alignment.

I'm saying that the relationship between religion and CTMU that is implicated in his statement is ambiguously defined,.... as though to imbue the former with a modest sense of rational legitimacy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 1:36:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 1:22:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/22/2015 1:15:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/22/2015 12:52:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
Langan has described his view of creationism with this statement: "I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind."

Supposing that a god, of the nature that his theory describes, does indeed exist, how is it that anyone would know of his existence, except through the rational deduction of his theory? Who are those that contributed to the doctrine of creationism? How is it that they knew anything about this god (such as to produce anything with ANY kind of truth - allegorical or otherwise) without performing any of the logical calculation that Langan is performing? And if one just supposed that someone or some people did perform this calculation already, then where is the evidence that they did? and why is Langan wasting his time re-stating what these hypothetical individuals have already discovered and explained?

I take serious issue with the idea that CTMU, whatever indeed it is, has any bearing on the truth of any religion, because whatever sort of God emerges from this theory will be heretofore unknown to man, and its attributes would be far less specifically defined than those within the god of judeochristian theology. Isn't it then misleading to purport that any relationship exists between God as is understood by most through religion, and god as is understood in his theory? Such a relationship would suggest an independent deduction of the CTMU by individuals other than Langan.

You misunderstood his point. He was not saying that Christianity is confirmed by the CTMU, but rather, that some of its main tenets can be logically interpreted within the CTMU, and to whatever extent this can be done, it is metaphorically true. Langan is not a Christian, you know.

Yes I know. But if that's the case, then this metaphorical truth is arrived by complete chance. It would be a coincidence that this theological invention happened to align in some symbolic manner with actions of the God of CTMU. If this is the case, then I think this coincidence should be made clear in Langan's statement. If, however, it is not a coincidence that this religious model and the principles of CTMU modestly align, then Langan should explain where its authors derived the knowledge that would lead to this alignment.


It's probably not a coincidence. Such fundamental truths are hard to miss, even if one is unable to justify them rationally. In other words, the CTMU is just the logical mirror of what has been "obvious" to people down through the ages. Although quite technical in its current formulation, many CTMU principles are actually quite intuitive. And of course, there's nothing which would prevent a self-creating universe from revealing its true nature to sentient agents within it, creating a sort of "impulse" toward basic truths which humans have interpreted in different ways (one such interpretation being Christianity).