Some questions about Intelligent Design & some emails

[Phlegmak]

I wrote to the Discovery Institute a few years ago about certain aspects of intelligent design.  To my surprise, somebody actually wrote back.  Casey Luskin wrote back.  I copied and pasted my entire email conversation with Casey on another forum.  I can paste my own emails here, if anyone cares, but Pyrrho frowns on pasting other people's stuff.

I'm writing the stuff below from memory.

So, I asked the Discovery Institute questions like this:

1. Who was the designer?  Does he/it/she have a name?
2. How did he design life?  Such as what technology, techniques, etcetera.
3. Why did he design life?
4. Where is the designer?
5. What is the goal of researching intelligent design?  Such as, what new fields of study would it spawn, what technologies could we get from it, etcetera.
6. In school, what is the goal of intelligent design?  You want to teach it in a science class, and then what?  Do we just say "it was designed!" and that's it?  What new learning does this knowledge lead us to?

So, Casey wrote me back, saying essentially the following (my paraphrasing):

1. Intelligent Design has a scope.  Questions 1 through 5 above are out of its scope.  In other words, they aren't trying to solve that stuff.
2. For question 6, he said that students will learn how we infer that life was designed.
3. "Intelligent Design has so much to teach us!  Look at all these things in life, and you can see that they were designed!  The proof for it is incredible!"

Like I said, I'm paraphrasing from memory.  Casey was more wordy than what I wrote above.

What I gathered from Casey's emails, is that intelligent design is absolutely nothing more than inferring that life was designed...and that's it.  That's really it.  You do nothing more than that.

So obviously I was disappointed.  No science that I know of has an end.  Like you reach a point and stop.  That seems to be the case with intelligent design.

[OlegTheBatty]

I
What I gathered from Casey's emails, is that intelligent design is absolutely nothing more than inferring that life was designed...and that's it.  That's really it.  You do nothing more than that.

Then why are they pushing to have it taught as a course, of the basis of a curriculum? Why not just drop each kid a post card. A lot cheaper, in my view . . .

[xouper]

What I gathered from Casey's emails, is that intelligent design is absolutely nothing more than inferring that life was designed...and that's it.  That's really it.  You do nothing more than that.

Then why are they pushing to have it taught as a course, of the basis of a curriculum?

Because their real agenda is to "defeat scientific materialism" . This is well documented by the Discovery Institute's own words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[Pyrrho]

Unfortunately, e-mails are protected content under copyright law and require permission of the author to post publicly. Weird, but there it is.

[DWCrmcm]

I'm a Christian. I find intelligent design hard to swallow as elucidated thus far.
I believe in God, pray everyday and live my life as faithfully as I can.
The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.
What guides the atheist's behavior is a mystery to me.
If the universe were designed by God, what would be the problem with that?
If there is a God then what is the problem with that?
I think evolution by Natural Selection became rather vacuous when we discovered DNA.
IMHO DNA proves that there is a design in play.
There is order and there is process.
No one has been able to define "nature".
Nor has anyone been able to show me the "selection" algorithm.
I see advocates of Natural Selection as dupes, con-men (psychopaths), or sheep.
To say that there is evidence is one thing.
To say that the evidence points to a cause, is strictly the domain of Forensics.
Our model asserts that complexity makes God a pretty good bet.
Still it does not prove God.
It asserts that who ever designed this place is not yet finished.
And that we can be confident that God will assert his authority.
When the need arises.

[xouper]

What guides the atheist's behavior is a mystery to me.

Many are guided by enlightened self interest. Golden Rule, etc. Nothing mysterious about that to me.

If the universe were designed by God, what would be the problem with that?
If there is a God then what is the problem with that?

I would ask you something similar:

If the universe were not designed by God, what would be the problem with that?
If there is no God then what is the problem with that?

For me, I have seen no evidence that leads to God as a viable scientific hypothesis. Especially since God is not well defined from an epistemological standpoint. Especially the Christian God.

I see advocates of Natural Selection as dupes, con-men (psychopaths), or sheep.

I assume you know, same has been said about Christians.  

[rrichar911]

Seems to me to be not a very well thought out answer to your question.  The real answer could fill a book.  

But the short answer is, if the universe was designed, then there is much more to existence than meets the eye.  

If consciousness pre-existed the universe and is capable of creating the universe, doesn't that have consequences, that one could not in any short period of thought begin to state.

[DWCrmcm]

For me, I have seen no evidence that leads to God as a viable scientific hypothesis. Especially since God is not well defined from an epistemological standpoint. Especially the Christian God.

What kind of evidence would that be?
Love is not well defined neither is enlightened self interest.

[DWCrmcm]

Seems to me to be not a very well thought out answer to your question.  The real answer could fill a book.  

But the short answer is, if the universe was designed, then there is much more to existence than meets the eye.  

If consciousness pre-existed the universe and is capable of creating the universe, doesn't that have consequences, that one could not in any short period of thought begin to state.

"then there is much more to existence than meets the eye."
That is the problem. Science is all about "the eye".
Physics even more so.
Both rely on perception. Both are entirely dependent on perception augmented by technology.
But we have ventured perceptually into the small about as small as augmented perception can take us.
We have ventured perceptually into the large and distant about as far as technology can take us.

when we have run out of TAP and it will be soon and sudden where will we turn to delve deeper?

God is an organizing principle.
I'm skeptical about man's ability to replace him.

[xouper]

For me, I have seen no evidence that leads to God as a viable scientific hypothesis. Especially since God is not well defined from an epistemological standpoint. Especially the Christian God.

What kind of evidence would that be?

What evidence are you referring to? I'm not following you. Please rephrase your question. Thanks.

[xouper]

... when we have run out of TAP

Fascinating website you have. Do you know the Time Cube guy?

Why do you have copyright symbols all over the place?

[rrichar911]

Seems to me to be not a very well thought out answer to your question.  The real answer could fill a book.  

But the short answer is, if the universe was designed, then there is much more to existence than meets the eye.  

If consciousness pre-existed the universe and is capable of creating the universe, doesn't that have consequences, that one could not in any short period of thought begin to state.

"then there is much more to existence than meets the eye."
That is the problem. Science is all about "the eye".
Physics even more so.
Both rely on perception. Both are entirely dependent on perception augmented by technology.
But we have ventured perceptually into the small about as small as augmented perception can take us.
We have ventured perceptually into the large and distant about as far as technology can take us.

when we have run out of TAP and it will be soon and sudden where will we turn to delve deeper?

God is an organizing principle.
I'm skeptical about man's ability to replace him.

No always.  Sometimes theory leads observation, and sometimes the reverse.

[DWCrmcm]

... when we have run out of TAP

Fascinating website you have. Do you know the Time Cube guy?

Why do you have copyright symbols all over the place?

to ensure authenticity.

no don't know the time cube guy.

Thanks for the compliment.

My co-developer is pressing me for a completed manuscript. So we have let the site languish. Several new definitions and an additional bunch of pages showing layer by layer how the model is supposed to work.
The hard part is deciding what to exclude and when.
The site won't be updated any further for now.

Well we might extract the delta axis pieces into a separate page.
We are challenging the nature of small and large.
We believe the model asserts that there is no limit to size.
the scale is continuous.
It is a matter of inward and outward.
We believe the model asserts that the universe is a form of life and the big bang was actually a big split, like cell division.
Gravity is the source of mass and that light is not a particle in the sense that each photon is discrete, rather that light is, in a sense, just mass shivering.

on and on ...

[fromthehills]

...each photon is discrete, rather that light is, in a sense, just mass shivering.

on and on ...

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, I was confusing discrete with discreet.

[Blacksamwell]

The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.

Well...  I suppose if you qualify this a bit by saying that Christians are guided by their unique personal selective application of some scripture, then I'd agree with you.

I'd argue that scripture is often so self contradictory that it can't really be used to guide any behavior.  In practice people just use the parts of scripture they like to reinforce the beliefs they already hold.

How does one guide their behavior with this stuff...?

How should adultery be punished?

Should every man bear his own burden?

Should believers discuss their faith with non-believers?

When's the last time you joined a good ole Leviticus style stoning party or got together with your neighbors to burn a witch at the stake?  According to scripture it is your obligation to do so.

[Blacksamwell]

For me, I have seen no evidence that leads to God as a viable scientific hypothesis. Especially since God is not well defined from an epistemological standpoint. Especially the Christian God.

What kind of evidence would that be?
Love is not well defined neither is enlightened self interest.

Both love and self interest are understood well enough that there's active experimentation.  Researchers are studying the mechanism of our brains and testing their theories.  No such endeavor is even possible with God.

[DWCrmcm]

No[t?] always.  Sometimes theory leads observation, and sometimes the reverse.

okay, that being the case, there will be a failure in their reciprocity.

[DWCrmcm]

The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.

How does one guide their behavior with this stuff...?

With the love of Christ.
Payer, helping others with their burdens.

Sharing loves and sorrows with each other in the context of a loving God.

[Blacksamwell]

The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.

How does one guide their behavior with this stuff...?

[...]helping others with their burdens.[...]

I thought scripture told Christians to NOT help others with their burden...?

Galatians 6, verse 5: "For every man shall bear his own burden."

Maybe it's okay to help women with their burdens but not men?

[Blacksamwell]

The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.

How does one guide their behavior with this stuff...?

With the love of Christ.
Payer, helping others with their burdens.

Sharing loves and sorrows with each other in the context of a loving God.

So you don't really use scripture?  You just direct your thoughts to a mythical sky fairy and follow the golden rule?

Well, at least that system is more internally consistent than trying to rely on scripture.

[DWCrmcm]

The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.

How does one guide their behavior with this stuff...?

With the love of Christ.
Payer, helping others with their burdens.

Sharing loves and sorrows with each other in the context of a loving God.

So you don't really use scripture?  You just direct your thoughts to a mythical sky fairy and follow the golden rule?

Well, at least that system is more internally consistent than trying to rely on scripture.

But I have read scripture and have relied on its wisdom for a very long time.
Scripture is a record of our experiences with God.
Scripture is not a how-to-manual.
The anthropomorphizing of God is an unfortunate diminution.

[DWCrmcm]

The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.

How does one guide their behavior with this stuff...?

[...]helping others with their burdens.[...]

I thought scripture told Christians to NOT help others with their burden...?

Galatians 6, verse 5: "For every man shall bear his own burden."

Maybe it's okay to help women with their burdens but not men?

That is not what the passage means.
That juxtaposition is in reverse order.
If that is your source of scripture, then you have been deceived.
I recommend a reputable Study Bible.
Even if it doesn't have any impact on your beliefs you might be surprised by what is actually in there.
You can hear and see its impact on our language.
People misquote the Bible with great enthusiasm.
I seldom quote scripture.
One can mislead people so easily.

It also helps to remember that scripture wasn't written as a book. There were few if any books back then.
It was put together into a single package later. And that Package was intended for a select few to begin with.

oh and I never argue with people about religion. 
okay, I try not to argue.

[Blacksamwell]

The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.

Scripture is not a how-to-manual.

How is scripture a guide for christian behavior if it isn't a how-to-manual?

How would it be used as a guide (as you claim) if one doesn't look to it for examples on "how to" do things?  Is it instead a manual for how NOT to do things?  If it is to be a guide it must present some instructions.

My point is simply that the bible is so full of internal contradiction that it would be nearly impossible to find any guidelines that aren't contradicted elsewhere in the bible.

[Blacksamwell]

The behavior of Christians is guided by scripture.

How does one guide their behavior with this stuff...?

[...]helping others with their burdens.[...]

I thought scripture told Christians to NOT help others with their burden...?

Galatians 6, verse 5: "For every man shall bear his own burden."

Maybe it's okay to help women with their burdens but not men?

That is not what the passage means.

Okay, sez you.  To me and others the words are abundantly clear.

It isn't hard to find other Christians who'll disagree with you.

How does an outsider measure the validity of opposing claims such as this?  I'd argue that you can't and that any claim based on scripture is equally invalid.

If that is your source of scripture, then you have been deceived.

It's the King James version.  I'm not aware of any widespread agreement among the Christian community where the King James version has been declared invalid.

Which highlights another point...  Exactly which "official" scripture must one work from to access God's insight and how does an outsider measure the "correctness" of each scripture version?

I recommend a reputable Study Bible.

Which reputable study bible?  They don't all agree.  How do I measure the relative "correctness" of each?

Besides...  What makes the Skeptical Annotated Bible disreputable?  It appears to be making logical conclusions based on the same text in every other King James version.

Even if it doesn't have any impact on your beliefs you might be surprised by what is actually in there.

I'm already familiar with the absurd stuff in the bible.  I note however that most study bibles don't touch on these topics much.

You can hear and see its impact on our language.
People misquote the Bible with great enthusiasm.
I seldom quote scripture.
One can mislead people so easily.

How does one measure and determine those passages that are misquoted and misleading and those that are not?

It also helps to remember that scripture wasn't written as a book. There were few if any books back then.

That shouldn't be a problem for any omnipotent being who wishes for the final version to be perfect.  

Yet that doesn't appear to be the case, right?  The message is easily lost, twisted, or misinterpreted to the point where no one can conclusively determine which is the "right" interpretation.

It was put together into a single package later. And that Package was intended for a select few to begin with.

Intended for a select few?  Did God tell you this?  How would I measure this intent?

I thought God's message of scripture was for everyone?  Does God not actually love us all and want us all to access his message?

[DWCrmcm]

Best of luck to you
God Bless.

[xouper]

... when we have run out of TAP

Why do you have copyright symbols all over the place?

to ensure authenticity.

OK, thanks. That explains more than you probably intended.

Carry on.

[Gord]

...each photon is discrete, rather that light is, in a sense, just mass shivering.

on and on ...

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, I was confusing discrete with discreet.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discreet

Main Entry: dis·creet
Pronunciation: \di-ˈskrēt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French discret, from Medieval Latin discretus, from Latin, past participle of discernere to separate, distinguish between — more at discern
Date: 14th century
1 : having or showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech : prudent; especially : capable of preserving prudent silence
2 : unpretentious, modest <the warmth and discreet elegance of a civilized home — Joseph Wechsberg>
3 : unobtrusive, unnoticeable <followed at a discreet distance>

— dis·creet·ly adverb

— dis·creet·ness noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrete

Main Entry: dis·crete
Pronunciation: \dis-ˈkrēt, ˈdis-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin discretus
Date: 14th century
1 : constituting a separate entity : individually distinct <several discrete sections>
2 a : consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuous b : taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values <discrete probabilities> <a discrete random variable>

synonyms see distinct

— dis·crete·ly adverb

— dis·crete·ness noun

Indeed.

[DWCrmcm]

... when we have run out of TAP

Why do you have copyright symbols all over the place?

to ensure authenticity.

OK, thanks. That explains more than you probably intended.

Carry on.

ummm, xouper, don't leave me hanging here, what did you understand that I disclosed?

[xouper]

... when we have run out of TAP

Why do you have copyright symbols all over the place?

to ensure authenticity.

OK, thanks. That explains more than you probably intended.

ummm, xouper, don't leave me hanging here, what did you understand that I disclosed?

OK, let's list some facts:

• Copyright cannot be applied to single words, phrases, slogans, or names.
  
  
• Copyright does not ensure "authenticity", whatever that means in this context.
  
  
• Copyright notice only needs to be given once on a webpage (which you do near the bottom).
  
  
• The copyright symbol appears in numerous inappropriate places on several of your webpages.

Now, what can we infer from those facts? The most obvious conclusion is that you are using the copyright symbol incorrectly. In fact, it appears you are using the copyright symbol in a manner similar to the way a trademark symbol might be used. And from that conclusion, combined with other observables, we can infer many other things about you and your website, none of which are favorable.

Does this explanation help?

[DWCrmcm]

...each photon is discrete, rather that light is, in a sense, just mass shivering.

on and on ...

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, I was confusing discrete with discreet.

I first came across them in the mid 90's while teaching myself OOP OOD.
In Canada they didn't offer courses on these through the curriculum.
They touched on the subject somewhat in University Math classes (university of Waterloo) I lived in Kitchener for about 10 years. But "sigh", I can't study, weird "eh". If I study I become suicidal. Has something to do with my neurology - serotonin. Even now I'm on a very high dose of Paxil 120 mgs/day, that keeps me alive, but if I think about one thing for very long I start to get depressed. So I have to jump around continuously from idea to idea until I run out of juice, then I have to stop.
So I can't do math to any meaningful extent. When I read it has to be several different books in little pieces and I have to make notes so I remember where I was when I get back to it.
sorry about that as per usual I'm jumping around.
Only available courses where in the US.
My Psychiatrist urged me to pack up and head for California.
He still thinks I should do so.
Maybe if I get this manuscript finished I will head down there from time to time.
But I need his help, and he understands me, so I will be unlikely to move anywhere except maybe back to Kitchener where he is.
So  because I have to make notes to engage in reading, I remembered the distinction between the two words.
And of course as if one disorder isn't enough I am mildly dyslexic so I had to work at it.
To post on the internet I had to write my stuff in Microsoft Word to use the spell checker.
Now I use Firefox which has a spell checker.

I couldn't program in or write code in "C++", because upper case lower case distinctions were a nightmare.
I used/use pascal - Borland's Delphi -  I still had so many errors in spelling  that - I could never plan to work in the field.
Our model asserts that the universe is both discrete and fully connected.
Go Figure.
But as we build the informal class structures we get whacked upside the head, when things we thought were one way turned out to be a different way.

Did you know that DNA has clocks.
F*cking Clocks for crying out loud.

Dr. Katherine Pollard: What Makes Us Human?

Posts: 17
Posted: 02.11.10, 03:31 PM
algorithms @ 33:23
33:23 algorithms to search through the DNA. Writing algorithms is really tricky.
Imagine how tricky the genomic algorithm is. You can't just do it. You have to practice. Nature practices, and somehow records the experience.

35:15 ticking like a clock. and at a constant speed. My head is spinning.

Anyway I'm tired so ....

[DWCrmcm]

OK, let's list some facts:

• Copyright cannot be applied to single words, phrases, slogans, or names.
  
  
• Copyright does not ensure "authenticity", whatever that means in this context.
  
  
• Copyright notice only needs to be given once on a webpage (which you do near the bottom).
  
  
• The copyright symbol appears in numerous inappropriate places on several of your webpages.

Now, what can we infer from those facts? The most obvious conclusion is that you are using the copyright symbol incorrectly. In fact, it appears you are using the copyright symbol in a manner similar to the way a trademark symbol might be used. And from that conclusion, combined with other observables, we can infer many other things about you and your website, none of which are favorable.

Does this explanation help?

yup
thanks
my lack of formal education always shows through.

[Anchor of Life]

What makes the Skeptical Annotated Bible disreputable?

The founder/editor Steve Wells is NOT a Bible scholar nor a theologian.  His formal training is in botany & math.  He claims to be some sort of industrial statistician professionally.  He has NO education in the fields of theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Hebrew & Greek languages which are required to do legitimate Bible exegesis.  As a result, the website relies on eisegesis (personal interpretation to promote one’s own ideas) instead of examining the socio-historical background to discern the original meaning or intent of the authors of the texts.  Wells and his website perform NO analysis of the social background, the literary data, or context of the verses they are supposedly “analyzing”.  He/they perform NO investigation into the history & origins of the texts or study the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, text, &/or the original audience.  This website is the parallel of Maher going to truck stops to find theological answers instead of consulting professors in Seminaries.  

“Editorial commentary in the form of pictures and one-sentence comments are not arguments.  SAB is the Internet equivalent to a brick wall scribbled with graffiti.  It performs no analysis of the social background, the literary data, or context.  It is merely "instant reaction" from an angry Skeptic, and that sort of arguing isn't arguing at all.”  (James Patrick Holding)

The best advice that I can give you when attempting to interpret Bible passages/verses is that you need to look at the context of the passage to discover the objective meaning, something which Wells & SAB refuse to do.  

“The most common mistake of all Bible interpreters, including some critical scholars, is to read a text outside its proper context.  One can prove anything from the Bible by this mistaken procedure.”  (Dr. Norman Geisler)

The antiretaliatory context in which statements are made must not be ignored.  Failure to note that meaning is determined by context is a chief sin of those who find fault with the Bible.

[Blacksamwell]

So I can only get a "proper" interpretation of the bible from someone who believes it?

I do appreciate your reply.  It was well stated.  But I don't find your argument convincing.

Personally, I can't swallow that line because we're talking about the will of an omnipotent being.  If said being wishes for me to believe, I believe.  If said being wants me to get a message from the bible the transmission of said message would be perfect.  It seems to me that claiming that I'd need an intercessory interpreter diminishes the omnipotent creator's position of omnipotence.

I would note that the main characters of christian myth who experienced a direct relationship with the biblical god were not theologians.  God spoke directly to many characters, even argued with a few, he didn't always hide his message in contradictory and often time plain silly text of questionable sources.

[Matthew Ellard]

What makes the Skeptical Annotated Bible disreputable?

The founder/editor Steve Wells is NOT a Bible scholar nor a theologian.  His formal training is in botany & math.  

Norman Geisler has no science degree yet you quote his views on science subjects all the time.  Are you going to stop this according to your own standards?

As a result, the website ( The Skeptics Annotated Bible) relies on eisegesis (personal interpretation to promote one’s own ideas) instead of examining the socio-historical background to discern the original meaning or intent of the authors of the texts.  

But the "Jesus" in the myths does the same thing.  Jesus gives personal interpretations of Jewish belief and even uses incorrect quotes from older texts.  What training did Jesus have?  Should we not believe what Jesus says either according to your standards?  

[fromthehills]

...each photon is discrete, rather that light is, in a sense, just mass shivering.

on and on ...

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, I was confusing discrete with discreet.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discreet

Main Entry: dis·creet
Pronunciation: \di-ˈskrēt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French discret, from Medieval Latin discretus, from Latin, past participle of discernere to separate, distinguish between — more at discern
Date: 14th century
1 : having or showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech : prudent; especially : capable of preserving prudent silence
2 : unpretentious, modest <the warmth and discreet elegance of a civilized home — Joseph Wechsberg>
3 : unobtrusive, unnoticeable <followed at a discreet distance>

— dis·creet·ly adverb

— dis·creet·ness noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrete

Main Entry: dis·crete
Pronunciation: \dis-ˈkrēt, ˈdis-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin discretus
Date: 14th century
1 : constituting a separate entity : individually distinct <several discrete sections>
2 a : consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuous b : taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values <discrete probabilities> <a discrete random variable>

synonyms see distinct

— dis·crete·ly adverb

— dis·crete·ness noun

Indeed.

Already done looked it up for my own self, that's why I writ it in the post I did

[Anchor of Life]

So I can only get a "proper" interpretation of the bible from someone who believes it?

Not at all.  A non-Christian is certainly able to understand the meaning of any Scripture.  A person is NOT dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars.  However, the issue is whether the message will be welcomed in his heart.  As Dr. Norman Geisler explains, “Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world-views have been developed which involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets.  Such are the agnosticism which denies that God is knowable, the rationalism which denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism which denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism which denies rationality in His relationships with us.  When these un- and anti-biblical principles seep into men's theologies at [a] presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.”

[Blacksamwell]

So I can only get a "proper" interpretation of the bible from someone who believes it?

Not at all.  A non-Christian is certainly able to understand the meaning of any Scripture.  A person is NOT dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars.  However, the issue is whether the message will be welcomed in his heart.  As Dr. Norman Geisler explains, “Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world-views have been developed which involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets.  Such are the agnosticism which denies that God is knowable, the rationalism which denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism which denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism which denies rationality in His relationships with us.  When these un- and anti-biblical principles seep into men's theologies at [a] presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.”

So you can't be an agnostic, or rational, and you must believe god exists and is transcendent.  Then you're qualified to understand the bible without an expert to interpret it?  Aren't you or Geisler just using different words to describe a believer?

That sounds like nonsense to me.  What do you even mean by "the message will be welcomed in his heart" anyway?  It sounds to me that you're saying a person must first be favorable to many of the precepts of faith before they're qualified to read and understand the bible themselves.

Is there any other topic that works that way?  Are there topics in physics, math, chemistry, or biology where you must first be favorably inclined to the paradigm of the instructor before you're able to understand them?

[Blacksamwell]

[...]However, the issue is whether the message will be welcomed in his heart.[...]

Alrighty...  How's this work?

Let's take a passage and you can guide me in determining whether the message is being welcomed in my heart.

Isaiah 49:26
And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

So I'm reading a passage where god threatens to punish someone's oppressor by forcing them to eat their own flesh and drink their own blood.  He says they'll get high from this action which is strange since god's intent appears to be punishment.

What indicators should I look for that would indicate that this passage has been welcomed in my heart?

[DWCrmcm]

[...]However, the issue is whether the message will be welcomed in his heart.[...]

Alrighty...  How's this work?

Let's take a passage and you can guide me in determining whether the message is being welcomed in my heart.

Isaiah 49:26
And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

So I'm reading a passage where god threatens to punish someone's oppressor by forcing them to eat their own flesh and drink their own blood.  He says they'll get high from this action which is strange since god's intent appears to be punishment.

What indicators should I look for that would indicate that this passage has been welcomed in my heart?

sweating, rapid pulse, painful erection, and sudden death.

[Anchor of Life]

So I can only get a "proper" interpretation of the bible from someone who believes it?

Not at all.  A non-Christian is certainly able to understand the meaning of any Scripture.  A person is NOT dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars.  However, the issue is whether the message will be welcomed in his heart.  As Dr. Norman Geisler explains, “Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world-views have been developed which involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets.  Such are the agnosticism which denies that God is knowable, the rationalism which denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism which denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism which denies rationality in His relationships with us.  When these un- and anti-biblical principles seep into men's theologies at [a] presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.”

So you can't be an agnostic, or rational, and you must believe god exists and is transcendent.  Then you're qualified to understand the bible without an expert to interpret it?  Aren't you or Geisler just using different words to describe a believer?

One would have to presuppose that there is a theistic God who created the world and can miraculously intervene in it and who has revealed Himself in both general & special revelation.  It makes no sense to speak about the Bible being the Word of God unless there is a God.

What do you even mean by "the message will be welcomed in his heart" anyway?  It sounds to me that you're saying a person must first be favorable to many of the precepts of faith before they're qualified to read and understand the bible themselves.

Because the author of Scripture — the Holy Spirit — resides within the child of God, he or she is in a position to receive God’s illumination.  And, indeed, the Spirit of truth not only provides insights that permeate the mind, but also provides illumination that can penetrate the heart.  In other words, the ministry of the Holy Spirit extends beyond the inspiration of Scripture to its very application to the lives of the believer.  Just as no one calls Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit, so no one can appropriate the message of Scripture to his life apart from the gracious work of the Holy Spirit.  The natural man does not re-ceive the spiritual message of Scripture.  Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit there is no welcome for its truth in an unregenerate heart.  Again, this DOES NOT imply that a non-Christian is unable to understand the meaning of any Scripture.  It means that whatever he may perceive of the message of Scripture, that without the Holy Spirit's work he will not welcome the message in his heart.  (Article V The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics)

Isaiah 49:26 – This is God’s promise to deliver Israel from Babylonian captivity.  This language seems to be metaphorical with the meaning not that the Babylonians would literally resort to cannibalism, but that they would destroy themselves through civil war and internal strife.  “These two last verses contain a glorious promise of deliverance to the persecuted Church of Christ from the terrible one-Satan, and all his representatives and vicegerents, persecuting antichristian rulers.  They shall at last cease from destroying the Church of God, and destroy one another.”  (Adam Clarke)