Lundahl (2022r) is Still Wrong. “Acts of Imagination” Need to be Supported with Evidence
Kevin R. Henke
September 29, 2022
Lundahl (2022r) quotes the following statement from me without identifying my source:
“Although our “acts of imagination” can be very useful in proposing hypotheses for evaluation, they must never be separated from our reason. Not everything that we can imagine turns out to be real. That is, the products of our imagination must always be immediately tested with reason. To be exact, all of us should have a rational mindset as a starting point and immediately apply reason when we are first introduced to any ‘act of imagination.’”
This quotation is taken from Henke (2022ak).
Lundahl (2022r) then provides the following comments on my statements:
“The imagination of a Christian explaining a miracle is not separated from the reason of a Christian believing a miracle.
He’s a smart human being that is capable of separating fact from fantasy and evidence from myth.
I can separate fact from lie, fantasy from observation or unimagined abstraction or uncomprehended utterance, evidence from bare claims and ... "myth" sense a) from "myth" sense b) from "myth" sense c) etc.
Sure, if someone wants to make up excuses for how a miracle could have happened, they probably will have reasons for wanting to believe in the miracle. However, the reasons may not be any good. This problem also occurs with other groups, such as atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, conservatives, liberals, etc., People often have false beliefs and accept them for bad reasons.
People don’t just need intelligence to separate fact from fantasy and evidence from myth. They need wisdom, which comes with training, mentoring, experience and time. As seen with William Tell (Henke 2022ek) and St. Philomena (Henke 2022es), Mr. Lundahl’s “first know audience” scheme is not a reliable method for separating fact from fantasy. Many people believe in ridiculous religious or political ideas because their parents or other elders indoctrinated them into the dogma. Others cave into peer-pressure. Others just believe because it feels good. Although it’s not perfect in preventing irrational biases, scientists have the Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses to help minimize biases (Strahler 1999, pp. 19-20).
Imagination must be regulated by evidence. Otherwise, without supporting evidence, an act of the imagination is just wild groundless speculation.
Lundahl (2022r) continues:
The problem is, Henke is trying to make things opposites when they don't belong into the same category. Henke is certainly guilty of a "quod licet Iovi non licet bovi" when he gives the important scientist and himself the right to imagine unobserved forces of graviation, and denies the relatively unimportant Christian the right to imagine unobserved acts of God's will behind the observed effect of God's will historically known as a miracle. In the one case, he doesn't and in the other case he does, and in the quoted sentence repeat offends in pretending "imagination" being a proof of "non-factuality" of a description.
He is also equating the general reader, with a specific type having his own culture, one that neither knows in advance nor cares to look up what this phrase means in Classical culture.”
Scientists can measure gravity with gravimeters. We know that gravity exists. Mr. Lundahl, when has anyone measured God or a miracle? Where’s your evidence?
Again, miracles can only be demonstrated in the present under strictly controlled conditions (Henke 2022co). Unless Mr. Lundahl has a time machine, we can’t identify a miracle in the past (Henke 2022ch). There’s no such thing as a “historically known miracle.”
Also, Mr. Lundahl should know better than to use Latin phrases that many of our readers may not immediately recognize or understand. Our readers should not have to constantly search the web or dictionaries to figure out what Mr. Lundahl is saying.
Reference:
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.