Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 12 (265261)
12-03-2005 1:16 PM


This was originally posted on the (now closed) {YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology} thread by Faith. I have made some very minor edits\modifications\corrections.


To begin with, I don't think it is possible in the slightest for two people to have exactly the same set of beliefs and knowledge, we are all a little different from anyone else and sometimes a lot different from some others. We are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.
What I see so far was that Faith started from the premise that there are two opposing camps, each with set presuppositions that exclude the other camp. The complaint was that Evos said their science "trumps" faith and insist on using dogmatic application of the rules of science (repeatability, evidence, substantiation, etc), while disallowing the {Creos\YECs} to use their dogmatic application of the rules of faith (the flood happened, the bible says, etc.). Thus you have a picture something like this:
Where the area of overlap is the area of agreement and the areas outside the overlap are the areas of contention. Each contends that their whole "idea of reality" is contained within their respective areas and rejects things outside their boundaries.
You have Creos in general, and YECs in particular (seeing as Faith was arguing from a YEC standard), claiming that their evidence for the biblical flood is just as valid as the scientific evidence (the overlap area) they accept in their worldview, while Science types (Scios?) in general, and Evos in particular (seeing as this is the Evo vs Creo forum), claiming that their evidence for an old earth and a geology with no temporal universally occurring flood is just as valid as the scientific evidence that the YECs accept (the overlap area) they accept in their worldview.
This seems pretty cut and dried, and that there really is no way for either to find a bridge to the parts of the others worldview that is outside the overlap area.
The problem as I see it is that this view is due to the narrow definition of the problem as YEC vs Science. One that I don't really think represents either group very well. It is a false dichotomy.
Let me open up the discussion a bit by first considering the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, first in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com:
sci·ence (click)

1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
.. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
.. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
phi·los·o·phy (click)
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
faith (click)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Science (as a whole) is limited to the study of natural objects and processes. It depends on studies that can be reproduced by others with similar results, and skepticism about results and the validity of theories that explain and predict results is healthy and valid within science.
Science sometimes reaches the limits of what it can substantiate with evidence, places where theory has gone beyond the evidence to what might be true, but the testing, the evidence has not occurred or been found, and here it reaches into philosophy: making logical conclusions based on what is known and accepted as true from the evidence that is available. This is where we get dark matter and a {big-bang\inflation} beginning in physics, and similar untested hypothesis in other sciences.
Philosophy (as a whole) expands on science by using logic and rational thought processes, using inductive and deductive methods and "reasonable" assumptions. It depends on the premises being true for the conclusions to be true, and thus discussion of those premises and assumptions is valid in the discerning of the truth of the conclusions.
Philosophy sometimes reaches the limits of what it can develop by logical and rational means, going beyond "reasonable" assumptions into metaphysics and fantasy, and {stories\thought experiments} of "what if" -- where some starting point is taken on a "leap of faith" or by the "suspension of disbelief" required by fiction (especially science fiction).
Faith (as a whole) expands on philosophy, by absolutely accepting on faith certain things to be true without proof or material evidence being needed or necessary.
If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:
Where the boundaries should be fuzzy and the actual shapes, locations, and their relative sizes should be mostly unimportant, but that the basic relationship is that science is within and encompassed by philosophy, while philosophy itself is within and encompassed by faith-- taking each group as the sum total of all sciences, all philosophies and all faiths known to man.
IE - there is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in some philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in some faith or other.
But "science" is not a {worldview} on its own, it is too narrow for that. There is uncertainty, there are unknowns, and different people have different ways to deal with that.
Each person makes their own boundary. Within that overall picture each person on the earth at any time and place can draw an amoebic shape as they see fit to include all their personal beliefs and forms of knowledge, and then normalize that to make a somewhat "rounded" representation of their worldview, with overlaps into science, philosophy and faith as they personally see fit.
An atheist will always stay somewhere within the philosophy envelope, and the theist will always include some portion of the outer envelope, each including and excluding as much of the inner areas as they also see fit.
Science cannot get to faith directly without going through philosophy; it needs a logical step, rungs on a ladder, a path of stepping stones, a stairway to heaven, and thus the plea for substantiation, of a point to stand on, a rock, a crumb (particularly from those without a worldview that includes much in the way of faith). It is not so much that science "trumps" faith as that it just cannot get there, it can't walk on water.
I have said before that it is not about what you accept that is the problem so much as it is about what you deny or reject that cause these conflicts to arise, and each person has different things that they {deny\reject}, some conscious and some not so conscious.
Now, YEC is not {faith in general}, but a very specific subset, an very intentionally narrowed definition of faith that excludes many other christian as well as all non-christian sects and beliefs. There are many other {specific\narrow} {subsets\definitions} of faith, such as the extreme old earth age hindu creationists (where the scientific age of the universe is way too young to be true), as Yaro introduced at one point. In fact faiths are generally not too inclusive of other faiths -- {rejection\denial} comes into play here too.
And we are discussing YEC here and not other faiths, so we can consider that the {core\consistent\formalized} worldview of {all YEC believers} is a bounded area inside the faith envelope and give it a fuzzy edge too, and if we include this in the picture we had before, we would now have something like this:
Here we have the same overlapping shapes sizes and amount of overlap that we had in the first picture, but we also see some other things.
Science is stopped by the moat of philosophy from getting into faith, even the most ardent atheist includes a wide swath of philosophy within their {worldview}, and can get quite close to the fuzzy boundary to faith. Possibly just {rejecting\denying} the existence of god figures without necessarily {rejecting\denying} a spiritual essence, the edge of faith. But they won't cross that last boundary.
The YEC believer views their world as homogeneous, that everything within their area has equal validity. The points they see as valid that are based on their faith, such as a world wide flood, are the same value as the points they see as valid from the science area, and their cannot see why the evidence of one is more important than the evidence for the other. With this picture we can see why some faith evidence cannot be the same as scientific evidence, because it is fundamentally different in nature.
And yet, your YEC person is also not restricted to just the envelope of the YEC {core\consistent\formalized} beliefs, for they also have their own personal doubts and uncertainties, and their {beliefs\views\understandings} can extend freely out from this core area so long as they don't conflict with that core.
There is nothing that prevents their personal beliefs from extending into the other areas of faith, philosophy and science than the boundary drawn around their personal beliefs. The differences between the YEC person and other christian {sects\beliefs} people lies in where the boundaries are drawn, with the "switches" (if you will) between what is {literally true} and what is {allegorical\metaphorical}.
So you also have people like Jar and Phat that have a worldview that includes a lot of science and a lot of christian belief and that don't have a problem with a lot of {faith evidence}, just with some of the particular {literal truth} claims of YECs. And you have people like buzsaw and randman that are somewhere in between.
In fact I can say with some assurance that I have not seen two people on this forum with close to the same set of beliefs, Creo OR Evo. Every person has a different worldview. How much they personally exclude defines how {strict\narrow\restrictive} their worldview is, whether atheist, or YEC, or OEC, or HinduOE, or Deist, or whatever.
I would also say that the appearance of the overall pattern of beliefs as being divided into two camps is an artificial pattern generated by the discussion topics: it draws people from one side that want to argue against people on another side, but doesn't draw people where there is no real disagreement -- we are missing the middle from the distribution.
Enjoy.


The question is whether this is a valid model of {perceptions of reality} - does it model the way perceptions are layered, and does it model the relevance of denial to the overall picture of reality.
One of the answers to that post that leads in the direction I want to pursue with this as an independant thread is this one by Phat (msg 261 on the original thread):
RAZD, I am always amazed by your artful and colorful posts...occasionally a bit over-complex, but commendable just the same!
In your model, here:
I see where some could see the overlaps a bit differently. Perhaps like this:
Outer layer: Science...proof...empiricism.
Next layer: Philosophy....human wisdom dissected and commented upon
Next layer: Faith...an internal concept
Next layer YEC...a subset of some peoples faith.
Personally, I see God as the outermost issue...One who frames the very definitions of words, concepts, and Creator of wisdom.
Perspectives are always viewed from differing angles!
Not sure you can turn it inside out like that and keep the relationships with the definitions above.
All faith is personal, and as I said at the beginning, I don't think any two people can have the same beliefs and knowledge. I don't know if that requires that it be "internal" per se.
The other question is ... what is that light blue area outside faith?
Enjoy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 1:17 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 10 by AdminPhat, posted 12-11-2005 11:52 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 12 (265262)
12-03-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 1:16 PM


coffee house so the discussion is open eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 1:16 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminWounded, posted 12-03-2005 5:16 PM RAZD has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 12 (265306)
12-03-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
12-03-2005 1:17 PM


I'm new to this so feel free to let me know if I'm talking rubbish.
This seems to be a pretty conceptually dense 2000 word essay. Do you think it might be possible to simplify and streamline it to some extent? I suspect that such a comprehensive treatment might restrict the readership of your OP.
Are there any elements you feel could be edited out. The parts discussing where you feel people on the forum fit and the positions of other faiths don't seem central to your discussion.
I look forward to your feedback.
TTFN,
AW
P.S. I appreciate this is conservative compared to your essay on abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 1:17 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminWounded, posted 12-03-2005 5:33 PM AdminWounded has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 12 (265309)
12-03-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminWounded
12-03-2005 5:16 PM


Alternatively you might productively re-work this slightly to be your second article at 'Columnists corner'. It is already longer than either of Mammuthus's essays there.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminWounded, posted 12-03-2005 5:16 PM AdminWounded has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 7:33 PM AdminWounded has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 12 (265329)
12-03-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminWounded
12-03-2005 5:33 PM


second article possibility
I actually have another whole essay on this topic that I considered using for the next column ... it gets into an evaluation of the relative reality encompassed within worldviews.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminWounded, posted 12-03-2005 5:33 PM AdminWounded has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminWounded, posted 12-04-2005 5:57 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 7 by AdminPhat, posted 12-06-2005 1:14 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 8 by AdminWounded, posted 12-09-2005 4:16 PM RAZD has replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 12 (265519)
12-04-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
12-03-2005 7:33 PM


Re: second article possibility
Do you want to hang on until you have that ready? Or do you think you could produce a streamlined version of your OP to get discusssion flowing before you unleash your magnum opus?
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 7:33 PM RAZD has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 12 (265948)
12-06-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
12-03-2005 7:33 PM


Im all for it but I am biased
Hi, RAZD! I am all for promoting your looong article to the CoffeeHouse, but I am a bit biased since you included me in your O.P.
Try consolidating your words a bit..maybe shortening the links and definitions and perhaps even toning down those bright colors!
After you have edited to the best of your abiliies, I will let Wounded King have first dibbs on promoting you and then will reconsider, after your final edit.
Like he said, will you get an audience?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 7:33 PM RAZD has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 12 (267267)
12-09-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
12-03-2005 7:33 PM


Any further thoughts? A bump for RAZD
Have you thought any more about whether you want to save this material up for a column or do you still want to open it up as a Coffee House thread?
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 7:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2005 5:36 PM AdminWounded has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 12 (267279)
12-09-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by AdminWounded
12-09-2005 4:16 PM


Re: Any further thoughts? A bump for RAZD
maybe this weekend

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AdminWounded, posted 12-09-2005 4:16 PM AdminWounded has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 12 (267757)
12-11-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 1:16 PM


Quite simply too long
RAZD--this is just too long to open a topic with! Those of us who know you know that you make sense eventually, but to anyone new who is browsing the topic list, your opening post is much too long and complicated!
Remember, RAZD...when we EvC veterans start new topics, let us always keep in mind that many people who do not know us are browsing the new topics list. Keep them simple, if possible!
Another Admin may yet promote you, but here is my philosophy on PNT topics:
Start with a simple point. You can always expand your explanation once people get involved with the topic. The opening post itself should be quite concise and easily grasped, much like an introduction in a book.
This message has been edited by CoonDawg, 12-11-2005 09:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 1:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2005 9:55 PM AdminPhat has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 12 (268469)
12-12-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AdminPhat
12-11-2005 11:52 AM


Re: Quite simply too long
I'll see what I can do wednesday. Of course I may re-write the whole shebang to include MORE stuff .

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AdminPhat, posted 12-11-2005 11:52 AM AdminPhat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AdminPhat, posted 12-17-2005 10:14 AM RAZD has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 12 (270295)
12-17-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
12-12-2005 9:55 PM


Re: Quite simply too long
OK, RAZD. Im closing this one. You can come back here and cut your O.P. out for your rewritten version...or you may revise the topic hare and e-mail me to reopen and promote it. I would start over, if I were you. Two points.
1) Yes...you could write a column or a book! You have great information, excellent formatting, and complex ideas.
2) I still say: Keep the Opening topic simple. An introduction, if you will. This draws folk in to the topic. Then...later on in the thread, you can elaborate with as many charts and graphs as you can muster!
CLOSING THIS TOPIC.
If you wish to discuss, e-mail me at: thugpreacha@gmail.com
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 12-17-2005 08:15 AM

How EvC Forum started
How to decide where your topic fits choose a forum and think about how to best express your idea.
These are the rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2005 9:55 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024