Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

I disagree. Many problems have no easy answer under the second, but have simple, straightforward answers under the first. (Note: I am talking of philosophical problems here, not scientific problems.)

​

But this thread is not about arguing any particular metaphysical position, or about the reasons for or against any particular position. (If you want to argue this, please take it to a different thread.) My point here is simply the existence of metaphysical positions which underlie science, the inability to decide between them on scientific grounds, and the necessity of taking them on faith.

---

If a proposed explanation cannot be investigated in any way, is it even meaningful? Surely it is dishonest to take any position on a question which cannot even be investigated. "Faith" is just an inability to admit ignorance.

quote:

---

quote:What I want to know is how one goes from saying "there could be something else" to "there is something else"?

​

By applying reason and logic to non-scientific evidence, e.g. philosophy, history, personal experience, perhaps some of the so-called "social sciences." (Apologies to the social scientists, but I consider these fields to be only quasi-scientific.)

---

How do any of these yield reliable evidence about gods?I disagree about the social sciences; those folk are trying hard to deal with difficult subjects. I do not see how they give evidence about gods anyway.History is pretty much like science: conclusions must be based on demonstrable evidence.Personal experience is notoriously unreliable.Remember, if propositions cannot be checked against reality, their truth cannot be ascertained, so much of philosophy is ruled out.I don't think there is any such thing as this "non-scientific evidence" that is in any way reliable.Would you care to give examples?

quote:

---

How do any of these yield reliable evidence about gods?

​

That's beside the point...

​

The reliability of it, or lack thereof, doesn't negate the fact that reason and logic are being employed.

​

Smart theists don't just pick some god willy-nilly and then have faith in it.

---

I gather that most theists inherit their god from their parents.Also, it doesn't matter if logic and reason are being employed. They are useless without good inputs from reality.What are these inputs that are used? Let's see them so we can judge the validity of the outputs.

That's interesting. Does the religion not determine the god concept, then? I had no idea!I would like your opinion of something, since you clearly think about such matters. My brother is a member of what I take to be a fundamentalist christian church. The other day, he used the phrase "I choose to believe." Do you think this is legitimate?He has surprised me before by saying something along the lines of "I know that isn't true, but, because my religion says it is true, I believe it." Edited by Woodsy, : changed wording

Thanks for a very helpful reply. I must admit that this baffles me (I am sure that you are right). Is it something more like a political position adopted because of party affiliation?

As always, religious types constantly prate of "non-scientific evidence", but run and hide when asked to produce any.The metaphysicist has no laboratory, but refuses to admit it.