Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

Now, my post takes the turn here. I believe the above can be said for the evolutionist. Here's where I get confused on terms however. When I say evolutionist, I am talking about the evolutionist who believes in no ID or God who started the process, but the scientist who believes that natural selection is the sole catalyst in the process from the start of nothing, to what we see now. With that being clarified, I hope, I propose that evolutionists start with a presupposition of faith, just from a different worldview.

---

You do realise that natural selection is merely the guiding force in biological evolution ? It does not start with "nothing" at all ? You need something approximating life, to the point of being able to (broadly speaking) produce copies of itself.

quote:

---

Charles Darwin created a theory, not based on fact, but on his philosophy of life and belief system.

---

This is a common creationist claim but one that is not founded in reality. Darwin was a very thorough researcher and spent a good deal of his time gathering evidence - and he would have spent more, had Wallace not independently come to much the same conclusions from his research.

quote:

---

But the fact is, Darwin had faith and did not deny this. For example, a few of his quotes:

​

"This difficulty, though appearing insuperable, is lessened, or, as I believe, disappears, when it is remembered that selection may be applied to the family, as well as to the individual...."

​

"The electric organs of fishes offer another case of special difficulty; it is impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced; but, ...we must own that we are far too ignorant to argue that no transition of any kind is possible."

​

Then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

---

I suspect that you have copied these quotes from a creationist source - and not read them in context at all. All these quotes are from Darwin's replies to objections to his theory and rely on reason rather than faith. In the case of the first and the third he has counter-arguments. In the case of the second he points out that it is merely an argument from ignorance. Thus we see no more "faith" than is usual in science - simply the standard view that known and evidenced mechanisms should be preferred unless the evidence gives us a reason to reject them.Science does not rely on faith in the same way as creationism. Creationism has it's dogmas which are held to be unchallengeable. Science is tentative and uncertain - true certainty is unobtainable - science just does the best it can refining it's ideas as our knowledge and understanding grow. The quotes you offer are examples of that - Darwin does not preach and expect to be unquestioningly believed, he offers rational argument to answer objections.

quote:

---

Does Darwin address the first stage or origin of matter and where it came from and can that be proven?

---

Of course not. That's completely outside the scope of his theory.

Of course it must be noted that religious faith is very different from the very limited "faith" in science (mostly grounded in pragmatic necessity). Religious faith is much closer to blind faith than you are willing to admit (although there is indeed an industry in puffing up the "evidence" - or even fabricating evidence for Christianity - and quite likely for other religions, too).Equating the two is a standard YEC apologetic and one that is not convincing to anyone familiar with the facts.

quote:

---

2) Does the daily practice of science involve faith? Of course. Any practicing scientist knows this. Your quotes from Darwin show this

---

Clearly you did not understand the quotes. They show nothing of the sort. Unless perhaps you are now going to define faith as "belief without absolute proof".

quote:

---

There comes a point in the development of a scientific theory when if finally crosses a threshold in the mind of the scientist and becomes accepted as true. Perhaps the evidence for it has finally become overwhelming, or perhaps it has explained some crucial data which no other theory can explain as well. There are always still some "loose ends", some data which doesn't quite fit. In spite of this, the scientist has become convinced that the theory is true. He believes that further development of the theory will eventually resolve the loose ends. He has gained "faith" in the theory, based on its success in explaining some crucial data.

---

The interesting point is that only one of the three quotes from Darwin even describes anything like this case. In the other two Darwin DID have counter arguments as is absolutely clear if you just read them. And even in the remaining one, the fact was that the evidence available at the time was insufficient to answer the question either way. THat doesn't make for a strong argument on either side.So really all you are saying is that at some point the evidence for a theory outweighs the weak (or non-existent) evidence backing the objections. This is an application of reason, not faith.I will further add that the settled conclusions of science - despite enjoying far better evidential support than the claims of religion - are still regarded as tentative and subject to revision if our understanding should change. Only the most liberal branches of religion might even approach this view. Another reason why religious faith is different from the "faith" you refer to, and another reason not to confuse them.In short, like much of apologetics, this argument is a deception, trying to sweep important facts under the carpet. The very fact that the religious see the need to resort to such arguments tells us that the evidence is not truly on their side.

quote:

---

Yes, the two are different. But I believe the difference is primarily in the types of evidence that are accepted in each case.
Those who do not have religious faith (e.g. Dawkins) often accuse religious faith of being "blind." This is a biased perspective, of course. I believe it is partly an attempt to dismiss something that they do not want to accept.

---

I could say much the same about your remarks above. And I would say that Dawkins is definitely closer to the truth than you are.

quote:

---

You are incorrectly dichotomizing faith and reason.

---

I am simply pointing out that they are distinct and different. If a conclusion is based on reason it does not require faith.

quote:

---

Biblical faith is based on reason. (The Greek word for believe, "pisteuo" means to be convinced or persuaded.) In science, faith in a theory is based on evidence and reason. In both endeavors, faith and reason work together. They are not opposed as many atheists want to believe.

---

I don't believe that the faith of actual believers is based on reason. My experience of apologetics suggests that it is more founded on rationalisations, believed only because they reinforce pre-established ideas.Whether faith is intrinsically opposed to reason I will need to consider further, but it is indisputable that faith is often opposed to reason.To get back to the topic the whole pint of the argument is to give the impression that the faith of creationism is equal to the evidence and reason of science. Clearly this is false, and it is a fine example of faith opposing reason and of apologists attempting to rationalise away the fact that the evidence is very much against them.

quote:

---

I disagree. Scientists "believe" that their theories are true. Their "faith" in their theories relies on reason.

---

So now you are equating belief with faith, no matter what the grounds for belief. That really isn't the typical use when referring to religious faith. As I see it religious faith is, at the least, a strength of belief beyond that justified by the evidence. Let us not forget John 20:29:

quote:

---

In some cases, yes. But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason.

---

Personally I doubt that. And since you are just making assertions without offering any examples you give me no reason to change my opinion.

quote:

---

True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science.

---

The difference is that such behaviour is rejected and condemned in science, yet often institutionalised and praised in religion. Need I point out that even Kent Hovind finds his supporters ?

quote:

---

See Message 28. In Christianity, faith, belief, and trust are essentially synonymous; they are all forms of the Greek "pisteuo" or "pistis", which is related to being convinced or persuaded. This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason.

---

Aside from asserting that Christianity takes an impoverished view of the English language, ignoring the nuances of the different words, this doesn't address John 20:29 which praises belief without evidence.

quote:

---

Paul regularly reasoned with people in an attempt to persuade them to believe. Read Acts 17, for example, where he did this in the synagogues and on Mars Hill.

---

I just read Acts 17. There's no reasoned argument there, just assertions. It's not even good evidence that Paul HAD reason on his side. Acts is not exactly an unbiased account.

quote:

---

This is not so common among theologians or in religious academic settings, but unfortunately it is too common in lay religion.

---

I would say that that it is less obvious in academia but still we see poor quality arguments from people like Swinburne and Plantinga (Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument is a fine example of smoke-and-mirrors argumentation, admirable only for the subtlety of the deception. Reason tells us that the argument is worthless, yet still it was touted as a significant argument for the existence of God).

quote:

---

Did you read Acts 17? The reasoning is there.

---

I did read it and the reasoning is definitely missing. Did you read it or did you just have faith that the reasoning was there ?

quote:

---

Paul's arguments may not resonate with us today, but they were strong enough and provocative enough to convince some of the philosophers of his day.

---

Acts 17 claims that he did, but that is all. We can't know to what extent Acts is accurate (likely it exaggerates) or to what extent emotive appeals rather than reason were the persuasive force.If your best evidence that Christian faith is based on reason is that a pro-Christian document says that Christians more than 1950 years ago had reasoned arguments, then you don't have a case worth considering. Obviously if those arguments aren't even known to modern Christians they can't form the basis of modern Christian faith - which renders your original assertion false. And you don't even have good evidence that the situation was really any better back then.

quote:

---

What would you think if a non-scientist were to accuse science of taking "an impoverished view of the English language" in its use of scientific terms, terms like evolution, relativity, energy, power, etc? When using scientific terms, we need to use them correctly. The same holds for theological/religious terms. Allowing atheists to define "faith" is just as disingenuous as allowing YECs to define "evolution."

---

I would regard it as absurd. Because the scientific use of terms is narrower and more precise - something that is needed to support the scientific use of reason. You, on the other hand are insisting on broadening the meanings, to make three distinct words synonyms.I would also point out that in these discussions "faith" is not a technical term with a precise meaning. It is an ordinary English word and it would be absurd to say that the English language should be bent to fit the convenience of theologians.

quote:

---

Below are definitions from ISBE, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. This focuses more on the English word than the Greek; perhaps a definition of "pistis" from a Greek lexicon would be more helpful.

---

Or perhaps English language uses would be more appropriate, unless you wish to quibble about the accuracy of the translation. But we can look in a Greek lexicon: Intermediate Liddle Scott at PerseusNote especially 1.4 Theology. New Testament.

quote:

---

BTW, you are mischaracterizing Jesus' statement in John 20:29 as praising "belief without evidence." Read the context. Jesus is gently rebuking Thomas for what he said 4 verses earlier. Thomas already had (second-hand) evidence from people who he knew and should have trusted, but this was not sufficient for him. Jesus says this should have been sufficient.

---

However you read it, Jesus is rebuking Thomas for asking for more evidence, when faced with an event that should be very difficult to believe. To assume that it is meant as a mild rebuke for not finding the evidence he had sufficient is highly questionable, and assumes that "those who have not seen" is restricted to those with a similar level of evidence. I do not find that plausible, and there is nothing to stop it being read as an endorsement of blind faith.

quote:

---

When speaking of science, I will unapologetically try to use scientific terminology. When speaking of religious faith, I will likewise unapologetically try to use theological terminology

---

But remember that this started with your condemnation of Dawkins' use of "faith". Even if you can show that there is a precise theological definition (and you should do that before claiming to use it) it seems unreasonable to expect Dawkins to be using that in a book written for the lay public.I will also remind you that right now your case for faith being based on reason is Acts 17 which does not contain reasoned arguments - despite your assertion to the contrary - and only claims that Paul had such arguments.

quote:

---

I find the Liddell & Scott definition a bit odd. Here are some others

---

I don't think these help you much. The UBS one only tells us that pistis has a wider use than "faith" which might help if quibbling with the translation but is hardly relevant to the English usage which we are really discussing. THe argument that "pistis" is often translated as "faith" does not establish that the meaning of English word should be broadened to match the Greek.The Thayer's definition is even less helpful. Highlighting the NT usage: If you think that these beliefs can be established by reason to the point of justifying fervent belief then you really need to make a case for that. My own assessment - after seeing many arguments for the existence of God - is that this would seem to largely refer to what I would call blind faith.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If one really wants to understand a view that he himself does not hold, he should go to the advocates of the view.

---

Then, since Dawkins argument concerns ordinary believers rather than theologians he should use "faith" as it is understood by ordinary believers, and not rely on the technical terminology of theologians - if there even is such a definition as you claim.

quote:

---

I was referring to Acts 17 mainly to establish what "religious faith" is and means according to the Bible.

---

However when others pointed out that the reasoning was absent you actually questioned whether they had read Acts 17.

quote:

---

Whether or not you would find Paul's arguments persuasive today eis not the point. Whether or not Dr. Luke's records are accurate is not even the point. The point is that the Bible claims faith is associated with reasoning and persuasion.

---

Then the point is wholly inadequate. The question is to what extent religious faith is actually based on reason. Claims that reason converted some people long ago do not establish anything about the current situation. Especially when we cannot even verify those claims in any way.

quote:

---

I am not surprised that unbelievers find the reasoning unconvincing and reject it. But yes, I AM surprised that they take the position that there is no reasoning at all.

---

Why would you be surprised at unbelievers pointing out a fact obvious to anyone who reads Acts 17 ?

quote:

---

I don't see the concept of faith against reason in any of these definitions, not even Webster's

---

I do. Leaving aside your selective and misleading use of Liddell Scott, the New Intl Encyclopedia of Bible Words describes faith as But what articles of the Christian faith can be established as "assuredly and certainly true" by reason ? Reason does not tell us that it is "certainly and assuredly" true that God - or even similar entities like the deist God even exist.Easton's agrees with you, but it's assertion appears to be false, effectively equating Christianity with Huxleyan agnosticism.Webster's definition directly links theological faith to false beliefs. The Bible is not historically reliable and there are good grounds to doubt a supernatural origin of many parts - and no good grounds to believe it.

quote:

---

In my experience, ordinary believers use the term consistent with the Bible Dictionary definitions. Even Webster's definition is a large step up from Dawkins'.

---

See my comments in the previous post.

quote:

---

Yes, because I thought it was obvious that Paul was giving reasons. But I guess it wasn't so obvious to the rest of you.

---

Acts 17 asserts that Paul used reason, but the statements it attributes to him are preaching. not rational argument. It really is obvious if you just read it.

quote:

---

That's a good question, but not what I was mainly trying to address.

---

The point you were meant to be addressing was your claim fromMessage 32 : Further, if faith is not actually based on reason all your claims about definitions - even if they were correct - only show that Dawkins usage is closer to the truth than those you prefer.

quote:

---

Perhaps some of the folks here don't understand the definition of "reason" any better than they do "faith?"

---

If you think that mere assertions constitute reasoning then that person would be you.

quote:

---

"Reason" does not necessarily imply an airtight logical argument.

---

Nobody said that it did. But it requires some sort of logical argument - and that isn't there.

quote:

---

What, pray tell, was "selective" or "misleading" in my quote?

---

The fact that you omitted the definition that Liddell Scott associates with theology and the New Testament. To simply pick out the definition that you want rather than the most relevant definition is obviously selective and misleading.

quote:

---

I worded this statement so broadly that I though it was indisputable. Is there really any serious question about it??

---

Obviously there was. That was why your were attempting to defend it - and failing.

quote:

---

The history of philosophy is full of logical, reasoned arguments both for and against the existence of God. Anyone who has studied philosophy would know this. There is a significant overlap with theology on these questions; Aquinas and others were both philosophers and theologians.

---

And all of the attempts to argue for the existence of God failed. Without exception. That's why religious philosophers are STILL looking for new arguments for the existence of God - and still failing. So all you are doing is pointing to yet more evidence against your claim.

quote:

---

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. The use of logic and reason does not guaranty that an argument cannot fail. You have presented no evidence against my claim that philosophy and theology use logic and reason.

---

I am of course aware that apologists - including academics try to use reason to prop up their faith. However, since it is clear that they start from a position of faith, it is clear that their faith is NOT based on reason and THAT is the point under discussion.