Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

So I believe imo, that evolution requires faith.

---

I will stir things up and agree with your basic premise. But I would broaden your statement to "science requires faith." This is a statement involving metaphysics and philosophy of science.But first, I must correct some of the many misconceptions in your OP.

quote:

---

What I mean is, no one knows how evolution started. How the process began. Was it a big bang? Was it an ocean of soup charged by energy?

---

As has already been mentioned, you are conflating three different and distinct ideas. A) the origin of the universe, B) the origin of life, and C) the evolution of life once it was already here.

quote:

---

I would hope that all YEC would stipulate that faith in the inerrant Word of God is the presupposition for our beliefs.

---

All conservative Evangelicals (including non-YECs) would agree with this position. But YECs add another "faith position" which you are overlooking: They essentially believe that their INTERPRETATION of the Word of God is inerrant. As others have suggested in this thread, YECs tend to be unwilling to reconsider their interpretation of Scripture and become very stubborn and irrational. Science is data-driven. Much of theology is data-driven as well (though it accepts a different type of data). But IMO YEC is largely interpretation-driven rather than data-driven.

quote:

---

I believe the above can be said for the evolutionist.

---

I would broaden this: "the above can be said for the scientist."But the word "faith" has many different nuances and meanings, so can be vague and misleading. You even use it in different ways in your own post. It would be less confusing if you better defined what you meant. "Faith" involves content (what are the facts that one believes?), an object (in what or who does one put their trust?) and a basis (why does one believe these facts and trust this object?) Sometimes when one uses the term "faith" he is referring to the content, sometimes to the object, and sometimes to the basis.BTW, Atheists (e.g. Dawkins) often use the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" and then deny that scientists have "faith." This is a straw-man argument. Most Christians do not have this type of "faith" either, because their faith is not "blind," it is based on biblical evidence. And scientists DO speak of belief and faith, as your Darwin quotes show.But back to your premise.
1) Is science based on faith? Does science have faith-based presuppositions? Yes, this is a metaphysical consideration. Scientists have faith in their basic senses and in logic. They have faith that the physical world behaves in a consistent and potentially understandable manner. Further, most scientists believe that their theories have some actual correspondence with the physical universe, that the theories are in some sense "real" instead of merely being imaginary non-physical models. None of these positions can be proven; we accept them on faith. But the scientific system works quite well, which gives us some confidence in these premises.2) Does the daily practice of science involve faith? Of course. Any practicing scientist knows this. Your quotes from Darwin show this. Philosophers of science have discussed this at length. 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.

quote:

---

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).

---

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.

quote:

---

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".

​

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.

---

You are incorrectly dichotomizing faith and reason. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, I agree that there is some difference here. Many religious folks (e.g. YECs) are inflexible in their position. However, professional theologians tend to be somewhat more open-minded about their interpretations. And professional scientists often become entrenched in their own views. So while I agree with the general difference that you note, I think the difference is a matter of degree rather than a qualitative distinction.

quote:

---

Accusing scientists of using faith is accusing them of arriving at conclusions using blind faith; its disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

---

You've got a point; those who speak of the "faith" of scientists are generally trying to dismiss science that they don't like. But I think the OP was speaking more about accepting on "faith" the presuppositions which underlie science, not so much the conclusions arrived at. And in this the OP is making a valid point about metaphysics and philosophy of science.

quote:

---

If a conclusion is based on reason it does not require faith.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

Whether faith is intrinsically opposed to reason I will need to consider further, but it is indisputable that faith is often opposed to reason.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Regarding YEC, I tend to agree with you. But we've sometimes seen scientists behave in similar ways, holding on to theories which have already been disproven by new data.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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:

​

Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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 ?

---

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

quote:

---

quote:

---

This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason.

---

Can you give examples of this evidence and reasoning?

​

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 see a lot of assertions, but no reasoning. Care to explain?

---

Did you read Acts 17? The reasoning is there. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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."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. 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 strong second-hand evidence from people who he knew and should have trusted, but this was not sufficient for him. Jesus says this evidence should have been sufficient.But an in-depth discussion of "evidence for faith" or "faith and reason" would quickly pull this thread off-topic. There are a number of threads on EvC forum which have discussed this already. Let's try to stick to the OP topic, if possible.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

There are numerous cases in science where new data comes in, but scientists are unwilling to accept this new data because of prior intellectual commitment to a theory. The Big Bang was accepted fairly quickly, but it still took some time. The academic establishment of Galileo's day opposed him and his data fairly strongly due to prior commitment to an Aristotelian worldview.For something closer to the idea of "blind faith," consider the cold fusion claims of Pons and Fleischman. They had some early (incorrect) data which led them to champion the theory. When their later data and the data of others showed that the theory was wrong, they did not abandon it but clung to it unreasonably. There have been a number of other such claims in the history of science. Some of these have been nicely summarized in the classic article "Pathological Science" by Irving Langmuir, which was reprinted in Physics Today at the time of Pons' and Fleischman's claims.

quote:

---

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.

---

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. We should try to be as scholarly in our discussions of religion as in our discussions of science.

quote:

---

Note especially 1.4 Theology. New Testament.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

If one really wants to understand a view that he himself does not hold, he should go to the advocates of the view. I was referring to Acts 17 mainly to establish what "religious faith" is and means according to the Bible.

quote:

---

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.

---

We know, of course, that it is quite accurate geographically (though it was once thought not to be). But whether or not it is accurate here is not my main point. I don't want to sidetrack the thread on this. I am mainly trying to show the biblical meaning of "faith".Here are some of the claims of "reasoning" in Acts: Whether or not you would find Paul's arguments persuasive today is 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.

quote:

---

You seem genuinely perplexed that Acts 17 is not being accepted as an example of reason in action, despite containing phrases like "he reasoned with them". Let's take a closer look at Paul's attempts at reason.

---

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.But as I said to PaulK, this was not my main point and I do not want to sidetrack the thread on this. My main point is the definition of "religious faith."Perhaps it's better to go back to dictionary and lexicon definitions. Below are some excerpts.
We've already seen the Greek "faith" from Liddell & Scott, which I found somewhat odd. Here is their main definition of the verb form, "believe:" Here are some definitions from Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias: And even a good non-theological work like Webster's has a good definition: I don't see the concept of faith against reason in any of these definitions, not even Webster's. But the concepts of conviction, persuasion, and evidence are in a number of definitions, as I was trying to show from Acts. The point is that this is what is meant by "religious faith" in a biblical or Christian theological context.

quote:

---

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.

---

Hopefully my last post has showed that there is a fairly consistent biblical/theological definition of "faith" and that this is in harmony with a careful English definition.Yes, it is unreasonable to expect Dawkins to use theological terms correctly. It might have been reasonable to expect Dawkins to use Webster's definition in a book for the public, but he did not even do this.

quote:

---

Again, can you please outline this reasoning? I simply don't see it. As others have pointed out Acts 17 contains a long list of baseless assertions. That is not reasoning.

---

Again, the details of paul's reasoning are not my main point here. Sorry to sidetrack the thread. My main point is the biblical/theological definition of "faith." This IS pertinent to the thread.

quote:

---

Don't you mean a prior commitment to Papal inerrancy based on religious faith? Was Galileo placed under house arrest for the remainder of his years because Academia disagreed with him?

---

No, I meant what I said. The Church was one of Galileo's strongest supporters until he ticked off its leadership. His main opponents were the academic elite, who were committed to an Aristotelian worldview. They finally persuaded the Church to go against Galileo, helped by his own obnoxiousness. The "common wisdom" that this was a simple science-religion battle is simply wrong. A number of good historically-accurate popular-level books have been written on the subject, and there have been some well-done TV documentaries on it (maybe the Discovery network?). This is an interesting subject, but it is also off-topic for this thread.

quote:

---

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.

---

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'.

quote:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

The question is to what extent religious faith is actually based on reason.

---

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