Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

How is asking multiple times for the reasoning in this theology ignoring it? Just lay out evidence, premises, and conclusions. Show how one leads to the next.

---

Leaving aside this particularly example, Taq, would you admit that there is reasoning in the works of Aquinas? Personally I think it's clear that there is.However, as has been stated upthread, whether reasoning is useful or valid depends where you start from. So I think two things need to be separated more clearly in this discussion (this isn't aimed at you, Taq)- the existence of theological reasoning
- the validity of the conclusions of theological reasoning.There's no doubt in my mind, from my own reading expericence, that theological reasoning exists, using logic, understanding of the natural world, understanding of human nature , and scripture as input. It's tilting at windmills to claim this does not exist. Any theological book or treatise will demonstrate this.However, whether theological reasoning is valid or not is a different question. This is where the real issue is. If the starting assumptions are not valid, then the conclusions will not be.Both scientific and theological reasoning make fundamental assumptions that cannot be validated, as KBertsche has pointed out. Science assumes there is an objective world, that our studies give us genuine information about that objective world, and that it is legitimate to extrapolate behaviour from known examples to unknown examples, with appropriate care.However, there is a difference in the detailed data scientific reasoning and theological reasoning use. Scientific reasoning is based primarily on the desire to explain observations of the real world and to achieve the greatest breadth and internal consistency we can in our explanations. Theological reasoning is based primarily on the desire to understand more about God. The sources of information about God do include observations of the natural world but scripture and subjective experience are also part of the mix.This is where I think theological reasoning becomes unreliable. We have no objective way of validating scripture using real world observations. God does not appear definitively to do anything atall in the universe nowadays, at least not in a way that can be tested. So how do we know our scriptural start point is valid? We don't.The same thing with subjective experience of God - how do we know that we really are interacting with an external being rather than with part of ourselves? We don't.

quote:

---

What would those observations be? Can you point out one of these observations that do not have a natural explanation? The evidence for a god and faith is 100% subjective. Yes there is some subjectivity in science, but that is backed(in good science)with objective evidence. Objective evidence is missing in the god faith scenario completely.

---

Let me clarify. What I should really have said is 'for those who believe in God, the sources of information about God do include observations of the natural world'. In other words, for those who believe in a creator God, the nature of the world reveals information about him.But only if you believe in him - I agree with you that the natural world doesn't provide evidence that he exists.

quote:

---

Is there any evidence that this is not an objective world? I find this argument curious. Why is an objective world something that can not be validated?

---

The assumption is when we observe something, there really is something there. If that were not true, how could we ever detect it?

quote:

---

Can I not trust any of my senses?

---

In terms of trusting your senses, - you have to be careful in deciding when you can. The more we find out about how the brain processes our sensory information, the more it becomes clear that our picture of the world is 'made up' by the brain and that we are easily fooled by our own brains.If you mean 'Is something or someone is creating or manipulating our sensory information to create a false impression of the world?' then of course the answer is no, it's not likely. But it is still an assumption because we might not be able to detect this happening

quote:

---

Do you think math and mathematical models may be being manipulated by something?

---

No, I don't think that. I'm not even sure what it means.

quote:

---

This seems like a very "out there", matrixy argument, with no basis in logic or evidence. In other words an argument using totally subjective ideas and no evidence.

---

No, these are very reasonable assumptions but we CANNOT prove them because we cannot step out of our senses and brains. We have no direct perception of 'reality'. Does this worry you? It doesn't worry me. I'm happy to assume they are true. These are common philosophical assumptions of 'realists' .I don't think, btw, that these assumptions weaken the case for science. Nor are they anything like theological assumptions that God exists or that the the bible is (to a greater or lesser extent) true.

quote:

---

Another way of looking at it is that it *does* increase the tentativity we must attach to scientific theory, a viewpoint creationists might find attractive, but it affects all scientific theory equally, which creationists might not like so much. They can't decide that science's tentativity applies to whether there's evolution but not to whether there's gravity.

---

Yes, that's true. And these assumptions underpin theological or creationist reasoning as much as they do science. After all, most theologians and creationists are realists.

quote:

---

2) The theistic metaphysical position that I outlined earlier doesn't try to place God in the "gaps" of our scientific knowledge, but it does the opposite; it puts Him in the science that we do understand! The more we understand about the laws of nature, the better appreciation we have for how God actually operates His universe on a minute-by-minute basis. Scientific advances don't push God into the corner; they bring Him more into the open.

---

Hi KBertsche,If God is in the science and operating the universe then God is interacting with the physical world. You're actually making a particularly strong statement here about the nature of the physical world, namely that it is directed minute to minute by God.This must be a God of the gaps! The only way God can play this role is in some aspect of the physical world. He can't be playing this role in a purely spiritual domain.For example, if he is directing the universe minute by minute, he must be intervening in the events that take place in the universe. He can't be doing this in areas where we understand the physical laws that apply and where we are making observations at the time, or we'd notice. Are you really saying that God is only doing this when we can't see him do it?I'm not sure whether you believe that God is the source of and upholder of physical laws (sorry If you mentioned this upthread - I haven't read the whole discussion). If so, then this also is a God of the gaps argument. It's only possible to hold this view because we don't know the origin of physical laws. I think it's an open question as to whether we will ever discover understand this scientifically but we cannot rule out the possibility.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so, then this also is a God of the gaps argument. It's only possible to hold this view because we don't know the origin of physical laws. I think it's an open question as to whether we will ever discover understand this scientifically but we cannot rule out the possibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I would maintain that this is impossible in principle, because it is a metaphysical question rather than a scientific question.

---

KBertsche,thanks for your reply.I disagree with what you say here.There's no reason in principle why we may not discover the origin of physical laws through science.I can think of a number of ways in which this could happen, and a mixture of these could apply- the laws are necessary mathematically - ie given some very basic constraints on the universe (eg time exists, at least one dimension of space exists), then there is only one form that physical laws can take. This leaves unexplained whatever those basic constraints are, but could deal with many of the laws we now have.- A variant of the above, where some aspects of the laws are determined randomly.- the laws derive from random processes. For example, the statistical mechanical definition of entropy in terms of micro and macro states, and the likelihood of essentially random transitions between these states, leads at a collective level to the thermodynamic concept of entropy and what looks like a 'law'. Now how 'randomness' is encoded as a law is itself interesting, but it might need less explanation than an apparently non-random law.Even if science can't fill these gaps, your argument is still a 'God of the Gaps' argument - it's just that science can't ever fill the gap. You don't have any justification for putting God into it, just a personal preference. The same is true of me of course! I think it's safer to put nothing atall into the gap and simply say 'we don't know' in that case.