Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 11:29 PM
401 online now:
Coyote, CRR, edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes, Tanypteryx (6 members, 395 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,155 Year: 16,761/21,208 Month: 2,650/3,593 Week: 117/646 Day: 57/60 Hour: 4/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
Phat
Member
Posts: 9433
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1 of 186 (781858)
04-08-2016 9:00 AM


In this topic, I want to again bring up some basic questions regarding the difference between faith and science.

  • What constitutes valid evidence? (In regards to both Faith & Belief and Science Forums) Is valid evidence the same for both science and faith?

  • Must Faith have evidence?

    We know that science requires evidence.

  • Faith is often personal. Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged? How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?

    Is It Science, please


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 11:37 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 4 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:43 AM Phat has responded
     Message 10 by nwr, posted 04-08-2016 12:10 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2016 12:17 PM Phat has responded
     Message 12 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2016 12:24 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2016 1:53 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 16 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2016 4:09 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 19 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-08-2016 8:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 20 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 12:03 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 21 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 12:04 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 22 by Coyote, posted 04-09-2016 12:24 AM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 163 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:54 AM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 182 by Davidjay, posted 06-04-2017 10:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
  • Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12516
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 2.9


    Message 2 of 186 (781860)
    04-08-2016 11:31 AM


    Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
    Thread copied here from the Faith vs Science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9433
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 2.0


    Message 3 of 186 (781861)
    04-08-2016 11:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-08-2016 9:00 AM


    Evidence
    To be more specific, I want to hopefully come to a consensus regarding the necessity for evidence in each venue--namely Faith & Belief and also in any of our Science Forums.

  • What is the bare minimum evidence required for scientific claims? Does this standard differ between evolutionists and creationists?

    Creationists are encouraged to respond to this thread as well as Evolutionists.

    Edited by Phat, : added


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
  • ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13197
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.1


    (1)
    Message 4 of 186 (781862)
    04-08-2016 11:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-08-2016 9:00 AM


    Phat writes:

    Faith is often personal.


    And science is not. It's collective.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 11:48 AM ringo has responded
     Message 17 by anglagard, posted 04-08-2016 7:49 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9433
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 2.0


    Message 5 of 186 (781863)
    04-08-2016 11:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
    04-08-2016 11:43 AM


    Collective versus Selective
    Granted I believe that the Bible itself is evidence in regards to matters of belief and personal philosophy.

    In regards to truth, such as the age of the universe or the distance to a star collective evidence is needed.

    As to the question, say, of whether a Bible was divinely inspired, I would argue that collective evidence is impossible or at the very least impractical due to the fact that unbelievers cannot use collective evidence to judge a philosophical belief system.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:43 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:58 AM Phat has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13197
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.1


    Message 6 of 186 (781865)
    04-08-2016 11:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
    04-08-2016 11:48 AM


    Re: Collective versus Selective
    Phat writes:

    Granted I believe that the Bible itself is evidence in regards to matters of belief and personal philosophy.


    It would be better if the word "evidence" was not used at all in such matters. Since even Bible believers can't agree on what it says, it is far from "evident."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 11:48 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 12:02 PM ringo has responded
     Message 8 by jar, posted 04-08-2016 12:02 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9433
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 2.0


    Message 7 of 186 (781866)
    04-08-2016 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
    04-08-2016 11:58 AM


    Re: Collective versus Selective
    The words themselves are evident though. They are evidently there. I argue that in matters of faith & belief, the book or books of any given religion count as support for any arguments presented. I suppose we can agree that the word "evidence" need not be used.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:58 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 12:07 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 14 by jar, posted 04-08-2016 12:53 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 29036
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 8 of 186 (781867)
    04-08-2016 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
    04-08-2016 11:58 AM


    Re: Collective versus Selective
    They can't even agree on what books should be included or excluded.

    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:58 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 10:00 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13197
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.1


    Message 9 of 186 (781869)
    04-08-2016 12:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
    04-08-2016 12:02 PM


    Re: Collective versus Selective
    Phat writes:

    The words themselves are evident though. They are evidently there.


    Existence is a poor form of evidence. Fingerprints exist but they're not very useful as evidence unless you can figure out what they mean - e.g. that George was at the crime scene. If you can't agree on what the words mean, they're not very useful support.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 12:02 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5526
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.5


    (1)
    Message 10 of 186 (781870)
    04-08-2016 12:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-08-2016 9:00 AM


    What constitutes valid evidence?

    Whatever you want it to be.

    There is no objective definition of "evidence", and I don't think there could be. Evidence is that which persuades you, and there is something unavoidably subjective about that.

    Science wants evidence that is repeatable and is consented to by the scientific community. So scientific evidence is not what persuades you, but what persuades you and the consensus of the scientific community. And that has generally worked well for science.

    Must Faith have evidence?

    Presumably. But it is more of a personal thing. Roughly, faith evidence is evidence of the trustworthiness of whoever is making the assertions that you take on faith. So Faith (the evc member) gave a higher trustworthiness to the Bible than I ever did. Back when I was an active Christian, I did trust the Bible, but only to the extent that it was consistent with experience and with what I knew from science. By contrast, Faith gives it the highest trustworthiness, even if it seems to contradict experience and science.

    Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged?

    There are times when people cannot help but get angry, so I don't think "allowed" is involved.

    How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?

    They probably cannot do that.

    Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 12769
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 11 of 186 (781871)
    04-08-2016 12:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-08-2016 9:00 AM


    Context
    In the science forums here, Faith needs evidence. That's the rules.

    Among those who believe in Biblical inerrancy a reference to the Bible may be all the evidence required - but even then quote mining or misrepresentation should not be tolerated, let alone appeals to a scripture that she thinks exists somewhere in the book.

    And what justifies Faiths anger ? It's far from always disagreement with the Bible. Very often it is disagreement with her opinions or defeating her arguments. Do you think that those are matters of deep religious significance to her ? Is her pride in herself her religion ? Is that what you mean by challenges to her faith ?

    What do you think Phat ?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 10:11 AM PaulK has responded

        
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 12769
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 12 of 186 (781873)
    04-08-2016 12:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-08-2016 9:00 AM


    How to argue for Creationism
    quote:

    How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?

    If the basis of Creationist belief is religious SHOULD they try to argue the science ?

    Surely they should argue about what they understand best rather than trying to bully the better-informed into agreeing with ill-founded and often ignorant opinions. And if they do not understand their religious foundations then they should work hard on those.

    Really, if they could show that God wrote Genesis 1 as a literal account of the creation they would have made their case.

    So why don't they ?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by jar, posted 04-08-2016 12:29 PM PaulK has not yet responded

        
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 29036
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 13 of 186 (781874)
    04-08-2016 12:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
    04-08-2016 12:24 PM


    Re: How to argue for Creationism
    PaulK writes:

    Really, if they could show that God wrote Genesis 1 as a literal account of the creation they would have made their case.

    So why don't they ?

    Because the story in Genesis 2&3 refutes the story in Genesis 1; the method is different and the order of creation is different.

    That's why we get the folk claiming the Bible talks about two instances of creation or that gen 1 is the plan while gen 2&3 is the execution.


    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2016 12:24 PM PaulK has not yet responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 29036
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 14 of 186 (781875)
    04-08-2016 12:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
    04-08-2016 12:02 PM


    looking for where we are wrong vs avoiding testing to see if we are wrong
    Phat writes:

    The words themselves are evident though. They are evidently there. I argue that in matters of faith & belief, the book or books of any given religion count as support for any arguments presented.

    But there lies much of the problem.

    The readers often do not like the words themselves and so find ways to get around the words themselves.

    The goal is to find an explanation that fits the conclusion wanted.

    A great example is in Genesis 2&3. In that story the god character lies and the serpent tells the truth.

    But that is NOT what the believers want so it has to be something different, find some other meaning than the words themselves.

    Faith begins with the conclusion, looks for or manufactures support and ignores anything that might conflict.

    Science is just the opposite.

    Science presents something and says "Please show how this is wrong". Science advances by finding mistakes and false conclusions.

    Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 12:02 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 15936
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 3.4


    (1)
    Message 15 of 186 (781877)
    04-08-2016 1:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-08-2016 9:00 AM


    What constitutes valid evidence?

    Formally, a hypothesis rules out certain observations as impossible. Instances where we make such observations are of course evidence against the hypothesis. But instances where we look for such observations (or are passively exposed to the possibility of finding them) and do not in fact make such observations, are evidence in favor of the hypothesis.

    Faith makes its own rules, it's not a set of epistemological principles, but rather is essentially opportunistic: it's whatever arguments make you feel good at the time.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    13NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017