Do religious ideas arise from fallacies?

I'm avoiding science threads in response to admin concerns.http://EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC -->EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvCEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are wrong.But I suppose this is off topic on this thread.

I don't think this is off topic. If the original poster Woodsy believes so let him comment.Fundamentalist have reified the myths of the OT to the point they believe they form the foundational premise upon which all scientific discovery should comply with.However if these myths did not exist in written form would any truth seeker (via science or not) arrive at the conclusions that

creation was a short event

a global worldwide flood happend

the tower of babel existed and possibly threatened god

the earth is young

all animals at one time where passive and benign

etc.

​

based on the available objective evidence?

​

Question: Do you believe that we humans would have stumbled on, or discovered the "reality" of any of the myths... err hypothesis above from examination of the geological, biological, or cosmological evidence?

​

I say no. In which case they are giving susbstance and reality to something of which there is no objective evidence for.

This is a misrepresentation or at least a gross exaggeration. We do not regard the OT as a scientific text for starters, but we do regard it as true, so when science contradicts it, science is wrong -- but we expect to be able to show this with the evidence. Well, to answer this requires a long discussion of what we believe to be the history of the human race, which of course we base on the Biblical revelation. There was certainly orally transmitted knowledge to this effect that was only lost over time. The time span from the creation that can be counted in the early chapters of Genesis was originally orally transmitted knowledge. We also believe in the Biblical revelation of the Fall which did two things -- it caused the deterioration of all human faculties, including memory, especially through sin, which would include the sins of pride and false witness, or the desire to make up false histories, which over time would distort the original facts, usually in the direction of expanding them into longer periods of time. The other thing the Fall did was allow the human race to be dominated by Satan and his demons, whose main objectives have been to usurp worship of the one true God and channel it to themselves, and teach all kinds of false doctrines, distorted histories, anything whatever to confuse the truth, which is now preserved purely only in the Bible, thanks to the intervention of the true God.So, once upon a time, the "short" creation would have been remembered, but under the above influences, no, it is very unlikely that anyone would be able to get to the truth any more. Probably not any more, but it certainly was remembered for a long time in many cultures, and the evidence IS there. That too was known and remembered for some time, now lost to sin- corrupted memory. Etc. There's nothing in the actual evidence, as opposed to current interpretations of the evidence, that actually contradicts any of it. Not given our corrupted condition since the Fall, as I say above. But I agree that the answer is no. But the evidence IS there, it's merely been co-opted to the service of the false theory of evolution.

Instead of 'nonsensical' how about 'beyond reason'?A premise that defies attempts at proof through the syllogisms of reason can still make perfect sense on the level of intuition and emotion. We still expect the result to square with sensory observations. We still expect reason to have a place in determining particulars.How do you know you love someone?How do you know your favorite object of study is fascinating?How do you know the Alps look sublime?These questions are not 'nonsensical' simply because the answers cannot be determined (solely) through reason. We have other faculties, other needs, other ways of knowing._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Ongoing quest for literary perfection.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added examples.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You just succictly confirmed my above claim with the phase "so when science contradicts it, science is wrong". The bible being true is your foundational premise from which you extrapolate your logic.In fact, you have written before, that science should not ask if the flood happened but search for creative theories explaining how it happened.This sounds to me like you have reified the flood myth. You have given substance to a thought based on the OT writings and not because of the weight of evidence. The evidence is secondary. I am surprised you even took exception to the claim. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

I'll have to disagree with that one. If reification is a fallacy, then science is riddled with fallacy. Science reifies its abstractions far more than religion ever does. Perhaps "natural selection" would count as a good example of this.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I have only "reified" the flood "myth" if it is a myth, but it is not, it is a fact.

I'll disagree with the wording of this. It is a mistake to think of science as truth seeking. If anything, I would say that religion is truth seeking, and science is truth asserting. And therein lies the source of conflict between religion and science.There is a vast difference between how religion views truth, and how science views truth. And "truth seeking" best fits the religious viewpoint, not the scientific viewpoint. Scientists are better described as pragmatists than as truth seekers.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

You believe it is a fact based on your premise that that the OT is true.Which brings me right back the claim that I made that you took exception to. You have reified the flood based on a concept within the OT. As you so elequently stated, evidence is secondary and merely supportive. I am stunned that you take objection to the assertion below.

Well, of course I take exception to the term "myth" and to your whole claim that we are "reifying" what is nothing but myth. You are "stunned" by this??? Such terms beg the question, stack the deck, poison the well, or all of the above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK so it wasn't a overstatement of gross exaggeration. You would probably be comfortable with..."Fundamentalist have reified the concepts of the OT to the point they believe they form the foundational premise upon which all scientific discovery should comply with."

From the dictionary Actually I think I was precise in using the term "Myth" - like it or not.Is it err to rest your world view on a myth? - that would make a good topic don't you think?

"Reify" means to make real, so the word itself manages to imply that whatever the "concepts" in the OT are, they are not real but we do something to them in our thinking process that transforms them from unreal to real. So I also object to the term "reify."

The Bible is not a myth, it is among other things true history. If you define the terms of the debate, that's nothing more than begging the question, as I just said, and there is no debate, is there?