Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 301 of 456 (556065)
04-17-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 12:26 AM


Re: Reality vs Books
kbertsche writes:
The analogy is between biblical scholarship and science. A biblical scholar studies the Bible to find out what the Bible says. A Christian takes the metaphysical/theological/philosophical position that this is actually true.
But this is not what we see.
What we actually see is that secular biblical scholars study the Bible to find out what it says. But religious biblical scholars study the Bible to find out if they can come up with ways to construe the Bible as providing support for their theology. That is to say, confirmation bias is a core component of their method of study.
(abe) above comments withdrawn. See Message 305.
Edited by nwr, : add remark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 12:26 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 12:44 AM nwr has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 302 of 456 (556066)
04-17-2010 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Coyote
04-15-2010 11:46 AM


Re: Reason, eh?
quote:
And what do logic and reason tell us about the biblical claims of a worldwide flood?
I believe the Bible claims that all of the then-known land was covered with water. The size of this region is not well defined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Coyote, posted 04-15-2010 11:46 AM Coyote has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 303 of 456 (556067)
04-17-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by nwr
04-17-2010 12:35 AM


Re: Reality vs Books
quote:
What we actually see is that secular biblical scholars study the Bible to find out what it says. But religious biblical scholars study the Bible to find out if they can come up with ways to construe the Bible as providing support for their theology. That is to say, confirmation bias is a core component of their method of study.
Can you provide any evidence of "confirmation bias" among leading Christian biblical scholars?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by nwr, posted 04-17-2010 12:35 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by nwr, posted 04-17-2010 10:07 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 304 of 456 (556101)
04-17-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 12:26 AM


Re: Reality vs Books
Hi kbertsche,
Not so. Christianity claims to be based on the Bible. So its central ideas need to be logically derivable from the Bible. Of course, this does not guarantee that the claims are true. But this is not what I am claiming in this thread.
Well you need to address that. Christians actually believe these things they read about. Where does that come from? If you cannot demonstrate that those beliefs are wholly based upon logic and reason, you initial comparison between science and religion completely fails.
No, now we are back to metaphysical questions of truth and reality.
No we're not kbertsche, and shame on you for dragging solipsism into this, like a stoned fifteen year-old.
As I have already said, religion makes the exact same assumptions as science makes about the nature of reality. The only difference is that theists take these as philosophical assumptions, scientists need only take them as methodological assumptions. You have ignored this point before, so please don't drag us back into this mire again.
Granny writes:
A scientist studies reality in order to find out what exists in reality.
kbertsche writes:
No, this is a very poor, sloppy description. A scientist studies nature in order to derive a scientific explanation of the natural world.
Whatever. The scientist studies reality (in this usage a synonym for nature) in order to make judgements about it. She need not use any "sacred" text as proxy.
Yes; a believer is not quite analogous to a scientist.
Right. That's all I've been saying throughout this thread.
And I've been careful not to claim that he is. The analogy is between biblical scholarship and science.
What! That's what you've been arguing? But that's completely fucking pointless! No-one has ever denied that theists can use logic and reason. We have been arguing that religion itself fails to be logical. Jesus Christ kbertsche, have you been wasting everyone's time over a non-issue?
Oh, but you've not been;
kbertsche writes:
Biblical faith is based on reason.
kbertsche writes:
But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason.
kbertsche writes:
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.
kbertsche writes:
My main point is the definition of "religious faith."
So you have not been merely talking about science vs biblical scholarship. You have been trying to equate religion and science, trying to claim that both are based on reason. Now you are trying to move the goalposts. Feel free to lie to yourself if you must, but don't lie to me please.
If you were only ever talking about biblical scholarship, why did you bring up Acts 17? You did it to show that religious belief is based on reason. There was no textual analysis. You are fooling no-one with this silly lie.
A biblical scholar studies the Bible to find out what the Bible says. A Christian takes the metaphysical/theological/philosophical position that this is actually true.
And that is the key difference. Can you show me what reason and logic the Christian uses to reach that conclusion? If not, all your nonsense about religion and science being "analogous" is bunk. If you can't do that all your claims that science is comparably faith-based are void.
Yes, so far we are doing biblical scholarship. This is a basis for religious faith, but it is not in itself the same as religious faith.
You know, if you'd restricted yourself to saying that at the beginning of this thread, we might have saved some time...
No-one argues that biblical scholarship doesn't use logic. But then, anyone can be a biblical scholar, even an atheist. Scholarship of this kind is not intrinsically religious. People are arguing that religion doesn't use logic. For you to change your tune this late into a debate and then pretend that was what you've said all along is dishonest and pathetic.
Yes, exactly. We have gone beyond biblical scholarship to metaphysical/theological truth-claims.
Can you show me how those beliefs are based on logic? No. Your comparisons between religion and science have proved false.
Correction: Scientists study only nature, using a specific methodology with a specific type of evidence. They make only scientific claims, and only about nature.
A meaningless distinction. Nature is synonymous with reality. Even if we accept your absurd and unevidenced "spiritual reality", nature is still a subset of a wider reality, about which science makes claims. But religion also makes claims about nature and it does so on the basis of appeal to scriptural authority, not reason. Even if religion did restrict itself to the "spiritual", it would still be making claims about reality, unevidenced and unjustifiable claims.
Biblical scholarship makes claims about what the text says, based on observation and study of the text.
How many times do I have to point out that this is irrelevant? Biblical scholarship is not religion. How theists analyse their texts is not relevant. Why they believe them is. Please either address that or quit.
So religion is based on observations of the text. But this is not the whole story, of course; it does not address the question of why the text should be believed as true. This is a huge, multifaceted topic with many threads, websites, and books written on it. I do not intend to address it in this thread.
What? But it's the topic we've been discussing for pages and pages. If you can't or won't address why believers believe, then you cannot make any claim that their beliefs are based on logic and reason. Grow a spine kbertsche and either admit you were wrong or defend your position like an adult.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 12:26 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 1:38 PM Granny Magda has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 305 of 456 (556109)
04-17-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 12:44 AM


Re: Reality vs Books
kbertsche writes:
Can you provide any evidence of "confirmation bias" among leading Christian biblical scholars?
Okay, I'll withdraw that comment. I was mostly going by what I hear on apologetics, but I admit that apologetics is not scholarship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 12:44 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 306 of 456 (556122)
04-17-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Granny Magda
04-17-2010 9:27 AM


Re: Reality vs Books
quote:
quote:
Not so. Christianity claims to be based on the Bible. So its central ideas need to be logically derivable from the Bible. Of course, this does not guarantee that the claims are true. But this is not what I am claiming in this thread.
Well you need to address that.
Not in this thread.
quote:
quote:
No, now we are back to metaphysical questions of truth and reality.
No we're not kbertsche, and shame on you for dragging solipsism into this, like a stoned fifteen year-old.
Yes we are. "Truth" and "reality" are metaphysical concepts. "Solipsism" is only one particular metaphysical perspective on reality, and I am NOT dragging any particular perspectives into the discussion. YOU are the one who insists on dragging the metaphysical concepts of "truth" and "reality" into the discussion.
quote:
So you have not been merely talking about science vs biblical scholarship.
True; I've made lots of posts and have mentioned lots of things in this thread.
quote:
You have been trying to equate religion and science, trying to claim that both are based on reason. Now you are trying to move the goalposts. Feel free to lie to yourself if you must, but don't lie to me please.
False. I have never equated religion and science. If you've read my posts carefully, in an attempt to understand instead of simply to argue, you would see this.
Rather, I have argued for some similarities and analogies between the two. Specifically, that both involve faith or belief in various ways, and that the scholarship in both fields is performed in an analogous way.
I have also pointed out crucial differences between the two. Specifically, in the type of evidence that each uses, and in the importance of metaphysical/theological truth-claims in each.
quote:
quote:
A biblical scholar studies the Bible to find out what the Bible says. A Christian takes the metaphysical/theological/philosophical position that this is actually true.
And that is the key difference. Can you show me what reason and logic the Christian uses to reach that conclusion?
I could present lots of evidence for this, but you've probably heard and rejected all of it already. I won't attempt this in the present thread. If you really want to know the evidence for the truth of the Bible, there are many, many websites, books, and other threads on EvC Forum where you can find it.
quote:
quote:
Yes, so far we are doing biblical scholarship. This is a basis for religious faith, but it is not in itself the same as religious faith.
You know, if you'd restricted yourself to saying that at the beginning of this thread, we might have saved some time...
Not true. I said that "reason is not the ONLY basis for religious faith" way back in Message 74.
quote:
No-one argues that biblical scholarship doesn't use logic. But then, anyone can be a biblical scholar, even an atheist. Scholarship of this kind is not intrinsically religious. People are arguing that religion doesn't use logic. For you to change your tune this late into a debate and then pretend that was what you've said all along is dishonest and pathetic.
Not true. Taq took issue in Message 132 with my claim that theology (not religion) relies on evidence and reason. In Message 163 subbie again claimed that theology (not religion) "involves only subjective evidence and appeals to authority." In Message 242 I agreed that one does not need to believe the message of the text to do biblical scholarship. I have not changed my tune on these issues. Rather, you are mischaracterizing the discussion.
quote:
quote:
Yes, exactly. We have gone beyond biblical scholarship to metaphysical/theological truth-claims.
Can you show me how those beliefs are based on logic? No. Your comparisons between religion and science have proved false.
Addressed above.
quote:
quote:
Correction: Scientists study only nature, using a specific methodology with a specific type of evidence. They make only scientific claims, and only about nature.
A meaningless distinction. Nature is synonymous with reality.
Absolutely not! Either you are not thinking clearly, or you are trying to force a materialistic metaphysical position onto the conversation. "Reality" is the province of metaphysics. "Nature" is the province of science. They are different categories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Granny Magda, posted 04-17-2010 9:27 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Granny Magda, posted 04-18-2010 2:02 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 307 of 456 (556124)
04-17-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Otto Tellick
04-16-2010 12:20 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Yes, let's try to get back to the topic of the thread and the OP.
quote:
quote:
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...
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...
2) Does the daily practice of science involve faith? Of course. Any practicing scientist knows this... 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... 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...
I would consider this line of argument to be a misuse of the term "faith", and a misrepresentation of scientific endeavor.
It is clear that many in this thread agree with you.
quote:
As for the last point in kb's item #2, I'll grant that we could readily find practitioners of scientific research whose thought processes fit that description, being "convinced" that a theory is true despite "loose ends" (beyond the normal sense of reasoning under uncertainty) -- perhaps I would be inclined to behave that way myself (or might give the appearance of doing so), and maybe the Darwin quotations chosen by kb are "proof" that Darwin himself was that way. As I see it, a scientist who accepts this sort of "certainty" is at risk of failing to be scientific.
Yes, there is some risk here. But this is the way that science is actually done. This has been noted by many philosophers of science and by many professional scientists.
People here like to ask for "evidence" So here are some examples that I posted in another thread of how a leading scientist actually uses the words "believe" and "belief":
Luis Alvarez writes:
"I operated on the belief that if engineers know that physicists are going to check their blueprints they won't be nearly so careful."--p.122
"Most nuclear physicists spent the war years secure in the belief that the mesotron was the particle Yukawa proposed and that it would be available for study when hostilities ceased."--p.183
"'I don't believe in your big chamber,' he told me, 'but I do believe in you, so I'll help you get the money.'"--p189 (Ernest Lawrence speaking of Luie's proposed new bubble chamber)
(from Luis W. Alvarez, Alvarez: Adventures of a Physicist, New York: Basic Books, 1987)
These examples demonstrate that scientists DO use words such as "belief" in a scientific context. It has the same basic meaning of confidence, trust, conviction as it does in a religious context, yet there is no religious implication here. "Faith" has these same basic meanings as well, but it's less common for scientists to use the term.

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-16-2010 12:20 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 3:07 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 308 of 456 (556131)
04-17-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 2:00 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
People here like to ask for "evidence" So here are some examples that I posted in another thread of how a leading scientist actually uses the words "believe" and "belief":
...
These examples demonstrate that scientists DO use words such as "belief" in a scientific context. It has the same basic meaning of confidence, trust, conviction as it does in a religious context, yet there is no religious implication here. "Faith" has these same basic meanings as well, but it's less common for scientists to use the term.
Before the inevitable attacks pointing out that my quotes from Luie do not include the word "faith," here are some quotes from another Nobel laureate:
George Smoot writes:
Unlike Kepler, Olbers believed that the cosmos was infinite, and he proposed a way to reconcile this belief with the dark night sky: p. 28
Building on his discovery by exploiting a technique developed earlier by the American Vesto Melvin Slipher, Hubble then struck at the centuries-old belief that the universe is staticthe notion to which Einstein clung so tenaciously.p. 46
It seemed like an epiphany, and it renewed Marc’s faith in the DMR.p129 (DMR=differential microwave radiometer)
Go back further still, beyond the moment of creationwhat then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? Facing this, the ulitmate question, challenges our faith in the power of science to find explanations of nature.p.291
Einstein, remember, refused to believe the implications of his own equationsthat the universe is expanding and therefore must have had a beginningand invented the cosmological constant to avoid it. Only when Einstein saw Hubble’s observations of an expanding universe could he bring himself to believe his equations.p. 291
Our faith in the big bang is revitalized: To the dark night sky, the composition of the elements, the evidence of an expanding universe, and the afterglow of creation is added a means by which the structures of today’s universe could have formed.p. 295
(from George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, New York: William Morrow, 1993.)
As you can see, George uses the words "faith," "belief," and "believe" in a scientific context, but with the same basic meanings that they have in a religious context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 2:00 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-17-2010 7:08 PM kbertsche has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 309 of 456 (556163)
04-17-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 3:07 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Thanks for the replies, kbertshe. My main response is that you are ignoring the distinctions I was trying to explain: (a) constant, unwavering belief based on religious faith vs. contingent, transitory belief based on available, incomplete information; and (b) a lack of objectivity that might arise from personal limitations of some individuals performing science vs. a complete absence of faith that results from the aggregate competence of thousands of people employing the scientific method.
kbertsche writes:
As you can see, George uses the words "faith," "belief," and "believe" in a scientific context, but with the same basic meanings that they have in a religious context.
No, they do not have the "same basic meanings that they have in a religious context." Of course scientists use the words "faith" and "belief" when they write and speak, because these are common words in the language that get used in lots of contexts -- including metaphor, which is a common rhetorical strategy used whenever people write about science and scientists for the general public.
When a scientist says "I believe this equation is correct," it's clearly not the same sense being used by the Christian who says "I believe that Christ loves me." It's the difference between "I believe it will rain tomorrow" vs. "I believe my soul is eternal."
I think the difference is clearly shown in the quotes you extracted from Smoot's book (which I assume was written for a general audience): if Einstein's "belief" in the notion of a static universe were at all comparable to the religious use of "belief", then Einstein himself would not have changed his position in the face of Hubble's observations. Instead, there would have been (and there would still be) competing and irreconcilable "sects" in the field of physics: the Einsteinist "static" believers and the Hubbelian "expansion" believers.
Physicists today do not sort themselves into those two groups, because the notion of belief in science is very different from belief in religion. It's a mistake to confuse or conflate these two distinct senses of the word.
{AbE: I suppose it's possible that you personally regard your religious faith as comparable to your practice of science -- you feel that your religious beliefs are evidence-based, and in the event that new evidence comes along, you would be inclined to change (or at least adjust) your religious beliefs accordingly. My understanding is that this approach to religious belief is not shared by all who consider themselves religious believers -- indeed, you may be in the minority in this regard.}
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (more complete quotation at start of 2nd paragraph)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added final paragraph

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 3:07 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by kbertsche, posted 04-18-2010 9:18 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 310 of 456 (556252)
04-18-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 1:38 PM


Re: Reality vs Books
Hi kbertsche,
Granny writes:
kbertsche writes:
Not so. Christianity claims to be based on the Bible. So its central ideas need to be logically derivable from the Bible. Of course, this does not guarantee that the claims are true. But this is not what I am claiming in this thread.
Well you need to address that.
kbertsche writes:
Not in this thread.
Why ever not? You have claimed, in this thread, that religion is based upon logic. Now, when I ask for a concrete example of how it's based on logic, you go all coy. Why it's almost like you don't actually have an argument...
YOU are the one who insists on dragging the metaphysical concepts of "truth" and "reality" into the discussion.
No, you were the first to bring that one up, in Message 25, your first on this thread.
kbertsche writes:
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.
Questioning the reality of reality is always a waste of time and an intellectual dead end. The fact that you repeatedly seek to take refuge in these arguments - despite the fact that religion and theology make exactly the same assumptions, only less tentatively - only serves to demonstrate how desperate you are to cling onto a shred of an argument.
True; I've made lots of posts and have mentioned lots of things in this thread.
Here's one of them.
kbertsche writes:
You have my argument backwards. You should know as well as I that religious faith uses reason and evidence.
Note that you are claiming that faith is based on reason and logic,. not merely theology.
False. I have never equated religion and science. If you've read my posts carefully, in an attempt to understand instead of simply to argue, you would see this.
Your repeated false assertions that science is based on faith, combined with your repeated attempts to distance religion from faith give the lie to this. Regardless of whether you are trying to "equate" them exactly, you are trying to blur the line between them.
Rather, I have argued for some similarities and analogies between the two. Specifically, that both involve faith or belief in various ways, and that the scholarship in both fields is performed in an analogous way.
And you are wrong. Religion is only able to refer to it's book. Books have authors kbertsche. Authors lie. Authors are mistaken. Authors can be edited and redacted. And yet despite all this, religious believers will treat these books as though they had some special significance. They treat them as guides to the wider world.
You have repeatedly ignored the fact that theists repeatedly make claims about the wider world. They do not restrict themselves to analysing texts. They study a book and use it as a guide to what happens or has happened. Science does no such thing.
Science only seeks to understand the natural world and only studies the natural world.
Religion seeks to understand both the natural world and the alleged "supernatural" world, and a whole raft of moral and philosophical claims, all from studying a single set of books.
Trying to separate the scholarship and the beliefs, as you have been doing, is misleading. You keep pointing out that religious apologists are capable of utilising reason, as if this observation was meaningful. What you seem to have missed is that no-one has really disagreed with this.
The only example of reason and logic in Christian scholarship that you have been able to present is the trivial matter of analysing a text. When presented next to the endeavour of science (understanding an entire universe) this is small beer.
Granny writes:
Can you show me what reason and logic the Christian uses to reach that conclusion?
kbertsche writes:
I could present lots of evidence for this, but you've probably heard and rejected all of it already. I won't attempt this in the present thread.
And I have an answer to all your objections hidden in a biscuit tin under my desk. You can't see it though. It's a secret.
Grow up man. You claimed that "religious faith uses reason and evidence", but when asked to provide a concrete example, once again, you cannot. Textual analysis is not faith. Textual analysis can be as logical as you like, but if you then go ahead and believe it. without any apparent reason, it is ridiculous to pretend that your faith is logical, just because you had to work out what your scripture said before you took it as an inerrant authority.
Analysing the text may be perfectly logic, but going the extra mile and actually believing it, that is such a massive step over the edge, that it totally overshadows any logic used in the analysis.
Example: if I found a Spider-man comic written in a foreign language, I might use reason and logic to translate it. But to then go and say "I believe this comic to be true, Spider-man is real." is such an absurd and unsupported leap of faith, that my claim to have used logic in the translation becomes insignificant in comparison.
This is exactly what you're doing. You reach a few limited conclusions about a text, and claim, reasonably, that this is based on logic. But then, you go off the deep end and actually decide to believe it. This is grossly illogical, but you still hang onto the trivial scrap of logic from from before you decided to throw reason out the window. It just doesn't make sense. It certainly does not compare with science, which is never makes illogical leaps of this kind.
Not true. I said that "reason is not the ONLY basis for religious faith" way back in Message 74.
Yes, you did. The problem is that you have not demonstrated that reason is even a factor in faith. You have only shown that it a factor in deciding what to have faith in, a quite different matter.
Not true. Taq took issue in Message 132 with my claim that theology (not religion) relies on evidence and reason.
in message 132, Taq answered this;
kbertsche writes:
You have my argument backwards. You should know as well as I that religious faith uses reason and evidence.
This is not a claim about theology, it is a claim about faith. One which you now seem unwilling to back up.
Rather, you are mischaracterizing the discussion.
No, you are seeking to cast off some of the less defensible arguments you have been making. You are trying to rewrite history. Not a wise move when your words still there are on the screen.
Granny writes:
A meaningless distinction. Nature is synonymous with reality.
kbertsche writes:
Absolutely not! Either you are not thinking clearly, or you are trying to force a materialistic metaphysical position onto the conversation. "Reality" is the province of metaphysics. "Nature" is the province of science. They are different categories.
Look, it doesn't matter. I've already addressed this. Science studies nature. You are correct there. Religion presumes to study the "spiritual" or "supernatural". Allof these, nature and super-nature are (to be as generous as possible to your position) sub-sets of what is real. Now leaving aside the fact that neither of these can be demonstrated to exist in any reasonable or logical way, you are still left with the problem of the claims made by each group and how they support those claims.
Science studies nature to reach tentative conclusions about nature. It does not discount any evidence from nature.
Religion studies a book in order to reach conclusions about both nature and super-nature. It's conclusions are rarely tentative. It utterly discounts everyone else's holy books, apparently on a whim.
These are the clear-cut differences and no matter how much you try and ignore them, they are not going to go away. They also dwarf the trivial matter of textual analysis. Concentrating on such a minor aspect of religion whilst ignoring the elephant in room - faith - is a waste of time.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 1:38 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 311 of 456 (556299)
04-18-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Otto Tellick
04-17-2010 7:08 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
Thanks for the replies, kbertshe. My main response is that you are ignoring the distinctions I was trying to explain: (a) constant, unwavering belief based on religious faith vs. contingent, transitory belief based on available, incomplete information; and (b) a lack of objectivity that might arise from personal limitations of some individuals performing science vs. a complete absence of faith that results from the aggregate competence of thousands of people employing the scientific method.
OK, let's discuss these.
(a) You have a point here, but based on my experience in both science (physics) and religion (Christianity), I do not believe this represents a qualitative distinction. This is more a matter of degree.
Yes, the basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy are agreed on with essentially no deviation. But other important theological issues are the subjects of lively debate and divergent opinion within Christianity. The process is quite similar to that in areas of science where there is divergent opinion.
In principle, scientific belief is contingent and transitory. But actual practice is not quite so idealized as this. Scientists tend to get stuck thinking in the paradigms that they are used to, as Kuhn pointed out. This is difficult to break out of. When scientists take public stands on one side of a scientific debate, they tend to become entrenched in their positions. (e.g. Pons & Fleischman's belief that "cold fusion" was real). Further, theories such as gravity are so well tested and verified that we all strongly believe that they are true, so much that they have pretty much lost any contingency or transitory-ness.
(b) Yes, science is a human endeavor performed by humans who have their own limitations and biases, and who sometimes lack objectivity. And I agree that the scientific community helps in this regard. I share your belief that in the long term, science will sort out its errors and will converge on the correct answers. However, the scientific community also gets stuck in current paradigms (a la Kuhn) and can exhibit a "group-think."
quote:
quote:
As you can see, George uses the words "faith," "belief," and "believe" in a scientific context, but with the same basic meanings that they have in a religious context.
No, they do not have the "same basic meanings that they have in a religious context."
Perhaps my phrase "religious context" was too broad. Instead, I should have said "orthodox Christian theology and the Bible". I can't speak for other religions.
quote:
Of course scientists use the words "faith" and "belief" when they write and speak, because these are common words in the language that get used in lots of contexts -- including metaphor, which is a common rhetorical strategy used whenever people write about science and scientists for the general public.
But George Smoot and Luie Alvarez were NOT using metaphor in the quotes that I provided. They were simply using normal English. This is the way that scientists normally speak in casual contexts, such as at the lunch table.
quote:
When a scientist says "I believe this equation is correct," it's clearly not the same sense being used by the Christian who says "I believe that Christ loves me." It's the difference between "I believe it will rain tomorrow" vs. "I believe my soul is eternal."
Perhaps you are correct in this example. But let's look at some of the examples from Alvarez and Smoot.
When Luie Alvarez says "but I do believe in you, so I'll help you get the money," this is similar to a Christian saying "I believe in God, so I'll trust what He says." Both convey confidence and trust in a person.
When George Smoot says "Olbers believed that the cosmos was infinite," this is similar to a Christian saying "I believe that God exists." Both convey confidence in and conviction of a fact.
When George Smoot says "it renewed Marc’s faith in the DMR" or "Our faith in the big bang is revitalized" this is very similar to the Christian saying "Our faith in God's love is strengthened." Both convey a depth of conviction.
quote:
I think the difference is clearly shown in the quotes you extracted from Smoot's book (which I assume was written for a general audience): if Einstein's "belief" in the notion of a static universe were at all comparable to the religious use of "belief", then Einstein himself would not have changed his position in the face of Hubble's observations. Instead, there would have been (and there would still be) competing and irreconcilable "sects" in the field of physics: the Einsteinist "static" believers and the Hubbelian "expansion" believers.
Physicists today do not sort themselves into those two groups, because the notion of belief in science is very different from belief in religion. It's a mistake to confuse or conflate these two distinct senses of the word.
First, similar reversals DO happen in Christianity on secondary issues. Last week, Bruce Waltke, a leading conservative Christian scholar of Hebrew and Old Testament, resigned his seminary teaching appointment because of the flap that ensued when he came out in favor of "theistic evolution." In his theological papers of 35 years ago on interpreting Genesis, he took a stand against evolution in any form.
Second, there ARE competing opinions and sub-communities in the field of physics. I believe there is still a small sub-group that holds to a steady-state cosmology as opposed to the Big Bang. Most of the physics community is convinced of "dark matter," but a sub-community believes this can be better explained with various formulations of "non-Newtonian gravity." When enough new evidence is gathered, these debates should eventually be resolved and the community should settle on a common position. I agree that this doesn't happen nearly so often nor as quickly with religious sects, though few Christian sects from the early church have died out.
quote:
{AbE: I suppose it's possible that you personally regard your religious faith as comparable to your practice of science -- you feel that your religious beliefs are evidence-based, and in the event that new evidence comes along, you would be inclined to change (or at least adjust) your religious beliefs accordingly. My understanding is that this approach to religious belief is not shared by all who consider themselves religious believers -- indeed, you may be in the minority in this regard.}
Yes, this is pretty much how I regard my religious faith. I would hope that ANY serious Christian would be honest enough to change his religious beliefs in the face of new evidence, as Bruce Waltke has done.
Whether I am in the minority or not when speaking of all religion, I can't answer. I can only speak of what I know, which is orthodox Christianity. The definitions of "faith", "belief", and "believe" that I presented earlier are standard biblical (Koine Greek) and orthodox theological definitions. So these should be the "majority" view in Christianity.
Other religions and cult groups would be closer to your characterization. Cults tend to follow a leader with little question, and are discouraged from independent thought. Cults may fit the "blind faith" label that atheists try to put on all religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-17-2010 7:08 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-19-2010 12:40 AM kbertsche has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 312 of 456 (556306)
04-19-2010 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by kbertsche
04-18-2010 9:18 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
kbertsche writes:
Last week, Bruce Waltke, a leading conservative Christian scholar of Hebrew and Old Testament, resigned his seminary teaching appointment because of the flap that ensued when he came out in favor of "theistic evolution."
Thanks for that interesting bit of news. But it seems to me that if this were actually a good example of the "contingent, transitory nature" of religious belief, Waltke would not have felt (or been) compelled to resign his position.
Second, there ARE competing opinions and sub-communities in the field of physics.
I wasn't asserting an absence of contention -- quite the contrary. I was rather asserting an absence of devotion to dogma.
I believe there is still a small sub-group that holds to a steady-state cosmology as opposed to the Big Bang.
Thanks for demonstrating how hard it is to avoid using the word "believe". Is this a "contingent" belief on your part, or "dogmatic" belief?
And if such a small sub-group does in fact still exist, I wonder whether they do so on the basis of new evidence they are finding, rather than simply rejecting (in the manner of dogmatic belief) the evidence for an expanding universe. If the latter, I would say these people have lost their qualifications as scientists -- like that handful of people with degrees in physics or geology who are active YECs. {AbE: Lest this be misconstrued as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, my point is simply that such people have stopped applying the scientific method to support their position, and this should be clear enough on objective grounds.}
When enough new evidence is gathered, these debates should eventually be resolved and the community should settle on a common position. I agree that this doesn't happen nearly so often nor as quickly with religious sects, though few Christian sects from the early church have died out.
Dying out is quite a different thing from settling on a common position, especially in those cases where the members of a "dead-end" sect did not die of old age. (Is it any wonder that we don't see a lot of Huguenots these days?)
{AbE: Here's a relevant wikipedia factoid about the "surviving" Huguenots, who simply stopped identifying themselves as such:
quote:
Most of the Huguenot congregations (or individuals) in North America eventually affiliated with other Protestant denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Reformed Churches, the Reformed Baptists and the Mennonite Church.
I would say that this is still not a case of "settling on a common position."}
Edited by Otto Tellick, : addition at end, as noted
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added to middle paragraph, as noted

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by kbertsche, posted 04-18-2010 9:18 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2010 8:25 PM Otto Tellick has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 313 of 456 (556706)
04-20-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Otto Tellick
04-19-2010 12:40 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
quote:
Second, there ARE competing opinions and sub-communities in the field of physics.
I wasn't asserting an absence of contention -- quite the contrary. I was rather asserting an absence of devotion to dogma.
Yes, though these sub-groups sometimes become fairly dogmatic and unyielding.
quote:
Thanks for demonstrating how hard it is to avoid using the word "believe". Is this a "contingent" belief on your part, or "dogmatic" belief?
I think it's misleading to dichotomize "belief" into these two categories. In reality, everyone's belief is somewhere in between. Opposition of Christian Evangelicals to evolution may seem quite "dogmatic." But given enough evidence, leading scholars such as Waltke can and do change their views. On the flip side, scientific belief is not always so "contingent" as is sometimes portrayed. The idealized, sanitized descriptions of science in many textbooks do not quite match the way it is really done.
quote:
And if such a small sub-group does in fact still exist, I wonder whether they do so on the basis of new evidence they are finding, rather than simply rejecting (in the manner of dogmatic belief) the evidence for an expanding universe. If the latter, I would say these people have lost their qualifications as scientists -- like that handful of people with degrees in physics or geology who are active YECs. {AbE: Lest this be misconstrued as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, my point is simply that such people have stopped applying the scientific method to support their position, and this should be clear enough on objective grounds.}
Adherers to the steady-state hypothesis may well be characterized as overly dogmatic. They are stuck in a paradigm that they cannot break out of. But I wouldn't necessarily say they have "lost their qualifications as scientists." In general, areas of scientific dispute are somewhat more complex than this. Areas of active scientific research are rarely definitive one way or the other. The evidence can often be interpreted in different ways. Deciding which is correct relies in part on experience and on one's overall interpretive framework, or paradigm.
quote:
quote:
When enough new evidence is gathered, these debates should eventually be resolved and the community should settle on a common position. I agree that this doesn't happen nearly so often nor as quickly with religious sects, though few Christian sects from the early church have died out.
Dying out is quite a different thing from settling on a common position, especially in those cases where the members of a "dead-end" sect did not die of old age. (Is it any wonder that we don't see a lot of Huguenots these days?)
"Dying out" is also involved in the change of scientific paradigms. Older scientists tend to remain stuck in their paradigms as the younger scientists learn the new paradigms. the paradigms don't fully change until the old guard has died out.
BTW, I was thinking of religious groups much earlier than Hugenots. E.g. Montanism, Marcionites, Eutychians, Nestorians, etc. Some of these were labeled heresies, and they pretty much disappeared from Christianity.
But let's back out a bit and look at the bigger picture. There seems to be a very strong feeling among some in this thread that "faith" in religion is completely blind, unreasoning, and unevidenced, while "faith" does not exist in science at all. Many seem to hold this position in a very dogmatic, unreasonable, unwavering fashion--is this "blind faith" on their parts? Those who take this position seem to have a strong desire to denigrate religious faith. None have religious faith themselves, and I think all claim to be atheists. They ignore our experiences of religious faith, examples of how it works in practice, scholarly and theological definitions of religious faith. Those who have rejected it think they understand it better than those of us who live it every day. This is as silly as a geocentrist thinking he is an expert on astronomy.
And I see similar dogmatism in some of these folks regarding science. They ignore my experiences and conversations with leading scientists involving casual usage of words such as "faith" and "belief". They dismiss actual quotes by Nobel laureates which support this. Some want to ignore metaphysics and philosophy of science, as if these are irrelevant. How can we discuss religion--which is inherently metaphysical--and ignore metaphysics in science? By their perspectives and replies, I suspect many of these critics are "armchair scientists" rather than real, working scientists. Yet they think they are more expert regarding science than Nobel laureates such as Alvarez and Smoot!
Why do these folks have such an insistence on denigrating religion and religious faith? I suspect it is because they perceive a conflict between science and religion, and feel that attacking religion and religious faith is the way to address it. I think they are wrong; there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Between atheism and theism, yes. But not between science and religion.
I've stressed that science and religion differ in the types of evidence that they use. An equally (or more?) important distinction is the type of questions that they ask. I've posted a
this quote in another thread from the article "What is Science?" by Helen Quinn, published in Physics today in August 2009:
http://ptonline.aip.org/.../PHTOAD-ft/vol_62/iss_7/8_1.shtml
Helen Quinn writes:
In everyday usage the question Why? can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms. That apparent reduction of the goal is a powerful step that separates modern science from its ancestor, natural philosophy. Modern science focuses our attention on just those questions that can have definitive answers based on observations. Where science does find a path to compare theory with observations, the theories so developed provide a powerful way to understand the world and even to make some predictions about the future. Science offers us new options that may be appliedfor example, in technology and medicineto change the way we live and extend our capabilities. However, scientists tend to forget that issues of reason and purpose are central to many people’s questioning, so the answers they get from science seem inadequate.
I think Helen's "different question" perspective is much better and more productive than the "conflict" perspective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-19-2010 12:40 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Taq, posted 04-20-2010 10:16 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 315 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-21-2010 12:49 AM kbertsche has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 314 of 456 (556729)
04-20-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by kbertsche
04-20-2010 8:25 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
But let's back out a bit and look at the bigger picture. There seems to be a very strong feeling among some in this thread that "faith" in religion is completely blind, unreasoning, and unevidenced, while "faith" does not exist in science at all. Many seem to hold this position in a very dogmatic, unreasonable, unwavering fashion--is this "blind faith" on their parts? Those who take this position seem to have a strong desire to denigrate religious faith. None have religious faith themselves, and I think all claim to be atheists. They ignore our experiences of religious faith, examples of how it works in practice, scholarly and theological definitions of religious faith. Those who have rejected it think they understand it better than those of us who live it every day. This is as silly as a geocentrist thinking he is an expert on astronomy.
What we are against is the conflation of knowledge gained through reason and evidence (the faith we have in scientific theories) with religious faith which is not gained through reason, evidence, or logic. You are trying to co-opt the knowledge we have gained through reason and logic to gild religious faith which lacks both. That is what we reject.
If you want to call confidence in expectations supported by empiricism, experimentation, and verification a "faith" then go for it. What you can not do is conflate this confidence with a belief devoid of empirical evidence, experimentation, and verification. Your argument is semantics, and very little else. When asked for how reason, logic, and evidence can lead to religious faith you grow quite silent. Instead, you deflect and start talking about textual analysis as if that is the same as religious faith. Your own actions tell us that religious faith is devoid of everything that leads to the confidence we have in scientific theories.
To use an analogy, it is a bit like someone who gets a diploma out of the back of a Rolling Stone and calls themselves "Doctor". They are attempting to steal the hard work that others have expended to get their degrees to give themselves an air of expertise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2010 8:25 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by kbertsche, posted 04-21-2010 3:06 AM Taq has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 315 of 456 (556766)
04-21-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by kbertsche
04-20-2010 8:25 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Thank you again, kbertsche. I think this bit explains your position in a way that I find quite agreeable:
kbertsche writes:
I've stressed that science and religion differ in the types of evidence that they use. An equally (or more?) important distinction is the type of questions that they ask. I've posted a this quote in another thread from the article "What is Science?" by Helen Quinn...
I think Helen's "different question" perspective is much better and more productive than the "conflict" perspective.
The "different question" idea is a nice way to look at these things, though it does tend to run aground when the answers to those "reason and purpose" questions are used in attempts to "fix" the answers on the "mechanism" questions -- a good case in point being the Pope's pronouncement that condoms should not be used, period (and AIDS prevention does not constitute an acceptable excuse).
I won't argue against the notion that one person's subjective experience or internal interpretation of (reports about) events would qualify as evidence in that individual's perspective; also, I have no disagreement with people like yourself who lead sensible lives and also happen to hold personal beliefs about things that lie far beyond the reach of objective verifiability. I think I do understand your point of view here, and it seems reasonable to assume that this is a common part of the human condition, applicable to people who pursue empirical research as well as everyone else.
It seems to me that the fundamental problem, afflicting both non-theistic science and non-scientific theism, arises when one or another belief becomes hard-cast and inflexible, whether due to one's ingrained habits of thought or to the vested interests of some institution (whether secular or religious). The problem is intensified (potentially to the level of a dangerous threat) whenever these ingrained habits and vested interests are broadcast as "exclusive truth" in spite of contradicting evidence, sensible alternatives and/or reasonable opposition. (Case in point, again: the Pope's pronouncement on condoms.)
I think a lot of the vitriol you receive/perceive from skeptics can be attributed to their common perception (based on history and current observation): that non-scientific theism poses the greater threat, owing to its far greater preponderance of mental habituation and institutional vested interests. And of course, this also combines with a skeptic's "common sense": that making assertions far beyond the reach of objective verifiability (let alone arguing about their relative "truth") is at best inconsequential, and arguably nonsensical.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2010 8:25 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by kbertsche, posted 04-21-2010 11:33 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024