Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 74 (149653)
10-13-2004 12:14 PM


This topic is to allow Willowtree to support his conjecture that evidence is interpreted based on "worldview" and that this cause utterly different interpretations of the evidence.
I suggest that to support this claim WT should give a specific example where there is a big difference between two opposing points of view.
Then he can show the evidence that exists that both sides can agree on.
Then he can discuss the "scientific" ("god sense removed") interpretation. Following that he can show a different interpretation and show why the first interpretation is directly influenced by the "wrong" worldview.
see post:
Message 262
as one of many examples where WT has made such claims.
(I'd like a review of this by one or more admins as I'd rather not have my good buddy AdminNosy promote it )
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-12-2004 09:04 PM
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-12-2004 09:33 PM
moved by the Queen

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-13-2004 7:37 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 74 (149784)
10-13-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object
10-13-2004 7:37 PM


Rational?
Your claim has been that the "rational" worldview that we espouse results in misinterpretations when compared to the "rational"-faithful worldview that you espouse. Let's call them Rational-A (RA) and Rational-F (RF)
It seems we will need to define "rational" as it applies to thought processes as one part of this. I'll get to that later. It maybe that we can see how close RA and RF can be brought.
Your claim is that the conclusions that use RA are misinterpretations. However, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, about 40% of practicing scientists are not atheists. Thus the thought processes they bring to bare are not atheistic. Is there a third class of thought? Since they arrive at the same conclusions as the atheists you claim that the thought processes are wrong because they are atheistic is wrong.
You have yet to show the workings of the 'correct' method of rational thinking (RF) as applied to existing evidence and how, step by step, it arrives at a different conclusion. That will be necessary to show that there is a better way.
Let me have a go at making my own statment about what I think a rational way of coming to a conclusion is:
1) It uses evidence that I have some chance of knowing is not a mistake, delusion or fraud. I do this be expecting others to check out what I think I am seeing or measuring. And redoing the examination if necessary.
2) It considers as much evidence as is possible and is likely to help me arrive at the conclusion. This means that while I do not look at literally everything I try to be careful about leaving things out which do or may have an influence on the conclusion.
3) I make each step of the logic connecting the evidence to the conclusion as clear as I possibly can. I do this to allow others to check what I am doing.
4) (optional?) If I expect others to accept my conclusions without reproducing the entire set of work I subject everything I have done to a careful and, perhaps preferably, somewhat hostile review to see if others without my emotional attachment to the result can find a flaw.
That's my first cut. Others can tune it up or add if they see a need.
Now, WillowTree, it is your turn to explain what your form of rational thought processes are.
You have seen plenty of examples of the one I just gave being applied. Once you have defined yours I'd like an example of it being applied.
Atheo-evos would have everyone believe that they are exempt from bias.
As noted above this is the method used by firmly believing Christians too. And the majority of Christians accept it as a way of finding things out about the material world while rejecting it as a way of finding things out about the immaterial world of their God.
Atheo-evos use something like the method that I described above because they know full-well that they are not exempt from bias. That is why the data and logic are spelled out so carefully so others can check. And why they subject their own work to their own critism before making it widely available.
The individual humans involved in science be they believers or not are all biased in some way. The process used is the best that we have devised for avoiding the worst mistakes of that bias. It is the best we have for examining that which can be examined. That is the natural world but not more than that.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-13-2004 09:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-13-2004 7:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-14-2004 2:56 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-16-2004 8:56 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 74 (150370)
10-16-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
10-16-2004 8:56 PM


Close aren't we?
The irony is that it is Darwinism/atheism which have militantly refused to grant Him those TWO things
Well, technically atheism doesn't have anything to do with science. It is a philosophical position and not demonstrable or supportable by science.
Darwinism has nothing to do with atheism. Some Darwinians are atheists; many are not.
The ToE (which is a bit more than as Darwin stated it) is simply the conclusion reached through applying the methods we have agreed on.
It is the same as the physics of nuclear synthesis that powers the sun or plate techtonics which explains the location of most volcanoes.
None of them say that God did or didn't do any of these things. They simple describe what we have learned about how He did them.
Now if you feel that any of the currently accepted scientific conclusions are wrong because they are misapplying what we have called RA I would like to see your reworking of the conclusion using RF. Start with the same basic evidence and show the logic involved useing RF where appropriate. Thanks.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-16-2004 08:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-16-2004 8:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:36 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 74 (151197)
10-19-2004 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
10-19-2004 8:08 PM


Re: Rational?
This comment intentionally evades what I actually wrote.
You fraudulently make it sound like I argued against science. The fact that you refused to quote me directly exposes your only interest in this discussion to be one of sabotage.
Could you show then what you actually wrote and show how what was said was wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 74 (151448)
10-20-2004 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object
10-19-2004 8:36 PM


Re: Close aren't we?
Genesis says God created Adam, therefore both bodies of evidence COULD be true - no ?
Yes, I agree. Certainly biologists who are also believers and many Church organisations also agree.
What science is saying is how God choose to create Adam. If we choose to define Adam as being the first human who had a brain that was capable of being self aware enough to also be able to be aware of and be communicated to by God then Adam was an individual who lived sometime between 30,000 to perhaps 150,000 years ago. He was allowed to develope from those which had gone before.
When he was ready God choose to reveal Himself to the human (now fully human) race. That is the position of the Catholic church and something like it for the majority of the Christian churchs.
There is then no arguement.
Genesis is simply a very simplified (for the people of the time) description of a much more complex actual process.
The physical facts tell us this:
1) There was a time (and a lot of it) when there were no humans on the planet.
2) There were a series of organisms over the last 8 million years which developed a number of traits that were more and more like humans.
There are a lot of details in all of that of course. Different individuals may need more details to decide when it is acceptable to connect the dots and connect us to those preceeding organisms. You obviously require more than there is. Almost every single biolgist does not, most churchs and Christians do not. You are entitled to wait for more evidence. There is a steady flow of discovery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024