Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Using the Bible as a Starting point for Scientific questions
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 44 (204980)
05-04-2005 2:02 PM


At AdminNosys' suggustion I have decided to ask the following question:
If I can't use the bible as a starting point to answer questions then how can there be a discussion?
I have noticed that many purely science threads leave out a biblical point of view in their interpretations of the origin of life. Since this forum is mainly about the interaction and discussion between the creationist perspective vs the evolutionary perspective it stands to reason that both viewpoints should have equal wheight in the discussion.
Jor-el:
I know I'm a newbie around here and that I shouldn't ask impertinant questions, but if I can't use the bible as a starting point to answer questions then how can there be a discussion?
AdminNosy:
There are no impertinant questions. This is one which perhaps deserves a thread of its own. It is an interesting philosophical and forum organizational issue. I think there should be some extensive material on this as part of the introduction to evcforum.
Be well...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 05-04-2005 3:16 PM Jor-el has replied
 Message 4 by ProfessorR, posted 05-04-2005 3:31 PM Jor-el has replied
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2005 3:01 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 44 (205002)
05-04-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ProfessorR
05-04-2005 3:31 PM


Hi ProfessorR,
I agree with the idea that you put forth. Intrinsically I don't see a correlation between scientific principles and the bible. They deal as you said with two completely different natures in that science deals with the physical and sensorial element and the bible purely in the spiritual element. As such, when these two principles try to encroach on one another there can be no margin for agreement as they are dealing with two completely different subjects.
The situation that I find when dealing with the wider discussion on the merits of the "Theory of evolution" vs the merits of the "Theory of Creation" which is the principle directive of this forum is that in the end there can never be a discussion on equal ground since essentialy, only the theory of evolution can be empirically tested. As for its' opposing counterpart, faith is the only ingredient needed for it to be accepted.
This is where my main difficulty lies in responding to many people who participate in this forum. The bible does give some guidelines on the origin question which is debated, but since empirical proof is not possible in most cases, the discussion starts off with a major limp in its' stride.
This message has been edited by Jor-el, 04-May-2005 09:39 PM

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ProfessorR, posted 05-04-2005 3:31 PM ProfessorR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-04-2005 7:59 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 44 (205007)
05-04-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by coffee_addict
05-04-2005 3:16 PM


Hi Troy,
It isn't my intent to discuss the scientific principles in detail here because I'd be out of my league in that respect.
The idea that I'm trying to put across is that in discussing the central issue of whether the biblical perspective can be used in the context of this forum, one must give its information some wheight otherwise a discussion isn't possible at all.
I've seen many people state that one must prove scientifically that a given statement is true. In the context of the biblical perspective one cannot do that in the majority of cases.
Since a discussion using the guidelines given to empirical science immediately puts its opposing viewpoint at a disadvantage, a middle ground has to be achieved so that an equal footing can be given to both viewpoints.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 05-04-2005 3:16 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 05-04-2005 5:49 PM Jor-el has not replied
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 05-04-2005 10:26 PM Jor-el has replied
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 05-04-2005 11:17 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 44 (205010)
05-04-2005 4:45 PM


Heres an idea...
From what I've seen generally in the forum, biblical events or viewpoints are discussed and and contested using scientific evidence to the contrary, we could do something of the kind here...
(I hope this helps any?)

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2005 5:25 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 44 (205037)
05-04-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
05-04-2005 5:25 PM


Re: Heres an idea...
Historical criteria are a good basis to discuss biblical history and that would be a good way of trying to work through the the many different viewpoints on whether events happened in the order that they are detailed in the biblical texts. I have seen many doubts as to whether they really happened or whether the people involved in those stories really existed.
There have also been many who state that the biblical texts are full of contradictions and fallacies. These are things that could be discussed here as well.
As for faith, I'm not proposing that faith should be a part of the discussion (there are already threads for that as can be seen by Troys' post) but stating that in the context of believing in the creationist standpoint, one is essentially required to have faith in the existence of God or at the very least a higher intelligence that directed the start of our existence.
In my opinion one can't have a creationist standpoint without faith playing an important part in that perspective. It is an implicit situation.
As such I stated that these two viewpoints stand on completely different foundations (and are intrinsically incompatible when you come down to it) yet if one is to have a discussion on the subject anyway, one must have a middleground to work on.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2005 5:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2005 2:53 AM Jor-el has not replied
 Message 17 by Ben!, posted 05-05-2005 5:31 AM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 44 (205057)
05-04-2005 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
05-04-2005 7:59 PM


chalk that up to a bad choice of wording, but I'm sure you get the idea...

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-04-2005 7:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-04-2005 8:39 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 44 (205296)
05-05-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
05-04-2005 8:39 PM


Jar, I agree with you totally. The point I was trying to make is that by pitting evolution against creation we have come to a situation that doesn't lead anywhere. The two subjects cannot be discussed in any harmonious way. As I and others have said they work totally and independently of one another.
That brings me to 2 logical questions.
How come believers completely reject the ideas put forth in the theory of evolution and inversely why can't non-believers accept the possibility of the existence of something they can't experience with their 5 senses?
If these two areas are really so independent why are they always stepping on each others toes?

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-04-2005 8:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 05-05-2005 1:38 PM Jor-el has not replied
 Message 22 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 2:44 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 44 (205299)
05-05-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
05-04-2005 10:26 PM


Ringo316, I'm sure that if you were in the oppositions' shoes you would say that at the moment the odds are more in favour of "empirical science" than the opposite being true.
There is a saying in Portuguese that states that each one pulls the coals to their own fish.
This is true of both sides of the argument.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 05-04-2005 10:26 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 05-05-2005 3:03 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 44 (205311)
05-05-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
05-04-2005 11:17 PM


Re: The middle ground
Hi NosyNed, we are all quite familiar, I believe, with the difficulties both opposing perspectives encounter when discussing this topic. Proponents of both evolution and creation state that they can't convince the other side of anything.
There is continous bickering and in the end the discussion is terminated without any real positive conclusion. The idea that I get is that both sides are always talking at cross-purposes with no real communication getting through.
The first point I would propose in the discussion is the acknowledgement that even though both areas are really independent of one another and therefore should not try to step into the others arena.
Scientific enquiry is essential to the continuous opening to new knowledge and if inadvertantly it apparently sheds new knowledge on the question of our origins, it should be accepted as such.
What we need to remember is that science is not an absolute but is in continuous flux. What was believed yesterday is not what is necessarily believed today. It is therefore fitting that scientific hypothesis remain just that and not become dogmas in themselves.
Where discoveries are made that directly contradict the bible and they have been proven to their utmost then the biblical texts should back down and refrain from trying to prove the unprovable and impossible. This pertains mainly to historical facts found by archeology.
Believers at this time should reexamine their foundations for believing the way they do, and in most cases will find that the reason they believe such and such is because it was handed down from the puplpit and not because it is clearly stated in the bible. Many things that are dogmas are not even mentioned in biblical texts and these interpretations should be reevaluated.
A clear example of such a situation is the age of the earth.
As for the possibility of life on other planets the bible doesn't say one word about that. But it does say how that life should be treated if it is found (or rather when).
Christianity has one major problem that it doesn't even realize it has. The wheight of belief of 2 millenia skew their world view. They believe that just because it has always been so that it should remain so. Traditions are the poison in christian belief, not the belief itself.
"That the sphericity of the earth was clearly established in the ancient world is beyond dispute. Apparently unknown to the Babylonians or Egyptians, it was a discovery of Greek astronomy and was generally accepted among natural philosophers by the time of Aristotle. It was the received view of educated Romans as well, including Pliny the Elder. Among Christian thinkers, however, its fortunes are not quite so clear. It was not without significance that the ancient Hebrews, whose views were reflected in Scripture, conceived the earth as a flat disk covered over by the dome of the heavens ... [Isidore's] grasp on the spherical nature of the earth was tenuous at best ..."
McCready, William D. Isidore, the Antipodeans, and the shape of the earth. Isis, v. 87, Mar. 1996: 108—127. illus.
Bibliographic footnotes.
The problem is that christians need to continuely reexaine their knowldge of the world and not maintain a traditional belief where it is no longer warrented. 4000 yers ago the Hebrew outlook could have been accepted since there was no knowlege to the contrary but at the time of christianity this outlook had already been abandoned by many scholars. The rejection of new knowledge by the christian church was a major setback for the world.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 05-04-2005 11:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 44 (205315)
05-05-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Ben!
05-05-2005 5:31 AM


Re: Heres an idea...
There has always been a difficulty with simple faith. There is an unconscious need in many believers to justify their faith. Many aspects of this can be shown historically in the christian churches attitude when confronted with the intellectual need vs the spiritual need.
The roman catholic and orthodox church have a clear example of this in the existence of statuettes and icons of saints.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Ben!, posted 05-05-2005 5:31 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 44 (205339)
05-05-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
05-05-2005 3:01 PM


But you do it all the time if one cares to see where you have been posting. In many cases you use those same arguments to show discrepencies.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2005 3:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2005 4:22 PM Jor-el has not replied
 Message 31 by coffee_addict, posted 05-05-2005 4:49 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 44 (205340)
05-05-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
05-05-2005 3:03 PM


Would you care to explain how two mutually exclusive arguments can be easily accepted as true?
This message has been edited by Jor-el, 05-May-2005 08:56 PM

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 05-05-2005 3:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 05-05-2005 4:26 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 44 (205346)
05-05-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
05-05-2005 4:26 PM


So you are saying that a christian easily accepts TOE as long as things are explained to him, and that that doesn't effect his beliefs in the slightest because both ceationism and TOE can work together.
I have to apologise for my desbelief but if that were true the members of this forum would all be agreeing with one another and the debate would not exist.
There wouldn't be creationist factions trying to discredit TOE at all costs, and vice-versa.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 05-05-2005 4:26 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 05-05-2005 4:50 PM Jor-el has not replied
 Message 33 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 4:53 PM Jor-el has replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2005 4:56 PM Jor-el has not replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2005 4:58 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (205393)
05-05-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
05-05-2005 4:53 PM


Yes they do, although there is but in that support (at least for the R.C.C.). They also insist that it is necessary to accept the teaching that God created Adam and Eve and that they are the original pair from which the rest of the human race has descended.
Dear Dr Geraghty,
Your thought as to whether the Church has ruled out the possibility of Adam's body having been formed by some form of evolution is answered by Rev Dr Brian Harrison like this: "With great respect, therefore, I submit that it is high time for Catholics at all levels to 'rediscover' Leo XIII's Arcanum, which bears witness to, illustrates, and confirms the perennial Catholic doctrine -- certain and unchangeable, and yet presently languishing in oblivion -- that both Adam and Eve, in body as well as soul, owed their existence to direct supernatural interventions of the Creator. The fact that the doctrine, as it has been proposed up till now, does not necessarily exclude the possible evolution of Adam's body in accordance with the hypothesis of special transformism does not, of course, shed much light on the distinct question as to whether or not special transformism represents the historical truth as to how Adam's body was in fact formed."
On this subject, recent questioners might include the following for facts and comment: The Roman Theological Forum at http://www.rtforum.org, click on "our archive of articles" and see #26 "The Failure of Darwinism and its Fuller Implications", #37 "Rolling Back The Tide of Evolutionism", #63 "Anti- Darwinism Today"and "The Foundations of Evolution Theory Just Don't Add Up", #64 "Theistic Evolution: A Vain Search For Spontaneous Generation", #72 "Evolution and the Truth About Man" (especially the conclusions), #73-74 "Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration" (momentous), #99 "Evading The Truth: Did Darwin Get It Right?", and "Where George Sims Johnston Went Astray: Did Darwin Get It Right?", and #100 "The Myth of Evolution".
The articles cited critically expose the paucity of historical evolutionary views, strengthen the historicity of scripture and explain Catholic doctrine, while "Communion and Stewardship", referenced by Greg and written by theologians, seems to use the pseudo-scientific jargon of the evolutionist scientist.
Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 02-08-2005:
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the information. It may well be the the Church will get around to endorsing the view of Fr. Harrison, who is a very reliable theologian. I think it would be wise to follow him. But it still leaves many questions open. What is not open is the teaching that God created Adam and Eve and that they are the original pair from which the rest of the human race has descended.
The link to the aformentioned article is here: www.ewtn.com
This is a site that answers questions put to a panel of experts who are Roman Catholic.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 4:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 7:07 PM Jor-el has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-05-2005 7:19 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 44 (205864)
05-07-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NosyNed
05-05-2005 7:25 PM


Re: Official Position and Unofficial
It is also true that the official position is many times contested by the individual clergymen of the R.C.C. from the pulpit thus leading to further belief in creation. Thus, although the offical position may be what it is, it doesn't filter into the population.

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2005 7:25 PM NosyNed 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