|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Using the Bible as a Starting point for Scientific questions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Creationists often argue that thier views can be supported by the evidence - that offers grounds for discussion. Faith does not - the most that you can reasonably ask is that certain beliefs are accepted for the sake of argument, for the purpose of a specific topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1420 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Jor-el,
I'm enjoying your writing and thinking style. Here's my question. Why do you want to discuss things having to do with faith scientifically? I don't think the foundations for faith are based on evidence at all. "True faith" is dogmatic--it ignores any evidence against the contrary. Science and faith are simply different beasts. They're different approaches to different problems. Sometimes they tread on each others' toes. But I don't see any need (intellectually) to actually resolve the situation. Of course, politics / education / etc. is a different story... I'm questioning the purpose of finding evidence, through historical records or (what I think is your suggestion) through science, for believing in the Bible. I don't see how it addresses a person's faith at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jor-el Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Well I can accept that such a thing may exist but if it is beyond our senses that surely such an encounter must be entirely individual and thus hold no weight for anyone else. if people say they talk to a skyfather it's their business. It's only when they say "and the skyfather told us that the earth is only 6000 years old, so science must be all wrong/lies" that I become interested. The other thing is that althought science affects all of us - for many GODS are just not of much interest and do not have a direct impact. So maybe the first question is "why are so many people just not arsed about Gods". This message has been edited by General Krull, 05-May-2005 01:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jor-el Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jor-el Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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? First, both of those statement are wrong. I am a believer. I do not reject the ideas put forth in the theory of evolution. That is also true of EVERY major Christian Church in the world and of Every other Faith. Believers have no problems with the TOE. Granted some believers have problems but when we discuss it with them invariably we find they are ignorant of what the TOE means and covers. Your second question is "why can't non-believers accept the possibility of the existence of something they can't experience with their 5 senses?" Again, many do. What they say is you can't test it objectively. And that's correct. You cannot test what cannot be experienced. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jor-el Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If I can't use the bible as a starting point to answer questions then how can there be a discussion? Well, we (the evolutionists and scientists) can't use the Bible, nor any other religious text, as a starting point either. How is that not fair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jor-el said:
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.
I didn't say whose shoes I was in, did I? In fact, I can accept evolution without reservations and I can accept the creation story without reservations. I don't see any necessary conflict between the two. But I don't use the Bible as a telephone directory and I don't use it as a science textbook either. The title of this thread is "The Bible as a starting point...." But what about the Quran? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Sacred Tome of the Giant Pink Unicorn? We can't use any of them as a "starting point" because we can't agree on which one to use. By merely suggesting the Bible as a starting point, you're trying to slant the playing field in it's favour. You can't start a meaningful discussion by asking everybody to accept your interpretation of the Bible. You have to start out by deciding which of your own subjective beliefs you can set aside. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jor-el Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jor-el Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But you do it all the time if one cares to see where you have been posting. In threads about the Bible, sure. Although that's always been in response to someone else using the Bible as a starting point. In science threads? No, I've never used the Bible, nor any other religious text, as the starting point or foundation of an argument. It would be highly incorrect to assert that I have done so. Like I said, we don't get to use the Bible, nor any religious text, as the starting point for our scientific arguments. Neither do you. How is that not fair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
There is nothing "mutually exclusive" about creation and evolution. As Jar pointed out in Message 22, most Christians accept both.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jor-el Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024