Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do you believe what you believe?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 16 of 108 (226547)
07-26-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
07-26-2005 3:24 PM


(It is actually interesting to note that Gen 1 gives a sequence of creation that is similar to evolutionary theory.)
Only on the surface.
Yes, the first sea creatures formed before the first land creatures. But according to the Creation story, this is the only time different species were created. New species have continued to evolve since the beginning of life - it never stopped. Whales and dolphins show evidence of having evoloved from land mammals, meaning that some creatures of the sea evolved after the "creeping things" on the land.
On a non-evolutionary note that still may be relevant - Genesis states that He created light and seperated night from day before He created the Sun, Moon, or stars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 3:24 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 6:13 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 17 of 108 (226548)
07-26-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Parasomnium
07-26-2005 5:12 PM


Re: Natural versus metaphysical
parasomnium writes:
No, I disagree. I didn't say that design implies natural selection and random chance. Those are two principles that we can observe to simply happen in nature, without the need for an implication from design. What I said was that design does not necessarily imply intelligence, there is another possible way in which design can arise, as I explained.
Fair enough, but you have come to the conclusion that design in this case has been driven by random chance and natural selection. I have come to the conclusion that design came about by an external designer. I suggest that either decision is a rational one and we have just come to different conclusions.
parasomnium writes:
If you can back that up by quantifying the likelihood of both positions, then we have something interesting to discuss, otherwise I'm afraid it's just gut feeling, no offence intended.
The difference is that "finding the metaphysical explanation far more compelling" is once more an expression of gut feeling, whereas "chosing the naturalist explanation" has a firm basis in evidence.
What is the firm basis of evidence for the naturalist explanation? Accepting random chance and natural selection that has no metaphysical interference is just as much a gut feeling as is believing that there is metaphysical interference in the evolutionary process.
Science can only determine what has happened. It cannot empirically test why it happened or what precipitated it.
parasomnium writes:
We may both start with a mystery, but again there is a difference: science attempts - succesfully, I might add - to unravel the mystery, whereas the "metaphysical explanation" isn't really an explanation at all. If it doesn't add to the mystery, it certainly does nothing to lessen it, and, worst of all, there is no way we can test this "explanation" to see if it has any real merit.
Science has done a fantastic job of unravelling our natural world. Science has demonstrated that we have evolved through a long series of genetic mutations, (as I best understand it). What it was that caused those mutations to occur in the manner that they did is a mystery no matter how you look at it. Of course the metaphysical presents a problem for science because it can't be tested by the scientific method, but that does not mean that it isn't true.
parasomnium writes:
Of course there may be more possibilities, but it doesn't make sense to make them up if there is not a shred of evidence for them. A comet or asteroid is only considered if if it suggested by evidence such as a discernible crater, or something more indirect like the KT-boundary.
As I said earlier that I believe that the finely balanced design in the natural world is evidence. Our consciousness and our code of conduct are evidences. The Bible is evidence. Out of body experiences are evidence. Self-awareness is evidence. None of this can be tested in a lab but I do believe that there is truth that exists outside of science.
parasomnium writes:
Well, you can simply state anything of course, but what use is it if you don't know whether what you state has any connection with reality? And why on earth do you say that we don't need to know anything more about the metaphysical designer? It's not as if ignorance is a goal, is it?
As I have said before, we have looked at the evidence and have come to different conclusions about reality. Of course we would want to learn more of our metaphysical designer but that is outside of the area of the natural world in which science functions.
You look at the evidence and come to a completely different conclusion than I do, but it is still evidence.
Parasomnium writes:
Indeed. Science studies something external to itself, something it doesn't define itself, something with an independent existence. Theologians on the other hand (I would leave philosophy out of this), only study their own made up stories. What's the use of that?
Science and Theology are two entirely different disciplines. I personally don't find then contradictory and in fact I believe that they compliment each other. As I have said before I am not a literalist but I also don't accept that Christianity is based on made up stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Parasomnium, posted 07-26-2005 5:12 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 07-26-2005 9:42 PM GDR has replied
 Message 27 by Parasomnium, posted 07-27-2005 3:37 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 18 of 108 (226552)
07-26-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rahvin
07-26-2005 5:43 PM


Rahvin writes:
Yes, the first sea creatures formed before the first land creatures. But according to the Creation story, this is the only time different species were created. New species have continued to evolve since the beginning of life - it never stopped. Whales and dolphins show evidence of having evoloved from land mammals, meaning that some creatures of the sea evolved after the "creeping things" on the land.
On a non-evolutionary note that still may be relevant - Genesis states that He created light and seperated night from day before He created the Sun, Moon, or stars.
I agree with what you say about evolution but as I said the Genesis story is similar to evolutionary theory.
As far as light is concerned I understand that science indicates that initially there was a huge cloud of gasses blanketing the Earth so that would be consistent with Genesis account of a darkness over all the world. Day and night would come later. As I'm not a literalist I don't see the fact sun and moon coming along later in the account is particularly significant.
My main point is that the account does not say that it all happened at once but that it EVOLVED over time.
This message has been edited by GDR, 07-26-2005 05:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 07-26-2005 5:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 07-26-2005 6:21 PM GDR has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 19 of 108 (226554)
07-26-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
07-26-2005 6:13 PM


No it doesn't it says God CREATED those things as complete entities - what happened to them next is not really the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 6:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 8:58 PM CK has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 108 (226583)
07-26-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by CK
07-26-2005 6:21 PM


OK I'll try rephrasing it but this is not an issue for me as I believe the account to be allegorical anyway.
The Genesis account does show things happening in a sequence. There is first a formless void, then land and oceans formed, then plants, then animals and finally people. It isn't science, but I just find it interesting that the account does in a very rough manner approximate evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 07-26-2005 6:21 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 07-26-2005 9:49 PM GDR has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 108 (226593)
07-26-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
07-26-2005 5:50 PM


Re: Natural versus metaphysical
quote:
Fair enough, but you have come to the conclusion that design in this case has been driven by random chance and natural selection. I have come to the conclusion that design came about by an external designer. I suggest that either decision is a rational one and we have just come to different conclusions.
But what is your conclusion based upon? What rationale? What evidence?
If it is not based upon any, or the logic requires any unsupported assumptions, then it is not a rational belief.
For example, what evidence do you have of external design of natural phenomena?
quote:
What is the firm basis of evidence for the naturalist explanation?
Well, how about over 200 years of experimentation and repetition of observations and 200 years of borne out predictions of future events based upon past events?
quote:
Accepting random chance and natural selection that has no metaphysical interference is just as much a gut feeling as is believing that there is metaphysical interference in the evolutionary process.
No, it doesn't.
There is no reason to infer metaphysical interference since there is no evidence of it.
To claim that there is or was supernatural interference is to make a rather enormous unwarranted unsupported assumption that has exactly zero predictive value.
quote:
Science can only determine what has happened. It cannot empirically test why it happened or what precipitated it.
Nonsense. Science is precisely the business of testing predictions.
It is through the repeated testing the implications of theory that we learn anything at all in science.
quote:
What it was that caused those mutations to occur in the manner that they did is a mystery no matter how you look at it.
Actually, we do understand many mechanisms of mutation.
quote:
As I said earlier that I believe that the finely balanced design in the natural world is evidence.
Exactly what kind of design do you consider to be "finely balanced"?
Please be specific with your examples.
quote:
Our consciousness and our code of conduct are evidences.
Why? Why couldn't these things have been selected for without the supernatural?
quote:
The Bible is evidence.
Why couldn't the bible have been written only by men, just as the thousands of other religious books ever to have been written?
quote:
Out of body experiences are evidence.
Out of body experiences are due to oxygen starvation of the brain and have been induced with certain chemicals.
quote:
Self-awareness is evidence.
Several of our primate relatives are self-aware, as are dolphins. It seems that social creatures with large brains have the capacity for self-awareness. Why is this evidence of the supernatural?
quote:
None of this can be tested in a lab but I do believe that there is truth that exists outside of science.
None of it can be tested at all. It is pure personal, irrational belief.
Which is fine. But it ain't proof in any way, shape, or form.
quote:
You look at the evidence and come to a completely different conclusion than I do, but it is still evidence.
But not all conclusions are warranted, or correct.
Your conclusions are not based upon evidence, they are based upon faith.
Which is fine, but there's absolutely not explanitory power to "I want to believe this about the evidence because I want to."
If someone concluded that the reason the sun travels across the sky is because Apollo pulls it in his firey chariot, and another person concluded that the sun appears to ravel across the sky because of the Earth's orbit around the sun, would you consider the first person's explanation to be equally valid simply because she said that "The evidence is the same, we've just come to different conclusions."?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 5:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 10:52 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 108 (226596)
07-26-2005 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
07-26-2005 8:58 PM


quote:
There is first a formless void, then land and oceans formed, then plants, then animals and finally people. It isn't science, but I just find it interesting that the account does in a very rough manner approximate evolution.
I find it interesting that nowhere does Genesis mention bacteria, considering it has been the dominant life form for the entirety of the Earth's history, and existed long before land-based plants.
God sure does LOVE bacteria, since He made them in such abundance that they cover nearly every inch of the planet.
And beetles. He really likes beetles, too.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-26-2005 09:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 8:58 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 07-26-2005 9:52 PM nator has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 108 (226598)
07-26-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
07-26-2005 9:49 PM


Not that hard to understand
I find it interesting that nowhere does Genesis mention bacteria, considering it was the dominant life form for the vast majority of the Earth's history, and existed long before land-based plants.
It's not that hard to understand. The authors had no idea, experience or idea that microscopic life existed, so it's not surprising they are not mentioned.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 07-26-2005 9:49 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 07-26-2005 9:57 PM jar has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 108 (226600)
07-26-2005 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
07-26-2005 9:52 PM


Re: Not that hard to understand
Yes, of course I know that. I was just poking a little fun at GDR, is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 07-26-2005 9:52 PM jar has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 25 of 108 (226613)
07-26-2005 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
07-26-2005 9:42 PM


Re: Natural versus metaphysical
schrafinator writes:
None of it can be tested at all. It is pure personal, irrational belief.
Which is fine. But it ain't proof in any way, shape, or form.
I'm short of time so I'll reply to this one sentence and try to apply it to your whole post.
I'm not in any way suggesting that anything that I proposed as evidence for my faith, (which I agree it is) constitutes proof. Just because something cannot be tested in the scientific manner does not mean that it isn't true.
All years of scientific testing has only shown how we have evolved but it has not proven why we evolved the way we have. God has not be proven nor has he been disproven. If it is an irrational decision to say that God exists, it is just as irrational to say that he doesn't.
All we can do is look at the non empirical evidence that I have talked about previously and come to our own conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 07-26-2005 9:42 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 07-27-2005 2:19 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 28 by Parasomnium, posted 07-27-2005 3:39 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 29 by nator, posted 07-27-2005 7:07 AM GDR has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 26 of 108 (226642)
07-27-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
07-26-2005 10:52 PM


Re: Natural versus metaphysical
God has not be proven nor has he been disproven. If it is an irrational decision to say that God exists, it is just as irrational to say that he doesn't.
It is irrational to say that God does not exist. It is perfectly rational to say that there is absolutely no rational reason to believe he does, as there is no evidence of His existance.
It's just like saying that purple unicorns don't exist. Science cannot say that they never existed, only that we have no evidence that they did. Because there is no evidence, there is no rational reason to believe they ever lived.
This is why belief in God must be a decision of blind faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 10:52 PM GDR has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 27 of 108 (226645)
07-27-2005 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
07-26-2005 5:50 PM


Re: Natural versus metaphysical
Schrafinator has already answered your post to me, and I stand behind her. I will just pick one snippet from your post and add my own commentary.
GDR writes:
Science has demonstrated that we have evolved through a long series of genetic mutations, (as I best understand it). What it was that caused those mutations to occur in the manner that they did is a mystery no matter how you look at it.
If you mean that the mystery consists of why this particular series of mutations happened and not another, then you must first ask yourself whether this particular series of mutations is of special interest. The only reason to find it special is because it resulted in our existence, and obviously our existence is important to us. But if you take an objective stance, there is no reason to think that one series of random mutations is more special than another.
Suppose you throw a deck of cards in the air and then pick them up again, and you repeat this a few times. Is there any reason to think that the resulting order of the deck in any one trial is more special than in another?
The only difference between the example of the cards and the evolution of life is that we can have several trials with the cards, but we have only one example of how life developed. That's why it seems special. But it could easily have gone very differently, in countless many ways. If you look at it this way, the mystery disappears. We evolved the way we did, and that's that. There is no why.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 5:50 PM GDR has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 28 of 108 (226646)
07-27-2005 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
07-26-2005 10:52 PM


Irrational beliefs
GDR writes:
If it is an irrational decision to say that God exists, it is just as irrational to say that he doesn't.
Would you say the same thing if I'd replace 'God' with 'monsters under your bed', or 'pixies'? If you reason like this, then anything, however outrageous, can be said to exist, and it should not be considered irrational.
Suppose I said that there is always a pixie hovering in the air behind your head. You can never see it, because every time you turn around, it quickly moves, or becomes invisible or whatever. (Of course, everybody knows that pixies cannot be seen in a mirror, so don't try and be clever.)
If you were of sane mind, you would probably not believe me and say that I am being irrational. But if I reasoned like you, then I could say: "If it is an irrational decision to say that pixies behind your head exist, it is just as irrational to say that they don't." Of course, you can immediately spot the logical error in that statement.
Somehow, most people have a pretty good understanding of what is irrational to believe and what isn't. Why then is it that when it's God we're talking about, that understanding starts to falter so often?

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 10:52 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 07-27-2005 7:37 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 108 (226679)
07-27-2005 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
07-26-2005 10:52 PM


Re: Natural versus metaphysical
Ar we to understand that you believe that the Christian God controls human evolution?
How much has he controlled it? Are birth defects and genetic disease evidence of this contol?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 10:52 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Parasomnium, posted 07-27-2005 7:14 AM nator has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 30 of 108 (226680)
07-27-2005 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by nator
07-27-2005 7:07 AM


Re: Natural versus metaphysical
Are birth defects and genetic disease evidence of this contol?
I think that's where God had his afternoon dip.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 07-27-2005 7:07 AM nator 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