What to believe, crisis of faith

Here's the thing. Scientists are, by nature, skeptical. So there is nothing wrong with being skeptical of science.As a practical matter, you cannot go out and do all of the experiments yourself. But there are lots of things you can check. For example, you travel by automobile, airplane, etc. That should give you a lot of confidence that the science behind these forms of travel is sound.Where you cannot get supporting evidence yourself, you can look around for alternative sources of information. One scientist might be mistaken. Maybe two or three to could get together and conspire to fake some data. But when there are thousands of researchers working independently -- you can't have a conspiracy that large without being found out.And you can even remain a Christian. There are many Christian scientists. You have already recognized that the Bible was written by men, even if inspired. They were writing based on the understanding of the world from ancient times. With that in mind, you can reach an understanding of the Bible that is consistent with science.

But that isn't what happens. Science seems to get good consistent answers, and where mistakes are made, they are corrected with further research.

String theory is what is called a speculative hypothesis. As far as I can tell, no physicist is claiming that it is settled science. At most, it is one possible hypothesis that explains some of the evidence. String theory won't become settled science unless/until there is substantial empirical evidence to support it.Personally, I am not taking string theory seriously. Maybe, when more evidence is in, that might change. But the evidence is not there yet.

Science has no answer for these questions. Some religions claim to have answers, but I cannot find any way of being confident of those answers.

It can be inspired, but not literally true. And that's enough for Aztraph to be able to find a way of working things out.

Hi, Aztraph. You have asked a number of hard questions that I want to comment on.In Message 53 you asked: That is a hard question. But I think you answered it yourself in Message 67, when you wrote: That gives you a wonderful purpose in life.I think that our purpose in life is what we make it to be. I have made it my purpose to leave the world a better place than it would otherwise have been. That includes my wife and children (now adults). And it also includes my work as an educator. And even my contribution to this site is part of how I try to leave the world a better place.As for life after death -- in a sense there is. For if I leave the world in a better place, then I will live on in the memories of people who have benefitted from what I have done in my life. And I think that's the most important kind of life after death.In Message 73 you ask: I don't have any problem with that. I have a sole on each foot. But I think you were really asking about soul.Different people mean different things when they use the word "soul." But I think it really means the spirit and energy with which we live our lives. We see how biological systems are gathering energy from their environment, and using that energy to propel them forwards. But the exact way in which this produces our human consciousness is still not fully understood. It is something that is studied by cognitive scientists, and I guess I am an amateur cognitive scientist. I am confident that we will eventually understand how it all works. But even when we do understand it, we will continue to be filled with awe at its wonders.A question that is a theme of your messages, is We cannot automatically trust anyone. Trust is something that must be earned. It is not automatically given.A new store opens in my neighborhood. Can I trust that store? I cannot tell. So, initially, I shop there with caution. But, as I shop there time after time, I might find that the management always seems to be honest and fair. And because of that, my trust increases. That's an example of how trust is earned.At the moment, you really cannot trust anyone at this forum. For we are telling you different things, and contradicting one another. In a way, that's a good sign, for it means we are being honest with you and not trying to trick you by agreeing on a common story. But that doesn't help you decide who to trust. You will have to work that out for yourself.You can surely trust your own judgement. Maybe your trust in your own judgement is not complete. But you know your own failings, so you know how far you can trust your judgement. That's your starting point. From there, you can look at what people are saying, and then do some investigation of your own. Allow your trust in others to grow, based on your own judgement.You can generally trust science. You cannot automatically trust individual scientists. They can make mistakes. But there is a lot of self correction in science as an instition, and that can be the basis of trust.There are many kind, generous and thoughtful people, and some of those have probably already earned your trust.We cannot trust a person on everything. I trust my wife a great deal. But I would not trust her to climb a ladder and remove the leaves from the gutter. She trusts me to do that. Trust is always earned, limited, and subject to our own judgement on what we can trust.I hope these comments are helpful.

A bit off topic. But yes, Faith, you have been involved in some heavy duty discussions over the last week or so. That can be very draining. I would encourage you to reduce the intensity of participation for a while.But continue hang around. You do make positive contributions to the forum.

I'm also skeptical of string theory. In any case, at present it is only a hypothesis. There isn't nearly enough empirical evidence yet for it to become part of accepted physics.Physics has a long tradition of speculative hypotheses. Some of these work out, and become part of accepted science. Others never work out, and are eventually dropped.

I'll have to disagree with that.What I am seeking is an understanding. Sure, answers are useful, but not always available and not always important. There isn't any great pleasure is a quest for answers that are not attainable. What I seek, is to understand. And here, "understanding" means a knowledge of processes involved. If you like, it has to do with the "how" question rather than the "what" or "why" questions.I cannot speak for others. However, it is my impression that many scientists are seeking understanding, rather than truth. There is no such thing as absolute truth. The idea that there could be an absolute truth is a myth. Our notion of "truth" is a human invention, and a rather pragmatic one. We use it to keep track of our progress. Such people have convinced themselves that they have discovered absolute truth. But if absolute truth is a myth, as I contend, then this conviction can be no more than self-delusion.Changing subject a little: That's pretty much what marriage must have been in the days where marriages were arranged. There are still parts of the world where arranged marriages are common.

No, I'm not.I'm not surprised at an attempt to use the "self-refuting" argument. But it's an argument whose main effect is to place the discussion of "truth" off limits. So you say, asserting an example of putative absolute truth. But now you take it back, indirectly admitting that it isn't quite so absolute after all.By the way, we are drifting off-topic for this thread.

Obviously it can be said. I said it. You didn't rebut it.The "self-refutation" argument is a diversion that prevents any useful discussion of "What is truth". But truth is not an event. Your example was defective, in that it used "truth" in a metaphorical sense.

I already answered that in Message 188

I don't want to get bogged down in a pointless dispute about alleged self-refutation. We are also getting a tad off topic for this thread.If there is a serious interest in a genuine discussion of "What is truth", I could propose a new thread. At present it doesn't look serious. What is absolutely true? Are you talking about your meaning of "we are all going to die physically?", or about my meaning, or about somebody else's meaning? And how can you even be sure what others mean?You cannot have absolute truth without absolute meaning. And meaning is not absolute (except perhaps in mathematics and formal logic).

Just a word of appreciation for the thoughtful replies you have given. I don't expect you to individually reply to all of my posts in this thread.I'm glad to see you are still visiting the site. I hope we will continue to see you around. You can open a "Proposed New Thread" on that if you wish. In my experience, "free will" discussions can draw vigorous debating. So you might want to wait till you are caught up with answering before you try starting a new thread.

Nobody seriously suggests that ants evolved into antelopes. The claim is that there was an early species that was ancestor to ants, and that was also ancestor to antelopes. This early ancestor was likely a species of single-celled creatures. Biologists will sometimes talk about "the fact of evolution" and "the theory of evolution". These are two different things. That there is a theory of evolution, does not contradict that there are facts.A better distinction for you to make would be between directly observed facts, and inferred facts. The major disagreement is over the inferred facts, with YECs not accepting the inference.