Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 16 of 300 (262097)
11-21-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
11-21-2005 5:13 PM


Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Most of the Christians I know believe the Bible is true primarily due to a subjective experience and relationship with God. There is an objective component, but it's within a subjective context.
I think this is one point that needs to be discussed more. We need to define the grounds for debate; what constitutes a valid argument, and what does not.
Some presuppositions behind "evidence" in science are that observations are both objective (can be observed by anybody using the same equipment) and reproducible. That presupposition is a simple one, and it has been incorporated into the scientific debate here.
YEC argument requires that the statement that "The Bible is true" be true. However, as you state above,
Most of the Christians I know believe the Bible is true primarily due to a subjective experience and relationship with God.
Then, there are two simple questions:
1. Are we discussing things where some "observations" could in principle be made by anybody, or are we allowing "observations" that is available only to a "priveleged" set of individuals?
2. If we are going to allow "observations" that are not in principle available to anybody, on what grounds do the "unpriveleged" accept "observations" from the priveleged? In other words, if I can't in principle see it myself, why should I trust somebody else who says they see it? Especially when they're strangers that I don't know.
Thanks,
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 5:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:04 PM Ben! has replied
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM Ben! has replied
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 7:34 AM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 39 of 300 (262148)
11-21-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
11-21-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
YEC argument requires that the statement that "The Bible is true" be true.
I think most YECers disagree with that statement and think science alone can verify their theory.
Good point. Please allow me to try and rephrase what I said, in order to better match my thought:
The YEC methodology presupposes that "The Bible is true" to be true.
I would say they are open to all, but of necessity require faith.
I thought you might say so... and seems fair enough to me. Except...
If you do take this position, then you're trying to maintain that objective "observables" are what we want to use in a debate. Good move, I think. But that means, you need to present objective "observables" to argue for your position that all people have access to these things.
Can you present such evidence (either here or somewhere else?)
Even if you can, you're in a tough spot--there's not much philosophical commitment to making observations using an electron microscope or whatever, but there is for making the types of observations that you're telling us are required. I'm not saying that makes you wrong, just that it's tough.
And if you can't provide really solid evidence... either a lack of evidence, technology, etc., then ... where does that leave us? Seems to me that would mean debate is out of the question... so why not stop trying to debate, and simply approach it as a mission to save?
The point is, you either have to ground faith as accessible to all, or you have to fundamentally change the "rules" of the debate. So if it's grounding faith as accessible to all, please provide the objective evidence supporting that.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:48 PM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 40 of 300 (262149)
11-21-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
11-21-2005 6:09 PM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Hi Faith,
Thanks for the kind words. And I'm glad to see there's more from the YEC / creation side, so that posters get less overwhelmed by responses, and you can each pick and choose your spots to speak, rather than spending all your time trying to keep up.
I myself am having trouble finding time to read on the board, let alone reply. So I'm not sure how much I can contribute. I do owe holmes a big reply in a topic I'm really interested in too...
Anyway, glad to see you stop in, at least for the time being.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM Faith has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 50 of 300 (262175)
11-21-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Nighttrain
11-21-2005 8:37 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
Probably true, originally, but the success of millions of experiments and applications surely validates the approach?
Define success, and define what the approach is being used for.
I'd say that the scientific method has been shown to be useful for generating an ability to produce models that allow for refinement, allow us to manipulate our world and create tools. In other words, it's been shown to be useful.
Anything outside of that? I'd be interested to see your viewpoint on it.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 8:37 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 73 of 300 (262255)
11-22-2005 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
11-21-2005 7:48 PM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Ben, couple of points. First, I am saying it is reasonable to think the Bible is true if you have valid personal experiences to think that.
I agree that you cannot necessarily prove beliefs founded on subjective experience in a scientific debate, but it is worth noting that science is limited by it's technology.
Randman, this is fine, but you're not addressing my point. My point is about objectivity and discussion. Are we using objectivity (things that are observable by anybody) ONLY in our discussion, or are YECs requiring that subjectivity be allowed into the discussion.
When I asked you the question, you suggested that only objective things are being introduced; faith is available to all.
Second, I think some aspects of science are indeed indicating that what was formerly called "spiritual" is a fundamental part of reality, but that's a different thread.
Yes, that's a different thread. I don't see any need for it to be incorporated here at all. It's way outside of what I'm asking about.
Third, I don't really accept the rules of debate as you think in limiting them to "observables." I think to make a scientific claim, that since science is built on observables, it comes into play, but we debate more than science on the forum.
But what we're discussing here is YEC vs. EVO methodologies for empirical investigation. i.e. dealing with observables. So yes, you're right. But not in any way that applies to this thread.
Moreover, even in science, such as string theory, you see a lot of work and discussion way past "observables", based on math which can be loosely called a form of logic, and so I would argue that what is often excluded as philosophical and what is included as real science can at times be a subjective call, and that some open-mindedness is necessary if we are to obtain truth.
That's fine, I agree to some extent. Nevertheless, what is being called "observable" or what is being presented philosophically, etc--as far as it is empirical, it is objective.
My question is about objectivity and it's role in this debate. I'd really appreciate if you go back to my message 39 and address the thinking there: if you continue to claim that you are staying within the bounds of objectivity for debating, and you continue to claim that faith is objectively available to all, then you need to back it up with some objective evidence and arguments. I only have personal experiences and testimonies to go on; I don't have any evidence going either way. But I'm not the one making the claim--you are.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:48 PM randman has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 166 of 300 (262765)
11-23-2005 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
11-22-2005 7:34 AM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Hi Faith,
I haven't forgotten your post; I've been reading your discussion with IRH, which has been interesting, and I have some notes on where there is utility in discussion (there's a lot, really!) and where there's not.
I'm still behind in my schoolwork, with two papers that are late; I'm having so much trouble getting them done. I'm hoping to get a proper response to you around Friday; tomorrow will be a visit to the San Diego Zoo and a nice dinner with my girlfriend.
I just wanted to say that I'm quite happy with the overall tone of this thread; both the overall civil nature and the focus of what's being discussed. Here's to hoping it will continue, and hoping that I'll be able to make a contribution soon.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 7:34 AM Faith 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