Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:42 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,819 Year: 4,856/19,786 Month: 978/873 Week: 334/376 Day: 11/116 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1726 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, 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 responded

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30893
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 300 (262102)
11-21-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
11-21-2005 5:36 PM


Re: The real issue
This topic illustrates the real problem. Creationists place too much faith in themselves - fallible human beings according even to their own theology. They can say things that are quite obviously false and then angrily insist that they must be right no matter what.

No, unlike everybody else here who claims to have some belief in God, I am among the ONLY group that does NOT place faith in ourselves, but only in God's word. Of course we can't be perfect in our understanding but that is our position and it is NOT the position of most of the others here at EvC, even the Christians, as they feel free to make the Bible fit what they think science says, even to discard portions of it that don't fit. This is not hard to recognize and it doesn't require a Bible believer to be perfect at understanding the Bible, merely to have that basic stance.

Faith fails to distinguish between the Bible and her interpretation of the Bible

My view is the standard evangelical Bible-believer's view, those of us who take it as written and refuse to argue with it.

However, you are debating, but this thread is for determining the nature of YEC methodology and its probable irreconcilability with EvC assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:36 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:17 PM Faith has responded
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 6:25 PM Faith has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 18 of 300 (262103)
11-21-2005 6:00 PM


The YEC thesis
Several messages in YEC approaches to empirical investigation made assertions as to the YEC premises. Here, I wish to give an alternative version. I am including a few parenthetic comments.

YECs assume that:

Certain sections (other parts are taken as metaphoric or symbolic)
of written text or its translation
derived from old manuscripts
of uncertain ancestry, dubious validity,
questionable purpose (were they intended as history, cultural lore, poetry, fiction, or a mixture)
are to be treated as absolute truth which overrules science.
Moreover these presumed absolute truths are to be imposed on others,
whether through the classroom or through legislation.

No doubt Faith and others would prefer that the YEC assumptions be described in terms of "the word of God". But that is not possible, because:

  • Some people do not agree that God exists;
  • Some people assert that the bible is the word of man, perhaps inspired by God but not the word of God;
  • Some people believe that science is the way to find the word of God.

Thus my version is written in purely physicalist terms, so as to not depend on individual and personal ideas about God.
Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:06 PM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 23 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:07 PM nwr has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30893
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 19 of 300 (262104)
11-21-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by robinrohan
11-21-2005 5:51 PM


Re: Why YEC?
What I don't understand is why a young earth and special creation need be so important to a Christian.

Hi Robin. I suspect that "special creation" may not mean what I believe, and in any case it's not a term I use so I'm not sure, so I'm not going to just accept that term, but what is important is adhering to what God Himself has said and His word clearly shows a young earth and a worldwide Flood among other things "Science" disputes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2005 5:51 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2005 6:11 PM Faith has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 300 (262106)
11-21-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Ben!
11-21-2005 5:53 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.

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?

I would say they are open to all, but of necessity require faith. Think of this way. Someone says there is something in this place where you can go and visit, but you can't bring cameras, physical things, etc,...there. All you can do is, say, yea, we went there and tried it, and it is true. The only way for another person to know for sure is to take someone's word for it and check it out.

Now, it's a little more than that because you can wind up going there without taking someone's word for it as well, except maybe God's communications to you in some fashion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Ben!, posted 11-21-2005 5:53 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Ben!, posted 11-21-2005 7:32 PM randman has responded
 Message 287 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 1:56 PM randman has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 300 (262107)
11-21-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
11-21-2005 5:45 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
No, Faith, science requires no presuppositions. It requires positions, positions which can be tested. That is all. If a concept, assertion, hypothosis or theory is testable, it is science. If not, it is something else.

Can you propose a way in which the assertion that god wrote the bible can be tested? If you can, then you can turn science on its ear. If you can't, then let's let science be science and let philosophy be philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with a philosophical discussion, be it concerning religion, art or anything else that isn't scientifically testable. The problem starts when you attempt to force science to take philosophy into account. It can't, or it ceases to be science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 5:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:07 PM berberry has not yet responded
 Message 25 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM berberry has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30893
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 22 of 300 (262109)
11-21-2005 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
11-21-2005 6:00 PM


Re: The YEC thesis
Thus my version is written in purely physicalist terms, so as to not depend on individual and personal ideas about God.

The Bible is not individual and personal, it is universal and objective.

Again, this is not the place to argue the merits of my beliefs. This is a thread about the nonnegotiables of the debate from my point of view and I will not negotiate them with you either, or with "what some people believe" about anything. All that is irrelevant.

Thanks,
Faith

This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 06:06 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 11-21-2005 6:00 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 300 (262110)
11-21-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
11-21-2005 6:00 PM


Re: The YEC thesis
Moreover these presumed absolute truths are to be imposed on others,
whether through the classroom or through legislation.

I think that's completely wrong and totally unfounded. It is true that Bible-believing Christians believe the Bible is true regardless of worldly criticisms, but they do not, as a whole, wish to impose it by force on others.

Thus my version is written in purely physicalist terms, so as to not depend on individual and personal ideas about God.

No, your description is highly subjective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 11-21-2005 6:00 PM nwr has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30893
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 24 of 300 (262111)
11-21-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by berberry
11-21-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
You aren't reading very well I'm afraid. I've clearly shown you what the presuppositions of the debate from the science side are.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 6:04 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 300 (262114)
11-21-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by berberry
11-21-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
No, Faith, science requires no presuppositions. It requires positions, positions which can be tested. That is all. If a concept, assertion, hypothosis or theory is testable, it is science. If not, it is something else.

That's in and of itself a presupposition. Science and scientific theories all have presuppositions. That should not be challenged.

The only question is if the presuppositions are reasonable and if they are correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 6:04 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 8:21 PM randman has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30893
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 26 of 300 (262115)
11-21-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Ben!
11-21-2005 5:53 PM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Sorry I have to leave for a while because I think this thread is going to take off and I'll be very busy catching up later. Thanks for joining in Ben.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Ben!, posted 11-21-2005 5:53 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Ben!, posted 11-21-2005 7:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 300 (262116)
11-21-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Here's what I guess I don't understand.

You've been completly open about the fact that you don't believe that you have to support your premise with argument.

So what are you here to do? What is there to debate with you? Why do you post here? What do you think we do here?

Your argument is valid, as I've said, in that it logically derives from your premise; but because you won't support your premise, your position can't be taken as true. So what are you here to do, exactly? Clearly, you're not here to debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 2:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 7:48 PM crashfrog has responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 300 (262117)
11-21-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
11-21-2005 6:03 PM


Re: Why YEC?
but what is important is adhering to what God Himself has said and His word clearly shows a young earth and a worldwide Flood among other things "Science" disputes

Well, the Catholics don't seem to think it's important. That's a rather large group of Christians. I suppose they think that parts of the Bible are literally true and parts are not. They think, I suppose, that Jesus is the son of God and that he literally died on the cross. I would think that would be the most important matter, not the details of Genesis.

I guess you believe that if you can't believe what Genesis says, you can't believe what Matthew, Mark and those other fellows say.

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-21-2005 05:12 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:16 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2098 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 29 of 300 (262118)
11-21-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
11-21-2005 5:13 PM


Re: technology levels
And there are those that even come to faith in the Bible and Christ as a result of a more objective analysis, such as McDowell or CS Lewis (I believe), but on the whole, it is difficult to test the things of the Bible and God without involving faith, and that's hard for the evo side to see.

Not hard for us to see at all, Randy. You keep forgetting many of us come from a Christian background and have experienced all the nonsense you propose. Why should we give credence to a faith we have determined is false. Should we give equal time to all wacko beliefs just because they involve faith? What give Christian faith any more credibility than say the 'cargo cult' of New Guinean natives?

Let`s narrow it down. You have two things going for you. A book that lacks provenance, is riddled with errors and contradictions, has little basis in archaeology or external evidence, makes claims that never eventuated, proposes miracles that dried up with the closure of the book, offers prophecies that are so vague, one can apply them to various times without fear of contradiction, has been tampered with and exists in many variants, fails to acknowledge the real world, offers no cures to the main dangers of this existence, can`t help anyone beyond an individual`s subjective needs, ignores the development of human intellect,gives power to an elite, provides justification for evil done by its followers,and, worst of all, continues to reinforce utter selfishness in instructing an individual to seek salvation for Numero Uno alone.

The second factor you wield like a sword is faith in the individual experience. 'It happened to me so you have to trust I am telling the truth. No, there`s no evidence, just my experience and if you don`t believe me, you have no faith. Worse still, you are going to hell for doubting me'. Now what basis is this for debating or communicating? You want to load the bases and have us give you an easy ball? C`mon, laddie, the world is full of shonks and you sound just like them.

Btw, I wouldn`t flaunt Old Josh if I were you.:D


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:22 PM Nighttrain has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30893
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 300 (262120)
11-21-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by robinrohan
11-21-2005 6:11 PM


Re: Why YEC?
I suppose one just has to be very clear about one's self-identification definition and all that, but Catholics are not properly speaking "Bible-believers" as they accept revelations to the Church separate from the Bible as equal in authority. If you can think of a term that is more precise than Bible-believer for my own evangelical Protestant Bible-believing position, I'd be happy to consider using it. You used the generic term "Christian," not I, and I wasn't careful to make the necessary distinctions.

It's not a matter of whether one can believe one part of the Bible if you can't believe another, that's not the point. The point is that we know the Bible was inspired by God from beginning to end and we insist on affirming what God has revealed [ABE - and nothing other than the Bible on the same plane]. That's it. There are no other considerations.

This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 06:20 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2005 6:11 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019