Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 241 of 300 (263111)
11-25-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
11-25-2005 3:52 PM


Re: Telling God what are his words
As an educator, I try to provide appropriate guidance to my students. I do not impose on them any doctrine to which they are to adhere.
What this means is perhaps not as obvious as you hope, so I may be wrong about your intention, but I'm not in favor of any kind of education that does not aim to teach truth to students.
I teach my students method and understanding, so that they may discern truth by themselves. If I were, instead, to emphasize teaching truth, then I might forever cripple the ability of my students to discern.
I won't comment on the remainder of your post, since you have indicated that you do not wish to discuss it further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 11-25-2005 3:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 11-25-2005 7:53 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 242 of 300 (263144)
11-25-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by nwr
11-25-2005 4:50 PM


Re: Telling God what are his words
I won't comment on the remainder of your post, since you have indicated that you do not wish to discuss it further.
Just not on this thread. I think a lot of the problem is semantic and that's going to mean unraveling terminological tangles which can get tedious and even produce further semantic miscommunications and so on, plus having to go dig up evidence that my point of view really is orthodox (since I gather you have no intention of looking for evidence that your interpretation of that Southern Baptist Confession of Faith really is what they mean), but if you think there's enough to get into about it, do start another thread for the purpose.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-25-2005 07:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by nwr, posted 11-25-2005 4:50 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by nwr, posted 11-25-2005 8:26 PM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 243 of 300 (263145)
11-25-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
11-25-2005 7:53 PM


Re: Telling God what are his words
I'm not interested in starting a thread on baptist theology.
I did post evidence. You said you disagreed, and simply dismissed it. I can't see the point in posting more evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 11-25-2005 7:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 11-25-2005 9:14 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 244 of 300 (263147)
11-25-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by nwr
11-25-2005 8:26 PM


Re: Telling God what are his words
Your evidence was the Baptist statement itself which in my view you misinterpreted, so it wasn't evidence of anything. The evidence you need to produce is evidence that they understand it the way you understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by nwr, posted 11-25-2005 8:26 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 11:38 AM Faith has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 245 of 300 (263165)
11-26-2005 12:23 AM


Perceptions of Reality
First off, while I have read all the previous posts, I really have not seen this aspect discussed yet, so let me add my perspective to this discussion, if you will.
To begin with, I don't think it is possible in the slightest for two people to have exactly the same set of beliefs and knowledge, we are all a little different from anyone else and sometimes a lot different from some others. We are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.
What I see so far is that Faith has started from the premise that there are two opposing camps, each with set presuppositions that exclude the other camp. The complaint is that Evos say their science "trumps" faith and insist on using dogmatic application of the rules of science (repeatability, evidence, substantiation, etc), while disallowing the {Creos\YECs} to use their dogmatic application of the rules of faith (the flood happened, the bible says, etc.). Thus you have a picture something like this:
Where the area of overlap is the area of agreement and the areas outside the overlap are the areas of contention. Each contends that their whole "idea of reality" is contained within their respective areas and rejects things outside their boundaries.
You have Creos in general, and YECs in particular (seeing as Faith is arguing from a YEC standard), claiming that their evidence for the biblical flood is just as valid as the scientific evidence (the overlap area) they accept in their worldview, while Science types (Scios?) in general, and Evos in particular (seeing as this is the Evo vs Creo forum), claiming that their evidence for an old earth and a geology with no temporal universally occurring flood is just as valid as the scientific evidence that the YECs accept (the overlap area) they accept in their worldview.
This seems pretty cut and dried, and that there really is no way for either to find a bridge to the parts of the others worldview that is outside the overlap area.
The problem as I see it is that this view is due to the narrow definition of the problem as YEC vs Science. One that I don't really think represents either group very well.
Let me open up the discussion a bit by first considering the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, first in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com:
sci·ence (click)

1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
.. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
.. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
phi·los·o·phy (click)
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
faith (click)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Science (as a whole) is limited to the study of natural objects and processes. It depends on studies that can be reproduced by others with similar results, and skepticism about results and the validity of theories that explain and predict results is healthy and valid within science.
Science sometimes reaches the limits of what it can substantiate with evidence, places where theory has gone beyond the evidence to what might be true, but the testing, the evidence has not occurred or been found, and here it reaches into philosophy: making logical conclusions based on what is known and accepted as true from the evidence that is available. This is where we get dark matter and a {big-bang\inflation} beginning in physics, and similar untested hypothesis in other sciences.
Philosophy (as a whole) expands on science by using logic and rational thought processes, using inductive and deductive methods and "reasonable" assumptions. It depends on the premises being true for the conclusions to be true, and thus discussion of those premises and assumptions is valid in the discerning of the truth of the conclusions.
Philosophy sometimes reaches the limits of what it can develop by logical and rational means, going beyond "reasonable" assumptions into metaphysics and fantasy, and {stories\thought experiments} of "what if" -- where some starting point is taken on a "leap of faith" or by the "suspension of disbelief" required by fiction (especially science fiction).
Faith (as a whole) expands on philosophy, by absolutely accepting on faith certain things to be true without proof or material evidence being needed or necessary.
If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:
Where the boundaries should be fuzzy and the actual shapes, locations, and their relative sizes should be mostly unimportant, but that the basic relationship is that science is within and encompassed by philosophy, while philosophy itself is within and encompassed by faith-- taking each group as the sum total of all sciences, all philosophies and all faiths known to man.
IE - there is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in some philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in some faith or other.
But "science" is not a {worldview} on its own, it is too narrow for that. There is uncertainty, there are unknowns, and different people have different ways to deal with that.
Each person makes their own boundary. Within that overall picture each person on the earth at any time and place can draw an amoebic shape as they see fit to include all their personal beliefs and forms of knowledge, and then normalize that to make a somewhat "rounded" representation of their worldview, with overlaps into science, philosophy and faith as they personally see fit.
An atheist will always stay somewhere within the philosophy envelope, and the theist will always include some portion of the outer envelope, each including and excluding as much of the inner areas as they also see fit.
Science cannot get to faith directly without going through philosophy; it needs a logical step, rungs on a ladder, a path of stepping stones, a stairway to heaven, and thus the plea for substantiation, of a point to stand on, a rock, a crumb (particularly from those without a worldview that includes much in the way of faith). It is not so much that science "trumps" faith as that it just cannot get there, it can't walk on water.
I have said before that it is not about what you accept that is the problem so much as it is about what you deny or reject that cause these conflicts to arise, and each person has different things that they {deny\reject}, some conscious and some not so conscious.
Now, YEC is not {faith in general}, but a very specific subset, an very intentionally narrowed definition of faith that excludes many other christian as well as all non-christian sects and beliefs. There are many other {specific\narrow} {subsets\definitions} of faith, such as the extreme old earth age hindu creationists (where the scientific age of the universe is way too young to be true), as Yaro introduced at one point. In fact faiths are generally not too inclusive of other faiths -- {rejection\denial} comes into play here too.
And we are discussing YEC here and not other faiths, so we can consider that the {core\consistent\formalized} worldview of {all YEC believers} is a bounded area inside the faith envelope and give it a fuzzy edge too, and if we include this in the picture we had before, we would now have something like this:
Here we have the same overlapping shapes sizes and amount of overlap that we had in the first picture, but we also see some other things.
Science is stopped by the moat of philosophy from getting into faith, even the most ardent atheist includes a wide swath of philosophy within their {worldview}, and can get quite close to the fuzzy boundary to faith. Possibly just {rejecting\denying} the existence of god figures without necessarily {rejecting\denying} a spiritual essence, the edge of faith. But they won't cross that last boundary.
The YEC believer views their world as homogeneous, that everything within their area has equal validity. The points that their sees valid that are based on their faith, such as a world wide flood, are the same as the points their sees as valid from the science area, and their cannot see why the evidence of one is more important than the evidence for the other. With this picture we can see why some faith evidence cannot be the same as scientific evidence, because it is fundamentally different in nature.
And yet, your YEC person is also not restricted to just the envelope of the YEC {core\consistent\formalized} beliefs, for they also have their own personal doubts and uncertainties, and their {beliefs\views\understandings} can extend freely out from this core area so long as they don't conflict with that core.
There is nothing that prevents their personal beliefs from extending into the other areas of faith, philosophy and science than the boundary drawn around their personal beliefs. The differences between the YEC person and other christian {sects\beliefs} people lies in where the boundaries are drawn, with the "switches" (if you will) between what is {literally true} and what is {allegorical\metaphorical}.
So you also have people like Jar and Phat that have a worldview that includes a lot of science and a lot of christian belief and that don't have a problem with a lot of {faith evidence}, just with some of the particular {literal truth} claims of YECs. And you have people like buzsaw and randman that are somewhere in between.
In fact I can say with some assurance that I have not seen two people on this forum with close to the same set of beliefs, Creo OR Evo. Every person has a different worldview. How much they personally exclude defines how {strict\narrow\restrictive} their worldview is, whether atheist, or YEC, or OEC, or HinduOE, or Deist, or whatever.
I would also say that the appearance of the overall pattern of beliefs as being divided into two camps is an artificial pattern generated by the discussion topics: it draws people from one side that want to argue against people on another side, but doesn't draw people where there is no real disagreement -- we are missing the middle from the distribution.
Enjoy.
Sorry about the length. Perhaps it should be a PNT ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 11-26-2005 2:50 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 247 by Nighttrain, posted 11-26-2005 4:38 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 11-26-2005 9:47 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 261 by AdminPhat, posted 11-26-2005 12:09 PM RAZD has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 300 (263181)
11-26-2005 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
11-26-2005 12:23 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
First off, while I have read all the previous posts, I really have not seen this aspect discussed yet, so let me add my perspective to this discussion, if you will.
To begin with, I don't think it is possible in the slightest for two people to have exactly the same set of beliefs and knowledge, we are all a little different from anyone else and sometimes a lot different from some others. We are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.
I did mention but perhaps did not emphasize enough that this is not about individuals for this reason. The premise formulation is pretty useful as is, I think, simply pitting Biblical revelation against Evolutionist Science. Certainly evolutionists as a group believe that science has the right to judge the Bible. Do you disagree with that? That view is encountered at EvC all the time.
What I've been doing, again perhaps not emphatically or clearly enough, is point out that there is an equally determined premise held by their opponents that doesn't get recognized as equal because it is only viewed through the eyes of the science premise, denigrated, scorned, ridiculed. It does get recognized but only in this way. And that is the premise that the Bible has the right to judge science.
This neat parallel only purely applies to the classical argument between Evolutionists and YECs (or other Biblical creationists who believe that Genesis is to be read literally). It gets fuzzy when you bring in ID and theistic evolutionists who accept some of the Bible but may reinterpret Genesis to accommodate evolution, and there also isn't just one version of this. So I've stuck to the streamlined version of the debate between Young Earth Biblical Creationism and Evolutionary science because I think it makes the point most evidently.
I think this formulation gets across what needs to be gotten across and that yours only adds unnecessary complications.
What I see so far is that Faith has started from the premise that there are two opposing camps, each with set presuppositions that exclude the other camp.
No, I did not start there, I arrived there and have been fighting to get it across.
The complaint is that Evos say their science "trumps" faith and insist on using dogmatic application of the rules of science (repeatability, evidence, substantiation, etc),
===============================================================
[My comments in the following are all added by edit down to the next double line]
I must correct this as it completely misrepresents my argument here:
1) This is not a "complaint."
2) I didn't use the term "faith." It is Science versus God's word.
3) This is not about the rules of science or the use of them, but strictly about the IDEA, the premise, the nonnegotiable presupposition held by evos that science has the right to judge God's word.
4) I also said that for the YEC God's authority trumps science, not just that for the evo science trumps God's word. The parallel or symmetrical formulation is what is of importance.
while disallowing the {Creos\YECs} to use their dogmatic application of the rules of faith (the flood happened, the bible says, etc.). Thus you have a picture something like this: [two overlapping circles representing YEC and evolutionism].
1) Again, this is not about subjective "faith" but about the objective positions or categories: what God says versus what science says.
2) The overlapping circles do not represent what I am trying to say. Straight conflict is what I'm talking about. Overlapping areas muddy up the whole thing.
===============================================================
Where the area of overlap is the area of agreement and the areas outside the overlap are the areas of contention. Each contends that their whole "idea of reality" is contained within their respective areas and rejects things outside their boundaries.
You have added the overlap section of the science that is held in common, which is not related to what I was saying and I think just confuses the issue.
You have Creos in general, and YECs in particular (seeing as Faith is arguing from a YEC standard), claiming that their evidence for the biblical flood is just as valid as the scientific evidence (the overlap area) they accept in their worldview, while Science types (Scios?) in general, and Evos in particular (seeing as this is the Evo vs Creo forum), claiming that their evidence for an old earth and a geology with no temporal universally occurring flood is just as valid as the scientific evidence that the YECs accept (the overlap area) they accept in their worldview.
You are apparently arguing something completely different from what I'm doing here. I'm not talking about the validity of evidence at all, I'm simply talking about the authoritative premise of each side that neither side will ever yield an inch on -- the science side absolutely refuses to allow the Biblical premise to dictate anything about science, and Bible believers absolutely refuse to allow science to dictate one thing about the Bible. Surely this is obvious as stated. It involves nothing about the validity of evidence at all. I think that's a secondary or derivative dispute.
The problem as I see it is that this view is due to the narrow definition of the problem as YEC vs Science. One that I don't really think represents either group very well.
Well, I've been knocking myself out trying to make this point and I think it not only represents each group nicely but gets at the heart of the endless conflicts that make debate just about impossible. It's not about "faith" -- that doesn't state it well at all. It's about the authority of God's word, an objective factor as opposed to the subjective factor of faith. God's word versus Science, each claiming authority over the other, the right to judge the other, etc. I'd say this captures the essence of the problem.
Sorry about the length. Perhaps it should be a PNT ...
I think that would be a good idea, but I will think about the rest of your post anyway.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 03:05 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 03:09 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 03:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 12:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 8:34 AM Faith has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 247 of 300 (263187)
11-26-2005 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
11-26-2005 12:23 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
Sorry, Big Guy, but in your collection of party balloons, you left out the one for the wonderful world of delusion. You know,beliefs so far from reality they are discussed in shrink textbooks. So we should allow equal time and premises for all the wacky worlds out there? Or do you think permitting kooks to band together and propagate serves some therapeutic purpose?
In another thread, I nominated Raelian`s worldview for the role of Incompetent Designer. Seems to me their premise holds as much water as some proposed here.
An atheist will always stay somewhere within the philosophy envelope,
Not this atheist. My reasonings are based almost wholly on the available evidence. And no, I don`t give much credence to that old cop-out 'Absence of evidence etc.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 12:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 7:56 AM Nighttrain has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 248 of 300 (263207)
11-26-2005 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Nighttrain
11-26-2005 4:38 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
In another thread, I nominated Raelian`s worldview for the role of Incompetent Designer. Seems to me their premise holds as much water as some proposed here.
I saw it. Cute. They certainly fall within the general faith envelope, along with all the other et-ists (von Daniken etc).
you left out the one for the wonderful world of delusion.
Denial is like that? One person's faith is another's delusion. Doesn't matter how many believe - that is the logical fallacy of the popularity of the argument. Do you deny that the 'deluded' person believes his delusions are true? Isn't that the definition of faith?
Not this atheist. My reasonings are based almost wholly on the available evidence.
Just like I said, within the envelope of logic and reason ... philosophy.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Nighttrain, posted 11-26-2005 4:38 AM Nighttrain has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 249 of 300 (263211)
11-26-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
11-26-2005 2:50 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
This neat parallel only purely applies to the classical argument
Not to be antagonistic, but there realy is no parallel and there really is no classical argument. That is a artifact of the framing of the question within a very narrow focus. The argument is different between different people.
I think this formulation gets across what needs to be gotten across and that yours only adds unnecessary complications. ... Overlapping areas muddy up the whole thing.
Repeated focus on a relatively irrelevant narrowed down to a single point result does not contribute to discussion or resolution. Looking at the broader picture does. Open the door, there is more outside than inside. Look inward, there is more inside than outside. They are connected.
I'm not talking about the validity of evidence at all, I'm simply talking about the authoritative premise of each side
How can the premise be authoritative if it does not have validity within that worldview? To be authoritative it has to have absolute unquestioned validity ... a point that I don't think you have made re science in general and evolution in particular (seeing as they are all subject to change at any moment) - unless you mean something like "the scientific method yields valuable results" - and that isn't very {{{AUTHORITATIVE}}} imh(ysa)o.
I also don't find the claim that "this particular verse here in the bible means this exactly" is very {{{AUTHORITATIVE}}} as long as I can find other bible believers that think differently. They are accepted as valid by certain people to fit within their worldviews, that is all. It is the personal {validity\validation} that gives the premises authority within the worldview.
the science side absolutely refuses to allow the Biblical premise to dictate anything about science,
Because it just can't go there and still be science, as is made clear by the larger picture. It's not about refusal it's about inability. It can't pick up the object if it can't walk to where the object is located.
and Bible believers absolutely refuse to allow science to dictate one thing about the Bible.
but ... Just the bible believers that insist on a literal fundamental interpretation based on their narrow focus that won't allow them to go into the surrounding moat of {allegory\metaphor} within the christian faith envelope. Don't lump others together that don't belong ... that list of clergy? Didn't they all claim belief in the bible?
And this is the same kind of fence that doesn't allow the believer to walk over to where the {scientific} object is.
It is not about the reality of the objects but about the ability of the people to get to where they are located, based on their individual worldviews.
Sorry about the length. Perhaps it should be a PNT ...
I think that would be a good idea, but I will think about the rest of your post anyway.
Actually I have been thinking about this topic for some time (and have another essay on this as well, that looks at the perceptions of reality from another set of information than the {YEC\Evo} set here), and have contemplated asking you and Ben to help contribute with {assembling\making\writing} a co-authored column that really looks into what is going on from different viewpoints and where the roadblocks everyone has are located.
I'll be interested in your further thoughts.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*26*2005 08:35 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 11-26-2005 2:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 11-26-2005 10:30 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 11-26-2005 11:00 AM RAZD has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 300 (263222)
11-26-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
11-26-2005 12:23 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
RAZD writes:
Science (as a whole) is limited to the study of natural objects and processes. It depends on studies that can be reproduced by others with similar results, and skepticism about results and the validity of theories that explain and predict results is healthy and valid within science.
Your interpretation of dict.com's primary definition of science is skewed. The implication of the definition is that the activities of a may or may not be applied and/or restricted to b and c. Then there's the other applications of science defined.
1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
1. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
1. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 12:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 10:13 AM Buzsaw has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 251 of 300 (263232)
11-26-2005 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Buzsaw
11-26-2005 9:47 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
Those other definitions are coloquial usages. I know of no college that teaches the art of packing a suitcase. The one used within the fields of science is the first one.
From wikipedia.com:
Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) is most commonly defined as the investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.
Most scientists feel that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well. This article concentrates on the more specific definition.
Science as defined above is sometimes termed pure science to differentiate it from applied science, the application of research to human needs.
Fields of science may be classified along two major lines:
* Experiment, the search for first-hand information, versus theory, the development of models to explain what is observed
* Natural science, the study of the natural phenomena, versus social science, the study of human behaviour and society
Mathematics is often referred to as a science, but the fruits of mathematical sciences, known as theorems, are obtained by logical derivations, which presume axiomatic systems rather than a combination of observation and reasoning. Many mathematical methods have fundamental utility in the empirical sciences, of which the fruits are hypotheses and theories.
I don't see anything there about suitcases ... or some undefined inarticulated "christian science" or any other science based on experiences alone.
This is like the definitions of {theory} where they can be anything from a solid evidence backed formulated scientific theory that makes testable predictions, to hackneyed pie-in-the-sky concepts best left to b-grade hollywood movies and bad dreams.
You need to distinguish between the usages and the definitions for the applications of the definitions.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 11-26-2005 9:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Buzsaw, posted 11-26-2005 11:10 AM RAZD has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 252 of 300 (263244)
11-26-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by RAZD
11-26-2005 8:34 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
Not to be antagonistic, but there realy is no parallel and there really is no classical argument. That is a artifact of the framing of the question within a very narrow focus. The argument is different between different people.
Of course, but my objective IS to frame it as narrowly and precisely as posssible in order to demonstrate the defining conflict between Biblical creationism and scientific evolutionism, and that CAN fairly be called the "classical argument here. Reducing it to individual differences will simply obscure the whole point. You have some other objective and I'm not sure what it is, but mine is to show this central conflict and really, it does seem to me it gets at the root of it.
It's very simple and it IS symmetrical: The scientific evolutionist side says science must judge the Bible; the Biblical creationist side says the Bible must judge science.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 10:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 8:34 AM RAZD has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 253 of 300 (263259)
11-26-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by RAZD
11-26-2005 8:34 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
I'm not talking about the validity of evidence at all, I'm simply talking about the authoritative premise of each side
How can the premise be authoritative if it does not have validity within that worldview? To be authoritative it has to have absolute unquestioned validity ...
The word of God has unquestioned validity to a Biblical creationist, RAZD, and this should be easy enough to recognize. It has ultimate authority over science as well as everything else.
The same appears even more obviously to be true for science at EvC -- it has unquestioned validity and authority to define all scientific questions and to define the Bible, the word of God as well.
a point that I don't think you have made re science in general and evolution in particular (seeing as they are all subject to change at any moment) - unless you mean something like "the scientific method yields valuable results" - and that isn't very {{{AUTHORITATIVE}}} imh(ysa)o.
I mean that science is treated as THE authoritative method here, which is ENFORCED. Ever since I showed up here it has been hammered at incessantly that the standard at EvC is science and the Bible is to be excluded from the science fora and subjected to scientific scrutiny as well. What I've tried to do here is illuminate the fact that the YEC side is no less immovably dogmatic in its position that the Bible is the ultimate authority than the science side is about science, and to emphasize this as the defining perspective against all the ridicule of it.
I also don't find the claim that "this particular verse here in the bible means this exactly" is very {{{AUTHORITATIVE}}} as long as I can find other bible believers that think differently.
But I have addressed this many times. It is authoritative to YECs, to whom I have restricted this discussion. I have restricted the category to BIBLICAL CREATIONISTS, YECs, or BIBLICAL INERRANTISTS, for whom Genesis is both literal and authoritative, and for whom there is no valid alternative reading. I would think it would be easily recognized that YECs represent the creationism most pointedly in conflict with the scientific evolutionism enforced at EvC.
They are accepted as valid by certain people to fit within their worldviews, that is all. It is the personal {validity\validation} that gives the premises authority within the worldview.
This is not the thread for questioning or analyzing the premises, but recognizing them and their consequences. The reason I'm so repetitive about this is that people keep changing the subject, as you are doing now -- as apparently it is hard to keep in focus for some reason.
the science side absolutely refuses to allow the Biblical premise to dictate anything about science,
Because it just can't go there and still be science, as is made clear by the larger picture. It's not about refusal it's about inability. It can't pick up the object if it can't walk to where the object is located.
The same could be said for the Biblical premise. God's word has absolutely unquestionable finality for a Biblical Young Earth creationist.
and Bible believers absolutely refuse to allow science to dictate one thing about the Bible.
but ... Just the bible believers that insist on a literal fundamental interpretation based on their narrow focus that won't allow them to go into the surrounding moat of {allegory\metaphor} within the christian faith envelope. Don't lump others together that don't belong ... that list of clergy? Didn't they all claim belief in the bible?
Again, I've addressed this. This is all irrelevant on this thread and I am not lumping anything together. I've been very specific about referring ONLY to the creationism that takes the Bible literally as God's word. Claiming belief in the Bible is not relevant, but only belief in a literal historical Genesis.
And this is the same kind of fence that doesn't allow the believer to walk over to where the {scientific} object is.
It is not about the reality of the objects but about the ability of the people to get to where they are located, based on their individual worldviews.
Again, this is not the thread for analyzing the premises. What you think of the premise is irrelevant on this thread, it belongs elsewhere. The fact is that it is held by YECs as dogmatically as the science premise is by the evos.
Sorry about the length. Perhaps it should be a PNT ...
I think that would be a good idea, but I will think about the rest of your post anyway.
Actually I have been thinking about this topic for some time (and have another essay on this as well, that looks at the perceptions of reality from another set of information than the {YEC\Evo} set here), and have contemplated asking you and Ben to help contribute with {assembling\making\writing} a co-authored column that really looks into what is going on from different viewpoints and where the roadblocks everyone has are located.
I'll be interested in your further thoughts.
I've merely skimmed your post so far and found that it is not related to this thread, so for purposes of another thread I'll have to give it more thought.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 11:09 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 11:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 8:34 AM RAZD has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 300 (263263)
11-26-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by RAZD
11-26-2005 10:13 AM


Re: Perceptions of Reality
RAZD writes:
I don't see anything there about suitcases ... or some undefined inarticulated "christian science" or any other science based on experiences alone.
The primary point of my message was that in dict.com's primary {#1) definition, i.e. 1.a,b & c, your interpretation of this primary definition is skewed.
buzsaw writes:
Your interpretation of dict.com's primary definition of science is skewed. The implication of the definition is that the activities of a may or may not be applied and/or restricted to b and c.
This aside comment was to show that there are also secondary applications which may or may not be applied to a given usage, depending on the application.
buz: "Then there's the other applications of science defined."

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 10:13 AM RAZD has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 300 (263272)
11-26-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by jar
11-25-2005 11:15 AM


Re: A resolution, indeed
jar writes:
Faith is. That is her whole point. She says that the Biblical Creationist position should be accepted without challenge.
As per Faith's message 181 which PaulK cited, Faith's statement pertained to premise and as per context of message 181, that one is to be allowed to debate on that premise and that premise alone, as I understand the message.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 11-25-2005 11:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by jar, posted 11-26-2005 11:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024