|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If it isn't a clash between science and religion can you explain how it could be a clash between metaphysics ? Or why it is religious organisations like Answers in Genesis that push creationism ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well you have not answered the question at all. Indeed you seem to like insuinuating that those who disagree with you do not comprehend the sitatution whilst displaying no understanding yourself.
However, unless you can show that your "creationism" metaphysic is non-religious it seems clear that the situation you are describing is a clash between science and religion. And, yes, I do know what a metaphysic is - it is you who does not as your equation of metaphysics with religion clearly demonstrates. What is more your attempt to label science religion presents yet more evidence that what you are talkin about is indeed a clash of science and religion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Metaphysics is strictly speaking a branch of philosophy. While a religion may - and usually does - include metaphysical views to assume that those views are a religion would seem foolish. Equally a philosophical posiiton may include metaphysical views without being a religion. I do not see that this is in any way controversial among anybody with even a basic grasp of the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well that seems clear. There is a conflict between science and creationist religion. So why try to deny something that is obvious from your own post ?
BTW if evolution is part of naturalism can you explain why Christians such as Kenneth Millar and Howard Van Till see no conflict ? Surely the fact is that evolution conflicts, not with Christianity in genreal, but with the beliefs of some Christian sects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Even according to your definition evolution is not tied to a particular metaphysic. So you still have given no reason to think that this is anything other than a clash between science and religion, and indeed your own posts indicate that that is all there is to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I notice that you have still not supported your identification of metaphysics with religion, nor have you provided any evidence to support your assertion that evolution is tied to a naturalistic metaphysics - a point which there is strong evidence against.
Why do you not deal with these key points ? Is it yet more evasion ? And please do not call a disagreement with your assertions a "misconception". It is rather arrogant to assume that you are correct when you are in fact unable to defend your claims. [This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I notice that none of your doctrines deal with the creation of animals or plants at all. So alreardy most of the dispute is outside the realms of doctrine.
2) and 3) likewise have nothing to do with evolution. So only 1) is even at issue and even then Genesis hardly offers clear support for that claim - rather it seems to indicate that immortality was dependant on eating the fruit of the tree of life. Which, of course, Adam would have had access to if he had not fallen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well your problem is quite obvious - you've been too busy looking for a misunderstanding on my part which just isn't there.
Look, it is quite obvious that you can't mount a coherent defence of your assertion as your latest attempt at rationalisation proves. Lets look at your "argument". "But 'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entire flora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic - a religion - in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification (however weak that justification may be)." This is simply self-contradictory. You assert that a paticular view is a metaphysic in the sense that is isn't a metaphysic at all - but instead offers an explanation for data that given a naturalistic metaphysic would otherwise be puzzling. Nor do you even attempt to discuss the scientific justification (nor do you mention the fact that creationists generally reject common descent REGARDLESS of the mechanism nor the fact that additional mechanisms have been incorporated into evolutionary theory when the evidence warranted it) Let me put it simply. Evolution includes scientific conclusions on the history of life on Earth which contradict creationist interpretations of the Bible. Surely that IS a simple case of science versus religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I don't know why you are accusing me of claiming that there is a conflict between science and Christianity. If anyone is making such a claim it is you. You are the one who rejects the view that Christianity can be compatible with evolution.
But look at your post - you attempt to refute my point that the conflict is between the beliefs of some Christian sects and science by attacking christian who accept evolution because they do not agree with the views of your sect. You argue that evolution contradicts the *creationist* worldview - i.e. religion, and since evolution is science you implictly claim that science DOES conflict with your religion. It's really pretty obvious. Would you like to explain why you make the assertion that science does not contradict creationism ? If you mean no more than an absolute refusal to accept that anything which contradicts creationism could be science then what is the point ? [This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If you look back he was supposed to be justifying his criticisms of Mayr.
However the fact is that despite claiming that Mayr ought know that creationism versus evolution is not science versus religion but a "clash of metaphysics" and was probably following a "party line" - made in post 23. However on the basis of the discussion it appears that it is Joralex who was just following a party line - since he is completely unable to support his belief. It is also clear that Joralexknows rather little and tries to bluff people into thinking he knows more than he does in an attempt to avoid having to explain the basis for his views (because in reality he does not know what he is talkign about - he tried the same trick in the "Was God designed" thread before running away). This was supposed to be a side thread taking up no more than ten posts. Yet I count Joralex as making six posts (23, 25, 30, 33, 36, 40) before even making an attempt at a real argument for his assertion - and that one involved an obvious self-contradiction (post 41). If he had attempted to make his case at the start rather than running a self-aggrandizing bluff it might have come in under the limit. Or better, since it turns out that he did not have a case, he should never have made the false accusation against Mayr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
...for anyone who believes that God is the literal Author of the Bible.
If the author of a book in the Bible refers to himself in the first person can I assume that it means God ? If not then why not ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024