Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is simply more magnificent than your religion
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 8 of 60 (540026)
12-21-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Briterican
12-18-2009 5:19 PM


I don't really get where you want to go with this, determining which view is ''best'' ? Or true ?
Because you'll recognize that this is all subjective stuff in your OP. I could make an equal post about my feelings about God and how I'm in awe about him, but that wouldn't mean shizzles to you.
Because personnally, I don't give a fudge about which one makes me feel better. I want to know what is true, what really happened historically.
PS I'll won't comment on the strawmens of creation in the last part of your post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Briterican, posted 12-18-2009 5:19 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Briterican, posted 12-21-2009 8:01 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 17 of 60 (540190)
12-22-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Briterican
12-21-2009 8:01 PM


Re: It is subjective
You're right that it is subjective. I sorta regreted the post not long after doing it, but only because I struggle to put into words these feelings. The feeling I wanted to get across is... "If only you guys would look at the stuff we REALLY KNOW is going on, it is amazing enough in itself without the need for Mr Magicstuff in the Sky".
Do you not find it ironic that the one belief that you are claiming to be totally useless in this thread (the belief in the christian God) is the very one that enabled scientific inquiry to start.
This fact alone makes your argument moot, because without this belief in ''Mr. Magicstuff in the Sky'' who knows if science would ever have found a favorable ground to germ and grow.
And of course, there is the fact that believing in God does not prevent anyone from knowing what is REALLY going on. So I do not see any basis for this feeling you wanted to get across.
The difference between your "equal post about my feelings about God" is that your God isn't the subject of rigorous investigation like science is. He couldn't be. This God is not around for us to interview. This God is conspicuously absent and has left behind no calling card. This God is wholly and completely unimpressive in that he is something neither you nor any other believer can quantify or demonstrate. Science, on the other hand, is accessible to all and is present in every breath we take.
But of course, this is the whole reason why you are in awe in front of the universe. It doesn't change the fact that it is totally subjective, since you decide that this difference between my 'feelings' and yours makes yours better.
I hope you'll see that I can equally decide that the very same differences between the two makes mine better than yours. And so it is still totally subjective. Hence why I prefer to go the ''truth'' route instead of the ''looks better, feels better, does better'' route.
Ah... the truth. We're all after the truth aren't we. You're right, that is what is important. So... which field of human endeavour is more interested in the truth, science or faith? Can things in science be demonstrated to be true to all observers? The answer is self-evidently yes. Can things in faith be similarly demonstrated? Clearly not, one of the reasons religions have split into separate sects countless times... one group's "truth" didn't sit well with the other's.
First of all, I ure you already know that ''science vs faith'' is a fallacy. One does not prohibit the other. Second, what definition of faith are you referring to ? If you are talking about blind faith, then of course I would agree that it is inherently illogical.
But the Bible does not advocate blind faith, since the very word for faith that Paul uses is derived from the words pisteuo and pietho which mean 'believing' and 'to convince by argument'. It never meant ''to believe six impossible things before breakfast''. Faith was always based on evidence which supported that faith, and although it's meaning has changed in the last century to 'blind faith', the faith I hope to have is the one Paul was encouraging us to have.
This all reminds me of a debate between between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, in which Dawkins was arguing that 'science is evidence based, faith is blind'. But when Lennox said that in fact, faith was also supposed to be evidence based, Dawkins vigurously defended that faith had to be blind. Lennox then asked him 'if he had faith that his wife loved him?'. Dawkins answered 'yes'. Lennox then asked 'why?'. And Dawkins answered: ''Because there is evidence for it, the sparkle in the eye, the tone in the voice ...''. You can imagine the laughter in the crowd.
Dawkins tried afterwards to make a distinction between this faith and faith in God, but the reality is that there is none. The faith I have in the Christian God is the same has the one Prof. Dawkins has in his wife's love. I see the magnificience in his creation, I see the way he changed the course of history. I read about what he has done, only to realize that not only is it logically possible, but also historically accurate.
Of course, I do not mean that faith is just like science. It is not science. It never intended to be. You can't put the christian God in a bottle and analyse it; ''Oh yes, this contains 100% love, 100% justice, 100%grace''. But I think that logical deduction is just as crucial in faith then in science. (Or at least, the faith I'm adovcating).
Ok and finally, I think you will agree that in theory, things in science can be demonstrated to be true to all observers, but that in practice, this is not what happens. Two scientists will look at the exact same collection of bones and reconstruct them differently. Three scientists will look at a canyon and see lots of water in a short time, and the other will see a little water in a long time, and the other will see a gigantic glacier.
In fact, one of the characteristics of science is that it will never be able to prove something to be true. This is a feat only accessible in mathematics. And yet, how many times do you hear someone require that faith present the same kind of proof. It, just as science, is unable to do so. It will never be able to do so.
I'm not equating science and faith. They are different. But I'm saying that there is a kind of faith, that can be so well founded in logical deductions and reason, that it can become just as impressive and overwhelming as scientific theories about the night sky.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Briterican, posted 12-21-2009 8:01 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Briterican, posted 12-22-2009 5:39 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 21 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 5:42 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 12-22-2009 5:44 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 60 (540223)
12-22-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by hooah212002
12-22-2009 5:42 PM


Re: It is subjective
I've been thinking of doing a thread on this subject for ssooo long. Just a little piece of it just produced three immediate responses. I think I'll do it in the near future (after christmas)
I think science owes religion a nice ass whippin' for holding it down for so long. Remember the Dark Ages? Religion has done more to unravel and stifle scientific thought than anything.
The Dark ages was produced by the collapse of the Roman Empire, which was in turn caused by stupid rulers and internal rebellions. (Plus many other factors, christianity being a non-factor in all of this)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 5:42 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 60 (540224)
12-22-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
12-22-2009 5:44 PM


Re: Origins of science
If we had a time machine, and we went back in ancient Greece. you would not be calling what they were doing 'science'. At least not with the modern sense of it. They were imposing philosophical ideas unto nature.
Greek philosophy, not christianity, imposed geocentricism. Greek philosophy also imposed circles everywhere and epicycles after epicycles. Greek philosophy rejected irrational numbers. However, I'm not denigrating what they did. They advanced mathematics and astronomy a lot, but they lacked the critical suppositions to go from that unto what we call today modern science.
BTW I'm not saying that christianity was the only factor in the development of science. Printing and the discovery of the greek knowledge also helped. But do you not find it strange that even though the chinese had printing, there scientific advancement was almost none-existent ? And even though the arabs had in their possession the greek knowledge, their scientific advancement was comparable to the dark age in europe ?
But in fact, when both these tools of science came to europe, science flourished like no where else. It is because the christian worldview provided the favorable ground to it's development. You will be hard pressed to find any historian of science that disagrees with this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 12-22-2009 5:44 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 8:29 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 26 of 60 (540228)
12-22-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Briterican
12-22-2009 5:39 PM


Re: It is subjective
Ok back to the subject.
This strikes me as possibly a fair assertion, but even if I agree that science owes religion some sort of debt, it has long since been paid and it is high time to move on.
I should be careful though, as there is a very important distinction I'd like to make that I may have failed to fully illustrate: I don't wish to argue with someone who believes in the kind of creator that instigated the universe and then let it run its course. An individual that accepts science, but still holds the idea of this singular moment of creation, is, at least, still accepting science.
Some "moderate"(?) Christians actually say things along these lines, namely several of my own family. But that is probably more a reflection of their low level of interest in the actual nuts and bolts of Christianity. They are cultural Christians.
Many Christians don't see it that way. God is on the scene and he is a busy entity, listening to prayers and helping pilots land planes in bad weather and stuff.
And finally, at the hardcore end of the spectrum are the creationists pushing the 6,000 year old Earth nonsense. This flies in the face of logic and reason and everything the human species has accomplished. It is this last group that I find worrying, mainly because of the repeated attempts to influence school curricula.
Two fundamental christian suppositions is that: A God does not change, he is forever consistent. and B. God upholds his creation.
These two suppositions are what lead to the two fundamental axioms in science:
1- Laws exist in nature
2- These laws do not change in time
You will see that, for the atheist, these are axioms. He cannot prove them. But for the christian, these are logical deductions from the christian framework. (theorems, if you will)
This doesn't mean that the christian worldview is therefore true (or better). But it means that science is simply the continuation of the belief in the Christian God. Hence why any christian who understands this will never be affraid of science, nor oppose science and faith.
Semantics. Faith has its alternate definition just like evolution does. Someone who doesn't believe in "evolution" (Darwin's ToE)can still accept "evolution" (change over time). The ONLY sense in which Dawkins misspoke is that he probably wished he'd said "If you mean faith in the sense of 'confidence in something', then yes, but that confidence is based on evidence."
This is the biblical definition of faith. And so when Dawkins attacks the christian faith, he should use that definition and not the strawman ''blind faith'' definition
Of course there is. Richard Dawkins has "faith" that his wife loves him because he was there when they first met and he was there during their whole process of courting and falling in love. Faith in God simply doesn't have this personal touch imho. It's probably safe to say that a majority of believers have not had visions or similarly life changing religious experiences, they simply inhereted and are passing on a cultural meme without any real concern or investigation into it.
I think we can agree that we all pass down cultural meme without investigating it. 90% of the population pass down the cultural meme of evolution. Just as you and I pass down such things in areas such as History, or arts, or theology, etc. where we cannot possibly investigate everything.
But when we are talking bout the genuine christian, the one who has had a conversion experience, and who claims having a relationship with his creator, then I think it probably does have a personal touch similar to a man who his faith that his wife loves him. etc. The two are on equal ground, because just as you can say the conversion experience is but chemicl reactions in the brain and that God doesn't really exist, so then can the 'evidence' a man can have of the love of his wife can be chemicals in his brain an that his wife doesn't love him after all.
Even if I fully accepted this, I would simply argue that a great deal of science can be expressed mathematically and thus achieve this feat of proof. There are no "faith equations" we can look at.
It is a fundamental aspects of science is that it never achieves 100% proof. Every single aspect of science can be overturned with further knowledge. This is fundamental.
If you could express a scientific theory mathematically and prove it, then this fundamental spect of science would not hold true. Because once it would have been mathematically proven, not amount of evidence could overturn this scientific theory.
If it is well-founded in logical deductions and reason, then I wouldn't call it faith. But again, that's semantics. I think I get your point, and again it reminds me of some family members who accept evolution but still believe in the Christian God. If someone accepts the evidence of science and does use logic and reason, then they're going to see the universe in the same awe-inspiring way that I do.
I cannot speak for the definition of faith in other religion, but the christian faith is to be upheld by logic and reason as much as possible. This does not mean that he must know everything, and that every part of his faith must be proven. But it means that his faith cannot imply a contradiction or other illogical results. He cannot accept a contradiction by 'faith' as it would be against it's very biblical definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Briterican, posted 12-22-2009 5:39 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 11:03 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 30 of 60 (540238)
12-22-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
12-22-2009 8:29 PM


Re: Origins of science
Yeah I know the proof of irrational numbers. I can't remember the name of the guy who found it, but I do remember he was thrown overboard by pythagoreans lol. His proof did make it's way to us though.
They had just as much evidence for heliocentricism then Copernic. The only reason that they stuck with geocentricism was for philosophical reasons, that epicycles were that perfect circular arrangement and that it was philosophically fit that the earth was at the center.
Just as the only reason why they favored Aristotle's ''water,fire,air,earth'' composition of matter over Democrites atom idea was also for philosophical ideas (space couldn't possibly exist between the atoms)
They believed an object of twice the mass of another would fall twice as fast also on philosophical reasons. Never mind just going up a tower and testing it.
What I am trying to say is that even though they discovered and observed great things, it was a far reach from modern science as developped by Bacon and the likes. They had none of the two primary axioms of science (laws exist and are constant in time) and nothing in there philosophy or their view of Deities that would have enabled these two axioms to come forth. (Although they did have what it took to advance in mathematics, where they had considerably more success appart from that irrational number thing)
Anyhow, we take modern science as a given. A conclusion so blatently obvious that anyone would have thought of it. But the truth is that christianity is one of the few, if not the only, framework that would make it possible for it to arise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 8:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Iblis, posted 12-22-2009 9:22 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 9:33 PM slevesque 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