|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:You've got a point; those who speak of the "faith" of scientists are generally trying to dismiss science that they don't like. But I think the OP was speaking more about accepting on "faith" the presuppositions which underlie science, not so much the conclusions arrived at. And in this the OP is making a valid point about metaphysics and philosophy of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:I disagree. Scientists "believe" that their theories are true. Their "faith" in their theories relies on reason. quote:In some cases, yes. But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason. quote:True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science. quote:Regarding YEC, I tend to agree with you. But we've sometimes seen scientists behave in similar ways, holding on to theories which have already been disproven by new data. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I disagree. Scientists "believe" that their theories are true. Their "faith" in their theories relies on reason. It relies on making risky predictions, and then testing those predictions. Scientific theories are not based on reason. They are based on empiricism. If theories were based on reason then we wouldn't have Quantum Mechanics.
In some cases, yes. But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason. Can you give an example?
True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science. Example?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So now you are equating belief with faith, no matter what the grounds for belief. That really isn't the typical use when referring to religious faith. As I see it religious faith is, at the least, a strength of belief beyond that justified by the evidence. Let us not forget John 20:29:
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.
quote: Personally I doubt that. And since you are just making assertions without offering any examples you give me no reason to change my opinion.
quote: The difference is that such behaviour is rejected and condemned in science, yet often institutionalised and praised in religion. Need I point out that even Kent Hovind finds his supporters ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:See Message 28. In Christianity, faith, belief, and trust are essentially synonymous; they are all forms of the Greek "pisteuo" or "pistis", which is related to being convinced or persuaded. This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason. quote:Paul regularly reasoned with people in an attempt to persuade them to believe. Read Acts 17, for example, where he did this in the synagogues and on Mars Hill.quote:Personally I doubt that. And since you are just making assertions without offering any examples you give me no reason to change my opinion. quote:This is not so common among theologians or in religious academic settings, but unfortunately it is too common in lay religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason. Can you give examples of this evidence and reasoning?
Paul regularly reasoned with people in an attempt to persuade them to believe. Read Acts 17, for example, where he did this in the synagogues and on Mars Hill. I see a lot of assertions, but no reasoning. Care to explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Aside from asserting that Christianity takes an impoverished view of the English language, ignoring the nuances of the different words, this doesn't address John 20:29 which praises belief without evidence.
quote: I just read Acts 17. There's no reasoned argument there, just assertions. It's not even good evidence that Paul HAD reason on his side. Acts is not exactly an unbiased account.
quote: I would say that that it is less obvious in academia but still we see poor quality arguments from people like Swinburne and Plantinga (Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument is a fine example of smoke-and-mirrors argumentation, admirable only for the subtlety of the deception. Reason tells us that the argument is worthless, yet still it was touted as a significant argument for the existence of God).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:Did you read Acts 17? The reasoning is there. Paul's arguments may not resonate with us today, but they were strong enough and provocative enough to convince some of the philosophers of his day.quote:Can you give examples of this evidence and reasoning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I did read it and the reasoning is definitely missing. Did you read it or did you just have faith that the reasoning was there ?
quote: Acts 17 claims that he did, but that is all. We can't know to what extent Acts is accurate (likely it exaggerates) or to what extent emotive appeals rather than reason were the persuasive force. If your best evidence that Christian faith is based on reason is that a pro-Christian document says that Christians more than 1950 years ago had reasoned arguments, then you don't have a case worth considering. Obviously if those arguments aren't even known to modern Christians they can't form the basis of modern Christian faith - which renders your original assertion false. And you don't even have good evidence that the situation was really any better back then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi kbertsche,
You seem genuinely perplexed that Acts 17 is not being accepted as an example of reason in action, despite containing phrases like "he reasoned with them". Let's take a closer look at Paul's attempts at reason.
quote: This is a baseless assertion.
quote: Another baseless assertion.
quote: Several baseless assertions.
quote: More baseless assertion.
quote: Another baseless assertion, with added appeal to authority.
quote: False premise.
quote: Does he really?
quote: That's nice.
quote: That's it? That's his proof? An appeal to an event he never witnessed? Paul is simply appealing to the authority of scripture here. If this is supposed to be an example of reason in action, I would hate to see what Paul wrote when he was speaking from faith. It's nothing but a string of logical fallacies, so poor that any student of logic could see through it in an instant. Colour me unimpressed.
Paul's arguments may not resonate with us today, but they were strong enough and provocative enough to convince some of the philosophers of his day. Then they were wrong, if that is, they ever existed at all. Surely you're not going to appeal to the authority of a group of nameless and likely fictional dead Athenians? Is that what you call reason? Also, were you planning to answer Taq's question?
kbertsche writes: True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science. Taq writes: Example? If you can't answer that, you have no argument, so I really feel that you should take a stab at it. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:What would you think if a non-scientist were to accuse science of taking "an impoverished view of the English language" in its use of scientific terms, terms like evolution, relativity, energy, power, etc? When using scientific terms, we need to use them correctly. The same holds for theological/religious terms. Allowing atheists to define "faith" is just as disingenuous as allowing YECs to define "evolution." Below are definitions from ISBE, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. This focuses more on the English word than the Greek; perhaps a definition of "pistis" from a Greek lexicon would be more helpful.
ISBE writes:
Belief. See FAITH. ---------- Faith: ... In the NT it is of very frequent occurrence, always representing pistis, with one exception in AV (not RV), He 10:23, where it represents elpis, hope. 1. ETYMOLOGY... 2. MEANING: A DIVERGENCY... But in the overwhelming majority of cases, faith, as rendering pistis, means reliance, trust. To illustrate would be to quote many scores of passages. It may be enough here to call attention to the recorded use of the word by our Lord. Of about twenty passages in the Gospels where pistis occurs as coming from His lips, only one (Mt 23:23) presents it in the apparent sense of fidelity. All the others conspicuously demand the sense of reliance, trust. The same is true of the apostolic writings. In them, with rarest exceptions, the words reliance, trust, precisely fit the context as alternatives to faith. 3. FAITH IN THE SENSE OF CREEDAnother line of meaning is traceable in a very few passages, where pistis, faith, appears in the sense of creed, the truth, or body of truth, which is trusted, or which justifies trust. ... 4. A LEADING PASSAGE EXPLAINEDIt is important to notice that He 11:1 is no exception to the rule that faith normally means reliance, trust. There Faith is the substance (or possibly, in the light of recent inquiries into the type of Greek used by NT writers, the guaranty) of things hoped for, the evidence (or convincing proof) of things not seen. This is sometimes interpreted as if faith, in the writer’s view, were, so to speak, a faculty of second sight, a mysterious intuition into the spiritual world. But the chapter amply shows that the faith illustrated, e.g. by Abraham, Moses, Rahab, was simply reliance upon a God known to be trustworthy. Such reliance enabled the believer to treat the future as present and the invisible as seen. In short, the phrase here, faith is the evidence, etc., is parallel in form to our familiar saying, Knowledge is power. 5. REMARKS... 6. CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, without trespassing on the ground of other articles, we call the reader’s attention, for his Scriptural studies, to the central place of faith in Christianity, and its significance. As being, in its true idea, a reliance as simple as possible upon the word, power, love, of Another, it is precisely that which, on man’s side, adjusts him to the living and merciful presence and action of a trusted God. In its nature, not by any mere arbitrary arrangement, it is his one possible receptive attitude, that in which he brings nothing, so that he may receive all. Thus faith is our side of union with Christ. And thus it is our means of possessing all His benefits, pardon, justification, purification, life, peace, glory. As a comment on our exposition of the ruling meaning of faith in Scripture, we may note that this precisely corresponds to its meaning in common life, where, for once that the word means anything else, it means reliance a hundred times. Such correspondence between religious terms (in Scripture) and the meaning of the same words in common life, will be found to be invariable. BTW, you are mischaracterizing Jesus' statement in John 20:29 as praising "belief without evidence." Read the context. Jesus is gently rebuking Thomas for what he said 4 verses earlier. Thomas already had strong second-hand evidence from people who he knew and should have trusted, but this was not sufficient for him. Jesus says this evidence should have been sufficient. But an in-depth discussion of "evidence for faith" or "faith and reason" would quickly pull this thread off-topic. There are a number of threads on EvC forum which have discussed this already. Let's try to stick to the OP topic, if possible. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
PaulK writes:
Whether faith is intrinsically opposed to reason I will need to consider further, but it is indisputable that faith is often opposed to reason.kbertsche writes:
True, and this is closer to the "blind faith" idea. But I've seen similar behavior in science.Taq writes:
There are numerous cases in science where new data comes in, but scientists are unwilling to accept this new data because of prior intellectual commitment to a theory. The Big Bang was accepted fairly quickly, but it still took some time. The academic establishment of Galileo's day opposed him and his data fairly strongly due to prior commitment to an Aristotelian worldview. Example? For something closer to the idea of "blind faith," consider the cold fusion claims of Pons and Fleischman. They had some early (incorrect) data which led them to champion the theory. When their later data and the data of others showed that the theory was wrong, they did not abandon it but clung to it unreasonably. There have been a number of other such claims in the history of science. Some of these have been nicely summarized in the classic article "Pathological Science" by Irving Langmuir, which was reprinted in Physics Today at the time of Pons' and Fleischman's claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I would regard it as absurd. Because the scientific use of terms is narrower and more precise - something that is needed to support the scientific use of reason. You, on the other hand are insisting on broadening the meanings, to make three distinct words synonyms. I would also point out that in these discussions "faith" is not a technical term with a precise meaning. It is an ordinary English word and it would be absurd to say that the English language should be bent to fit the convenience of theologians.
quote: Or perhaps English language uses would be more appropriate, unless you wish to quibble about the accuracy of the translation. But we can look in a Greek lexicon:
Intermediate Liddle Scott at Perseus
I. trust in others, faith, Lat. fides, fiducia, Hes., Theogn., attic; c. gen. pers. faith or belief in one, Eur.: generally, persuasion of a thing, confidence, assurance, Pind., attic 2. good faith, trustworthiness, faithfulness, honesty, Lat. fides, Theogn., Hdt., attic 3. in a commercial sense, credit, trust, πίστις τοσούτων χρημάτων ἐστί μοι παρά τινι I have credit for so much money with him, Dem.; εἰς πίστιν διδόναι τί τινι id=Dem. 4. in Theol. faith, belief, as opp. to sight and knowledge, NTest. II. that which gives confidence: hence, 1. an assurance, pledge of good faith, warrant, guarantee, Soph., Eur.; πίστιν καὶ ὅρκια ποιεῖσθαι to make a treaty by exchange of assurances and oaths, Hdt.; οὔτε π. οὔθ᾽ ὅρκος μένει Ar.; πίστιν διδόναι to give assurances, Hdt.; διδόναι καὶ λαμβάνειν to interchange them, Xen.:of an oath, θεῶν πίστεις ὀμνύναι Thuc.; πίστιν ἐπιτιθέναι or προστιθέναι τινί Dem.: φόβων π. an assurance against fears, Eur. 2. a means of persuasion, an argument, proof, such as used by orators, Plat., etc. Note especially 1.4 Theology. New Testament.
4. in Theol. faith, belief, as opp. to sight and knowledge, NTest.
quote: However you read it, Jesus is rebuking Thomas for asking for more evidence, when faced with an event that should be very difficult to believe. To assume that it is meant as a mild rebuke for not finding the evidence he had sufficient is highly questionable, and assumes that "those who have not seen" is restricted to those with a similar level of evidence. I do not find that plausible, and there is nothing to stop it being read as an endorsement of blind faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:When speaking of science, I will unapologetically try to use scientific terminology. When speaking of religious faith, I will likewise unapologetically try to use theological terminology. We should try to be as scholarly in our discussions of religion as in our discussions of science. quote:I find the Liddell & Scott definition a bit odd. Here are some others: UBS Greek Lexicon writes:
pistis, eo—s f faith, trust, belief; the Christian faith; conviction, good conscience (Ro 14:22,23); perhaps body of faith, doctrine (Jude 1:3,20); assurance, proof (Ac 17:31); promise (1Tm 5:12)
Thayer's Greek Lexicon writes:
4102. pistis? pistis, pisteo—s, he— (peitho— (which see)), from (Hesiod, Theognis, Pindar), Aeschylus, Herodotus down; the Septuagint for }e∑muna, several times for }e∑met and }a∑ma—na; faith; i.e.: 1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the N.T. of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervor born of faith and conjoined with ita. when it relates to God, pistis is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ ... 2. fidelity, faithfulness, i.e. the character of one who can be relied on: ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: But remember that this started with your condemnation of Dawkins' use of "faith". Even if you can show that there is a precise theological definition (and you should do that before claiming to use it) it seems unreasonable to expect Dawkins to be using that in a book written for the lay public. I will also remind you that right now your case for faith being based on reason is Acts 17 which does not contain reasoned arguments - despite your assertion to the contrary - and only claims that Paul had such arguments.
quote: I don't think these help you much. The UBS one only tells us that pistis has a wider use than "faith" which might help if quibbling with the translation but is hardly relevant to the English usage which we are really discussing. THe argument that "pistis" is often translated as "faith" does not establish that the meaning of English word should be broadened to match the Greek. The Thayer's definition is even less helpful. Highlighting the NT usage:
n the N.T. of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervor born of faith and conjoined with it a. when it relates to God, pistis is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ ... If you think that these beliefs can be established by reason to the point of justifying fervent belief then you really need to make a case for that. My own assessment - after seeing many arguments for the existence of God - is that this would seem to largely refer to what I would call blind faith. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024