Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

I agree that reason is not the ONLY basis for religious faith, and not necessarily even the PRIMARY basis for many people.

---

It appears that it isn't a basis for faith AT ALL.In fact your whole argument seems to have been nothing more than a series of dubious rationalisations - in fact a demonstration of my point.

quote:

---

But the point I was making in Message 28 was broader: faith and reason work together in religion, rather than being opposed to one another. the use of reason by Christian apologists illustrates this.

---

In other words the main use - or rather abuse - of reason is to generate rationalisations to prop up belief. That is a quite a way from the way reason is used in science.

If reason and logic do not lead to valid arguments, or at least determine if an argument is valid or not, then why would theists use reason? Could you give an example of an argument that your definition of "reason" would not cover? Looking back I found two references to faith and science.1. "Scientists "believe" that their theories are true. Their "faith" in their theories relies on reason."This one fails. Scientists can demonstrate that their theories are accurate through experimentation. No faith needed. Also, the road of science is littered with discarded hypotheses. If science worked through faith no hypothesis would be discarded.2. "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."In this case you seem to be indicating that faith and science do not work together.So I will ask again. Can you give an example of faith and reason working together in a way that supports faith? I don't want to badger you. That is not my intent. The only reason I keep asking is I sense you have a thoughtful and interesting answer. I have read CS Lewis and other religious philosophers. There are interesting discussions to be had. However, Acts 17 fell short of that and by your own admission.

quote:

---

If reason and logic do not lead to valid arguments, or at least determine if an argument is valid or not, then why would theists use reason?

---

Or why would scientists, philosophers, or anyone else use reason?
On the other hand, if reason and logic DO lead to valid arguments, and DO determine if arguments are valid, why do we see disagreement and debate in science and philosophy as well as in theology?

quote:

---

Could you give an example of an argument that your definition of "reason" would not cover?

---

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Do you want an example of faith where their is no reason involved at all?Re my comment, "The point is that faith and reason work together in religion as they do in science.":

quote:

---

Looking back I found two references to faith and science.

​

1. "Scientists "believe" that their theories are true. Their "faith" in their theories relies on reason."

​

This one fails. Scientists can demonstrate that their theories are accurate through experimentation. No faith needed. Also, the road of science is littered with discarded hypotheses. If science worked through faith no hypothesis would be discarded.

---

So you claim that scientists do NOT believe that their theories are true? They have NO faith in their theories?I would say that scientists DO have faith in their theories, and that this is in part due to verification through experiment. Faith and reason work together; reason leads to faith.It works the other way, too. A scientist working a new theory eventually comes to a point where he believes it is true, but often his evidence is not strong enough to convince other scientists. So he will try to get more data and find better reasons so that he can convince the community. Again faith and reason are working together; here faith leads to reason.So I see the process in science as circular; initial evidence (reasons) for a theory leads to faith in the theory, which leads to more experimentation and better evidence, which leads to greater confidence (faith) in the theory, etc.

quote:

---

So I will ask again. Can you give an example of faith and reason working together in a way that supports faith?

---

Theology relies strongly on reason, similar to philosophy. Almost any sort of theological discussion would be an example of faith and reason working together. The classic historical formulations of doctrines such as the Trinity or the Deity of Christ in the 4th and 5th centuries are good examples. Or the debates regarding salvation between Augustine and Pelagius, and later between Luther and Erasmus.In these historical discussions, each side had their own strong proponents who had already come to firm convictions (faith) due, in part, to reasoning from biblical evidence. But the church as a whole had not come to a firm position. The reasoning that came out of these historical discussions/debates would persuade the church at large to believe in a specific view on these topics. Again, faith and reason work together.

People use reason and logic in all subjects and fields of endeavor. The difference is that a scientists faith in the reason and logic behind established theory is underpinned by evidence from the real world, while someone's faith in the reason and logic behind their religious beliefs is not.--Percy

Hi kbertsche,You refer me to message 70, where you say; I agree with this. Paul's words are not reason, but rhetoric. Now there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that - we all engage in rhetoric on these boards - but it is not reason, certainly not in the sense that scientists use reason. In science, rhetoric has an extremely limited influence; indeed there are safeguards against it (peer review, repeatability, etc.). Not so in religion. Rhetoric must be backed with reason and evidence for it to be valid. Here's an example; Exactly my point. Paul cites as evidence an event that he did not witness, for which only a handful of mutually contradictory accounts exist. If this is to be regarded as the kind of "reason" that backs up your faith, I have to say that I am not impressed. No reputable scientist would accept evidence this weak. Firstly, No-one claimed that criminal trials are based on logic and reason. I would not claim that, certainly not in the case of a trial that relied entirely on a witness, with no physical evidence.Second, do you really imagine that science uses uncorroborated eyewitness testimony as evidence? You know as well as I do that's not how it's done. Science does not and must not take anyone''s word for anything. I can claim to have cracked cold-fusion and I might make my testimony as believable and apparently reliable as Paul's rhetoric, but that won't win me a Nobel. Science depends upon observable repeatable evidence, not rhetoric or persuasion. If you want to draw comparisons between religion and science, you will not find any here.It seems to me that you originally objected to Dawkins' claim that religion is based on what you call "blind faith". You claim that religion is based upon reason as well as faith. That's fine, but when you can only cite examples of flawed reason (such as your criminal trial example or Acts 17), we are left with the conclusion that religion is based on more than faith; it is also based upon logical fallacies.Personally, I think Dawkins did you a favour in not mentioning that.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. --- Martin Luther

---

Cute quote--it sounds like something Luther would say.

Luther was a fun guy, just take a look at his piece of work he wroteOn the Jews and Their Lies - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?

---

Who do not love Martin Luther?

quote:

---

People use reason and logic in all subjects and fields of endeavor. The difference is that a scientists faith in the reason and logic behind established theory is underpinned by evidence from the real world, while someone's faith in the reason and logic behind their religious beliefs is not.

---

This is very close to what I was saying. Reason and logic are used in both science and religion; to characterize religion as devoid of reason or logic is simply wrong. The main difference that I see is in the type of evidence that each field works with.(But I doubt that many religious believers would agree with you that their faith is not underpinned by "real world" evidence. If by "real world" you mean "physical," then some would agree with you. But not orthodox Christianity, where a historical resurrection is essential. As Paul said, "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless"--1 Cor 15:17)

First of all, I'd like to thank kbertsche, PaulK and Taq for a lively discussion on this subject. I apologize for being late in responding to anything here. I was in Illinois for 5 days visiting my 90 year old grandfather who lives in the middle of nowhere so I didn't even bother to bring my labtop with me.Second, in ref to the above quote, that is pretty much what I was trying to get at. I'm glad kbertsche was able to cut through my jibberish and give a succinct summary of my position. I'm going to reread the last 3.5 pages and try and get involved, if I'm up to the discussion that is. Thanks again.

You were the one who seemed to be casting doubt on the effecacy of reason and logic. If I misunderstood you then I apologize. I am trying to get an idea of what your criteria is for "reason" and "not reason". For example, if I said "Clover is green, therefore Leprechauns exist" would you consider that a reasoned argument? Since faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence then having evidence would negate the need for faith. It really is that simple. Or would you have us think that a belief in a deity is on par with believing that germs cause disease?The problem we seem to be having here is a conflation of belief and faith, not to mention the multiple definitions of both. You want to claim that believing that germs cause infectious disease is on the same level as believing in unevidence, invisible, supernatural deities. It's not the same, no matter how you slice it. The former is born of massive amounts of experimentation and demonstration. The latter is not. Without faith there is no religious belief. Science can only work without faith.If faith did operate in science then we wouldn't have Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or oxidation. Instead we would have Newtonian gravity, classical physics, and phlogiston. These earlier theories were thrown out not because people lacked faith in them but because the evidence, the demonstration through experimentation, pointed elsewhere. Likewise, modern theories did not gain consensus because of an appeal to faith or reason, but an appeal to evidence.Science starts with evidence. Religion starts with faith. That is the difference. Could you take one of those reasoned arguments and break them down into premises and conclusion? It doesn't have to be anything extensive, just a simple summary. But this is not what happens with religious belief. In religion you gain converts by an appeal to emotion, not an appeal to evidence or experimentation. Acts 17 shows exactly that. The entire proposition is based on faith, faith that this entity exists in the first place. No such faith is needed in science. You can demonstrate that a thing exists. Science is based on facts, not faith.

I fear my response might trigger another tangent about the difference between faith and evidence based conclusions, but so be it.The presuppositions of science are not something that someone just arbitrarily set down and now the rest of science simply blindly follows along. The presuppositions of science evolved over hundreds of years. What's more, they have provided a proven method for arriving at accurate and useful conclusions about the world. Science has made tremendous strides in just the last 100 years in terms of our understanding of the world and our ability to control our environments. Thus, my point is that the presuppositions that underlay science are not accepted on faith, but on a solid base of evidence establishing that they work. They are not infallible, of course, but they are remarkably useful.The only real sense in which anyone can argue with any force that they are based on faith is the idea that they will continue to work in the future. Of that belief, of course, there can be no proof. And if all you wanted to say was that our belief that the scientific method will continue to be useful in learning about the world is based on faith that the future will be like the past, I must agree. On the other hand, what other rational conclusion about the past can one come to?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you claim that scientists do NOT believe that their theories are true? They have NO faith in their theories?

---

Since faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence then having evidence would negate the need for faith. It really is that simple. Or would you have us think that a belief in a deity is on par with believing that germs cause disease?

---

Here you reveal the fundamental problem: you define faith as "a belief held in the absence of evidence." This is sometimes called "blind faith" and is much too restrictive as a definition of "faith". It is so restrictive, in fact, that almost no-one exercises this type of "faith" an any field. Most everyone has SOME sort of evidence for their faith.I've already provided dictionary definitions of faith to illustrate this. Here, again, is Webster: Note that all of these definitions DO rely on evidence (personal testimony is still evidence).

quote:

---

The problem we seem to be having here is a conflation of belief and faith, not to mention the multiple definitions of both.

---

What's the problem? If we are talking the New Testament, "belief" and "faith" are the same word (pistis)! If we are talking English, the two words are very closely related. They both denote "trust" or "reliance".Here is Webster on "belief", which you can compare with "faith" above: As you can see, the main meanings of "faith" and "belief" are quite similar in English.

quote:

---

You want to claim that believing that germs cause infectious disease is on the same level as believing in unevidence, invisible, supernatural deities. It's not the same, no matter how you slice it. The former is born of massive amounts of experimentation and demonstration. The latter is not.

---

I agree. Faith in germs is very different from faith in the flying spaghetti monster.

quote:

---

Without faith there is no religious belief. Science can only work without faith.

---

No. You are working from a flawed definition of "faith." You are trying to set up a false dichotomy between science and religion. Both rely on evidence, both involve faith.

quote:

---

If faith did operate in science then we wouldn't have Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or oxidation. Instead we would have Newtonian gravity, classical physics, and phlogiston. These earlier theories were thrown out not because people lacked faith in them but because the evidence, the demonstration through experimentation, pointed elsewhere. Likewise, modern theories did not gain consensus because of an appeal to faith or reason, but an appeal to evidence.

---

Theories such as phlogiston failed because the scientific evidence pointed elsewhere, as you say. Likewise, theories such as Unitarianism failed in the early church because the biblical evidence pointed to Trinitarianism. Neither one was a matter of "blind faith."I don't know your background; I don't know if you are a scientist or not. The other scientists who I work with have no problems admitting that they "believe" or have "faith" in what they are doing. My fellow scientists (most of whom are non-religious) use these words similarly to how they are used in religion.

quote:

---

The presuppositions of science are not something that someone just arbitrarily set down and now the rest of science simply blindly follows along. The presuppositions of science evolved over hundreds of years. What's more, they have provided a proven method for arriving at accurate and useful conclusions about the world. Science has made tremendous strides in just the last 100 years in terms of our understanding of the world and our ability to control our environments. Thus, my point is that the presuppositions that underlay science are not accepted on faith, but on a solid base of evidence establishing that they work. They are not infallible, of course, but they are remarkably useful.

---

A philosopher of science might view it a bit differently. But for the scientist, I agree that our main evidence for faith in our presuppositions is pragmatism--the presuppositions seem to work well.

quote:

---

The only real sense in which anyone can argue with any force that they are based on faith is the idea that they will continue to work in the future. Of that belief, of course, there can be no proof. And if all you wanted to say was that our belief that the scientific method will continue to be useful in learning about the world is based on faith that the future will be like the past, I must agree. On the other hand, what other rational conclusion about the past can one come to?

---

Yes, I think this is a rational conclusion. But the presuppositions cannot be proven. Yet we "believe" and "have faith" that they can tell us something real about the universe around us.

That's kinda what makes them not "presuppositions".