Creation, Evolution, and faith

In this thread you have claimed that theologians use logic and reasoning to arrive at religious beliefs. Why wouldn't Paul's logic and reasoning be applicable here? Yes, otherwise known as linguistics. That linguistics is taught in seminaries is not under dispute. That students study greek and hebrew at seminary is not under dispute. What is under dispute is that religious belief (not our understanding of greek grammar) is reached through logic and reason. Or are you saying that learning a language is the same as believing in a deity? Here is what you said about faith in science in Message 25:

quote:

---

Is science based on faith? Does science have faith-based presuppositions? Yes, this is a metaphysical consideration. Scientists have faith in their basic senses and in logic. They have faith that the physical world behaves in a consistent and potentially understandable manner. Further, most scientists believe that their theories have some actual correspondence with the physical universe, that the theories are in some sense "real" instead of merely being imaginary non-physical models. None of these positions can be proven; we accept them on faith. But the scientific system works quite well, which gives us some confidence in these premises.

---

Are you really suggesting that this faith is the same as religious faith? Are you really suggesting that faith in things we can test and see is the same as faith in things we can not test and can not see? I consider them to be quite different, and conflating the two only leads to confusion.

The question is whether the Bible accurately portrays reality. It would seem to me that whether or not the Bible is accurately interpretted has little to do with whether or not the Bible accuratley portrays reality.

Evidence of what? The ability to change people's lives or the ability to evidence the existence of God? As I have already shown, non-theistic organizations can change people's lives so no deity is needed. So no one outside of religious believers have purpose in their lives? Do you really think that? Do you really believe that no one has found purpose in secular causes? Do you really believe that anyone who has quit drugs or made something of themselves required a belief in God? Do you really think that no one has found purpose and meaning in their relationships with friends and family, and that purpose and meaning led them to stop using drugs and make something of themselves?

If you want to steer this on topic then discuss how the historicity of Jesus is established with respect to religious belief and how it compares to the construction of scientific theories. It has been suggested that religious beliefs are not based on blind faith but upon evidence, logic, and reason in a similar fashion to how scientific theories are constructed.

As a parallel, do christians claim that Jesus might have risen from the dead, or possibly God created the universe (through whatever means). No, they don't. They state these things as fact. If you merely raise a possible answer this is not faith. If you suggest that something might have occurred a certain way this is not faith. If you push a scientist for an absolute answer to the origin of life their answer is "I don't know". Is that what christians claim? No. Yes, this is the exact opposite of faith. If faith were employed in science as it is in religion then no one would do any research since we already have the answers. No textbook would change just as the religious texts never change within religions. The fact that science does change its findings to fit new evidence demonstrates that science does not use faith in the same way that religion does. This is a difference of kind, not degree.

Your inability to point to the reasoning that Paul used does affect your claim. The only use of logic and reason you can show is used to define the opinion held in the Bible. You have failed to show how logic and reason lead to those opinions. I can only conclude that religious beliefs are reached without reference to logic or reason. Understanding what the Bible is claiming does is not the same ans understanding the logic and reasoning that was used to reach those claims. Don't you understand the difference?

In message 32 you also said:"But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason."We are talking about religious faith. You have stated that it is based on reason, but the only argument that you have put forth so far is "because the Bible says so". That is not reason. That is blind faith. Nowhere in science is a theory upheld "because the textbook says so". In science claims are tested independent of the claim. In religious faith the evidence is the claim. It is circular. It is blind. And that evidence is taken at face value without testing and without verification. It is taken blindly, hence blind faith.

Scientist: From what the objective, empirical evidence we have so far, this is our best model to date which we hold tentatively and will always be open to change.Theist: We have no objective or empirical evidence of God, but we dogmatically believe that God exists anyway and this belief is not open to change or to challenge.How are these two the same?

However, it doesn't appear that anyone is using reasons to conclude that these claims are true. Instead, these claims are believed to be true through blind faith. Which is the same as saying, "Because the Bible says so." Science determines how reality is from reality itself. Religion is a dogmatic belief of how reality is without any reference to reality. That's the difference.You want to pretend that the beliefs derived from the Bible only pertain to the Bible. They don't. They apply to everything outside of the Bible. Religious beliefs states that nature is a certain way because the Bible says so. This belief is dogmatic and based on blind faith. This is the opposite of science. They are not analogous. They are opposites. Then why did you state that belief in the Bible as being true is based on logic and reason? That is what we are discussing in this thread. This thread is not Theology, Evolution, and Faith. It is Creation, Evolution, and Faith. The act of Creation is about nature, not figuring out what the Bible says. Creation is about God being a real entity outside of the Bible.

What we are against is the conflation of knowledge gained through reason and evidence (the faith we have in scientific theories) with religious faith which is not gained through reason, evidence, or logic. You are trying to co-opt the knowledge we have gained through reason and logic to gild religious faith which lacks both. That is what we reject.If you want to call confidence in expectations supported by empiricism, experimentation, and verification a "faith" then go for it. What you can not do is conflate this confidence with a belief devoid of empirical evidence, experimentation, and verification. Your argument is semantics, and very little else. When asked for how reason, logic, and evidence can lead to religious faith you grow quite silent. Instead, you deflect and start talking about textual analysis as if that is the same as religious faith. Your own actions tell us that religious faith is devoid of everything that leads to the confidence we have in scientific theories.To use an analogy, it is a bit like someone who gets a diploma out of the back of a Rolling Stone and calls themselves "Doctor". They are attempting to steal the hard work that others have expended to get their degrees to give themselves an air of expertise.

I have always had a tough time proofreading my own writing. I tend to miss obvious errors like this one. I apologize if my sloppy writing is getting in the way. And this is leading to problems in this discussion. Vague terms are leading to bad reasoning. Every language is necessarily hampered with these problems. The goal of any discussion is to limit these problems by using precise language. Your argument seems to do just the opposite. It takes advantages of this language barrier to make a sematic argument. Instead of precisely defining how both science and religious faith works you instead try to blur the lines using the inherent limitations of language. You want to make the argument that "faith" is the same in both science and religion. By doing so you hope to protect religion from being "blind" by leeching the credibility that science has earned through hundreds of years of hard work. I find that when people make claims that they are unable to support that the original claim is unsupportable. You claim that people use reason and logic to arrive at a belief in God. When asked for this line of reasoning and logic you suddenly start parsing sentences as if the construction of grammar is sufficient to believe in an unevidenced supernatural deity. I could just as easily quote a book that states "Paul Bunyan's ox was blue" and show that it really does mean to say that Paul Bunyan's ox was blue. However, this can not be used as a line of reasoning to believe that Paul Bunyan is real and that he really had a blue ox. It's not off topic. This is a comparison of creationism and science and how it involves faith. Your claim is that reason and logic are used in both. Surely a line of reasoning leading to the conclusion of a Creator that is on par with the reasoning used in science is on topic. Again, don't make claims if you are unwilling to back them up. It is only fair.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Why limit it just to just Genesis? Why not state that the mistake is interpretting the Bible as relating to any historical occurence or any part of reality? Is the problem in trying to read the Bible as teaching about a deity that actually exists?

If there is evidence, reason, and logic for christian faith then why would the Resurrection need to be ruled out? You are projecting. Just because you need a theistic belief in your life does not mean others do, nor do they require something to replace it. I might as well ask what you replaced your belief in Santa Claus with. Nothing, right?

So that would make your parents gods and your belief in the existence of your parents would be a religious belief, right? This would seem to fit with your statement from before:

quote:

---

Dawkins, Hitchins, Stenger, and other "scientific atheists" reject the personal God of the Bible, but replace Him in their metaphysics with the impersonal god of the universe itself.

---

Or is it possible that one doesn't need other gods to replace a belief in your God? Or is it possible that they see nature just as nature, not a god. Again, you are projecting. So you are saying that adults replace a belief in Santa Claus with a belief in God?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

What we keep asking for are christian beliefs that are reached through reason and logic that are demonstrably true. If you can't demonstrate that something is true but still dogmatically believe it to be true how is this anything other than blind faith?