Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:31 AM
37 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,543 Year: 3,580/19,786 Month: 575/1,087 Week: 165/212 Day: 7/25 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 271 of 456 (555286)
04-13-2010 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Granny Magda
04-12-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Reason and evidence
quote:
And there you have it. Christian faith depends on what the Bible teaches. Christian faith is based on a set of ancient texts.

Of course. Who doesn't know this?

quote:
Science is not based upon any text in any comparable way.

Of course not. Science is based on nature, as Christianity is based on the Bible. This is the analogy that I've repeatedly tried to explain. Is something unclear about my explanation? I've repeatedly said that the main difference between religion and science is in the types of evidence that they employ, and this is all that you are noting.

quote:
Science uses reason and evidence to study nature. Agreed.

Religion uses reason and evidence to study alleged holy texts as a proxy for nature.



No, not as "a proxy for nature." Religion is not trying to understand the natural world, but the spiritual world.

quote:
Both are attempting to describe reality. The difference is that science tries to study reality as directly as possible, it cuts out the middle man (and to paraphrase Bill Mahr, when I say man it usually seems to mean someone with a penis). Religion seeks to study reality through a murky lens, that of it's chosen scripture (which it invariably places on a pedestal, another notable difference with science).

Absolutely not. Science only tries to study physical reality; this is the only reality that it CAN study. Religion tries to study spiritual reality, which cannot be addressed with science. Religion and science are NOT trying to study the same thing.

quote:
quote:
But are these claims "wholly unevidenced" in either endeavor? These truth-claims are not provable, of course. A step of "faith" is involved in both endeavors.

False. There is a major difference. It's about the framework within which each claim is judged.

Science can prove it's ideas to a very high degree - within the framework created by the assumption of a consistent observable reality.

Religion cannot do this. Religion cannot prove the reality of the Trinity, even with the framework of an observable reality.

Science can prove its claims within the framework created by methodological naturalism.

Religion must, almost by necessity, cast this aside when making claims about supernatural entities (like the Trinity). This leaves it open to the possibility of supernatural outside interference, even within the framework of a consistent observable reality.



There is a tremendous confusion of categories in your statements above. I'll try to unravel them.

By "truth-claims" I mean questions like "Does God REALLY exist?" and "Do quarks REALLY exist?" For both, we can provide evidence but not proof. Believing in their actual reality (as opposed to their usefulness in a model) requires a step of faith. This is the metaphysical/theological level that you don't want to discuss.

So let's leave this, and let's talk about your "frameworks." I agree with your scientific framework; we assume a consistent, observable physical world and study nature with an approach of methodological naturalism. In this framework, we can see convincing evidence for quarks (I am hesitant to use the word "proof" in science).

But I disagree with your religious framework; it implicitly treats religion as science. The analogous Christian framework to the scientific framework above would be a consistent, observable, divinely-inspired Bible which is studied with proper hermeneutical methodology. Within this framework, we see convincing evidence for the Trinity. With the "frameworks" set up in an analogous fashion, the evidence or "proof" is analogous.

You keep trying to judge religious claims on scientific grounds, as if it were a subset of science, but this doesn't make sense. Religion and science study different things, using different types of evidence. They ask different questions. They are analogous, but not equivalent. Neither is a subset of the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Granny Magda, posted 04-12-2010 2:14 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Granny Magda, posted 04-14-2010 9:53 AM kbertsche has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 272 of 456 (555297)
04-13-2010 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by kbertsche
04-12-2010 10:18 PM


quote:

I don't understand what you are trying to say here?

I am saying that your claimed analogy is false. Christianity does NOT have an agreed "acid test" anything like that of science.

quote:

I see the reality of our scientific theories as analogous to the truthfulness of the biblical message.

Well we do have grounds for accepting the reality of scientific theory, even if they are less than certain. But you would need analogous grounds for your argument to make sense. Which is why your insistence on talking about the non-religious question of what the Bible says so interesting. If your best example of the use of reason and evidence is irrelevant, surely that tells us that your opponents have more truth on their side than you wish to admit.

quote:

I don't understand?

Your analogy left out ALL religious belief. You implicitly denied the entire religious content of Christianity. That's the point that you seem to miss.

quote:

The Christian faith rests, depends on theology and biblical studies, which involve reason and evidence. All of these are parts of Christianity. But the Christian faith is not equivalent to theology and biblical studies.

And Christianity involves faith commitments that go beyond anything that theology of Bible study can support. But as soon as you admit that, your argument fails.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by kbertsche, posted 04-12-2010 10:18 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by kbertsche, posted 04-13-2010 8:51 PM PaulK has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 273 of 456 (555393)
04-13-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by kbertsche
04-12-2010 10:30 PM


Of course I understand the difference. But you are trying to "move the goal-posts" (as someone accused me earlier).
Here is my original claim from Message 25 which you and others strongly disagreed with:

quote:
kbertsche writes:
BTW, Atheists (e.g. Dawkins) often use the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" and then deny that scientists have "faith." This is a straw-man argument. Most Christians do not have this type of "faith" either, because their faith is not "blind," it is based on biblical evidence. And scientists DO speak of belief and faith, as your Darwin quotes show.

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.

Note that I spoke of "biblical evidence," i.e. evidence from the Bible.

And that evidence is taken at face value without testing and without verification. It is taken blindly, hence blind faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by kbertsche, posted 04-12-2010 10:30 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by kbertsche, posted 04-15-2010 12:54 AM Taq has responded

Flyer75
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 274 of 456 (555439)
04-13-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Meldinoor
04-11-2010 3:47 PM


Hi Meldinoor,

Thanks for the discussion and sorry for the delay.

Meldinoor writes:

Which holes are these?

Well, I wasn't think of a specific example, just what I had already said...the first step in the process and the ever changing landscape (or findings being a better word) of science. Scientists have faith, not blind faith, that if they can answer a "problem" such as this, http://www.icr.org/article/5336/. Now, I don't think this article by any means brings down evolution but there is an admitted problem here by a scientist who certainly isn't a creationist. He thinks there is a problem here. The rest of the story not told is that he probably believes that an answer will be found at some point to this little problem so he has faith that this doesn't impact his thoughts on evolution.

Meldinoor writes:

Thank goodness science classes stay clear of 3000 year old accounts then.

My point was, science is changing at an enormous pace. What students were taught 25 years ago even is not what would be taught today, at least some of it. What YEC believe about the Bible and 3,000 years ago won' t change, it hasn't changed and it won't. That's all I was referring to as far as that point goes.

Take care,
Flyer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Meldinoor, posted 04-11-2010 3:47 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 4:50 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 277 by onifre, posted 04-13-2010 5:19 PM Flyer75 has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 275 of 456 (555443)
04-13-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Flyer75
04-13-2010 4:22 PM


Flyer75 writes:

Scientists have faith, not blind faith, that if they can answer a "problem" such as this, http://www.icr.org/article/5336/. Now, I don't think this article by any means brings down evolution but there is an admitted problem here by a scientist who certainly isn't a creationist.


Have you read the actual study, or the article from which the quote is lifted (from Yale daily news)? There's another quote in there:

quote:
Either our methods are correct and the fossil record is way off, or the fossil record is good and our methods are not giving the right answers

And another:

quote:
“It’s possible that our results aren’t correct,” Donoghue said. “You can always go wrong with a method.”

So they're not even sure their methods are correct. I find it very weird why ICR would then go and conclude that this "find" dicredits somehow the evolution of plants. Also, 75 million years isn't exactly a long time geologically, and plants often lack "hard parts" that fossilize easily, which is why plant fossils are quite rare.

All in all, this isn't a very convincing "hole".

He thinks there is a problem here. The rest of the story not told is that he probably believes that an answer will be found at some point to this little problem so he has faith that this doesn't impact his thoughts on evolution.

This won't impact evolution. Not one bit. Like the scientist said in the Yale paper, either his methods are wrong, which means they'll need to do more testing, or the fossil record is wrong (I doubt he said this, he probably meant "incomplete"). Either way, there is no doubt plants evolved. This is not based on faith, but on previous knowledge though.

My point was, science is changing at an enormous pace. What students were taught 25 years ago even is not what would be taught today, at least some of it. What YEC believe about the Bible and 3,000 years ago won' t change, it hasn't changed and it won't. That's all I was referring to as far as that point goes.

But don't you think that this change is a good thing? When new things are found out, should we not change what is taught? Should we simply have said "Well Mr. Einstein, that's all nice and dandy, but if you expect us to drop Newton, you can go pull the other one". Now look at what YEC's do. By your own admission, it will never change. It doesn't matter what evidence we show them, they'll maintain they are right, and the evidence is wrong. Don't you find that a strange way to go about things?

Edited by Huntard, : Added second quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 4:22 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 276 of 456 (555447)
04-13-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 12:51 PM


But I have never seen an atheist rescue mission, able to provide purpose and meaning to those in the gutter and turn their lives around by preaching a message of atheism!

But of course you haven't. Atheists are rational. If an atheist wants to start a charity, would he be nuts enough to make it an explicitly atheist charity, such that only about 5% of the population would want to work for it or contribute to it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:51 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

onifre
Member (Idle past 1027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 277 of 456 (555451)
04-13-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Flyer75
04-13-2010 4:22 PM


Hi Flyer,

Now, I don't think this article by any means brings down evolution but there is an admitted problem here by a scientist who certainly isn't a creationist. He thinks there is a problem here.

There is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. One being an observed phenomenon(evolvement), the other being our attempt to explain it(the theory).

Scientist could be wrong on many, many things. Just as they could be wrong about how certain diseases mutate or a doctor could be wrong when he/she diagnosis you. But these errors are human errors, and don't have any impact on the observed phenomenon itself.

What you seem to be arguing is that, because humans haven't successfully explained, in detail, the evolutionary course of every single living/extinct organism, that some how the natural evolutionary process doesn't happen. I would hope though, at least by now in this thread, that you can see how that belief would make no sense.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 4:22 PM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 5:34 PM onifre has responded

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 278 of 456 (555455)
04-13-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by onifre
04-13-2010 5:19 PM


Hi Onifire,

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying that just because evolution can't explain everything that it should be discredited. I'm saying that since it can't explain everything, at this point, that there is some faith involved. I'm trying to keep the theme of faith here...not blind faith, but faith nonetheless. I for one, believe that some forms of evolution do take place...we'll part ways as to what extent that is but I do believe it occurs (in my limited knowledge of the subject).

Well guys, at this point I'll probably step away from this thread until a new one pops up I can participate in. I've enjoyed this discussion. I will probably try to start a thread in a few days, maybe Thursday when I have 4 kids and a wife out of the house for the day, I would like to discuss the topic that this headed into and that is Christianity and "blind faith". I think there is still much to discuss about this subject that we haven't touched on. Thanks again for the many responses in this thread.

I suppose if Kb, PaulK, Taq, and others wish to continue the foray here they can...its been enlightening and at times entertaining.

Edited by Flyer75, : misspelled word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by onifre, posted 04-13-2010 5:19 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by onifre, posted 04-13-2010 6:02 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2010 2:19 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 285 by Taq, posted 04-14-2010 9:50 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 279 of 456 (555459)
04-13-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
04-13-2010 5:34 PM


Since you've stated that you're leaving the thread, I'll respond with the knowledge that you won't reply back but with the hope that you'll read it and understand what I meant.

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying that just because evolution can't explain everything that it should be discredited. I'm saying that since it can't explain everything, at this point, that there is some faith involved.

My point was to better familiarize you with the terms you're using.

It's not that evolution can't explain everything, it's that our theory of evolution doesn't explain everything. There is a difference between "evolution" and the "theory of evolution." That was my point.

Human's have faith that they can explain natural phenomena, and we should have this faith since we've done a pretty good job so far. We landed on the moon! But it's the same method for research that we apply to everything. I'm sure many in the medical field have faith that one day, through research, testing, experimentation, trail and error, they'll be able to find a cure for AIDS or cancer. But their faith has no affect on the method used to achieve this goal.

Likewise, scientist have faith that one day, through reasearch, experiments, testing, trail and error, they'll be able to explain how every known organism evolved. But their faith has no affect on the method used to achieve this goal. The method in this case is the theory of evolution.

Take care,

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 5:34 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 280 of 456 (555476)
04-13-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by PaulK
04-13-2010 2:19 AM


quote:
quote:
I don't understand what you are trying to say here?

I am saying that your claimed analogy is false. Christianity does NOT have an agreed "acid test" anything like that of science.

Sorry, but I've lost complete track of what you are talking about here. Can you please point me to the post where you described this "acid test"?

quote:
Your analogy left out ALL religious belief. You implicitly denied the entire religious content of Christianity. That's the point that you seem to miss.

No, I am simply trying to show that religion involves reason and evidence. So I am focusing on the reason and evidence that underlies and undergirds religious faith. I have affirmed the religious content of Christianity multiple times in this thread. Are you so desperate that you must completely mischaracterize my position?

quote:
And Christianity involves faith commitments that go beyond anything that theology of Bible study can support. But as soon as you admit that, your argument fails.

My Message 268 that you replied to when you wrote this said something very close to this:
kbertsche writes:

With a LOT more training in Bible, Greek, Hebrew, biblical history, biblical exegesis, etc, you could almost be a theologian or a biblical scholar. But to be a Christian you would need the faith commitment as well.

Please try to read what I actually say, not what you want to hear. It is very difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores what I actually say and tries to twist my words to mean their opposite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2010 2:19 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2010 1:46 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 281 of 456 (555501)
04-14-2010 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by kbertsche
04-13-2010 8:51 PM


quote:

Sorry, but I've lost complete track of what you are talking about here. Can you please point me to the post where you described this "acid test"?

I didn't describe it. And one of the nice features of this forum is that each post links to the post it replies to and it's replies. So if you forget what you said - as you have done - you can simply follow the chain of links backwards.

quote:

No, I am simply trying to show that religion involves reason and evidence.

In reality you were objecting to the description of religious faith as blind faith. And if the only use of reason is on subsidiary matters then you haven't got much of a case. An example which leaves out religious belief altogether is therefore not much use.

quote:

Please try to read what I actually say, not what you want to hear. It is very difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores what I actually say and tries to twist my words to mean their opposite.

I don't think that emphasising a point that you agree with can be described as trying to "twist your words to mean their opposite".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by kbertsche, posted 04-13-2010 8:51 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 04-14-2010 8:34 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 282 of 456 (555506)
04-14-2010 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
04-13-2010 5:34 PM


I'm saying that since it can't explain everything, at this point, that there is some faith involved.

No --- faith would be required if someone said that at this point biologists did have an explanation for everything in biology. But no-one says that.

The fact that there are some things that biologists don't know about biology doesn't put the things that they do know in doubt. It is not necessary for biologists to be omniscient about biology for me to agree that they know something about biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 5:34 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 283 of 456 (555553)
04-14-2010 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 1:39 PM


Gday,

Flyer75 writes:

One small example, for a couple of thousands of years, many doubted the real existence of Pilate. Ultimately, in 1961, his name was found on an archeological inscription confirming from an outside source that indeed, Pilate did in fact exist and was a real person.

Actually, no, there is no evidence that ANYONE ever doubted the existence of Pilate. He is referred to as historical for every single century since his time.

This is another one of false claims creationists like to spread.

It's completely untrue.

Kapyong

Edited by Kapyong, : Fixed tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 1:39 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 284 of 456 (555568)
04-14-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by PaulK
04-14-2010 1:46 AM


PaulK writes:

I didn't describe it. And one of the nice features of this forum is that each post links to the post it replies to and it's replies. So if you forget what you said - as you have done - you can simply follow the chain of links backwards.

Also available is the kbertsche Posts Only link that appears in the left column next to his messages. He can use this one, which will center on his Message 280.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2010 1:46 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 285 of 456 (555584)
04-14-2010 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
04-13-2010 5:34 PM


I'm not saying that just because evolution can't explain everything that it should be discredited. I'm saying that since it can't explain everything, at this point, that there is some faith involved.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 5:34 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019