Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

And there are some philosophers of science and professional scientists who likewise do not claim that their theories are necessarily "true" or that they reflect reality. Some are happy to view scientific theories as pragmatic models or constructs that may actually have no fundamental reality (i.e. there may actually be no such thing as a quark).

---

To start with let it be noted that you do not answer the point that your "acid test" is widely rejected by Christians - either implicitly or even explicitly. That in itself kills your claim of a parallel.I am aware of the view that we should not accept even a scientific view of reality and even the proper name for such a view (Instrumentalism), I am not aware of any Christians, even the most liberal, who would go quite so far, even if we include the Sea of Faith and their "non-literalist God"Indeed, it seems that the view of Christianity you are putting forward is not one that many would take seriously. Many object when a liberal Christian says that it is not necessary to believe in the Virgin Birth or that the literal resurrection of Jesus is of no real importance. Indeed, it seems that I am almost a Christian in your view, lacking only the faith commitment that the Bible is consistent. I don't believe in God, I think that Jesus was a failed wannabe messiah and I reject the whole concept of salvation. How many self-styled Christians here would accept me as one of them ?So it seems that even taking your view to the ridiculous extreme there is still an element of faith that cannot be removed. Even if we throw out the idea that there is any truth at all in the religious claims of the Bible you must still assume that the Bible is at least consistent on those claims. But that is something that is itself questionable.

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.

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".