Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

If you want to call confidence in expectations supported by empiricism, experimentation, and verification a "faith" then go for it.

---

Not "a faith", but "faith." This is normal English usage.

quote:

---

What you can not do is conflate this confidence with a belief devoid of empirical evidence, experimentation, and verification.

---

Yes and no. "Faith" is just "confidence," and is still "faith" or "confidence" no matter what it is based on. But the type of evidence that this confidence is based on is a fundamental difference between science and faith. Science uses scientific evidence, but religion does not. All throughout this thread I have avoided conflating the types of evidence.

quote:

---

Your argument is semantics, and very little else.

---

If you think this, then I still have not been clear enough. My argument is conceptual, not semantic.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why and how could you construe my silence as evidence that "religious faith is devoid of everything that leads to the confidence we have in scientific theories?" This does not logically follow. (Unless for some reason you think I am the only world authority on religious faith??)I believe the folks who are most strongly trying to cajole me into an off-topic, extended discussion of reason for the Christian faith are not serious. They just want something else to argue against. I believe most of them already know (and have rejected) many of the points that I would raise. If I have misjudged you (or anyone else) and you seriously want to look into Christian apologetics, please let me know and I will refer you to other threads, websites, or books that you can study on your own.

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.

quote:

---

Thank you again, kbertsche. I think this bit explains your position in a way that I find quite agreeable:

​

The "different question" idea is a nice way to look at these things, though it does tend to run aground when the answers to those "reason and purpose" questions are used in attempts to "fix" the answers on the "mechanism" questions -- a good case in point being the Pope's pronouncement that condoms should not be used, period (and AIDS prevention does not constitute an acceptable excuse).

---

Sorry for not raising this "different question" concept earlier. I think it is a good and powerful way to reduce perceived conflicts between science and religion. Genesis, for example, is NOT addressing scientific mechanism, but primarily is speaking of reason and purpose. This doesn't completely avoid all tensions, but it helps significantly.

quote:

---

It seems to me that the fundamental problem, afflicting both non-theistic science and non-scientific theism, arises when one or another belief becomes hard-cast and inflexible, whether due to one's ingrained habits of thought or to the vested interests of some institution (whether secular or religious). The problem is intensified (potentially to the level of a dangerous threat) whenever these ingrained habits and vested interests are broadcast as "exclusive truth" in spite of contradicting evidence, sensible alternatives and/or reasonable opposition. (Case in point, again: the Pope's pronouncement on condoms.)

---

Many conservative Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant, but that doesn't mean that anyone's (even the Pope's) interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. Biblical interpretations should be held somewhat "contingently." Part of the problem that you note is due to elevating a particular interpretation to a position of inerrancy, whether it be the Pope on contraception or a YEC on creation.Another part of the problem is trying to read Genesis as teaching mechanism when it is not. (This mistake is made by both YECs and atheists.)

quote:

---

I think a lot of the vitriol you receive/perceive from skeptics can be attributed to their common perception (based on history and current observation): that non-scientific theism poses the greater threat, owing to its far greater preponderance of mental habituation and institutional vested interests. And of course, this also combines with a skeptic's "common sense": that making assertions far beyond the reach of objective verifiability (let alone arguing about their relative "truth") is at best inconsequential, and arguably nonsensical.

---

This is a fairly generous perspective. Perhaps some atheists think this way, and I do see some elements of this in Dawkins. But in Dawkins, for example, I also see a number of negative factors which seem to motivate him: a deep animosity toward God and religion, a very fundamental misunderstanding of Christian theology and religious faith, and a poor grasp of epistemology and philosophy of science.

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?

I don't think that's quite right about atheists. It may apply to some atheists, and perhaps that is all that you meant.In forums such as this, we do see atheists adopting the same kind of stance as YECs, as a kind of strategy to challenge the YEC reading of Genesis. But it seems to me that when not involved in such debating, atheists have very different ways of reading genesis.

That is a remarkably strange perspective, and just a little bit of consideration would seem to show that reason and logic do not give it much support at all. How can anyone possibly attribute "inerrancy" to sequence of sentences in a given language, when many (most? all?) people are likely to make mistakes in trying to understand or interpret those sentences? What does "inerrancy" really mean in that kind of situation?The strangeness of that proposition is driven home when we acknowledge that it was not God Himself who put ink to parchment in creating the first draft of the text, and even if He did have any sort of "direct" influence on the physical authors, His "truth" was nonetheless tempered and mitigated by the limitations of the language being used. Ambiguity, indeterminacy, vagueness, and limited expressive capacity are standard attributes of every human language, and Ancient Hebrew is certainly no exception. These attributes afflicted the initial composition, and they doubly (or exponentially) afflict any subsequent translation to another language. Trying to understand the text in a way that "reveals the absolute truth" of what was written (i.e. an "inerrant interpretation") strikes me as a fool's errand.But this is probably straying off-topic.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

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?

---

Good question. This is essentially Stephen J Gould's "non-overlapping magesteria" (NOMA) perspective. Religion is allowed free reign so long as it NEVER makes any claims or comments about the physical world. This would rule out the resurrection of Christ (the central tenet of Christianity, and the historical event that the Apostle Paul repeatedly pointed to as evidence for the Christian Gospel message). It would rule out God as creator and sustainer of the universe. In other words, this can't work with biblical Christianity.

quote:

---

Is the problem in trying to read the Bible as teaching about a deity that actually exists?

---

Most who reject the biblical God seem to end up substituting Him with something else. 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. The universe is self-generated, self-operating, self-sustaining -- these are biblical attributes of God but are placed on the universe. These positions are not scientific, they are metaphysical.

quote:

---

I don't think that's quite right about atheists. It may apply to some atheists, and perhaps that is all that you meant.

​

In forums such as this, we do see atheists adopting the same kind of stance as YECs, as a kind of strategy to challenge the YEC reading of Genesis. But it seems to me that when not involved in such debating, atheists have very different ways of reading genesis.

---

I also see it in Dawkins' "God Delusion." He insists on a simplistic, literalistic interpretation of Genesis so that it will conflict with science and he can ridicule it. This anti-religious literalistic interpretation among can be traced back at least to the classic "hatchet-job" books which insisted that science and religion are always in conflict: John Draper's "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science" in 1874 and Andrew Dickson White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" back in 1896.I hope you're right that many atheists are more honest than this in their attempts to interpret Genesis.

quote:

---

That is a remarkably strange perspective, and just a little bit of consideration would seem to show that reason and logic do not give it much support at all. How can anyone possibly attribute "inerrancy" to sequence of sentences in a given language, when many (most? all?) people are likely to make mistakes in trying to understand or interpret those sentences? What does "inerrancy" really mean in that kind of situation?

​

The strangeness of that proposition is driven home when we acknowledge that it was not God Himself who put ink to parchment in creating the first draft of the text, and even if He did have any sort of "direct" influence on the physical authors, His "truth" was nonetheless tempered and mitigated by the limitations of the language being used. Ambiguity, indeterminacy, vagueness, and limited expressive capacity are standard attributes of every human language, and Ancient Hebrew is certainly no exception. These attributes afflicted the initial composition, and they doubly (or exponentially) afflict any subsequent translation to another language. Trying to understand the text in a way that "reveals the absolute truth" of what was written (i.e. an "inerrant interpretation") strikes me as a fool's errand.

​

But this is probably straying off-topic.

---

Yes, this is probably off-topic, so I'll be very brief.The Christian concept of "inerrancy" can seem very strange to a non-Christian. It is a logical consequence of the Christian doctrine of "inspiration" which can also seem strange. If you want to understand what these beliefs are, do a search for the statements of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI). This will explain what the idea of inerrancy is, but will be too brief to explain why this is thought to be the correct view. If you want to know this, it will take a lot more study and searching in some good theology books, e.g. Millard Erickson's Christian Theology.

Yes, I would include Dawkins among the "some atheists" to which your comment does apply.I tend to think of Dawkins as more an anti-theist than just a plain atheist.It seems to me that there are many atheists who take a "live and let live" attitude toward religion, and who tend to see Genesis as a compilation of folklore, perhaps seeing some of it as poetic.

Ah, here we are, back at the OP topic again (funny how that happens... ) You seem to be asserting that "scientific atheists" must certainly have their own brand of metaphysics. Maybe that's true. Maybe I do as well -- but I'm not sure, because to me, the universe is simply something that I don't fully understand.I don't know whether the universe is self-generated (whatever that might mean), and I'm sure I've seen statements by Dawkins and the rest to the same effect. Does admitting that we don't know constitute a metaphysical position on the subject?Saying that the universe is "self-operating and self-sustaining" also seems fairly meaningless. Stuff is and stuff happens, and I don't see any need for an attribution of "self-hood" at the level of the universe as a whole.If you want to say that my limited comprehension must necessarily constitute a form of metaphysics, or that all humans must intrinsically hold to one or another sort of metaphysical system (and therefore "evolution requires faith" as per the OP in this thread), then I'd want to say that you are equivocating about what the term "metaphysics" refers to, and you seem to still be trying to attribute an inappropriate sense of "faith" to skeptics, and even to scientific endeavor generally.Maybe it's just a difference in personalities, combined with an unavoidable tendency to project one's own habits of thought onto others whose habits may in fact be quite different. As a habitual skeptic, I would assume that if I show you cause to doubt some personal belief of yours, you would generally do so, and I'd have a hard time understanding you if you didn't. Meanwhile, as a person of faith, you might be assuming that I hold a lot of things on faith in my own mind, and I might have a hard time convincing you otherwise.Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

HI kbertsche, This of course is quite false.Dawkins does not "insist" upon any interpretation. He may address a literal interpretation, but he also devotes an entire chapter of TGD to criticising the OT as a supposed moral guide;

quote:

---

Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is 'morality flying by the seat of its pants', so is the other. In any case, despite the good intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of Noah, literally

---

You seem to be projecting again. It is the Christian who regularly asserts that he has all the answers. Christians very often assert that they know the correct interpretation of scripture. Atheists tend not to claim such certainty.Disagree? Why don't you show me where Dawkins "insists" on any particular interpretation of Genesis? Or is that another secret that you are unwilling to divulge?Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

You seem to be asserting that "scientific atheists" must certainly have their own brand of metaphysics. Maybe that's true. Maybe I do as well -- but I'm not sure, because to me, the universe is simply something that I don't fully understand.

​

I don't know whether the universe is self-generated (whatever that might mean), and I'm sure I've seen statements by Dawkins and the rest to the same effect. Does admitting that we don't know constitute a metaphysical position on the subject?

​

Saying that the universe is "self-operating and self-sustaining" also seems fairly meaningless. Stuff is and stuff happens, and I don't see any need for an attribution of "self-hood" at the level of the universe as a whole.

---

Perhaps you are more neutral in your position, which would be rare. Maybe you just see science as describing what normally happens, and you are leaving the why question (in the sense of purpose or reason, not mechanism) unanswered. But I think most people assume some sort of metaphysical position which answers this question for them. Again, this metaphysical position is not provable, it is taken "on faith."Here's one of my favorite quotes, which gets at the heart of this: This is as far as science can properly go. The question of why (in a non-mechanistic sense) the earth follows gravitational laws is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question. I will suggest two possibilities:
1) The earth does this because God causes it to do so. God is the one who controls, operates, and upholds the universe every milisecond. He normally operates His universe in a consistent way. We identify this consistency as "natural laws." These natural laws have no independent existence on their own, they are merely descriptive of God's activity. This metaphysical perspective was held by nearly all of the founders of modern science: Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Maxwell, etc.
2) The earth does this because gravitational behavior is built into the fabric of nature. These laws are part of the universe itself. Nature runs like a clock with these built-in laws governing it, independently of any gods. This metaphysical perspective is that of Deism and of many modern scientists, especially atheists. (This is what I meant by the metaphysical position of the so-called "scientific atheists.")

quote:

---

If you want to say that my limited comprehension must necessarily constitute a form of metaphysics, or that all humans must intrinsically hold to one or another sort of metaphysical system (and therefore "evolution requires faith" as per the OP in this thread), then I'd want to say that you are equivocating about what the term "metaphysics" refers to, and you seem to still be trying to attribute an inappropriate sense of "faith" to skeptics, and even to scientific endeavor generally.

---

I'm not sure about your particular position. But the two positions outlined above are definitely metaphysical. Science dictates neither one, and good science can be done under either.

I agree with the distinction you are making between the metaphysics of Kepler et. al., and the metaphysics of today. I very much doubt that this has much to do with theism vs. atheism. It seems to me that theistic physicists are just as likely to talk of the fabric of space-time.This change, it seems to me, has more to do with Newtonian mechanics having been displaced by GR (general relativity). With Newtonian mechanics, you had explicit laws which you could consider to be laws of nature. With GR, you have gravitation explained in terms of curvature of space-time, a notion that lends itself more to the "fabric" way of talking.

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?