|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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:
Donald Mackay writes:
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: Scientific laws do not prescribe what must happen; they describe what has happened. The earth does not go round the sun because Newton's (or Einstein's) law makes it, or tells it to. The earth goes its own way, and the scientific laws are our generalized way of describing how it goes. All that they prescribe are our expectations.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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:I did not mention the issue of whether or not the OT is a moral guide. I mentioned the issue of a simplistic, literalistic interpretation of Genesis. And I also said:quote:This of course is quite false. kbertsche writes: 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. quote:I can't find an explicit mention in The God Delusion that Dawkins thinks Genesis speaks of a literal, 6-day creation. Perhaps I heard this in one of his debates (with Lennox? McGrath?) But he implies that he thinks such a literalistic interpretation is correct in a couple of places in the book. E.g., when speaking of Kurt Wise on p. 285, he mentions that Wise could have interpreted the Bible symbolically or allegorically, but instead he adopted a "fundamentalist" interpretation. Dawkins praises him for this as "honest -- devastatingly, painfully, shockingly honest." But Dawkins certainly DOES insist on a conflict perspective between science and religion. This unwavering commitment permeates The God Delusion. He is strongly critical of any attempts to harmonize science and religion. He ridicules Stephen Jay Gould's "NOMA" perspective (p. 55-61). He even accuses atheist philosopher Michael Ruse of being in "the Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists" because Ruse had some good things to say about non-YEC Christians (p. 67). As Alister McGrath explains, Dawkins has simply replicated a YEC "fundamentalist scenario, while inverting its frame of reference. ... Dawkins is clearly entrenched in his own peculiar version of a fundamentalist dualism. ... We are offered an atheist fundamentalism that is as deeply flawed and skewed as its religious counterparts." (Alister and Joanna McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? pp. 46-48.) Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:Perhaps my use of the word "fabric" was misleading. The distinction is whether the universe is something which is operated by God or whether it runs "all by itself." The space-time "fabric" of the universe can be viewed either way; it can be part of our description of how God normally operates His universe, or it can be a sort of self-existent, self-operating, independent structure.quote: Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:First, I never believed in Santa Claus.quote: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? Second, if I had ever believed in Santa, I would have replaced him with my parents. They were the ones who actually performed the "Santa functions." As I explained earlier:
kbertsche writes:
These atheists take the "God-functions" of creating and sustaining the universe, and ascribe these functions to the universe itself. Nature becomes their god. 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. Third, there is a big difference between belief in Santa and belief in God. Can you show me an adult who did not believe in Santa but then converted to belief in Santa? Maybe an intelligent university biochemistry student like Alister McGrath? Or an intelligent, reasonable philosopher in his 80's like Anthony Flew? I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:Good, at least we agree on something!quote:You are correct that science dictates neither position, and good science can be done under either. quote:Neither view is scientific at all; they are both metaphysical. So what does "scientifically equivalent" even mean here? quote:Not so! In stating this, you assume your conclusion. A god is only "unnecessary" under position 2). He is essential under position 1). If you start by asserting that God is unnecessary, you have already taken a metaphysical position. You have assumed your conclusion. quote:First, I don't quite see how "parsimony" or "Occam's razor" applies to a philosophical/metaphysical question. This is a general scientific principle, but not a strict quantifiable law. We have a strong bias toward the simpler explanation in science, but we recognize that it is not invariably the best one. But we can’t force a scientific principle onto a metaphysical question. Second, the universe is very different under the two metaphysical positions above. The first position is NOT simply the second position with a "god" added. Under the first position, the universe is simply a created thing which responds to the control of its creator and sustainer. It has no independent existence or power of its own. Under the second, the universe is independently existing and self-operating. This is a much more complex universe than the first. So the complexity of the two positions is similar; one puts the complexity outside the universe, in God, and the other puts the complexity in the universe itself, making the universe god-like. It's not obvious that either basic position is philosophically simpler or more "parsimonious" than the other. John Lennox gives a good analogy. Suppose someone were to see some scratches on a cave wall and postulate that these were a random result of the forces of nature. But then someone else points out that these are actually ancient Chinese characters that communicate meaning, and postulates that an intelligent being wrote them on the cave wall. Should we follow your logic and reject this explanation because it adds "an additional irrelevant element" and there is "no observational distinction" between the two theories?
quote:Not so. This is metaphysics, not science. Science cannot discriminate between metaphysical positions. quote:I don't think we should have ANY irrelevant additions, of course. Only relevant ones. quote:Good, valid questions. I presented only two metaphysical positions, but many, many more could be proposed, as you suggest. Feel free to develop these as you wish. I only presented the position that I hold and the one that I suspect most of my critics here hold. quote:I disagree. Many problems have no easy answer under the second, but have simple, straightforward answers under the first. (Note: I am talking of philosophical problems here, not scientific problems.) But this thread is not about arguing any particular metaphysical position, or about the reasons for or against any particular position. (If you want to argue this, please take it to a different thread.) My point here is simply the existence of metaphysical positions which underlie science, the inability to decide between them on scientific grounds, and the necessity of taking them on faith. I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:I agree with you on this. "Creation science" is a set of scientific claims which are demonstrably false. But these claims are not central to Christianity or to religion; they are the views of one particular subgroup. Many Christians are as opposed to their claims as you are. quote:I agree with you, and have experienced the same sort of vitriol from YECs. But don't let them determine your view of all Christians or all religious people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, it is irrelevant whether or not Dawkins ever read these books. My point was that Draper and White popularized the claim that science and religion are always in conflict, and that this false claim has infected much of western society. Most don't know where the claim originated.quote:Bet you a dollar Dawkins has never read those books. It hardly matters where you think you can trace it to, when you can't even find it in TGD. quote:How can any intelligent person actually believe this? Talk about "projection" and "blind faith!" But in this case, it is not faith without evidence, it is faith in opposition to evidence!quote:Yes. Good chap that Dawkins. Always liked him. Invariably, those who make such claims are not non-religious, but anti-religious. They critique that which they neither believe nor understand. They are like a geocentrist who critiques astronomy. Gould made an honest observation when he said, Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs and equally compatible with atheism. The claim that science and religion are incompatible is falsified by surveys of religious belief among scientists. And the history of modern science falsifies this claim. Modern science arose in Christian Europe (mainly in Puritan England). The founders and early developers of modern science (e.g. Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, van Leeuwenhoek, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Maxwell) did not merely absorb the religion of their culture; they were devout believers themselves. Newton wrote more about the Bible than about science. Bacon wrote the following (reproduced by Darwin on the flyleaf of Origin of Species):
Francis Bacon writes:
To conclude therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both. These men pursued science because they held the first metaphysical perspective that I described earlier. They believed that God is consistent and trustworthy; He is the operator of His universe; therefore His universe can be studied and "natural laws" can be discerned, analogous to God's "moral laws" revealed in Scripture. Historians of science agree that Christianity was a major contributor, not an impediment, to the development of modern science. The ridiculous claim that science and religion inherently conflict or are incompatible with one another is not born out in history nor in the lives of modern scientists who are religious. It only exists as a figment of the imagination of those who hate religion. Edited by kbertsche, : updated sig "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I thought I was clear in e.g. Message 335, but perhaps I wasn't since both GM and you seem to have misunderstood.quote:Or is it possible that one doesn't need other gods to replace a belief in your God? I was not claiming that you, GM or anyone else has "replaced" God with the universe in your own personal history. Rather, I note that the metaphysical conception of the universe is very different under the two views I have suggested. Attributes which are classically attributed to God under view 1 are placed on nature in view 2. The universe has replaced God as the thing which is uncaused, self-existent, self-operating. Most atheists, like you, would strongly object to calling the universe a "god," but in rejecting traditional gods you must ascribe divine attributes to nature. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
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:This doesn't make sense. Of course these statements "purport to describe reality"; God is real, the spiritual world is real. But how does this make them subject to scientific investigation? If you believe that they are, can you suggest a scientific test that would distinguish between the two positions? Your claim doesn't make sense even with the metaphysical positions that you describe as your own. Is your claim that "There is an actual reality external to us that exists." a metaphysical claim? (yes) Does it "purport to describe reality?" (yes) Is it "subject to scientific investigation?" (no)
quote:No; I don't believe any observational distinction exists. The difference is metaphysical, not observational.quote:You say that, yet you fail to propose any observational distinction that anyone could use to be able to tell which of the two universes we are in. Can you propose such a distinction? quote:Perhaps you don't care about anything that is not amenable to scientific investigation? If this is the case, then perhaps you shouldn't care about this any more than you care about beauty, or truth, or morality, or altruism. (See the Schroedinger quote in my sig) "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:And I keep answering the same way: 1) You are proposing an extended apologetics discussion which doesn't belong in this thread (or in any "Is it science?" thread, since it is not science.) 2) If you can't find a good apologetics-related thread, I'd be happy to recommend websites, books, etc for anyone who really is serious about investigating God and faith. (But I think most here just want to argue against God instead of honestly investigating Him.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:No, I don't think this constitutes a metaphysical position about existence. It sounds more like an honest agnosticism. But this is not Dawkins' position, nor is it the position of most of my critics here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024