|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This topic is to allow Willowtree to support his conjecture that evidence is interpreted based on "worldview" and that this cause utterly different interpretations of the evidence.
I suggest that to support this claim WT should give a specific example where there is a big difference between two opposing points of view. Then he can show the evidence that exists that both sides can agree on. Then he can discuss the "scientific" ("god sense removed") interpretation. Following that he can show a different interpretation and show why the first interpretation is directly influenced by the "wrong" worldview. see post:
Message 262 as one of many examples where WT has made such claims. (I'd like a review of this by one or more admins as I'd rather not have my good buddy AdminNosy promote it ) This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-12-2004 09:04 PM This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-12-2004 09:33 PM
moved by the Queen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
This topic is to allow Willowtree to support his conjecture that evidence is interpreted based on "worldview" and that this cause utterly different interpretations of the evidence. IOW, atheists, evolutionists, and those who believe that scientific methodologies are the only avenue to determine truth, are persons whose worldview does not affect their conclusions or interpretation of evidence. Let me interpret what Ned is really saying if it is not clear already: Ned is saying that the above entities should be viewed as objective - that their worldview does not affect their conclusions or interpretation of evidence and anyone who dares to imply otherwise is out of line. What silences the criticism that conclusions/interpretations are ultimately based upon worldview ? The specific issue which sparked this topic was evolutionists claiming their position based upon scientific evidence is the only rational position to take, AND anyone who does not fall into line with the said evidence AND its interpretation is irrational/crazy/insane.
RAZD writes: http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth My belief is that what can be known can only be known by rational methods. That is the wrapping paper of Deism. There are other things that cannot be known, and for those things whether you keep to rational methods or not does not make knowledge any more or less accessible. RAZD writes: http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth No I don't assume, I am stating a fact: the earth is older than any possilbe YEC model would allow. This is no different than stating that the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is not the center of the solar system nor the universe. This is accepted fact by rational people. Now here is my point: Examine Razd's quotes. Here we have an admitted old Earth evo/probably atheist/rejects Genesis/scientific methodologies are the only way to determine truth, YET according to his quotes the scientific evidence which he bases his conclusions and interpretations on is DEPENDANT ON BEING RATIONAL AND "RATIONAL METHODS" I enter the picture at this point and say, "Hey, looks like scientific methodologies depend on a subjective definition of rational - a philosophic argument - just like religion does." Who defines rational ? That is one of my two major points. The other point is that no matter how you slice it, science is no different than religion because it relies on a subjective definition of rational. Therefore, this unceasing assertion that science is based only upon scientific evidence is nonsense because according to Razd/Ned you must be rational in their view = a philosophic argument. According to my worldview, anyone who does not believe that God is the Creator is irrational/insane. But my worldview admits that philosophy is king unlike the scientific methodologies pushed by Razd/Ned which also rely on persons being rational. The issue is their refusal to admit this which makes their claim about their conclusions being based only upon evidence absurdly false.
Dr Scott: "Everyone has an ax to grind - objective persons declare their bias up-front so their audience knows when it creeps into their conclusions." Atheo-evos would have everyone believe that they are exempt from bias. The specific issue is: How does any evidence disprove Genesis ? Answer: Only when the filter of your worldview says so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Your claim has been that the "rational" worldview that we espouse results in misinterpretations when compared to the "rational"-faithful worldview that you espouse. Let's call them Rational-A (RA) and Rational-F (RF)
It seems we will need to define "rational" as it applies to thought processes as one part of this. I'll get to that later. It maybe that we can see how close RA and RF can be brought. Your claim is that the conclusions that use RA are misinterpretations. However, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, about 40% of practicing scientists are not atheists. Thus the thought processes they bring to bare are not atheistic. Is there a third class of thought? Since they arrive at the same conclusions as the atheists you claim that the thought processes are wrong because they are atheistic is wrong. You have yet to show the workings of the 'correct' method of rational thinking (RF) as applied to existing evidence and how, step by step, it arrives at a different conclusion. That will be necessary to show that there is a better way. Let me have a go at making my own statment about what I think a rational way of coming to a conclusion is: 1) It uses evidence that I have some chance of knowing is not a mistake, delusion or fraud. I do this be expecting others to check out what I think I am seeing or measuring. And redoing the examination if necessary.2) It considers as much evidence as is possible and is likely to help me arrive at the conclusion. This means that while I do not look at literally everything I try to be careful about leaving things out which do or may have an influence on the conclusion. 3) I make each step of the logic connecting the evidence to the conclusion as clear as I possibly can. I do this to allow others to check what I am doing. 4) (optional?) If I expect others to accept my conclusions without reproducing the entire set of work I subject everything I have done to a careful and, perhaps preferably, somewhat hostile review to see if others without my emotional attachment to the result can find a flaw. That's my first cut. Others can tune it up or add if they see a need. Now, WillowTree, it is your turn to explain what your form of rational thought processes are. You have seen plenty of examples of the one I just gave being applied. Once you have defined yours I'd like an example of it being applied.
Atheo-evos would have everyone believe that they are exempt from bias. As noted above this is the method used by firmly believing Christians too. And the majority of Christians accept it as a way of finding things out about the material world while rejecting it as a way of finding things out about the immaterial world of their God. Atheo-evos use something like the method that I described above because they know full-well that they are not exempt from bias. That is why the data and logic are spelled out so carefully so others can check. And why they subject their own work to their own critism before making it widely available. The individual humans involved in science be they believers or not are all biased in some way. The process used is the best that we have devised for avoiding the worst mistakes of that bias. It is the best we have for examining that which can be examined. That is the natural world but not more than that. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-13-2004 09:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Faith and Belief forum.
Moved here as I think this forum is closer to the right home for it. I suppose it doesn't matter all that much. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-13-2004 09:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
willowtree writes: IOW, atheists, evolutionists, and those who believe that scientific methodologies are the only avenue to determine truth, are persons whose worldview does not affect their conclusions or interpretation of evidence. Who defines rational ? The question is whether a person let’s his worldview dictate how he interprets what he sees or whether he lets what he sees dictate his world view. The former is hide bound to a subjective vision independent of the real world, the latter is objective. Rational Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comIrrational Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com rational adj. 1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.2. Of sound mind; sane. 3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical. 4. Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers. irrational adj. 1.a. Not endowed with reason.. b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock. . c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike. 2.a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern. . b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable. 3. Mathematics. Of or relating to an irrational number. Thus if the argument follows logic from A to B it is rational, and if it rejects or ignores such logic it is irrational. Take up this argument with Daniel Webster or his descendants.
What silences the criticism that conclusions/interpretations are ultimately based upon worldview ? The nonsense quotient — if a worldview is dependent on declaring that whole fields of knowledge are nonsense in order for the worldview to be valid, it is necessarily irrational per above, but it is also encumbered by a high nonsense quotient versus a worldview that says that a couple of verses in one little book are nonsense, regardless of which book one is concerned with.
Here we have an admitted old Earth evo/probably atheist/rejects Genesis/scientific methodologies are the only way to determine truth, Throw in a few semi-ad hominems while you’re at it ... truth is self evident. Such as the self evident truth of my signature that says Deist in it: Deist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. That kind of covers my position on how to look at the world and evaluate what is real and what is not. Scientific methodologies are only rational evaluation of evidence based on reason.
The specific issue is: How does any evidence disprove Genesis ? Answer: Only when the filter of your worldview says so. Why should I care whether evidence proves or disproves one or two elements of one book full of stories, some possibly based on historical happenings, but that never claimed to be a book of science? It seems to me that the only people that require genesis as part of their worldview are those who believe in it beforehand. For me, if the evidence points in one direction then that is where the evidence goes. Ideas of Reality are part of everyone’s filter — and each is ultimately subjective because after an experience all you have is the memory of it. I have written an essay on this and could quote it (very long) or provide a link to it, however that is against board policy. I may need admin to advise on how to proceed on this matter.
NosyNed writes: I suggest that to support this claim WT should give a specific example where there is a big difference between two opposing points of view. Then he can show the evidence that exists that both sides can agree on. Hmmm .... not done yet ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
that would explain why my long-winded reply had trouble finding the thread when I hit send ...
One question I have is why is "godsenseless" allowed to refer to "literal-christian-god-senseless" as it seems to ignore other "godsenses" of other faiths. that would be a shortcoming to the term for willowtree to explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gilgamesh Inactive Member |
Nosy Ned wrote:
As noted above this is the method used by firmly believing Christians too. And the majority of Christians accept it as a way of finding things out about the material world... Actually ALL Christians, Creationists included, accept the method as a way of finding things out about the material world. It's just that Creationists find some bizarre way of distinguishing where it is applied to many things they take for granted, like telecommunications, transport, construction, modern medicine (in some cases), from where it is applied to those areas of science that conflict with their particular religious views. The scientific method applied is the same, so how do they distinguish?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The scientific method applied is the same, so how do they distinguish? By the results, of course. Hey, I never said it made sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
3. Mathematics. Of or relating to an irrational number. That has to be the single worst definition I have ever seen in a dictionary!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6453 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
The specific issue is: How does any evidence disprove Genesis ? Well, this is really too imprecise for discussion. What are we trying to prove/disprove about Genesis ? The very specific assertion that it has scientific content? Or the more general assertion that it has some sort of epistemic content ? I'm assuming you are referring to the former, but correct me if that's unfounded. However, the question of whether, and to what extent, Genesis has scientific content is far from settled within the Christian community.
According to my worldview, anyone who does not believe that God is the Creator is irrational/insane. But my worldview admits that philosophy is king unlike the scientific methodologies pushed by Razd/Ned which also rely on persons being rational. The issue is their refusal to admit this which makes their claim about their conclusions being based only upon evidence absurdly false. Yet the conclusion of YEC from this assertion is a non sequitur. Even if we grant its points in toto, which I'm prepared to argue we should not. It is quite possible to believe God created the universe through primarily natural process over billions of years. Indeed this is the majority Christian position. I think you've assumed a burden of refuting this by primarily scientific arguments, if this topic belongs in this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A reply to meessage #34 in the "So Bush isn't a liar?" thread would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6453 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Your request is off topic in this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
using the word in the definition of the word is bad form isn't it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
paisano writes: It is quite possible to believe God created the universe through primarily natural process over billions of years. Indeed this is the majority Christian position. It is also possible to believe that god created the world according to the thousands of other religions and cults and splintered beliefs. Thus one cannot take a religious belief as a de facto guide unless each one of those beliefs have the same results. If one rejects logic and reason then we are left with religion being necessarily insane by definition. Certainly rejection of evidence is irrational: the earth does orbit the sun and the sun is not at the center of the universe; the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old and the earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6453 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Uh, I'm on your side on this issue, or hadn't you grasped that ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024