Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

There is no single definition, standard or otherwise, for "faith". You are trying to use a semantic argument, conflating different definitions of faith in order to give religious faith the same level of confidence as faith derived through experience and evidence. They are not the same thing.

---

No, I am using the same definition of faith for both: i.e. confidence or trust based on evidence. The main difference is the type of evidence that is accepted in each field.

quote:

---

What do you mean by "presuppositions?"

---

quote:

---

Science begins with the working assumption of methodological naturalism.

​

Is that what you are referring to as a "presupposition?"

---

Yes, I suggested this as one of the presuppositions of science in Message 108. I'm trying to understand whether/why Dr. A disagrees with this.

Thanks for the clarification.I would suggest that there is a difference between a "preposition" and a "working assumption."A working assumption is something that is taken as tentative, and used to the extent that it proves useful. If it is contradicted, then it will have to be reevaluated.So far, the working assumption of methodological naturalism in science has not been shown to be erroneous or insufficient. Certainly the divine revelations and scriptures relied upon by religions have not done so.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Perhaps this is because I see non-religious people in this thread denigrating religious faith. They apparently don't understand it and want to dismiss it as a "blind faith" based on no evidence at all. I am trying to explain that this perspective is simply wrong.

---

Now maybe you actually believe this, but if you do it is despite the evidence that you yourself have produced. In other words it is an example of blind faith. Your arguments abuse definitions and pretend that there is reasoning where there is none. In fact your faith is so blind that you could not even admit that there was no example of reasoning in Acts 17 even though you could not point to one.It's really simple - if you believe your own arguments you are living proof that you are wrong.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps this is because I see non-religious people in this thread denigrating religious faith. They apparently don't understand it and want to dismiss it as a "blind faith" based on no evidence at all. I am trying to explain that this perspective is simply wrong.

---

Now maybe you actually believe this, but if you do it is despite the evidence that you yourself have produced. In other words it is an example of blind faith. Your arguments abuse definitions and pretend that there is reasoning where there is none. In fact your faith is so blind that you could not even admit that there was no example of reasoning in Acts 17 even though you could not point to one.

​

It's really simple - if you believe your own arguments you are living proof that you are wrong.

---

Acts 17 does not contain an extended, logical argument, which I have admitted. But Paul DOES mention "evidence" and "reasons" to accept what he says. Whether or not it includes is "reasoning" depends on one's definition of "reasoning" (i.e. does mention of evidence count, or is an extended logical argument required?)I am trying to use consistent definitions for words such as "faith", "believe", etc. I do not believe I have "abused" any definitions. But the "blind faith" proponents certainly do so!

quote:

---

Acts 17 does not contain an extended, logical argument, which I have admitted. But Paul DOES mention "evidence" and "reasons" to accept what he says. Whether or not it includes is "reasoning" depends on one's definition of "reasoning" (i.e. does mention of evidence count, or is an extended logical argument required?)

---

The mere mention of alleged evidence seems to fall short of actual reasoning. The actual reasoning would be an explanation of how the "evidence" supports the conclusions.
But really there is no serious argument in Acts 17 and no rational way you could have come to the conclusion that there was.

quote:

---

I am trying to use consistent definitions for words such as "faith", "believe", etc. I do not believe I have "abused" any definitions. But the "blind faith" proponents certainly do so!

---

I realise that to the apologetic mindset the "proper" argument is the one that supports the desired conclusion. However by a more rational argument your statement is another falsehood. Your argument is "my preferred definition of the word faith includes the use of reason and evidence therefore there is reason and evidence supporting religious faith". But this is clearly fallacious reasoning. The correct way to establish that would be to show thee evidence and reasoning - and the very fact that you avoid that is clear evidence that you are at some level aware of the falsity of your views.There is much more evidence of the evasive and selective nature of your arguments - and the fact that you have managed to present no rational case. You would have done far better to keep your silence instead of providing such compelling proof of the blindness of your faith.

There are presuppositions that underlie the scientific methodology, but theories are derived independently of these presuppositions.For example, we would look at radiometric dating. The uniformitarianist presuppositions of the scientific methodology allow us to use the ratio of isotopes in rocks to determine how old they are. However, the actual age of the rocks is not derived from the uniformitarianist presuppositions, it is derived from the actual ratio of isotopes in the rocks. It is not as if a rock is presupposed to be a specific age. That is, the age of rocks is not an axiom of the scientific methodology.

quote:

---

I realise that to the apologetic mindset the "proper" argument is the one that supports the desired conclusion. However by a more rational argument your statement is another falsehood. Your argument is "my preferred definition of the word faith includes the use of reason and evidence therefore there is reason and evidence supporting religious faith". But this is clearly fallacious reasoning. The correct way to establish that would be to show thee evidence and reasoning - and the very fact that you avoid that is clear evidence that you are at some level aware of the falsity of your views.

---

You have my argument backwards. You should know as well as I that religious faith uses reason and evidence. This is quite evident in any scholarly theological treatise, where philosophical-type reasoning is used. I have referred to examples of theological reasoning multiple times in this thread. Only one who is completely ignorant of theology and philosophy would try to deny that they involve evidence and reasoning.

quote:

---

There is much more evidence of the evasive and selective nature of your arguments - and the fact that you have managed to present no rational case. You would have done far better to keep your silence instead of providing such compelling proof of the blindness of your faith.

---

You argue against religion like the YECs argue against science--lots of rhetoric in an attempt to denigrate and dismiss it without understanding it. You continue to ignore the philosophical reasoning and evidence used in theology. Do you REALLY deny that theology and philosophy involve reason?

quote:

---

You have my argument backwards. You should know as well as I that religious faith uses reason and evidence. This is quite evident in any scholarly theological treatise, where philosophical-type reasoning is used. I have referred to examples of theological reasoning multiple times in this thread. Only one who is completely ignorant of theology and philosophy would try to deny that they involve evidence and reasoning.

---

But not to resolve basic matters of faith. The most you will find there is apologetics - often deceptive or fallacious - intended to prop up faith with the illusion of reason. To the extent that reasoning is correctly deployed it is used to argue over lesser points, with the major issues all assumed from the start.

quote:

---

You argue against religion like the YECs argue against science--lots of rhetoric in an attempt to denigrate and dismiss it without understanding it.

---

On the contrary, because the evidence is staring us all in the face. Your posts are there for everyone to read, and their slippery and evasive nature is visible to everyone. You are arguing like a creationist, determined to "prove" that you are correct, no matter what the truth.

The problem here is that there is no difference between subjective evidence and faith based beliefs. They are one in the same.

So list the evidence and the reasoning. You have failed to lay out the evidence, premises, and conclusions for these examples of theological reasonings. How is asking multiple times for the reasoning in this theology ignoring it? Just lay out evidence, premises, and conclusions. Show how one leads to the next.

Just curious, do you put me in the ranks of the "blind faith" proponents, as you describe them?I think I provided a fairly clear description of the nature of "evidence" that religion relies on: Let me expand on that a bit. Science relies on objective evidence that any other person can look at and verify. There is no need to trust what anyone else says about the evidence. You don't need faith in those collecting the evidence. If I don't believe what someone says about their evidence, I can look at it for myself, as can anyone else. As long as I can trust what my senses show me, I can see the evidence myself.What's more, scientific hypotheses are subject to the acid test: do they work? Science produces results, science does things. What science has accomplished is further objective evidence in support of science.Religion relies on authority. It depends on believing someone else's word. I can't verify anything in the bible by looking at objective evidence. I can't share someone else's feeling of peace upon being filled with the spirit of the lord. Accepting religion requires faith in what others say. Is it based on "evidence?" Yes, in a sense. But it's not based on objective, verifiable evidence. It is based on evidence that must be taken on faith.Science never says, "Believe because I say so." But at bottom, that's all that religion has. That's the difference between faith and evidence.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, I am using the same definition of faith for both: i.e. confidence or trust based on evidence. The main difference is the type of evidence that is accepted in each field.

---

The problem here is that there is no difference between subjective evidence and faith based beliefs. They are one in the same.

---

I agree that the subjectivity or objectivity of one's evidence is an important issue. If the evidence for any claim or belief system were ONLY subjective, I would have little confidence in it. But this is a topic for a different thread (in fact, I've seen such threads on EvC Forum in the past).

I'd be very interested in hearing what evidence you think exists for religion that isn't subjective.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat