Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

I'm going to address an earlier post as well as this latest post of yours in this one reply. First of all you do not start with "facts" in the sense of looking at raw data. You are looking at someone's written interpretation of events... perhaps raw data. They are not even highly descriptive.Second, you yourself admitted that initial "readings" of scripture may not be correct and that a person must come to understand what is actually meant, rather than just any possible interpretation. This raises the question of how you can call any of the interpretations of events in scripture as "facts"? In every case YOU (the reader) could end up being wrong.Third, none of scripture is a direct communication from witnesses of an event. Scribes who copied or translated the original observations may have also been just as errant as any reader. This is not to mention that the creation stories were from oral traditions, making error more likely/probable.Isn't modern science, by studying the raw materials and attempting to come to conclusions based on processes working on those materials, a valid way to double check the written interpretation of events found in scripture? Hasn't this already been proven in the past regarding other mistakes in reading scripture? There is no basis for your claim. Science existed outside of the west. Science flourished outside of Xianity. What we consider modern empirical science formed outside of Xianity and had to be protected from its fact cleansing fires. If not for opponents of Xianity much of what we know today would never have been discovered or would have been lost.The only valid claim one can make along these lines is that scientists successfully imported, developed, and protected scientific advances within Xian nations until overt pressure from religion was removed. At that point science began to flourish in the western Xian nations. It is more in spite of than because of.That said there were some very devout Xians who did great scientific work. I am not trying to say that Xians are incapable of doing science. I get what you are saying, and it makes sense as a logical possibility. Essentially you seem to be saying that everyone has to rely on books for statements about the past and so gain knowledge about it. Okay that's true.But there is a difference between historical books regarding figures like Napoleon and scientific theories about geological/biological processes, versus religious texts.The first two cases are not treated as full truth, but caveated based on level of corroborating evidence. While it would seem odd to doubt Napoleon existed given the amount of corroborating evidence, people can and many do doubt events or statements ascribed to Napoleon... even things written about him at that time. Same goes for scientific theories. In my life many concepts of geologic and biological development have changed. Evolutionary theory itself has changed based on level of evidence for specific processes, though nothing so far has emerged to challenge (indeed much has come to support) its basic principles.In contrast, scripture does not have much corroboration. I'm not going to get into the "did Jesus exist" thing, because I think there is some evidence which suggests such a person could have. What I would doubt is actions and statements ascribed to him. There is essentially no corroborating evidence for it.This is even worse for Creationist theories. There is nothing but the written translation/interpretation of an oral tradition handed down by generations of people which relate to events no individual human could have been party to. Even if we say God told somebody, the question is when, and how did that person and everyone else manage to get it right as they passed it down.Even the Flood suffers from this problem. There is no real corroboration outside the text on a global scale. And even if we assume the authors were telling the truth as they saw it, couldn't they have been errant, or translations errant? Maybe Noah only meant that the whole of HIS world flooded, meaning the region in which he lived. Maybe two of every animal meant only domesticated animals for food and service, and descendants expanded it using dramatic license. Unlike Napoleon, not at the time that he is claimed to have lived. And not nearly with the vast amounts of corroborating material Napoleon has to support that he interacted with the people of the time in the way that he is said to have done.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Others have already adequately replied but I'll give it a go as well.1) Any writing is simply a personal interpretation of events. Given your own argument we cannot know anything is true simply because we see it written. There may have been errors, intentional or unintentional by the author, OR there may be errors in comprehension by the reader.2) We check the veracity of claims by looking outside texts. Sometimes it involves looking at other texts, but more important is to look at other physical evidence which should be there if the claims are true.3) The reality of historical figures such as Napoleon have vast amounts of corroborating evidence, both textual and physical. That said there are disputes regarding claims of what he did or said. This is something you did not deal with in your reply to me. UNLIKE THE BIBLE, disputes based on evidence are brought to bear on such figures as well as claims in science regarding entities and processes.4) Most of the Bible is not written by direct eye witnesses. Particularly when we are discussing creation and the flood, which is usually where most scientific disputes occur. Those that involve direct observation are often by the participants themselves, with no outside corroborating testimony, which makes their testimony less than certain.5) The entirety of the Old and New Testaments is a mix of oral traditions and later texts, brought together on more than one occassion to create unified textual traditions. And the copies we have today have gone through many generations of writers and translaters. This presents many opportunities for error. None of it intentional.6) Your assertion that modern translations are close to previous texts is without any foundation. Indeed it is undercut by the fact that there are so many different translations and denominations with different interpretations of those translations. If the details were clear and uniform in meaning, then we'd have one book, or one meaning from that book.7) Other statements in the Bible regarding "facts" were also clear. Eventually they were shown inconsistent with reality and so the "facts" were considered figurative or allegorical accounts. If that happened with other clear factual statements, why could the same not be true for creation and the flood?On a side note, if you are going to make claims in your posts, don't dismiss my refutations of them as tangential and, worse still, go on to claim that you've defended your case elsewhere. We can all play that game, and it's not cool.As a statement of historical fact, Xianity was neither the founder nor supporter of modern empirical science. No one in science owes Xianity any debt of gratitude. Indeed we are still fighting factional Xian elements on many issues regarding scientific progress. I know I have defended that position elsewhere, and knocked your rather questionable position elsewhere. Edited by holmes, : explaining the gameEdited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Maybe I was too longwinded, but the above is what I was trying to get at with my points.I was NOT trying to argue that the words of the Bible are not fact. I was juxtaposing the nature of the statements within the Bible, the potential sources of error, to those with regard to other historical people or scientific topics. Then raising the question of how they are analyzed, or should be analyzed in a consistent manner (if this is going to be scientific).My concluding point was to show that in the past Xian scientists changed their analysis of what is a statement of fact, vs allegory, based on comparison to physical data.If you still feel this is offtopic I will drop it, but I thought I was dealing specifically with assumed fact based on faith, vs assessing factual statements based on other sources as we do in other fields.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

While I agree with your point that certainty can effect evidence, I think that's exactly why science does NOT require a large consensus.Science requires adherence to methodology in an attempt to deal with evidence to draw best conclusions. Consensus on conclusions is essentially meaningless. Indeed if it did have meaning then many faulty theories would still be around, as many changes came from small numbers of scientists with theories opposed to consensus opinion.Recognition of increased conflict between theory and data eventually creates consensus among those properly using the methodology. But consensus itself does not argue enough information is available nor that most are actually applying the correct methodology to a subject.Put simply consensus is often used to create the illusion of certainty, and so reason to believe something, which is the very thing you are criticizing. Consensus is a form of faith.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Actually that IS what I was talking about.For example the consensus of those who studied astronomy was of a terracentric universe for a long time. This was not strictly because of adherence to faith. Eventually the reality of heliocentrism won out to create a consensus on that issue, but it started with a much smaller group that was right for a very long time without consensus.You are correct that what ultimately happens is an argument from authority, but my point was trying to get at the unimportance of consensus in science.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I was thinking about this last night and decided to wait until you replied before writing more about it. I came to a very similar conclusion to what I think you are discussing here.My problem was with the concept of consensus, which generally means agreement. That I maintain is not important. However, largescale testing by a community IS important.When an individual has a result, and many others continue to have the same result, then it makes individual error (or chance results) less likely as a reason for those results. But many others having different results will drastically effect one's theory because it makes error or chance more likely.So its more that passing theories through the filter of a community engaged in repeated trials is important to science, with its negative effects meaning more than its general agreement (which could still be flawed due to insufficient levels of evidence). Absolute agreement. My guess is the reply will be that the revelation in the Bible is of real-world experience, as they are eye-witness accounts.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Assuming for a second that you are right and those were all frauds meant to advance evolutionary theory...Can't we agree regarding the OP, that those that did so were acting out of faith and not proper science?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)