Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 2:27 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,208 Year: 5,245/19,786 Month: 1,367/873 Week: 263/460 Day: 15/64 Hour: 6/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 1 of 74 (149653)
10-13-2004 12:14 PM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-13-2004 7:37 PM NosyNed has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 2 of 74 (149757)
10-13-2004 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
10-13-2004 12:14 PM


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:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=77&m=243#243 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=77&m=243#243">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=77&m=243#243

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:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=77&m=231#231 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=77&m=231#231">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=77&m=231#231

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2004 12:14 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2004 10:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2004 11:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 10 by paisano, posted 10-14-2004 9:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 3 of 74 (149784)
10-13-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object
10-13-2004 7:37 PM


Rational?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-13-2004 7:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-14-2004 2:56 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-16-2004 8:56 PM NosyNed has responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 74 (149788)
10-13-2004 10:19 PM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2004 12:02 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-15-2004 5:28 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 5 of 74 (149802)
10-13-2004 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object
10-13-2004 7:37 PM


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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rational
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrational

ra·tion·al 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.

ir·ra·tion·al 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:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deist

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}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-13-2004 7:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 10-14-2004 9:35 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 74 (149810)
10-14-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
10-13-2004 10:19 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 10-13-2004 10:19 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 74 (149815)
10-14-2004 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
10-13-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Rational?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2004 10:12 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 10-14-2004 3:08 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 74 (149818)
10-14-2004 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Gilgamesh
10-14-2004 2:56 AM


The scientific method applied is the same, so how do they distinguish?

By the results, of course.

Hey, I never said it made sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-14-2004 2:56 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 9 of 74 (149853)
10-14-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
10-13-2004 11:28 PM


3. Mathematics. Of or relating to an irrational number.

That has to be the single worst definition I have ever seen in a dictionary!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2004 11:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2004 12:15 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

paisano
Member (Idle past 4533 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 10 of 74 (150004)
10-14-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object
10-13-2004 7:37 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-13-2004 7:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 10-15-2004 9:05 AM paisano has responded
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2004 12:23 PM paisano has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 74 (150081)
10-15-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by paisano
10-14-2004 9:18 PM


A reply to meessage #34 in the "So Bush isn't a liar?" thread would be much appreciated.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by paisano, posted 10-14-2004 9:18 PM paisano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by paisano, posted 10-15-2004 11:33 AM nator has responded

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 4533 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 12 of 74 (150097)
10-15-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by nator
10-15-2004 9:05 AM


Your request is off topic in this forum.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 10-15-2004 9:05 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 10-15-2004 6:55 PM paisano has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 13 of 74 (150115)
10-15-2004 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
10-14-2004 9:35 AM


agreed
using the word in the definition of the word is bad form isn't it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 10-14-2004 9:35 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 14 of 74 (150118)
10-15-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by paisano
10-14-2004 9:18 PM


or ...
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}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by paisano, posted 10-14-2004 9:18 PM paisano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by paisano, posted 10-15-2004 1:00 PM RAZD has responded

paisano
Member (Idle past 4533 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 15 of 74 (150127)
10-15-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
10-15-2004 12:23 PM


Re: or ...
Uh, I'm on your side on this issue, or hadn't you grasped that ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2004 12:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2004 2:51 PM paisano has not yet responded

1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019