Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Evidence and Religious Belief
wj
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 19 (44737)
07-01-2003 4:07 AM


The greatest objection which the science advocates have to the "creation science" stance in the EvC debate is the latter's attempt to produce scientific support for their religious dogma. As NosyNed has asked elsewhere: "Why bother with any scientific evidence if you have to invoke the supernatural to make any of your speculations work?"
It seems that creationists inherently recognise the respectibility, believability and authority which science has in modern societies and they wish to clothe their religious dogma in such qualities by giving it scientific backing. Creationists crave for the physical, scientifically verifiable evidence which would support their dogma, whether it is rapid stratification or rapid evolution within a kind (both necessary to fit most of the earth's history and geology into the nost-flood era).
But of course creationists must attack those parts of science which provide evidence which is inconsistent with their religious dogma. Radiometric dating must be wrong if it makes the earth billions of years old. The geological column must be an artifact of the flood and lithification must occur quickly. Fossils must be arranged by in accordance with a hydrological theory or habitat or mobility (all those fleeing angiosperms), any criteria except an evolutionary process.
Why do creationists even bother to invoke scientific information and logic in their cause? Do creationist think that too much reliance on miracles to explain all of the scientific evidence which is inconsistent with their religious dogma stretches their credibility? Do they hope to explain as much as possible of the past physical and biological world with non-threatening science and only employ the essential minimum number of miracles?
If creationists simply relied on "goddunit" to every scientific finding then both camps could peacefully coexist. Science would ignore creationists and leave them in their intellectual ghetto because they would not be making scientific claims; and creationists could ignore the scientific findings which disturb their dogma by invoking yet another miracle which defies humanly explanation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 07-01-2003 6:26 AM wj has not replied
 Message 3 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-01-2003 10:23 AM wj has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 2 of 19 (44749)
07-01-2003 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wj
07-01-2003 4:07 AM


Hi wj,
What you talk about in your post is essentially applicable to the history and archaeological data as well.
What I have found is that certain Bible inerrantists set out to prove the Bible correct by trying to find archaeological evidence to support biblical events, and when they come up with virtually no support, they then rely on the miracle clause again. My objection is that if they are confident enough to rely on archaeology to support their beliefs, and they are sure that archaeology can do this, then why is it when they come up with nothing (in some cases) do they then ignore the negative evidence from archaeology?
If archaeology is good enough in their mind to prove the Bible correct before they set out to research it, then why appeal to miracles when they find archaeology is not the Bible’s best friend?
If they are going to rely on miracles then they need to realise that archaeology and history are not in the miracle market place, historians simply do not like or involve miracles for an explanation of anything. They might try to explain an alleged miracle by attributing it to a natural phenomenon, but divine intervention is not a part of archaeological/historical methodology. However, try telling an inerrantist that and you get all types of excuses. Excuses such as, maybe God hid the evidence to confound the wise, the evidence is there we just haven’t found it yet, or ‘I really don’t see how we could find any evidence anyway.’ These examples are genuine, taken straight from my personal e-mail.
But I totally agree with what you are saying; if their minds are made up and God and the Bible are 100% true, then why bother checking out science or archaeology? These people are simply not going to accept the vast mountains of contrary evidence against their Book, maybe they would be better spending their time trying to be a sheep rather than a goat. (token Bible teaching)
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wj, posted 07-01-2003 4:07 AM wj has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 3 of 19 (44772)
07-01-2003 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wj
07-01-2003 4:07 AM


I think I know why they do it in the first place...
The world is getting more scientific. People are starting to find scientific explanations for everything - which is all good and correct, and advances our knowledge and culture etc. In short, people are finding different explanations for stuff that was originally explained by miracles.
So religion is faced with a dilemma. Its influence is dropping like a stone because people are enlightened and can't take miracles seriously anymore. Very soon, people will not be able to take anything in religion seriously. They still have faith, they still believe - but all this stuff in the Bible is bullshit. How can they believe that the Bible is the Word of God if science says it's wrong? They are just too enlightened and rational now to accept the explanations that were good enough for their parents and granparents. The leaders of religion face a crisis: How can they possibly get people to believe in the Bible again?
Enter creationism. If it can prove that the Bible is right after all, then science has lost, people will be more inclined to believe in religion, and will accept miracles more easily. After all, how can any rational person deny the credibility of the Bible when science actually supports it?
Creationists need science to support them because they are facing an Age of Enlightenment where strict religions will be forgotten. The Bible will be reduced to nothing more than an interesting historical document. The power of the leaders of religion will be reduced to virtually nothing. And this is too horrifying for them to contemplate.
Well, there's my take on it. Enjoy...
The Rock Hound
------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wj, posted 07-01-2003 4:07 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 07-01-2003 2:05 PM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 6 by Mammuthus, posted 07-04-2003 5:23 AM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 07-04-2003 8:20 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 19 (44780)
07-01-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by IrishRockhound
07-01-2003 10:23 AM


Its influence is dropping like a stone because people are enlightened and can't take miracles seriously anymore.
I'm not sure this is true. There are lots of religious like things that people jump into. A large percentage of people don't have to be rational at all. They even seem to like it otherwise.
Healing touch, astrology etc. are all doing fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-01-2003 10:23 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-04-2003 4:38 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 17 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-05-2003 9:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 5 of 19 (45033)
07-04-2003 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
07-01-2003 2:05 PM


Alternative therapies tend not to be as strict as actual religions. They don't require much faith for a start. They certainly don't care if you believe in them, and they don't care about those who do things they don't believe in. Reflexologists, for example, don't go on holy wars to crush the heretics who practice acupuncture.
A lot of the time there is nothing that proves alternative therapies are wrong. There is no scientific explanation for them; but there's also no scientific explanation against them, because science accepts that there's stuff we don't know yet.
Personally, I 'm a skeptic, but it still not accurate to lump these in with miracles.
The Rock Hound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 07-01-2003 2:05 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 07-04-2003 12:04 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 6 of 19 (45043)
07-04-2003 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by IrishRockhound
07-01-2003 10:23 AM


quote:
Creationists need science to support them because they are facing an Age of Enlightenment where strict religions will be forgotten. The Bible will be reduced to nothing more than an interesting historical document. The power of the leaders of religion will be reduced to virtually nothing. And this is too horrifying for them to contemplate.
This depends on education. How many people really understand or are interested in science or scientific explanations for natural phenomenon? I don't think we are necessarily approaching an Age of Enlightenment but more like the gap between rich and poor there will be a gap between those with knowledge and those without based on educational access. Fundamentalist religious leaders will always find followers among the masses without an education.
The religions that will probably persist are those that are not so dogmatic and do not come in such violent conflict with science when it demonstrates some part of the dogma to be wrong. For example, religious fundamentalism in Europe is nothing like that in the US and the overall interest and science knowledge is higher while at the same time, religious institutions are highly integrated in society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-01-2003 10:23 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-04-2003 6:48 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 7 of 19 (45045)
07-04-2003 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Mammuthus
07-04-2003 5:23 AM


Good point.
Think about it this way, though - stricter religions that clash with science will find that their support among the well-educated (and therefore the people most likely to be running things) will fall considerably. This will place them at a disadvantage that they would probably rather avoid; hence, creationism.
The whole 'Age of Enlightenment' thing was more a joke, sorry. I just wanted to highlight a particular view of things.
I do wonder though - education is getting better, in Ireland at least. Most young people are leaving the Catholic Church in their thousands, because it's just too restrictive and old-fashioned. ('Course that could just be Ireland.) I can certainly see a time here when the Church will be desperate for new members, and most people won't be interested.
The Rock Hound
------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Mammuthus, posted 07-04-2003 5:23 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 07-04-2003 7:35 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 8 of 19 (45047)
07-04-2003 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by IrishRockhound
07-04-2003 6:48 AM


Hi IrishRockhound,
I am not sure that well educated people run things. That is certainly not true in the US (at least not the current administration). Culturally, if you are well educated you will often be considered part of an evil arrogant elite and garner little respect whereas a large grunting mass of flesh who cannot form an intelligible sentence but who can throw a football (before getting thrown in jail) will be treated like royalty. But I agree nonetheless that better (though not great education) is spreading somewhat in the developed world which cuts the base of people that the fundamentalists can tap into.
I am living in Bavaria where if you indicate that you are Catholic, you have to pay a tax of 3% of your income to the church. You can leave the church and avoid the tax and people have in droves. However, the church is still powerful because it is not fundamentalist. On issues of science, the church has adapted somewhat i.e. the pope accepting the theory of evolution. Though from my recollection, the catholic church in Ireland is one of the most conservative and strict in all of Europe. Spain was like that about 20 years ago..I even remember being at a protest in Salamanca where people were demonstrating for the right to get a divorce.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-04-2003 6:48 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 19 (45074)
07-04-2003 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by IrishRockhound
07-04-2003 4:38 AM


There is evidence that some of them are wrong. Totally wrong.
However, that doesn't stop people. They are acting on irrational belief only. There will always be enough of that around I'm afraid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-04-2003 4:38 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 19 (45102)
07-04-2003 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by IrishRockhound
07-01-2003 10:23 AM


'but all this stuff in the Bible is bullshit. How can they believe that the Bible is the Word of God if science says it's wrong?'
personally i think that people should be allowed to believe in what they want,your statement has nothing to do with evc.if i have faith and believe in the word of God what is wrong with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-01-2003 10:23 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2003 8:40 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 19 (45103)
07-04-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
07-04-2003 8:20 PM


Gotta say I agree with you on this, Mike. Who ever said that atheism means having to make everyone else believe the same as you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 07-04-2003 8:20 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-04-2003 8:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 19 (45104)
07-04-2003 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
07-04-2003 8:40 PM


hi Crash,
your the only guy who seems to be around when i am. Yes his statement was harsh and unnecesary , if he wants to attack creationists he isn't he's just attacking believers, he might aswell say 'any book you read which claims to be true is bull---t'.
i think a healthier and productive debate is better than just attacking each other! atheism is totally your choice , and so it should be , we all have the right to believe in what we want!!!
good to hear from ya !
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2003 8:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by DC85, posted 07-05-2003 4:15 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 18 by IrishRockhound, posted 07-13-2003 12:06 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 13 of 19 (45154)
07-05-2003 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
07-04-2003 8:52 PM


The Problem is Mike its hard for alot of us to have Productive Debates with creationists. Most are too Set in their ways to think about the Facts.... most go like this
"I was brought up to Believe it so I do"
"its in the Bible it must be true"
"Evolution can't be right it goes against the Bible"
"My parents Believe so I do" etc....
This leaves for Closed Mindedness. where as most Evolutionist are very Open minded... we seek new Facts to try to Understand. you do have the right to Believe what you what but you also Have the right to think not just Follow whats happening! I will admit I respect the Bible for the Lessons it Teaches.. however I can't except it as truth Because their are no Facts to back it up. if there where things would be different...... I mean I know how it is I was Brought Up a Christen(Catholic) But then I wanted to look into what I believed. and I decided the facts just aren't there........ sorry .......... if we seem harsh at times. but I know I can't stand what I think is Ignorant thinking.(please don't take offence to this I don't mean it that way)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-04-2003 8:52 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2003 4:36 PM DC85 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 19 (45156)
07-05-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by DC85
07-05-2003 4:15 PM


The problem is, close-mindedness isn't restricted to creationists. When an atheist says "anyone who believes in god is an idiot" or something, that's being close-minded.
As an atheist I can and do accept that some highly intelligent people will disagree with my position. That doesn't make them ignorant. It simply means that they've chosen to predicate their beliefs on something different than what I've chosen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DC85, posted 07-05-2003 4:15 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 07-05-2003 6:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 19 (45162)
07-05-2003 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
07-05-2003 4:36 PM


Hi Crash,
I agree that many very intelligent people will disagree with my position too. However, intelligent people present intelligent arguments, most creationists do not present intelligent, rational arguments.
We recently had a student teacher working in the department, he is a born again Christian. I was showing another teacher my website, which at the time contained a few essays that ridiculed the well known creationists such as Hovind, Baugh and Ham.
The student did approach me about it, I think he was a bit upset because we got on very well, he is a very decent guy, very honest and hard working. But he said to me, 'so you think people like me are a bit crazy?' But my reply relaxed him.
What I said was that I dont think that he is crazy because he puts his arguments across in a logical and well thought out manner, he supports his arguments and does not ignore problematic areas. I told him that my problems are with the creationists and Bible inerrantists who argue as if they are 5 years old. They posit arguments that are so embarrassing that it is difficult to take them seriously. They continue to use arguments that have been proven to be garbage so many times that it gets tedious refuting them. Just think how many times the same arguments get presented here from creationists, if I hear 'if we evolved from apes why are there still apes?' again, I think I will scream!
But to a lot of people this seems like a good argument, but to an intelligent person, who has the ability to find out an answer to this question themselves, it is a stupid argument that displays a total lack of background knowledge.
So I agree, there are very intelligent creationists, but they are very few and far between.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2003 4:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024