Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:29 PM
153 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (4 members, 149 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,700 Year: 2,737/19,786 Month: 819/1,918 Week: 106/301 Day: 24/54 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al.
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4153 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 31 of 64 (35017)
03-23-2003 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
03-20-2003 3:01 PM


The Purpose Of The Bible
quote:
And that purpose is?

The purpose of the Bible is to reveal the Lord Jesus Christ to man.

This is supported by the following verses...

John 5:39, Matt. 26:54, Matt 26:56, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:45, John 2:22, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35-36, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19, Acts 1:16, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2-3, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:28, Rom. 1:1-3, Rom. 10:11, Rom. 15:4, Rom. 16:25-27, I Cor. 15:3-4, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, II Tim. 3:15, I Pet. 2:6, Psalm 19, and many others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 03-20-2003 3:01 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 32 of 64 (35020)
03-23-2003 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Joralex
03-23-2003 4:53 PM


Re: Then you agree.
Well that seems clear. There is a conflict between science and creationist religion. So why try to deny something that is obvious from your own post ?

BTW if evolution is part of naturalism can you explain why Christians such as Kenneth Millar and Howard Van Till see no conflict ? Surely the fact is that evolution conflicts, not with Christianity in genreal, but with the beliefs of some Christian sects.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 4:53 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by judge, posted 03-23-2003 7:01 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 40 by Joralex, posted 03-24-2003 7:23 AM PaulK has responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 64 (35022)
03-23-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
03-23-2003 2:41 PM


Evasion? I don't think so.
"Well you have not answered the question at all. Indeed you seem to like insuinuating that those who disagree with you do not comprehend the sitatution whilst displaying no understanding yourself."

Yes, I do hold that many people do not comprehend the situation. Some do it due to ignorance or confusion while others do it with full premeditation for dodging the truth and propagating falsehoods.

As for me "displaying no understanding myself", you are entitled to your opinion.

"However, unless you can show that your "creationism" metaphysic is non-religious it seems clear that the situation you are describing is a clash between science and religion."

I disagree and your statement clearly demonstrates that you belong to that group that doesn't understand what a metaphysic really is. More specifically, you don't see / understand that what we have here is a clashing of metaphysics - 'religion versus religion'.

"And, yes, I do know what a metaphysic is - it is you who does not as your equation of metaphysics with religion clearly demonstrates."

If you say so.

"What is more your attempt to label science religion presents yet more evidence that what you are talkin about is indeed a clash of science and religion "

You sound a bit agitated - don't be. Simply go and do some homework (lots of it!) and discover what most learned people realize almost immediately - that this is a war of worldviews and not of "science versus religion".

BTW, I never labeled 'science' as 'religion'.
Naturalism is a metaphysic/worldview/religion.
You need to get your terms straight.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 2:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:27 PM Joralex has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18257
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 34 of 64 (35023)
03-23-2003 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Joralex
03-23-2003 4:53 PM


Re: Then you agree.
Joralex writes:

While a constrained metaphysic is theoretically possible, a metaphysic is generally regarded as all-encompassing. That is why a 'metaphysic' and a 'worldview' are synonymous meaning that all aspects of existence are encompassed by that particular metaphysic/worldview.

As all-encompassing as they may be, people move between worldviews. These worldviews provide a context for interpretation, and many people use one for searching their hearts and another for searching the stars.

Also, what you propose above is a caricature - e.g., no knowledgeable person would consider employing Maxwell's Equations to study the Bible.

Caricature was not my intention, and I never mentioned Maxwell's Equations. I did mention the scientific method, and many have approached the Bible this way.

Newton's Laws of Motion make no pretense to oppose the creationist worldview so there is no 'clashing' of metaphysics. Newton's Laws of Motion aim merely to describe certain aspects of the universe and not to suggest an alternate means by which that universe may have come about. The evolutionary paradigm, on the other hand, aims to replace the creationist worldview with materialistic naturalism - an alternate and opposing worldview.

Newton's Laws of Motion may not be in opposition to the worldview of the modern Creationist, but when first introduced they were in opposition to the Creationist worldview of that time, for back then it was believed that the heavenly bodies were in some way guided along their paths by divine providence, perhaps propelled by the beating wings of angels, or even by the hand of God himself.

And neither Newton's Laws of Motion nor evolution were introduced to "replace" the Creationist worldview. They were both the result of scientific investigation. That they contradicted the Creationist worldview is just the way it happened to fall out.

So the important question remains: What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 4:53 PM Joralex has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 35 of 64 (35024)
03-23-2003 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Joralex
03-23-2003 5:16 PM


Re: Evasion? Definitely!
Even according to your definition evolution is not tied to a particular metaphysic. So you still have given no reason to think that this is anything other than a clash between science and religion, and indeed your own posts indicate that that is all there is to it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 5:16 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Joralex, posted 03-24-2003 11:03 AM PaulK has responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 64 (35028)
03-23-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
03-23-2003 4:46 PM


Metaphysics : a definition...
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the basic nature of reality. Its aim is to give a systematic account of the world and the principles that govern it. In contrast to the natural sciences, which study specific features of the world, metaphysics is a more general investigation into the fundamental features of what exists. The metaphysician relies on forms of analysis that depend on pure reason rather than the experimental methods of the natural scientist. Metaphysical speculation has always focused on certain key concepts such as space and time, causality, identity and change, possibility and necessity, universals and particulars, and mind and body.

For obvious reasons I used a secular source (World Book Encyclopedia, 2001) for this definition.

The essence of any metaphysic is to ponder the question of "reality" and there are two - and only two - basic metaphysics : naturalistic, in which space, time matter and energy is ALL that there is (Atheism holds this metaphysic) and supernaturalistic, in which there are things that transcend space, time, matter and energy (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, et al. hold this metaphysic).

From the above it is clear that a naturalist is every bit as religious as a Snake Worshipper of Bali since neither is able to conclusively prove his metaphysic - it must be "believed in".

I trust that this has cleared up the misconceptions that you seemed to have on this issue.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 4:46 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 6:37 PM Joralex has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 37 of 64 (35031)
03-23-2003 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Joralex
03-23-2003 5:38 PM


Re: Metaphysics : a definition...
I notice that you have still not supported your identification of metaphysics with religion, nor have you provided any evidence to support your assertion that evolution is tied to a naturalistic metaphysics - a point which there is strong evidence against.

Why do you not deal with these key points ? Is it yet more evasion ?

And please do not call a disagreement with your assertions a "misconception". It is rather arrogant to assume that you are correct when you are in fact unable to defend your claims.

[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 5:38 PM Joralex has not yet responded

    
judge
Member (Idle past 4489 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 38 of 64 (35033)
03-23-2003 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
03-23-2003 5:11 PM


A modern fad?
PaulK:
Well that seems clear. There is a conflict between science and creationist religion. So why try to deny something that is obvious from your own post ?
BTW if evolution is part of naturalism can you explain why Christians such as Kenneth Millar and Howard Van Till see no conflict ? Surely the fact is that evolution conflicts, not with Christianity in genreal, but with the beliefs of some Christian sects.

judge:
As early as 418
the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418 condemned as heresy the three following propositions:

(1) Adam was created mortal and would have died whether he had sinned or not.
(2) The sin of Adam hurt only himself, and not all mankind.
(3) Newborn infants die in the same state as Adam was in before the Fall.

Jesuit scholar Thomas Chetwood has outlined how these beleifs persisted in mainstrean christianity through the centuries. The belief in common descent in Christianity is a modern fad when viewed in this historical context.

The immortality of Adam is explicitly defined by the Church. For the Sixteenth Council of Carthage (418 A.D.), the decrees of which were approved by Pope Zozimus, teaches: "If anyone shall say that Adam was created mortal, so that he would have died in the body whether he had sinned or not sinned, let him be anathema." And the same doctrine is confirmed by the decrees of Orange and Trent.
Chetwood, Thomas B., S. J., God and Creation, Ben Zigger Brothers, New York, 1928, pp.145ff


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:11 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2003 2:30 AM judge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 39 of 64 (35043)
03-24-2003 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by judge
03-23-2003 7:01 PM


Re: A modern fad?
I notice that none of your doctrines deal with the creation of animals or plants at all. So alreardy most of the dispute is outside the realms of doctrine.

2) and 3) likewise have nothing to do with evolution.

So only 1) is even at issue and even then Genesis hardly offers clear support for that claim - rather it seems to indicate that immortality was dependant on eating the fruit of the tree of life. Which, of course, Adam would have had access to if he had not fallen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by judge, posted 03-23-2003 7:01 PM judge has not yet responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 64 (35054)
03-24-2003 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
03-23-2003 5:11 PM


Further corrections/clarifications
"... There is a conflict between science and creationist religion. So why try to deny something that is obvious from your own post ?"

"...obvious from my own post"? I must've missed something.
There is absolutely no conflict between science and creationism. There IS a major conflict between the metaphysic/religion of naturalism and other religious views such as creationism. It's because of clashing metaphysics.

The alleged conflict between Christianity and science is one of those tirelessly parroted myths.

"BTW if evolution is part of naturalism can you explain why Christians such as Kenneth Millar and Howard Van Till see no conflict ? Surely the fact is that evolution conflicts, not with Christianity in genreal, but with the beliefs of some Christian sects."

To fully explain would be rather lengthy - this is a complex issue.
Concisely, people such as Van Till, et al. are simply in error. I am not questioning their Christianity (that's between themselves and God) but I am questioning their logic, theology, science, history and, most important of all, their willingness to undermine Scripture in order to accommodate a paradigm that is contrary to the Biblical essence. Frankly, I see this as the epitome of ignorance, carelessness or wickedness - but as Dawkins would say, I don't want to believe in the last of these possibilities.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:11 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2003 2:45 PM Joralex has not yet responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 64 (35086)
03-24-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
03-23-2003 5:27 PM


Confused? Definitely!
"Even according to your definition evolution is not tied to a particular metaphysic. So you still have given no reason to think that this is anything other than a clash between science and religion, and indeed your own posts indicate that that is all there is to it."

Hard as I've tried, I cannot see what it is that you don't understand here, PaulK.

If you've been involved in this debate for as long as you indicate then you should know that there is definitely a science of 'evolution'. That this 'evolution' occurs is a given - a fact - and no knowledgeable creationist will dispute this fact. But this statement remains true only as long as we constrain ourselves to a very specific definition of 'evolution'.

'Evolution' as a change in the allele frequency in populations is science. But 'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entire flora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic - a religion - in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification (however weak that justification may be). That is why Dawkins once remarked that (paraphrasing) Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Before, the Atheist could point only at a vacuum; now they point at 'evolution'.

Most people are confused on this issue, PaulK.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:27 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by John, posted 03-24-2003 12:07 PM Joralex has responded
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2003 2:26 PM Joralex has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 64 (35109)
03-24-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Joralex
03-24-2003 11:03 AM


Re: Confused? Definitely!
quote:
But 'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entire flora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic

No it isn't. It is an extrapolation from the statement preceeding this in your post-- a statement which you claim no informed creationist would dispute. Thus, it is a very physical description/theory, and not a metaphysical one. That it encroaches upon what was traditionally metaphysics does not make it metaphysical, just as meteorology is not a metaphysic though it encroaches upon what was once described metaphysically-- ie. the weather was described via appeal to the actions of Gods. There are certainly metaphysics involved, but evolution isn't it.

quote:
in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification

I fail to see how evolution justifies naturalism. For one, such a construct would be circular. Secondly, naturalism doesn't even require the ToE. Naturalism requires explainations based upon accessible evidence. That's all. It so happens that evolution fits that bill best at the moment.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Joralex, posted 03-24-2003 11:03 AM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Joralex, posted 03-24-2003 2:05 PM John has responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 64 (35123)
03-24-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by John
03-24-2003 12:07 PM


Religion & Science
quote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But 'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entire flora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No it isn't. It is an extrapolation from the statement preceeding this in your post-- a statement which you claim no informed creationist would dispute. Thus, it is a very physical description/theory, and not a metaphysical one."

Extrapolations are certainly a part of science and mathematics. But extrapolations that extend far beyond what the data allows are usually not acceptable in science. To wit : we observe and measure phenomena including changes in organisms. Some people then extrapolate those micro-changes to explain how a single goo-like substance became palm trees, penguins, whales, roses, Mozart, Einstein and a plethora of other organisms. People who believe that this degree of extrapolation is justifiable (and evolution advocates do) practice a kind of "science" that I never once learned or practiced (and for good reason).

"That it encroaches upon what was traditionally metaphysics does not make it metaphysical, just as meteorology is not a metaphysic though it encroaches upon what was once described metaphysically-- ie. the weather was described via appeal to the actions of Gods. There are certainly metaphysics involved, but evolution isn't it."

The science of evolution is not a metaphysic but it is necessarily founded upon some metaphysic (from your last sentence above I think you would agree with this). However, aside from the 'science' of evolution there does exist the evolutionary paradigm which IS a metaphysic.

The majority of materialistic naturalists not only uphold the science of evolution but also the evolutionary paradigm - a metaphysic founded on naturalism. It's a forked-tongue strategy : talk about the 'science' of evolution when it's actually the entire enchilada - the evolutionary paradigm - that is being promoted.

Take yourself, as an example. Do you promote only the 'science' of evolution (change in the allele frequency in populations) or do you promote the whole enchilada - materialistic naturalism? I rest my case.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I fail to see how evolution justifies naturalism. For one, such a construct would be circular. Secondly, naturalism doesn't even require the ToE. Naturalism requires explainations based upon accessible evidence. That's all. It so happens that evolution fits that bill best at the moment."

Evolution justifies naturalism by providing an intellectually defensible position against creationism. Just ask Richard Dawkins.

If, as you say, naturalism doesn't require the ToE then what else would naturalism suggest as its explanation for earth's ultracomplex biota?

If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness? Where is the "accessible evidence" that shows that matter-energy is able to start on its own and that life is then able to start from nothing but this raw matter-energy?

If you are to be truthful then you will have to admit that this "accessible evidence" doesn't exist except in the minds of the faithful believers. This is a religious attitude, not a scientific one.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John, posted 03-24-2003 12:07 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 03-24-2003 4:04 PM Joralex has responded
 Message 47 by John, posted 03-24-2003 5:25 PM Joralex has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 44 of 64 (35127)
03-24-2003 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Joralex
03-24-2003 11:03 AM


Re: Confused? Definitely!
Well your problem is quite obvious - you've been too busy looking for a misunderstanding on my part which just isn't there.

Look, it is quite obvious that you can't mount a coherent defence of your assertion as your latest attempt at rationalisation proves.

Lets look at your "argument".

"But 'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entire flora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic - a religion - in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification (however weak that justification may be)."

This is simply self-contradictory. You assert that a paticular view is a metaphysic in the sense that is isn't a metaphysic at all - but instead offers an explanation for data that given a naturalistic metaphysic would otherwise be puzzling. Nor do you even attempt to discuss the scientific justification (nor do you mention the fact that creationists generally reject common descent REGARDLESS of the mechanism nor the fact that additional mechanisms have been incorporated into evolutionary theory when the evidence warranted it)

Let me put it simply. Evolution includes scientific conclusions on the history of life on Earth which contradict creationist interpretations of the Bible. Surely that IS a simple case of science versus religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Joralex, posted 03-24-2003 11:03 AM Joralex has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 45 of 64 (35136)
03-24-2003 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Joralex
03-24-2003 7:23 AM


Correcting the
I don't know why you are accusing me of claiming that there is a conflict between science and Christianity. If anyone is making such a claim it is you. You are the one who rejects the view that Christianity can be compatible with evolution.

But look at your post - you attempt to refute my point that the conflict is between the beliefs of some Christian sects and science by attacking christian who accept evolution because they do not agree with the views of your sect.

You argue that evolution contradicts the *creationist* worldview - i.e. religion, and since evolution is science you implictly claim that science DOES conflict with your religion. It's really pretty obvious.

Would you like to explain why you make the assertion that science does not contradict creationism ? If you mean no more than an absolute refusal to accept that anything which contradicts creationism could be science then what is the point ?

[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-24-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Joralex, posted 03-24-2003 7:23 AM Joralex has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019