Maybe instead of saying "[A great irony, here, is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology]" we could use "is a part of".
That's like me saying "I'm black" when I mean "I'm white."
You know, the whole english language thing. Kind of makes meaning important.
First. The bible contains many more references by different authors to creation, and causality outside of Genesis.
Interesting, thanks. I'll check these out, since they seem to sound a lot like an inflationary universe, or at least a post-Big Bang expansion, no?
Again, this sounds like anthropological evidence for the *how*, not the *why*, other than the assumption that an intelligent divinity was behind it.
Impasse.
Quote:
Second. All the evidence for evolution.
I disagree with this. Life did aparantly "pop up". They are finding fossile evidence of life at 3.8 billion years ago. This is immediately after the hadean era of earth. The fact that life showed up in abundance
Abundance? We have *abundant* evidence of that age? I think we have *some* evidence, not abundant.
Quote:
so early, and possessing complex faculties such as photosynthesis flies in the face of the evolutionary model.
Not really - it could also mean that a) we simply haven't found earlier evidence yet, b) earlier evidence doesn't exist due to the inability for the earlier microscopic lifeforms to be fossilized or otherwise detectable now. This can easily be turned around you know... "Prove God *doesn't* exist!" "Prove that simpler lifeforms *didn't* exist!" Same type of logical problem.
Quote:
Also evidence of further sterilization events on earth makes this problem even larger. In addition there is a lack of evidence for primordial soups, the problem of homochirality, a lack of viable chemical routes to life, and others. It seems that the evolution model has some serious holes. This leads to theories of panspermia, and directed panspermia.
Panspermia is an intriguing idea, but not one that I feel is necessary to explain the rise of life, to be honest.
Homochirality is a self-ordering system - much like the matter/anti-matter problem in cosmology, once a chaotic system reaches a critical seed state, one or the other is going to prevail... and the whole point of a truly chaotic system is that probabilities are running amuck. At *some* point in time, one or the other chiral state was going to take over. 50/50, really as to which one, but 1.0 as to it happening at *some* point.
I'm not sure what evidence one would *expect* for primordial soups, given their nature, but one can extrapolate from geologic formation environments what the surface was likely to be, and then state with a high probability what the resulting conditions were.
Quote:
To say that all the evidence points to evolution is very naive. Am I going to change your mind and you will suddenly believe in God and creation? No. Can I maybe offer some insight that shows evolution is not nearly as solid as some would have you believe? I hope so.
Of course it has holes. It is a *theory*. But it's one that has a solid *methodology* behind it to allow for it to be tested, modified and adapted as new evidence comes into light.
Fundamentalist Creationism doesn't have that, and that's its downfall as an explanatory approach.
I think you misuderstand. It doesn't mean that people read the bible first and then started doing science. I agree that is a stupid idea. It means that the methods and thought processes of science are very much a part of the bible.
Okay, now this I just plain disagree with.
Science is about questioning everything.
Religion is about believing with faith.
Those two are at fundamental odds.
As a child raised in a thoroughly poisonous fundamentalist Christian church, I vividly recall getting physically hit for asking "Why?" to a church elder.
I'm wondering how many of the christians here have read and critiqued Augustine, boethius or any of the other early christian philosophers. I'm reading selections of them now, and a lot of the ideas being put forward here are really crude versions of what they were trying to argue 1000 years ago. Those arguments have since been poked so full of holes.
I agree. Christianity has moved science back in many instances. You won't get any argument from me there. However secular sources also have done the same. Unfortunately it happens.
Your quote about design was an interesting read. I don't fully agree with all of his points. Things like, "it takes many people to build a house, and it takes labor." Do we know what labor would be to a being that doesn't experience time? Also, earthquakes, floods, storms, are all vital to the existence of life on earth. How are they sloppy design?
Look, like I said I can't change any of your minds, that is for certain. All I would like to do is maybe give better light to alternate theories. For the sake of discussion and all. When billybobsky posts things like, "there will be no stopping the irrational non-sense that is the judeo-christian creation story", why should I even post? I'm just posting irrational nonsense. Why did you guys even respond to my nonsense? Seems like a waste of time to me.
As a child raised in a thoroughly poisonous fundamentalist Christian church, I vividly recall getting physically hit for asking "Why?" to a church elder.
I've been out of this thread for a few pages, but nevertheless:
Does it occur to you that getting physically hit by a leader in a "thoroughly poisonous" church does not necessarily invalidate the entire Christian worldview?
I've been out of this thread for a few pages, but nevertheless:
Does it occur to you that getting physically hit by a leader in a "thoroughly poisonous" church not necessarily invalidate the entire Christian worldview?
Oh absolutely.
But to claim that the methodology of modern science has its foundations in the Bible, when the two fundamental philosophies of question-observe-test-analyze-adapt and listen-believe-accept are so utterly at odds is just a strange claim in my eyes. My personal experiences were long ago moved past in my personal beliefs.
You'd be better off stating that the scientific method has roots in the rabbinical traditions, in my opinion. That, I'd buy. I'd even accept that it has roots in the more forward thinking philosophizers and theologists of the Christian faith. But to claim that it comes from the *Bible*? I'd need to see chapter and verse.
Evolution is about the adaptation of life, not how biogenesis occurred. It doesn't need a base like an inductive proof does..
How do you figure? It had to come from somewhere. There is a great amount of research going on to determine how and where life originated.
{QUOTE]Okay, now this I just plain disagree with.
Science is about questioning everything.
Religion is about believing with faith.
Those two are at fundamental odds.
As a child raised in a thoroughly poisonous fundamentalist Christian church, I vividly recall getting physically hit for asking "Why?" to a church elder.[/QUOTE]
Man, I'm sorry that happened to you. Unfortunately nothing precludes people using religion as anothe path to power over other people. Faith is not believing someone just because they say so. Faith to me is that I've studied it, I've tested it, and I believe that it is true. A scientist that studies something will have great faith in his findings because he's tested them, and they withstood the rigors. Same thing with religious faith. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts all believers to, "Test Everything, Hold on to the Good." That sounds like the testing phase of the scientific method.
I'd like to give that page a good read. Unfortunately I'm at work, so I can't devote my full attention to it at the moment. I'll try to respond tonight when I get home.
The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists just 20 of the numerous successful predictions made by the Reasons To Believe model.
1. transcendent creation event
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
4. rapidity of life's origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. recovery from mass extinctions
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
Why did you guys even respond to my nonsense? Seems like a waste of time to me.
I haven't posted thus far, but have been watching this thread vicariously, and this seems like the perfect in for me.
I've been reading this thread with great interest. The way some people can honestly *believe* the scriptures, or at the very least defend them, quite honestly befuddles me.
I was raised Protestant...and even have a story very similar to Kickaha's relating to Bible Class...but I grew, studied, learned and questioned. That eventually led to me shunning Christianity as it is taught.
My burning question is this: How do you believe? Seriously. 'Faith' is a cop-out. To me that's like believing in aliens (which I believe in only because it's scientifically improbable that life has chosen only one planet in the universe to reside). I'd honestly like to know...or at least understand...how you can go through life with your set of beliefs.
I'm not meaning to flame or single you out. This is an honest question. I'm genuinely curious.
How do you figure? It had to come from somewhere. There is a great amount of research going on to determine how and where life originated.
AHA!
"How" "Where"
Not "why".
Quote:
Man, I'm sorry that happened to you. Unfortunately nothing precludes people using religion as anothe path to power over other people.
Hence one of my prime beefs between religion vs. spirituality, but that's a *whole* other topic.
Quote:
Faith is not believing someone just because they say so. Faith to me is that I've studied it, I've tested it, and I believe that it is true.
I'm genuinely curious - how do you test it?
Faith is *by definition* something that you believe in the absence of a burgeoning proof of evidence. Otherwise it is called 'deductive reasoning based on observations'.
I'm sorry if you feel attacked here, that's not my intent - I find faith to be a fascinating subject and enjoy hearing people's viewpoints on it.
Quote:
A scientist that studies something will have great faith in his findings because he's tested them, and they withstood the rigors.
Hurm. I'll nitpick this one. He doesn't need to have faith in his findings if the methodology is followed... that's the nice part. Add into that, that the process is self-correcting (when done right), and it becomes a system that is open to change and adaptation. "Well, I *think* I got it right..." "Did you do X?" "Ah man, I didn't do X. Okay, I did X... and it's different. Roit. Re-hypothesis, re-do..." Personal *spirituality* may encompass that capacity, but religion as embodied by the power structures and hierarchies of modern churches rarely so, and the avid followers of those will defend those organizations rabidly. IMHO, of course.
Quote:
Same thing with religious faith. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts all believers to, "Test Everything, Hold on to the Good." That sounds like the testing phase of the scientific method.
The core belief of creation 'science' is that god created the universe and life. There is no way to test that. It is impossible to test that. It is thus founded on a non-scientific principle and is thus is not a science.
No matter how much you try to fit every other bizarre word twist in the Bible into what is known will not produce the desired "proof" that god created the universe.
Belief, as 709 indicated, is the only reason why creation science exists. It is an attempt to place all of known science into a bottle with the assumption, the belief, that god created the universe. It is unfortunate that people cannot believe for the sake of believing and must bring everything DOWN to their belief system. It must comfort you to have a belief and subsequently believe that everything that science produces will somehow be shoe horned into that belief. This fact comforts me not, in fact, it makes me weep for the reason that these people must have behind their mad fascination with some mis-translated text from over 4000 years ago.
It is irrational to believe; actually, that is the essense of being irrational, the very act of believing in something.
I'd like to give that page a good read. Unfortunately I'm at work, so I can't devote my full attention to it at the moment. I'll try to respond tonight when I get home.
Here are some of the assumptions Hume apparently pointed out were necessary for the argument from design:
Quote:
i. It assumes too much
Inferring an effect - a cosmic design - from a cause - the beginning of the cosmos - is basically assuming what the argument wants to prove. Order and regularity do not imply design, supernatural or otherwise.
ii.The universe is unique
On this basis, Hume argued that it cannot be inferred that there is anything like a designer behind it; where is the undesigned universe by which one can make comparisons?
iii. Who designed the designer?
If functional complexity requires a designer, then the designer also needs a designer, because the designer must be at least as complex as the thing it designed. How else could it have designed the Universe? Maybe there was a team of imperfect designers. A Universe designed by committee would explain a lot.
iv. The universe shows just as much evidence of imperfection and disorder
Seeking a cause of the order when such order only partially represents what the universe is like is asking for trouble. If an all-perfect, all-good designer made the universe, why is it so full of suffering for life forms? Even if one could infer a designer from the world, there is no reason to suppose that it is the Judaeo-Christian or Islamic god. In fact, there are reasons to suppose it is not.
Kickaha, I don't feel attacked by you at all. Its just when people label Christians (which includes me) as irrational then their mind is made up, and what's the point of debating. I think I'm rational. Maybe that's my whole problem.
I see you are really into the how/why thing. Look at it this way with creation you get a 2 for 1 deal. You get the how and the why. Bonus! I know I missed it, and I'm lazy so why do you think that creation can't offer the how? Is it because it also tries to answer the why and those shouldn't be mixed?
Quote:
Hence one of my prime beefs between religion vs. spirituality, but that's a *whole* other topic.
I hear you man, I'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject some time.
Quote:
I'm genuinely curious - how do you test it?
Faith is *by definition* something that you believe in the absence of a burgeoning proof of evidence. Otherwise it is called 'deductive reasoning based on observations'.
I'm sorry if you feel attacked here, that's not my intent - I find faith to be a fascinating subject and enjoy hearing people's viewpoints on it.
Maybe we need to clarify faith and religion. I view faith as something that you can't prove 100% but you still believe in it. Why do you believe? There has to be evidence to compel you to the choice to believe. You talk about a scientist that follows the system and he can take comfort in knowing that the system will help him achieve the right answer. Why does he use the system? He believes it will help him arrive at the right answer. How does he come to that conclusion? Evidence. He's seen that the system gives consistently good results. Now he has faith in the system. Could the system be wrong? Maybe 1 in 10? 1 in 100? Its a possibility. At some point you look at the evidence and make your choice.
I don't understand. If they're going to teach alternatives to all the evidence, they should teach creation myths from Mali, India, South America, West Africa, Madagascar and Southern Africa too. They're all just as likely as the account given in Genesis. There's no more evidence that Genesis is correct than any of them. None are more or less possible to prove.
Oh, but that would be the correct thing to do! No this is an effort by Christian Bible thumpers trying to have their beliefs thrust upon the next generation. In certain parts of the US they are the majority and they are doing their best to use he tools of democracy to get things done their way.
I've always felt that I could accept an academic course, even in a public school, on religious studies that takes a fair look at many/most of the worlds religions. I see this as more of an overlap with history class than with biology class.
Kickaha, I don't feel attacked by you at all. Its just when people label Christians (which includes me) as irrational then their mind is made up, and what's the point of debating. I think I'm rational. Maybe that's my whole problem.
I see you are really into the how/why thing. Look at it this way with creation you get a 2 for 1 deal. You get the how and the why. Bonus! I know I missed it, and I'm lazy so why do you think that creation can't offer the how? Is it because it also tries to answer the why and those shouldn't be mixed?
PRECISELY.
They are two different questions, and mixing the answers, or worse, tying one answer to another immutably, is inane.
"Mommy, where do babies come from?" <- how
"Because we wanted a child to love." <- why
"Er, okay, why did you and Daddy have me?" <- why
"Go talk to your father." <- dodge
The above contrived example (brought to you by the letter 4 and the number Q) makes as much sense to me as:
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
"Because God wanted it." <- why
"Er, okay, but why did he?" <- why
"Because the Bible says so." <- dodge
Asking 'how' i something that can be answered with testable theories, and is scientifically askable.
Asking 'why' is *not* something that can be answered with testable theories, and is therefore not something that can be answered in a scientific manner.
*Basing* a 'how' answer (Genesis) on a 'why' answer (God) *invalidates the 'how' answer from scientific purveyance*. The base assumption can never be tested, therefore the rest of the framework falls out of the range of deductive reasoning by the scientific method.
So trying to provide the primary assumption "God exists" as a *basis* for an answer that, on the surface, looks to be scientifically testable, only invalidates that answer from a scientific viewpoint, and you're right off the map into pseudo-science. You can't claim it's science, it's not. The only assumption science makes is that the methodology increases the quantity and quality (accuracy) of our knowledge about how the universe works... *and* that methodology is testable by the very methodology under consideration. Neat, huh?
(Yes, Godel showed that no belief system can ever prove its own assumptions, and on that basis the scientifitc method and religion are on an equal basis - but which assumption is more *likely* to hold water, and is a smaller leap: "The scientific method allows us to increase both the quality and quantity of our explanatory knowledge about the universe." or "God exists.")
Quote:
I hear you man, I'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject some time.
Oy, let me finish my dissertation first. \ I'm going to have to back out of this one soon, I have tons to write tonight. Bleah.
Quote:
Maybe we need to clarify faith and religion. I view faith as something that you can't prove 100% but you still believe in it. Why do you believe? There has to be evidence to compel you to the choice to believe. You talk about a scientist that follows the system and he can take comfort in knowing that the system will help him achieve the right answer. Why does he use the system? He believes it will help him arrive at the right answer. How does he come to that conclusion? Evidence. He's seen that the system gives consistently good results. Now he has faith in the system. Could the system be wrong? Maybe 1 in 10? 1 in 100? Its a possibility. At some point you look at the evidence and make your choice.
Agreed - now, what direct observable evidence for the existence of God do you have, that *does not require the existence of God to exist*.
A scientist can look at the body of knowledge produced by the scientific method and compare it to observations *regardless* of where that knowledge came from. It does *not matter* if the observer believes in the scientific method or not for them to compare the predictions with the results.
However... saying 'the Bible is proof of God's existence' requires the *assumption* of the existence of God in the first place to have dictated/inspired the text. \ That's the logical loop I've never seen broken. If you can do, I'm all ears.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Maybe instead of saying "[A great irony, here, is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology]" we could use "is a part of".
That's like me saying "I'm black" when I mean "I'm white."
You know, the whole english language thing. Kind of makes meaning important.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
You make some errors here.
First. The bible contains many more references by different authors to creation, and causality outside of Genesis.
Interesting, thanks. I'll check these out, since they seem to sound a lot like an inflationary universe, or at least a post-Big Bang expansion, no?
Again, this sounds like anthropological evidence for the *how*, not the *why*, other than the assumption that an intelligent divinity was behind it.
Impasse.
Second. All the evidence for evolution.
I disagree with this. Life did aparantly "pop up". They are finding fossile evidence of life at 3.8 billion years ago. This is immediately after the hadean era of earth. The fact that life showed up in abundance
Abundance? We have *abundant* evidence of that age? I think we have *some* evidence, not abundant.
so early, and possessing complex faculties such as photosynthesis flies in the face of the evolutionary model.
Not really - it could also mean that a) we simply haven't found earlier evidence yet, b) earlier evidence doesn't exist due to the inability for the earlier microscopic lifeforms to be fossilized or otherwise detectable now. This can easily be turned around you know... "Prove God *doesn't* exist!" "Prove that simpler lifeforms *didn't* exist!" Same type of logical problem.
Also evidence of further sterilization events on earth makes this problem even larger. In addition there is a lack of evidence for primordial soups, the problem of homochirality, a lack of viable chemical routes to life, and others. It seems that the evolution model has some serious holes. This leads to theories of panspermia, and directed panspermia.
Panspermia is an intriguing idea, but not one that I feel is necessary to explain the rise of life, to be honest.
Homochirality is a self-ordering system - much like the matter/anti-matter problem in cosmology, once a chaotic system reaches a critical seed state, one or the other is going to prevail... and the whole point of a truly chaotic system is that probabilities are running amuck. At *some* point in time, one or the other chiral state was going to take over. 50/50, really as to which one, but 1.0 as to it happening at *some* point.
I'm not sure what evidence one would *expect* for primordial soups, given their nature, but one can extrapolate from geologic formation environments what the surface was likely to be, and then state with a high probability what the resulting conditions were.
To say that all the evidence points to evolution is very naive. Am I going to change your mind and you will suddenly believe in God and creation? No. Can I maybe offer some insight that shows evolution is not nearly as solid as some would have you believe? I hope so.
Of course it has holes. It is a *theory*. But it's one that has a solid *methodology* behind it to allow for it to be tested, modified and adapted as new evidence comes into light.
Fundamentalist Creationism doesn't have that, and that's its downfall as an explanatory approach.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
I think you misuderstand. It doesn't mean that people read the bible first and then started doing science. I agree that is a stupid idea. It means that the methods and thought processes of science are very much a part of the bible.
Okay, now this I just plain disagree with.
Science is about questioning everything.
Religion is about believing with faith.
Those two are at fundamental odds.
As a child raised in a thoroughly poisonous fundamentalist Christian church, I vividly recall getting physically hit for asking "Why?" to a church elder.
To say that all the evidence points to evolution is very naive.
Evolution is about the adaptation of life, not how biogenesis occurred. It doesn't need a base like an inductive proof does..
I'm wondering how many of the christians here have read and critiqued Augustine, boethius or any of the other early christian philosophers. I'm reading selections of them now, and a lot of the ideas being put forward here are really crude versions of what they were trying to argue 1000 years ago. Those arguments have since been poked so full of holes.
I agree. Christianity has moved science back in many instances. You won't get any argument from me there. However secular sources also have done the same. Unfortunately it happens.
Your quote about design was an interesting read. I don't fully agree with all of his points. Things like, "it takes many people to build a house, and it takes labor." Do we know what labor would be to a being that doesn't experience time? Also, earthquakes, floods, storms, are all vital to the existence of life on earth. How are they sloppy design?
Look, like I said I can't change any of your minds, that is for certain. All I would like to do is maybe give better light to alternate theories. For the sake of discussion and all. When billybobsky posts things like, "there will be no stopping the irrational non-sense that is the judeo-christian creation story", why should I even post? I'm just posting irrational nonsense. Why did you guys even respond to my nonsense? Seems like a waste of time to me.
Originally posted by Kickaha
As a child raised in a thoroughly poisonous fundamentalist Christian church, I vividly recall getting physically hit for asking "Why?" to a church elder.
I've been out of this thread for a few pages, but nevertheless:
Does it occur to you that getting physically hit by a leader in a "thoroughly poisonous" church does not necessarily invalidate the entire Christian worldview?
Abundance? We have *abundant* evidence of that age? I think we have *some* evidence, not abundant.
The structures made by cyanobacteria require a fair amout of life. I will concede that abundant may not be the best choice of words though.
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos...nt/kant128.htm
Originally posted by Frank777
I've been out of this thread for a few pages, but nevertheless:
Does it occur to you that getting physically hit by a leader in a "thoroughly poisonous" church not necessarily invalidate the entire Christian worldview?
Oh absolutely.
But to claim that the methodology of modern science has its foundations in the Bible, when the two fundamental philosophies of question-observe-test-analyze-adapt and listen-believe-accept are so utterly at odds is just a strange claim in my eyes. My personal experiences were long ago moved past in my personal beliefs.
You'd be better off stating that the scientific method has roots in the rabbinical traditions, in my opinion. That, I'd buy. I'd even accept that it has roots in the more forward thinking philosophizers and theologists of the Christian faith. But to claim that it comes from the *Bible*? I'd need to see chapter and verse.
You know, observations.
Evolution is about the adaptation of life, not how biogenesis occurred. It doesn't need a base like an inductive proof does..
How do you figure? It had to come from somewhere. There is a great amount of research going on to determine how and where life originated.
{QUOTE]Okay, now this I just plain disagree with.
Science is about questioning everything.
Religion is about believing with faith.
Those two are at fundamental odds.
As a child raised in a thoroughly poisonous fundamentalist Christian church, I vividly recall getting physically hit for asking "Why?" to a church elder.[/QUOTE]
Man, I'm sorry that happened to you. Unfortunately nothing precludes people using religion as anothe path to power over other people. Faith is not believing someone just because they say so. Faith to me is that I've studied it, I've tested it, and I believe that it is true. A scientist that studies something will have great faith in his findings because he's tested them, and they withstood the rigors. Same thing with religious faith. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts all believers to, "Test Everything, Hold on to the Good." That sounds like the testing phase of the scientific method.
I'd like to give that page a good read. Unfortunately I'm at work, so I can't devote my full attention to it at the moment. I'll try to respond tonight when I get home.
The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists just 20 of the numerous successful predictions made by the Reasons To Believe model.
1. transcendent creation event
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
4. rapidity of life's origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. recovery from mass extinctions
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
16. speciation and extinction rates
17. recent origin of humanity
18. huge biodeposits
19. Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
20. molecular clock rates
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Why did you guys even respond to my nonsense? Seems like a waste of time to me.
I haven't posted thus far, but have been watching this thread vicariously, and this seems like the perfect in for me.
I've been reading this thread with great interest. The way some people can honestly *believe* the scriptures, or at the very least defend them, quite honestly befuddles me.
I was raised Protestant...and even have a story very similar to Kickaha's relating to Bible Class...but I grew, studied, learned and questioned. That eventually led to me shunning Christianity as it is taught.
My burning question is this: How do you believe? Seriously. 'Faith' is a cop-out. To me that's like believing in aliens (which I believe in only because it's scientifically improbable that life has chosen only one planet in the universe to reside). I'd honestly like to know...or at least understand...how you can go through life with your set of beliefs.
I'm not meaning to flame or single you out. This is an honest question. I'm genuinely curious.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
How do you figure? It had to come from somewhere. There is a great amount of research going on to determine how and where life originated.
AHA!
"How" "Where"
Not "why".
Man, I'm sorry that happened to you. Unfortunately nothing precludes people using religion as anothe path to power over other people.
Hence one of my prime beefs between religion vs. spirituality, but that's a *whole* other topic.
Faith is not believing someone just because they say so. Faith to me is that I've studied it, I've tested it, and I believe that it is true.
I'm genuinely curious - how do you test it?
Faith is *by definition* something that you believe in the absence of a burgeoning proof of evidence. Otherwise it is called 'deductive reasoning based on observations'.
I'm sorry if you feel attacked here, that's not my intent - I find faith to be a fascinating subject and enjoy hearing people's viewpoints on it.
A scientist that studies something will have great faith in his findings because he's tested them, and they withstood the rigors.
Hurm. I'll nitpick this one.
Same thing with religious faith. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts all believers to, "Test Everything, Hold on to the Good." That sounds like the testing phase of the scientific method.
Gotta go check context...
Thanks for the pointer.
No matter how much you try to fit every other bizarre word twist in the Bible into what is known will not produce the desired "proof" that god created the universe.
Belief, as 709 indicated, is the only reason why creation science exists. It is an attempt to place all of known science into a bottle with the assumption, the belief, that god created the universe. It is unfortunate that people cannot believe for the sake of believing and must bring everything DOWN to their belief system. It must comfort you to have a belief and subsequently believe that everything that science produces will somehow be shoe horned into that belief. This fact comforts me not, in fact, it makes me weep for the reason that these people must have behind their mad fascination with some mis-translated text from over 4000 years ago.
It is irrational to believe; actually, that is the essense of being irrational, the very act of believing in something.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Giant,
I'd like to give that page a good read. Unfortunately I'm at work, so I can't devote my full attention to it at the moment. I'll try to respond tonight when I get home.
Here are some of the assumptions Hume apparently pointed out were necessary for the argument from design:
i. It assumes too much
Inferring an effect - a cosmic design - from a cause - the beginning of the cosmos - is basically assuming what the argument wants to prove. Order and regularity do not imply design, supernatural or otherwise.
ii.The universe is unique
On this basis, Hume argued that it cannot be inferred that there is anything like a designer behind it; where is the undesigned universe by which one can make comparisons?
iii. Who designed the designer?
If functional complexity requires a designer, then the designer also needs a designer, because the designer must be at least as complex as the thing it designed. How else could it have designed the Universe? Maybe there was a team of imperfect designers. A Universe designed by committee would explain a lot.
iv. The universe shows just as much evidence of imperfection and disorder
Seeking a cause of the order when such order only partially represents what the universe is like is asking for trouble. If an all-perfect, all-good designer made the universe, why is it so full of suffering for life forms? Even if one could infer a designer from the world, there is no reason to suppose that it is the Judaeo-Christian or Islamic god. In fact, there are reasons to suppose it is not.
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos...nt/kant127.htm
I see you are really into the how/why thing. Look at it this way with creation you get a 2 for 1 deal. You get the how and the why. Bonus! I know I missed it, and I'm lazy so why do you think that creation can't offer the how? Is it because it also tries to answer the why and those shouldn't be mixed?
Hence one of my prime beefs between religion vs. spirituality, but that's a *whole* other topic.
I hear you man, I'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject some time.
I'm genuinely curious - how do you test it?
Faith is *by definition* something that you believe in the absence of a burgeoning proof of evidence. Otherwise it is called 'deductive reasoning based on observations'.
I'm sorry if you feel attacked here, that's not my intent - I find faith to be a fascinating subject and enjoy hearing people's viewpoints on it.
Maybe we need to clarify faith and religion. I view faith as something that you can't prove 100% but you still believe in it. Why do you believe? There has to be evidence to compel you to the choice to believe. You talk about a scientist that follows the system and he can take comfort in knowing that the system will help him achieve the right answer. Why does he use the system? He believes it will help him arrive at the right answer. How does he come to that conclusion? Evidence. He's seen that the system gives consistently good results. Now he has faith in the system. Could the system be wrong? Maybe 1 in 10? 1 in 100? Its a possibility. At some point you look at the evidence and make your choice.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I don't understand. If they're going to teach alternatives to all the evidence, they should teach creation myths from Mali, India, South America, West Africa, Madagascar and Southern Africa too. They're all just as likely as the account given in Genesis. There's no more evidence that Genesis is correct than any of them. None are more or less possible to prove.
Oh, but that would be the correct thing to do! No this is an effort by Christian Bible thumpers trying to have their beliefs thrust upon the next generation. In certain parts of the US they are the majority and they are doing their best to use he tools of democracy to get things done their way.
I've always felt that I could accept an academic course, even in a public school, on religious studies that takes a fair look at many/most of the worlds religions. I see this as more of an overlap with history class than with biology class.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Kickaha, I don't feel attacked by you at all. Its just when people label Christians (which includes me) as irrational then their mind is made up, and what's the point of debating. I think I'm rational. Maybe that's my whole problem.
I see you are really into the how/why thing. Look at it this way with creation you get a 2 for 1 deal. You get the how and the why. Bonus! I know I missed it, and I'm lazy so why do you think that creation can't offer the how? Is it because it also tries to answer the why and those shouldn't be mixed?
PRECISELY.
They are two different questions, and mixing the answers, or worse, tying one answer to another immutably, is inane.
"Mommy, where do babies come from?" <- how
"Because we wanted a child to love." <- why
"Er, okay, why did you and Daddy have me?" <- why
"Go talk to your father." <- dodge
The above contrived example (brought to you by the letter 4 and the number Q) makes as much sense to me as:
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
"Because God wanted it." <- why
"Er, okay, but why did he?" <- why
"Because the Bible says so." <- dodge
Asking 'how' i something that can be answered with testable theories, and is scientifically askable.
Asking 'why' is *not* something that can be answered with testable theories, and is therefore not something that can be answered in a scientific manner.
*Basing* a 'how' answer (Genesis) on a 'why' answer (God) *invalidates the 'how' answer from scientific purveyance*. The base assumption can never be tested, therefore the rest of the framework falls out of the range of deductive reasoning by the scientific method.
So trying to provide the primary assumption "God exists" as a *basis* for an answer that, on the surface, looks to be scientifically testable, only invalidates that answer from a scientific viewpoint, and you're right off the map into pseudo-science. You can't claim it's science, it's not. The only assumption science makes is that the methodology increases the quantity and quality (accuracy) of our knowledge about how the universe works... *and* that methodology is testable by the very methodology under consideration. Neat, huh?
(Yes, Godel showed that no belief system can ever prove its own assumptions, and on that basis the scientifitc method and religion are on an equal basis - but which assumption is more *likely* to hold water, and is a smaller leap: "The scientific method allows us to increase both the quality and quantity of our explanatory knowledge about the universe." or "God exists.")
I hear you man, I'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject some time.
Oy, let me finish my dissertation first.
Maybe we need to clarify faith and religion. I view faith as something that you can't prove 100% but you still believe in it. Why do you believe? There has to be evidence to compel you to the choice to believe. You talk about a scientist that follows the system and he can take comfort in knowing that the system will help him achieve the right answer. Why does he use the system? He believes it will help him arrive at the right answer. How does he come to that conclusion? Evidence. He's seen that the system gives consistently good results. Now he has faith in the system. Could the system be wrong? Maybe 1 in 10? 1 in 100? Its a possibility. At some point you look at the evidence and make your choice.
Agreed - now, what direct observable evidence for the existence of God do you have, that *does not require the existence of God to exist*.
A scientist can look at the body of knowledge produced by the scientific method and compare it to observations *regardless* of where that knowledge came from. It does *not matter* if the observer believes in the scientific method or not for them to compare the predictions with the results.
However... saying 'the Bible is proof of God's existence' requires the *assumption* of the existence of God in the first place to have dictated/inspired the text.