REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod

POSTED BY: LEADB
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 07:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 18045
PAGE 1 of 7

Saturday, June 2, 2007 10:59 AM

LEADB


This discussion started over in the Ron Paul candidacy thread:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=28977

And we hijacked it a bit; so, I'm hoping to draw some of that discussion over here, and leave the poor folk over yonder to discuss Ron Paul.

----

Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

posted by Leadb- 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.'
we agree on this. what im objecting to is other scientists telling me there is no evidence for a Creator. im asking how it is they know that?


Hmm, ok. That is a hard distinction to make. IMHO, most scientist will say the -science- aspect does not provide evidence for a Creator, and I tend toward agreeing with that FWIW. I'm not clear that anyone here was claiming that the science provides evidence which counter indicates God exists; though I do believe a few have indicated God is not 'necessary' for our world to be as it; which I also tend to agree with. I just happen to think there is a prime Initiator; it bothers me not in a least wit that some folks think there is not.

So are you saying you feel the natural 'laws' science is exploring is evidence of the existence of God? If so, we likely disagree on that point, though I'd be happy to discuss the distinction.

Regarding the other items, if I had projected an incorrect position onto you, I appologize.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 11:28 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

posted by Leadb- 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.'

we agree on this. what im objecting to is other scientists telling me there is no evidence for a Creator. im asking how it is they know that?




Trouble here: the evidentiary standards of the scientists are such that nothing could possibly be advanced which would qualify as evidence of God's existence, because a key presupposition of the scientific method is naturalism (basically, that no matter what the phenomenon, that phenomenon has a natural expalantion). Gee, no wonder they haven't found any evidence of God's existence. On their view, such evidence is impossible. In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 12:07 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
... On their view, such evidence is impossible.



I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm a fairly content materialist, yet I believe in the existence of gods. The thing to understand is that gods, in general, aren't material entities, so there's no point in looking for evidence of them in direct material terms. Evidence for the existence of gods is all around us, its just not extoplasm or anything physical.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 12:11 PM

DAVESHAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 12:12 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Science is the realm that wants to know how the universe works. Religion is the realm that wants to know what created it in the first place. The two do _not_ overlap.

Basically, there is two DIFFERENT problem domains, with two DIFFERENT solution spaces.

Problems only occur when people don't realize this.

Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 12:51 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
... On their view, such evidence is impossible.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm a fairly content materialist, yet I believe in the existence of gods. The thing to understand is that gods, in general, aren't material entities, so there's no point in looking for evidence of them in direct material terms. Evidence for the existence of gods is all around us, its just not extoplasm or anything physical.

SergeantX


Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 1:15 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by daveshayne:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either.



Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I was, to the contrary, pointing out that the standard material reductionist line, "There's no evidence for God" isn't at all meaningful, both because I don't think there ever could be anything like "scientific evidence" given the presuppositions of the methodological naturalism, and given that, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, the absence of evidence of something doesn't constitute evidence that that thing is not there.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that I'm arguing that an absence of evidence is evidence of presence? If you want, we can drag out arguments for the existence of God, but that is totally beyond the scope of my original post.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 1:16 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Science is the realm that wants to know how the universe works. Religion is the realm that wants to know what created it in the first place. The two do _not_ overlap.

Basically, there is two DIFFERENT problem domains, with two DIFFERENT solution spaces.

Problems only occur when people don't realize this.

Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.



Amen! Tell it, brother!



________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 1:18 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm a fairly content materialist, yet I believe in the existence of gods. The thing to understand is that gods, in general, aren't material entities, so there's no point in looking for evidence of them in direct material terms. Evidence for the existence of gods is all around us, its just not extoplasm or anything physical.


Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?



See, that's the whole thing. "Evidence a scientist would accept" is going to be evidence of a very specific sort. It's going to involve empirical observation, falsifiability, and all that other good stuff. And I'm just really skeptical about whether we'll ever have that type of evidence for God's existence. What complicates that is that methodological naturalism would seem to check any attempt to present scientific evidence of God, because they'd be busy looking for the natural (and not the supernatural) cause of the phenomenon.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 1:32 PM

DAVESHAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by daveshayne:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either.



Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.



Not really. Merely pointing out the natural corollary to the line you quoted.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 1:47 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:

Amen! Tell it, brother!







Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:

they'd be busy looking for the natural (and not the supernatural) cause of the phenomenon.




You're presupposing that God isn't natural. Are you sure about that?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 2:15 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?



I think so. I don't want to be coy, so I'll say up front that I'm not coming at this from a typical religious point of view.

I've come to see religion much differently than I once did. I'm now convinced that gods are very real entities. They exist in the minds and wills of all of their followers.

That probably sounds like cop-out and not at all like real 'belief', but think about it. What I'm getting at is much different than saying that god is imaginary. I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 2:51 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

posted by SigmaNunki- Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.


i politely disagree with that, the two are in fact not at all compatible(from a christians standpoint). the various theories of evolution can exist within the scope of ID, but not Creationism. the most obvious contradiction is that Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'. God created man in his likeness, and gave us dominion over all the species of earth. it never says we came from primates. certainly we all share the same design(er), and material componants.. but we do not share a common ancestor. beyond that, evolution could not account for our fall from Eden, or our future redemption at the coming of the Lord.

the Catholic church is not a credible source to me, for many reasons.. but i recently read a book written in 1884 entintled "the Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan", and it listed an entire page of doctrines completely invented by the Roman church(a few hundred ATLEAST). its an incredible history, which in the end is not favorable to Gods message. and i apologize, i am not criticizing catholics per se but the institution surrounding them

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:00 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by daveshayne:
Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.



Not really. Merely pointing out the natural corollary to the line you quoted.



But you're reacting to a claim I never made. There seem to be two directions to go with the no-evidence thing. One way would be to say, (1) "Ah ha! There's absolutely no evidence that there is a God!" The other seems to be, (2) "Ah ha! There's no evidence that there is no God!" I happen to believe that both those statements are more-or-less correct, as far as any scientific standard of evidence goes. But it's bad reasoning to say, from (1) "Therefore, there's no God!" And you're right, it's also bad reasoning to say, from (2) "Therefore, there must be a God!" But I want to point out that I wasn't saying that. That's why I reacted the way I did.



________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:05 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
i politely disagree with that, the two are in fact not at all compatible(from a christians standpoint). the various theories of evolution can exist within the scope of ID, but not Creationism. the most obvious contradiction is that Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'. God created man in his likeness, and gave us dominion over all the species of earth. it never says we came from primates. certainly we all share the same design(er), and material componants.. but we do not share a common ancestor. beyond that, evolution could not account for our fall from Eden, or our future redemption at the coming of the Lord.



But all of this is predicated on a concrete-literal interpretation of the Bible. Any good Hebrew lexicon will tell that there are at least three literal definitions for the word we translate "day." So you could still have a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account and not be a young Earth creationist. My point is that the Bible can be interpreted in a number of different ways, not just yours. As far as I can tell, the Genesis account is more about the "who" of creation than the "how." It seems to be much more a way of saying, "God's god and humans aren't" than a detailed account of origins.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:06 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
What I'm getting at is much different than saying that god is imaginary. I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.



Like Batman!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:08 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@Antimason:

You're assuming a literal interpretation of the bible which given historical facts is fallacious. If you don't want to believe me, then read pretty much anything by Bishop John Shelby Spong (ret.). Though I'd recommend 'Why Christianity Must Change or Die'.

I'd also politely ask you not to arrogantly assume that you speak for the Christian standpoint as a whole, as when one looks around there are... many Christians that don't seen things the same way that you do.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:14 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
they'd be busy looking for the natural (and not the supernatural) cause of the phenomenon.



You're presupposing that God isn't natural. Are you sure about that?



Well...hmmm...

I suppose what I'm presupposing that God isn't "natural" in the same sense as a rock is natural or the law of gravitation is natural. Basically, I'm proposing that God is non-natural in the sense that he's non-material. I don't think there's a way to put God under a microscope or into a beaker. And since the standard of scientific evidence is limited to that which is empirically observable, I don't think that there can be that sort of evidence, because I take God not to be empirically observable.

The other X-factor, of course, is methodological naturalism. Suppose Jones has suffered from blindness from birth. He's really sick of it, but his doctor says, "No dice--you're stuck with being blind." Jones, not a man to take "no" for an answer, goes to see Smith, a faith healer. Smith rubs a little mud on Jones' eyes, invokes the Holy Spirit, slaps Jones in the head, and bang! Jones can see. Now, a good scientific thinker is going to want to look at the mud, and see if there's anything special in it. He's going to want to know if perhaps the bonk on the head helped. Maybe all the hollering and singing did something, or maybe he had something weird for lunch. In short, the good scientific thinker will look everywhere but God for an answer for the fact that Jones can see. The reason for this seems to be that good scientific thinkers presuppose that no matter what the phenomenon, that phenomenon has a natural explanation. Hell, suppose that there is a God. Suppose further that it was God that healed Jones. The good scientific thinker doesn't even have that as a category in his thinking--how could he ever find "evidence" for God's existence?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:40 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

posted by SigmaNunki- Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.


i politely disagree with that, the two are in fact not at all compatible(from a christians standpoint). the various theories of evolution can exist within the scope of ID, but not Creationism. the most obvious contradiction is that Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'. God created man in his likeness, and gave us dominion over all the species of earth. it never says we came from primates. certainly we all share the same design(er), and material componants.. but we do not share a common ancestor. beyond that, evolution could not account for our fall from Eden, or our future redemption at the coming of the Lord.

the Catholic church is not a credible source to me, for many reasons.. but i recently read a book written in 1884 entintled "the Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan", and it listed an entire page of doctrines completely invented by the Roman church(a few hundred ATLEAST). its an incredible history, which in the end is not favorable to Gods message. and i apologize, i am not criticizing catholics per se but the institution surrounding them

First, it is important to keep terms straight.
-posted by SigmaNunki- Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism.-

From Wiki:
Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.[1] Biblical creationism is the belief in literal interpretations of the book of Genesis.[2] The term strict creationism is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the more general concept of creation held by those whose faith accommodates theistic evolution.[3] Creation in this context refers to the specific supernatural act of creation.

Is it safe to say that Antimason is referencing "Biblical creationism", while the Catholic church is coming from 'theistic evolution'?

I will observe I've discussed with many clerics from a few different denominations over the years, Methodist and Presbyterian for the most part, and neither has a 'church position' that evolution as taught in most schools either denies God nor is 'against the bible', as neither church requires a literal interpretation of the Bible. Lump them in with the Catholics, that's a pretty large pool of Christians that are comfortable with the Creation story as a parable. Thus I question your use of 'from a christians standpoint'; it would be helpful if you would identify the Christian sect you feel this standpoint is accurate for.

This phrase catches my eye "our future redemption at the coming of the Lord. " That's new to me; how does redemption key into/off of evolution?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:51 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?



I think so. I don't want to be coy, so I'll say up front that I'm not coming at this from a typical religious point of view.

I've come to see religion much differently than I once did. I'm now convinced that gods are very real entities. They exist in the minds and wills of all of their followers.


Nope, not conventional. Toyed with that myself for a while, but it didn't take. I put god out as an entity 'out side of space and time' as we understand it.
Quote:


That probably sounds like cop-out and not at all like real 'belief', but think about it. What I'm getting at is much different than saying that god is imaginary. I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.

SergeantX

Now, keep in mind I'm not saying you are wrong; but the question was 'evidence a scientist would accept'. You said yes, but I would say based on your description, 'no'. How to clarify... ok... keep in mind I might be taking liberties with your position, and this is just an example. You indicate that they 'react negatively to attempts to remove'; for the moment, lets suppose that it is -possible- to remove them. If we can weigh someone before and after the removal of the god, and nothing else is changed, would the hosts' weight change? If yes, then that is evidence that a scientist would likely accept. If no, then likely not. Now, that's not to say that the removal did not occur; but it would mean then the god is massless. This might lead a scientist to inspect for waveforms (since that which exists as waveforms is massless); I know, this is stretching, but I'm trying to give a possible ideas for such evidence types.

Keep in mind that much of what passes for faith (mine included, I mean nothing negative here) in our deities is simply beyond the realm of what is capable of producing evidence at a level a scientist can 'work with'; it doesn't make it inaccurate, it simply means we cannot use scientific principles to assess it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 3:57 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Hell, suppose that there is a God. Suppose further that it was God that healed Jones. The good scientific thinker doesn't even have that as a category in his thinking--how could he ever find "evidence" for God's existence?

I was 'with' you up to that part. I am not sure that a 'good scientific thinker' -always- does not have such a category, for instance the Catholic Church has investigators they send to examine miracles; and I am very confident these folks are good scientific thinkers; but they are prepared to classify as miracles those things which science cannot explain. Or have I missed a key point? (I will agree that if you have a firmly atheistic scientist investigating, he clearly would not have such a category; but not all scientists are atheist (I'll even speculate that most are not).)

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 4:17 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I was 'with' you up to that part. I am not sure that a 'good scientific thinker' -always- does not have such a category, for instance the Catholic Church has investigators they send to examine miracles; and I am very confident these folks are good scientific thinkers; but they are prepared to classify as miracles those things which science cannot explain. Or have I missed a key point? (I will agree that if you have a firmly atheistic scientist investigating, he clearly would not have such a category; but not all scientists are atheist (I'll even speculate that most are not).



Well...I think you may be right. Actually, I'll say I think you are right. I suppose that I'm jaded from the parry and thrust of debate, where things are more divisive, and the positions look clearer. It's that damned real world stuff, I hate, where things aren't as neat as theory can make them! I guess the main thing, though is the methodological naturalism part. If one really buys completely into it, then there's no question science can't answer. Of course, being that I'm on the campus, I do know a few guys in the hard sciences who also believe that there's a god. I'd like to know how one could go about their science looking for natural explanations whilst also making room for god and miracles. (Seriously, if anyone on the boards is a religious believer and a scientist, I'd love to hear your thoughts.)

Also, I know I owe you an email, Lead. I'll try to pick that up so we can get back into our conversation.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 4:28 PM

DAVESHAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by daveshayne:
Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.



Not really. Merely pointing out the natural corollary to the line you quoted.



But you're reacting to a claim I never made.



No, just pointing out the alternative interpretation that you seem to have glossed over.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 4:49 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by daveshayne:
No, just pointing out the alternative interpretation that you seem to have glossed over.



I'm just trying to figure out why you think I'm "glossing over" anything. I think that maybe you expect someone who says, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to make the same bad leap in judgment that that first guy did. Unfortunately for you, I'm not that guy. I would, however, really like to know why you insist on accusing me of making bad inferences or glossing over stuff. Warning against someone against making an illogical argument is not the same thing as committing a logical error myself. So why do you insist on accusing me of "glossing over" things?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 5:10 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:

And since the standard of scientific evidence is limited to that which is empirically observable, I don't think that there can be that sort of evidence, because I take God not to be empirically observable.




Not sure if you're understanding of the scientific methods are up to date; we've gotten a bit beyond beakers and microscopes. I'll make an attempt to correct what I /think/ is misunderstood.

I'm not sure that you fully understand what an observable really is. For instance, a particle is an irreducible representation of the Poincare group. They are _not_ little balls bumping around.

Basically, just because something has been said to have been observed, does _not_ mean that we can actually see it. It only means that we can /detect/ it.

Science also doesn't need something to be observable to think that something exists. Take black-holes for instance. We can't see them, but we can detect there existence indirectly. There is many other examples of this type of thing as well.

But, I'm going to have to say, that it is _not_ Science's objective to find God. So, given that scientists aren't looking, how would they have verified or falsified God's existence.


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:

The reason for this seems to be that good scientific thinkers presuppose that no matter what the phenomenon, that phenomenon has a natural explanation.




Historically speaking, things that have been thought to be acts of God have been proven to have a natural explanation. Given this fact, it is prudent to assume that everything has a natural explanation. Just because we can't prove it today, doesn't mean that this isn't true. And again, given history, the true answer is typically just around the corner.

But, on the flip-side, is it really reasonable to assume that when some "faith healer" apparently heals someone that it was God that did it? Especially since I can't recall even one instance where a "faith healer" wasn't discredited.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 5:36 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The First Amendment prohibits the promotion of a religion by the government, teaching a religion in public schools is the government promoting a religion.



until as recently as the 1960s, we still had bible study and prayer in schools.



Relevance? Just because it happened doesn't make it Constitutional.

Quote:

wasnt curriculum, it was being practiced freely, as the first amendment grants.


Granted (no pun intended).

Quote:

regarding the first amendment, we should accept that the pilgrims were escaping religious persecution from the catholic church,


Certainly, we should also accept that it wasn't the pilgrims who set up the American government, and we should also accept that people who were persecuted for their religion shouldn't be interested in persecuting others (though people aren't perfect).

Quote:

thats why we have a bill of rights and constitution, because we actually had moral and ethical standards, and absolutes, that we believed were divinely granted to each person, as a sovereign being.


As Fremd pointed out, saying that the founders were strongly religious is theistic revisionism, the writing was somewhat couched in religious terminology, but that doesn't actually mean anything, if Lavey wrote the Satanic Bible using religious terminology that wouldn't make it any less atheistic.

Quote:

Quote:

The only way around it is to teach all religions which would take an enormous amount of time away from actually learning useful things.


except that America was a christian nation from its founding



No, America was a nation where religion and government were purposely separated to prevent religious persecution. America was a country of Christians (for the most part) but the government was never intended to be a theological organization.

Quote:

Quote:

People tried repeatedly to confirm the stories of the Bible using science, they all failed.


archeological evidence constantly confirms the bibles accuracy.



It confirms some of the historical aspects (i.e. Jesus did exist), however it completely fails to show the supernatural aspect: the Egyptians have no record of the plagues, there is no evidence for a global flood (and a great deal of evidence against), there is huge amounts of evidence for things happening that have no mention in the Bible (how many Velociraptors show up in the Bible?). Did you know that the people who laid the groundwork for Darwin's work were looking for evidence of Creation? They didn't find it, they found evolution.

Quote:

as far as our origins, you cant prove that we came from apes


Fossil, morphological, biochemical and genetic evidence make a pretty damn compelling case.

Quote:

any more then i can that God created us UNIQUELY among his creatures(but actually, i think the circumstantial evidence is in my favor)


What evidence would that be?

Quote:

Quote:

Explanation please? At what point is religion necessary to the continuance of the government?


im not advocating a "religion", as much as a worldview that includes transcendant laws established by a higher power.



Last I checked higher powers and transcendental laws were the exclusive domain of religion, thus you are advocating religion. Unless that is you can give a non-religious source of transcendental laws and higher powers.

Quote:

as far as our constitutional republic, the reason for this is clear as day. take a look at the democratic party: they have no platform, because they do not have a uniform set of principles.


Clear as mud you mean. What relevance does the lack of uniformity of the Democratic party have?

Quote:

as an atheist, what DO you believe? what IS your moral code? its completely relative to your own personal opinion!


So is yours, moral judgments from different religions have different outcomes, many times different factions inside a single religion, using the same set of texts, can come to completely different conclusions. You picked a religious denomination that matches your opinion.

Quote:

a republic cannot exist without established standards, but more specifically rights granted to the individual by his Creator.


You still haven't given any backing to this claim, there are plenty of countries that manage just fine without religion as a major force in their governments.

Quote:

take a look at secular societies through history, you dont own land, you dont own your money, you dont own shit!


Correlation does not equal causation. Most of the societies that have had strong pushes for secularism have been Communist, Communism does not require secularism (though the teachings of it's founders pushes it), and secularism doesn't require Communism.

Quote:

a perfect example is the 2nd amendment, which doesnt exist in other countries because they dont believe you have the right to defend yourself!


That is an issue of the governments trying to get more control over the people, which has nothing to do with religion. On a related note, the Swiss government (IIRC) requires every able-bodied male of age to own and know how to use a rifle, not just allow, require.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 6:27 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I'd like to know how one could go about their science looking for natural explanations whilst also making room for god and miracles.



I consider myself neither a scientist nor religious, but I believe the term is "compartmentalization." The two ideas are separated somehow - perhaps by their understanding that science's methods are only applicable to a materialist world - either with or without realizing that the two ideas seem to be at odds. I think it helps if religion doesn't permeate their whole lives to the same extent as, say, a fundamentalist who wants Harry Potter banned.

My biology teacher was a great example of that. Science was so exciting for him, and I think he was a Presbyterian, or at least a Protestant of some sort.

And, although it isn't possible to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of a deity in general, certain specific ones can be shown to be bizarre, illogical, or laughable (Scientology, anyone?).

For example, this is something I found to be interesting:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/29/part-1-my-day-outside-the-creati
on-museum/#comment-35048


Quote:

Quote:

Now that’s something I don’t understand, myself, as someone who is not an atheist. If God is said to be “all powerful, all knowing, eternal and infinite” the such a God could include the attributes of a “personal God” but such a God would also have to include infintely more than that.


The philosophical argument there tends to go that personality is defined by limitations and god is defined by lack of limitations and therefore god cannot have personal attributes. I can’t explain it very well since I don’t believe it and have never heard anyone explain it well myself, but Smith goes into it in Atheism: The Case… if you’re interested in it.

The scientific argument, however, is quite a bit stronger. The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have [no] interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god, you are claiming that the god is not a part of this universe and does not interact with this universe through miracles, answered prayers, writing holy books, etc. If you have a personal god, it must be doing at least one of these things, and so is interacting with the universe, and so is scientifically testable.



Unfortunately, it's difficult to make any progress with "God works in mysterious ways" counter-arguments, which is why science tends to leave this stuff alone in the first place.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:45 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
You said yes, but I would say based on your description, 'no'.


I think it depends on how you're defining gods. I'm taking them as literal artifacts of human history. There's clearly something there, even if it's a simple as a shared concept. But I think it's a good deal more powerful than just an idea.
Quote:

If we can weigh someone before and after the removal of the god, and nothing else is changed, would the hosts' weight change? If yes, then that is evidence that a scientist would likely accept...

That's really not the sort of thing I'm talking about. When I say god is real it's more like saying that a computer program is real. The program is massless - your hard drive won't weigh any less after it's deleted. But it's still a real entity with identifiable characteristics and real effects on the world. Think of god as sophisticated 'program' that has evolved to propagate it's existence through human minds.

As a point of reference, I came to this idea after reading several books on human consciousness. The theories that intrigued me the most were those that posit the human soul (or 'self', or whatever you refer to when you say 'I') to be be, essentially, a specific type of information laden pattern in a human brain. In other words, you an I are real in the same way that I'm claiming gods are.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 2, 2007 9:56 PM

ANTIMASON


to say i interpret the bible "literally" is deceptive. there is no way you could interpret Revelations or the book of Daniel, or the book of Enoch literally. but the message throughout is clear that you cant just pick and choose what you want to believe, and what fits in comfortably to your current understanding... because it does have a consistent message, and certain things are very specific for a reason. also, people assume the evidence refutes young earth Creationism, and ive heard some pretty good arguments in its favor. so dont assume references like "a thousand years is like a day to the lord", and vice versa contradict a literal interpretation.. because that is quite a different context then "on the first day" God created...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:31 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I was 'with' you up to that part. I am not sure that a 'good scientific thinker' -always- does not have such a category, for instance the Catholic Church has investigators they send to examine miracles; and I am very confident these folks are good scientific thinkers; but they are prepared to classify as miracles those things which science cannot explain. Or have I missed a key point? (I will agree that if you have a firmly atheistic scientist investigating, he clearly would not have such a category; but not all scientists are atheist (I'll even speculate that most are not).



Well...I think you may be right. Actually, I'll say I think you are right. I suppose that I'm jaded from the parry and thrust of debate, where things are more divisive, and the positions look clearer. It's that damned real world stuff, I hate, where things aren't as neat as theory can make them! I guess the main thing, though is the methodological naturalism part. If one really buys completely into it, then there's no question science can't answer. Of course, being that I'm on the campus, I do know a few guys in the hard sciences who also believe that there's a god. I'd like to know how one could go about their science looking for natural explanations whilst also making room for god and miracles. (Seriously, if anyone on the boards is a religious believer and a scientist, I'd love to hear your thoughts.)


Heh, the funny thing is after further pondering, I decided you were right after all. I think in this case the 'technically correct' response from a scientist would be something like... 'Observation does not yield at this time to suitable scientific explanation' after which the person might consider himself free to speculate, in essence 'stepping out of' his 'scientist role'. I think what 'triggered' my initial response is the difference between a 'scientist' and a 'scientific thinker'. A thinker is a person; and people do the darnedest things; whereas scientist is a role, which a person can step out of as 'needed' (but should be clear when doing so as to avoid confusing the issue).
Quote:


Also, I know I owe you an email, Lead. I'll try to pick that up so we can get back into our conversation.


np. thx for letting me know the bit bucket hasn't grabbed it ;-)


====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:46 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
to say i interpret the bible "literally" is deceptive. there is no way you could interpret Revelations or the book of Daniel, or the book of Enoch literally. but the message throughout is clear that you cant just pick and choose what you want to believe, and what fits in comfortably to your current understanding... because it does have a consistent message, and certain things are very specific for a reason. also, people assume the evidence refutes young earth Creationism, and ive heard some pretty good arguments in its favor. so dont assume references like "a thousand years is like a day to the lord", and vice versa contradict a literal interpretation.. because that is quite a different context then "on the first day" God created...

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position; it's clearer to me than before. I think our points of difference of position will be driven by 'the message throughout is clear'; to which I will say it may be to you, but that even Christians (as per Wiki definition) will disagree on which those 'clear' elements are.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:56 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Think of god as sophisticated 'program' that has evolved to propagate it's existence through human minds.

As a point of reference, I came to this idea after reading several books on human consciousness. The theories that intrigued me the most were those that posit the human soul (or 'self', or whatever you refer to when you say 'I') to be be, essentially, a specific type of information laden pattern in a human brain. In other words, you an I are real in the same way that I'm claiming gods are.

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from on the 'cognitive explanation' of the basis for your position. I believe that such a position, even if accurate (again, I'd be saying this for my own faith position as well), is not one well suited for providing scientific evidence in the tradition of the scientific method. I could be wrong, all it takes is one bright person with the right 'ah ha' moment to turn such an assumption upside down.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:17 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I forget who said it, but I like to use it when I can.

" ( The study of ) Evolution does not demand or deny the existance of God " )

So much is said in that one sentence, and I totally agree. Though I'm a non believer when it comes to God, I still can appreciate anyone trying to discover HIS glory through HIS works. I don't see why there is so much hatred by some fundies when it comes to the topic of evolution.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:03 AM

LEADB


I'd replace 'hatred' with 'anger' (though I suppose it probably does get to that at times).

There's at least two schools of Fundamentalist teaching directly threatened by evolution; both driven by a literal (or at least 'more literal' than most) interpretation of the Bible.

1: Creationism; which basically dictates that God created the world 'as is', and evolution does not fit well into that unless you start taking some steps down the road of accepting the story as allegory.

2: Young Earth; which basically states the world is only 10,000 years old. This ties into an interpretation of the genealogy presented in the bible, plus a tie into 'known history' where that genealogy leaves off. Assuming the 7 day creation story is literally true + that time span, it gives you about 10,000 years, give or take a couple thousand years. Obviously, a theory of evolution, or any of the generally accepted astronomically based age assessments of the visible universe, you are going to run into significant contradictions.

Any time a basic belief like this is 'threatened' you will get a strong reaction, you may get either anger or perhaps even hate. At the very least, a highly probable 'intense statement of disagreement'.

Note: I do not subscribe to either position above; and if I've misstated either, am quite open to correction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 4:07 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:

Now that’s something I don’t understand, myself, as someone who is not an atheist. If God is said to be “all powerful, all knowing, eternal and infinite” the such a God could include the attributes of a “personal God” but such a God would also have to include infintely more than that.


The philosophical argument there tends to go that personality is defined by limitations and god is defined by lack of limitations and therefore god cannot have personal attributes. I can’t explain it very well since I don’t believe it and have never heard anyone explain it well myself, but Smith goes into it in Atheism: The Case… if you’re interested in it.



The trouble with this counter argument against God's being a personal God is that there's an equivocation being made. When a religious believer says that God is a personal God, he means that it is possible to have a personal relationship with that God. Something in his religion makes it such that he can enter God's presence (prayer, meditation, whatever it is). But the counterargument doesn't deal with that aspect of being "personal." The counterargument takes "personal" to mean "having a personality." But that's nothing more than equivocation. By introducing a defintion of "personal" that doesn't appear in the original theistic position, the counter-argument fails, since it doesn't address the original position in virtue of the fact that it commits the fallacy of equivocation.

Quote:

Quote:

The scientific argument, however, is quite a bit stronger. The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have [ no ] interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god, you are claiming that the god is not a part of this universe and does not interact with this universe through miracles, answered prayers, writing holy books, etc. If you have a personal god, it must be doing at least one of these things, and so is interacting with the universe, and so is scientifically testable.



From my perspective, that doesn't seem to be a very strong argument at all. When this guy claims that "The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have [no] interaction with reality" he seems to making two claims that are in serious need of justification. First he seems to be claiming that science can access all of reality. And that if that's the case, but it can't access God, then God's not real. But why should I accept the claim that science can access all of reality? This argument merely assumes that that's the case, and leaves it at that. But this is a huge claim that needs some justification. Science can't give an account of what my subjective experience of tasting cherry ice cream is like, for instance. This individual could talk about the chemical properties of the stuff, the way the chemicals interact with the tongue, the nerve impulses that move from my mouth to my brain, the neuron firings in my brain as a result of those nerve impulses--but he still would not have described what it's like for me to taste cherry ice cream (for more on the inaccessibility of subjectivity, see Nagel's What Is It Like To Be A Bat?). I think the argument fails solely on those grounds alone. The second claim that seems to be involved is an epistemological claim that builds off the idea that science has access to all of reality. This individual seems to be making the implicit claim that science is the only means for truly knowing anything. This, I fear, is mere epistemological empiricism. In another thread I traced the history of this sort of idea from its roots in the philosophical movement called Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism failed, though, because its central belief (that only scientifically verifiable/deniable beliefs count as knowledge) couldn't be scientifically verified! And unfortunately for this individual, the implicit claim that science is the only way to know anything isn't something that the sciences can prove! So the individual's argument has another massive weakness in that it's not at all clear that the only way to know anything is via the sciences.

This individual's first conclusion is equally uncompelling. He claims, "by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god, you are claiming that the god is not a part of this universe." Of course, this only works if one buys into the first premise; namely, that science has access to and can give knowledge about everything in the universe. I, of course, think that science does not have access to and can not give knowledge about everything in the universe. And if that's not the case, the first conclusion doesn't follow. So I can still coherently claim that God is beyond scientific proof or disproof because it seems clear to me that there are some things that fall outside science's ability to investigate.

This individual's last conclusion is the weakest of all: "If you have a personal god, it must be doing at least one of these things (performing miracles or answering prayers), and so is interacting with the universe, and so is scientifically testable." This conclusion rests on the first premise, which, I hope, I've at least cast some doubt on. This conclusion takes for granted science's ability to investigate everything in the universe, and so, from that, says that if God interacts with the universe, he must be scientifically testable. But this is not at all clear. Again, this relies on the presupposition that the sciences have access to and can give knowledge about everything in the universe. And again, I think that I've at least cast some doubt on that idea. If that first premise isn't true, then it does not follow that if God interacts with the world, then he's scientifically testable. So again, the conclusion doesn't follow.

The upshot of all this is that this argument isn't sound. I think it might be valid (that is, the conclusions would follow if the premises were true), but I deny that the premises are true. And if the premises aren't true, then the conclusions won't follow, and by definition, the argument won't be sound.

Consider this as an alternative to the argument put forth in the quote above.

(1) God is immaterial
(2) If God is omnipotent, his will is sufficient to produce any logically possible effect
(3) God is omnipotent
(4) God's will is sufficient to produce any logically possible effect (from 2 and 3)
(5) If God's will is sufficient to produce any logically possible effect and if God is immaterial, then God's status as the cause of some effect is not be materially detectable/observable.
(6) God's status as the cause of some effect is not detectable/observable (from 1, 4, and 5)

I think that this argument is an adequate answer to the quoted argument above, because the argument above seemed to take for granted that everything is empirically observable. But if God is by definition not material, how will the sciences ever be able to observe him or his effects on the world? Now, of course, you can deny any one of my premises, and claim (as I did with the argument above) that my argument isn't sound--but my project is just to show that there might be a way for God to exist and yet to be indetectable by the sciences.

Quote:

Unfortunately, it's difficult to make any progress with "God works in mysterious ways" counter-arguments, which is why science tends to leave this stuff alone in the first place.


Fortunately, there are philosophers who will argue on God's behalf without resorting to "God works in mysterious ways" and leaving it at that.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 4:13 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
to say i interpret the bible "literally" is deceptive. there is no way you could interpret Revelations or the book of Daniel, or the book of Enoch literally. but the message throughout is clear that you cant just pick and choose what you want to believe, and what fits in comfortably to your current understanding... because it does have a consistent message, and certain things are very specific for a reason. also, people assume the evidence refutes young earth Creationism, and ive heard some pretty good arguments in its favor. so dont assume references like "a thousand years is like a day to the lord", and vice versa contradict a literal interpretation.. because that is quite a different context then "on the first day" God created...



Yes, but the Hebrew word yom (which is interpreted "day" in English translations) can mean (1) a 24-hour period; (2) the 12-hour period of daylight; or (3) a long but finite period of time (see Gen 2:4). Who's to say that definition (3) isn't the correct interpretation? You demand that we interpret Genesis 1 in a concrete-literal fashion, but it's not at all clear that that's the way we should interpret it. St Augustine, for example, thought God created the earth fully formed in one infinitely brief moment. Why demand your own young-earth interpretation as if that's the only possible interpretation?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 4:28 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I'd replace 'hatred' with 'anger' (though I suppose it probably does get to that at times).

There's at least two schools of Fundamentalist teaching directly threatened by evolution; both driven by a literal (or at least 'more literal' than most) interpretation of the Bible.

1: Creationism; which basically dictates that God created the world 'as is', and evolution does not fit well into that unless you start taking some steps down the road of accepting the story as allegory.

2: Young Earth; which basically states the world is only 10,000 years old. This ties into an interpretation of the genealogy presented in the bible, plus a tie into 'known history' where that genealogy leaves off. Assuming the 7 day creation story is literally true + that time span, it gives you about 10,000 years, give or take a couple thousand years. Obviously, a theory of evolution, or any of the generally accepted astronomically based age assessments of the visible universe, you are going to run into significant contradictions.

Any time a basic belief like this is 'threatened' you will get a strong reaction, you may get either anger or perhaps even hate. At the very least, a highly probable 'intense statement of disagreement'.

Note: I do not subscribe to either position above; and if I've misstated either, am quite open to correction.



I think you're mostly correct here, Lead. I'd just like to offer a couple of refinements.

As far as "creationism" goes, it's true to say that some creationists think that God created the world "as is." But that's not the full extent of creationist thought. Creationism in its most general sense is the belief that God is the creator of the universe. Period. Now, there are all kinds of creationism. Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the 10,000 year old earth version. Old Earth creationism (OEC, the one I subscribe to) doesn't deny scientific findings of an old universe, but does insist that God created the universe, first supernaturally with the Big Bang (heck, even my atheist Metaphysics professor said--on numerous occasions--that all mathematical models break down when applied to the Big Bang) and then via natural means to get us to where we are today. There's even a creationist account called the Framework View that takes no position on the age of the earth, but views the Genesis days as two parallel triads (1st and 4th days, 2nd and 5th days, 3rd and 6th days). My point, I guess is that YEC can't be conflated with Creationism in general.

The history of YEC is pretty interesting. It's actually only about 50 years old. The publication in the mid-1960s of The Genesis Flood first started fundamentalists thinking that perhaps we could account for the data of geologists by some other means and still maintain the young earth account. That got wrapped into other efforts (the "dating" of biblical events based on Bible geneaologies) and before you know it, YEC is born. For anyone who's interested, I'd recommend The Genesis Debate (ed. David Hagopian) to see the arguments of YEC, OEC and Framework. To get a clear explanation of the OEC position (as well as a fascinating history of YEC) I recommend A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 5:18 AM

LEADB


Causal,
Thanks for clarifying on those points. I'll try to remember the term "Young Earth Creationism" for that particular point. One of the problems is it is all too easy to get tied up to the 'short form' of the term.

Ok,just burned my brain out.
Wiki provides some interesting variations of the theme:
YEC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism

OEC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism
(which then has 2 variants)

and Theistic evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Each sufficiently different to really need it's own name to keep the discussions straight.

(My travel plans for today have been reschedule one day out; so I have a day 'free to ponder things')

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 5:42 AM

LEADB



Ok, if I'm reading Wiki right... two variants on OEC:
Gap Creationism - would still be likely "put off" by 'biological' evolution?

Progressive Creationism - would likely be "ok" with 'biological' evolution, though would likely see a 'hand of God' in 'directing' it?

Not that Wiki is guaranteed right.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 8:36 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

posted by Casual- Yes, but the Hebrew word yom (which is interpreted "day" in English translations) can mean (1) a 24-hour period; (2) the 12-hour period of daylight; or (3) a long but finite period of time (see Gen 2:4). Who's to say that definition (3) isn't the correct interpretation?


it may very well be. so may the other two though.. i try to give all equal play. the majority of people, minus many (well intentioned) fundmentalists, completely disregard the literal possibilities, which i feel is a mistake.

Quote:

You demand that we interpret Genesis 1 in a concrete-literal fashion, but it's not at all clear that that's the way we should interpret it. St Augustine, for example, thought God created the earth fully formed in one infinitely brief moment. Why demand your own young-earth interpretation as if that's the only possible interpretation?


im not demanding, im asking people to consider all ID(or creationist)possibilites somewhat equally. in my mind i am completely open, i just like to present the 'other side', which doesnt always receive focus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 8:42 AM

ANTIMASON


FredGiblet and Frem- i encourage you guys to watch this houir long video entitled 'founding fathers: deists or christians'. it definitely shows another side of colonial America that proves to be inseparable from our system of government

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4613995330489978540&q=foundin
g+fathers+christians+or+deists

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 9:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Re miracles:

I just wanted to point out that while there is a very small chance of the improbable happening, there is a chance. And someone has to be on the tail of the bell curve. In the great Lotto of life, that's why you'll find people who 'beat the odds'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 11:17 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
im asking people to consider all ID(or creationist)possibilites somewhat equally. in my mind i am completely open, i just like to present the 'other side', which doesnt always receive focus

It was interesting, but I'm still inclined to put ID in the classification of 'religion' Vs 'science'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:43 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I believe that such a position, even if accurate (again, I'd be saying this for my own faith position as well), is not one well suited for providing scientific evidence in the tradition of the scientific method.



I think it's a mistake to assume that science can only address phenomena that have direct material existence. I don't think most scientists would limit themselves in this way, certainly not mathematicians in any case :).

There are plenty of examples to things that are real and can be studied, but don't rely on material existence. I mentioned computer programs, but lots of other things are real despite their immaterial nature. A story, for example, is real regardless of it's medium. The ideas and information of the story are merely patterns of symbols.

I'm looking at gods as sophisticated examples of memes, self-propagating 'programs' that exist in any medium that can maintain them. This understanding satisfies most of the observable effects of religion and gods and makes a lot more sense than dismissing the idea of gods out-of-hand because they can't be measured easily.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:56 PM

LEADB


SergeantX,
If you can come up with an approach you believe would produce scientific evidence, I'm all ears. Otherwise, while I recognize the potential validity of your position, I personally am at a loss on how to suggest a course of scientific inquiry into the matter. This easily could simply be my lack on the more esoteric side of science.


====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:07 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
If you can come up with an approach you believe would produce scientific evidence, I'm all ears.



Do you 'believe' in prime numbers? They can be studied, notions about them can be hypothesized and proved or disproved. But is there any evidence, evidence of the kind you're demanding for gods, of their existence? It's seems you're fixating on gods as material entities and rejecting them altogether if their material existence can't be shown. If that's the case, I'd have to agree - we won't find ectoplasm or any other kind of 'godstuff' that we can study under a microscope. I don't, however, think that means the topic is out of bounds for scientific inquiry.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:28 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
If you can come up with an approach you believe would produce scientific evidence, I'm all ears.



Do you 'believe' in prime numbers? They can be studied, notions about them can be hypothesized and proved or disproved. But is there any evidence, evidence of the kind you're demanding for gods, of their existence? It's seems you're fixating on gods as material entities and rejecting them altogether if their material existence can't be shown. If that's the case, I'd have to agree - we won't find ectoplasm or any other kind of 'godstuff' that we can study under a microscope. I don't, however, think that means the topic is out of bounds for scientific inquiry.

SergeantX

The English language is a bit vague for this type of discussion. Math is a defined construct. We define a prime number as that number for which there are no factors other than themselves or one. It's completely arbitrary a definition which has been made up to explain a set of numbers which have a particular use. For which I will now say the following, I cannot provide scientific evidence that prime numbers exist.

However, I never contended that god (or gods, or goddess or goddesses) does not exist. I merely indicated that the scientific method (and I see no problem with the definition here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
) does not well apply to the gathering of evidence of the existence of either prime numbers or god(s, et al). I think the funny thing here is, once we sort out our difference; it will not be as much a difference in belief about religion as it is a difference in our understanding of the bounds of scientific inquiry.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:56 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I think the funny thing here is, once we sort out our difference; it will not be as much a difference in belief about religion as it is a difference in our understanding of the bounds of scientific inquiry.



Perhaps. The thing is we do scientific inquiry on prime numbers. I think there's a tendency to avoid serious study of religious phenomena because we know so precious little about it, in part because it's been neglected for so long.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 4:24 PM

LEADB


That's where we disagree, then. I would say computer scientists use prime numbers for encryption purposes, for instance; and they may have other uses, but they are a mathematical artifact. I believe if you asked a scientist to support that prime numbers are real via the scientific method, he would not be able to. That does not make them less real, or for that matter, less useful.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 3, 2007 6:47 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
im not demanding, im asking people to consider all ID(or creationist)possibilites somewhat equally.



And therin lies the problem. Creationists are going at this from the wrong angle. Creationism is all well and good if you want to believe in that sort of thing, but as it deals with the supernatural, it is not the equal of science. Now, weather you believe Creationism/ID are superior to, or inferior to Evolution is your business. But they are most definitely not equal, because they are based on entirely different principles.

Evolution is based on observation/experimentation (basically, tangible, testable things) like all science. Creationism/ID, however are based on opinion (the opinion that things are too complicated to have come about naturally), and faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, but it is seperate from science, and should be kept that way.

[img] [/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"


- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL