Originally posted by Nemesioi agree with a lot of this...
The problem with the 'faith in science' = 'faith in the Bible' is that not all beliefs are equally
credible.
Many aspects of science are repeatable and provable. This makes it, at worst, 'very informed
faith.' Very few aspects of the Bible are provable, and fewer yet are repeatable (parting seas,
stoping the sun in the sky, &c). That makes the ...[text shortened]... credible (untestable, unprovable). There is a lot of reason to believe in astronomy.
Nemesio
i think 'faith' and 'blind faith' are fundamentally different, and faith generally deserves more credibility than blind faith. i also think that if one interprets the bible in a strictly literal sense, then they are relying on a lot of blind faith, most of which i would quickly discredit. for instance, i think the theory of evolution is much more credible than god creating the universe in six days.
however, i don't think all of the christian faith is necessarily blind faith, so for now i tend to give these parts of the faith a fighting chance in the credibility department -- however, i discredited a literal interpretation of the bible as soon as i read page one.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThen I would, like Metamorphosis suggested in another thread, suggest Bishop John Shelby
however, i don't think all of the christian faith is necessarily blind faith, so for now i tend to give these parts of the faith a fighting chance in the credibility department -- however, i discredited a literal interpretation of the bible as soon as i read page one.
Spong's works. His newest book (which I have not read) seems to be geared for someone
in your position (A New Christianity for a New World).
I also recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's book 'Living Buddha, Living Christ,' which touches on
an interdisciplinary approach to either tradition, one which doesn't require any faith, but
doesn't exclude it either. It's perfect for the agnostic to understand spirituality, either from
the standpoint of adopting a theistic stance, or not feeling the need to do so.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiocool...thanks for the input...i'll give them a look-see.
Then I would, like Metamorphosis suggested in another thread, suggest Bishop John Shelby
Spong's works. His newest book (which I have not read) seems to be geared for someone
in your position (A New Christianity for a New World).
I also recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's book 'Living Buddha, Living Christ,' which touches on
an interdisciplinary approach ...[text shortened]... from
the standpoint of adopting a theistic stance, or not feeling the need to do so.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
I never claimed that they were the source of absolute truth.
I am saying that, in order to believe in a literal creation, you have to deny
the independent conclusions of these sciences which all point to an ancient
earth (much, much older than 6000 years).
Palentology -- 1. Dinosaur bones; 2. Fossilized plant matter;
Archeology -- 3. Stone-Age too ...[text shortened]... of these fields in order to support a 'young-earth' literal
reading of Creation?
Nemesio
Here's aspects of 14 different sciences that have to be utterly denied in order to believe in a
6000 year-old earth.
Dino bones, Stone Age tools, and Global magnetic shifts are not "sciences." And half of you list consists sub-specialties. I'll give you credit for stretching reality as far as you could.
The error is in thinking I have denied any sciences - the sciences are not entities with ideas - sciences are fields of study. Scientists in natural sciences build theories on data. Scientist develop theories, and check them against finite observations (observed data) and experiments (controlled data). If the theory stands, it is considered a good theory (but the theories is never considered a fact or absolute truth). Even the most rigorous theories are never considered absolute truth in science as a matter of principle.
A true scientist recognizes that as good as their theory appears - there is alway the possibility that there exists an alternative theory that can explain the data (and may be consistent with other data also). Also, almost no scientific theory fits the know data perfectly, even the ones which can be modeled mathematically. Also a good scientist recognizes that what can be said true for a finite sample or a thing - can not be said to be true for all of a thing - that would be a logical fallacy.
Almost all the scientific theories implied by your list are dependent on each other - and assume the validity of the theory of evolution. If A is true, B must be true, and C must be true, and if C is true them A must be true. These theories are, in essences, self-fulfilling prophecies. Not independent conclusions, but interdependent theories based on finite observations and assumptions about the accuracy of projections back through time. And most of them could not even be called probabilities, only possibilities.
Do you care to refute the data in all of these fields in order to support a 'young-earth' literal
reading of Creation?
I have no needed to refute "data" because the data needs to be interpreted - only the interpretation is disputed - and that makes for healthy debate. If an alternative theory leads to a collapse of the house of cards - so be it. It will make a lot of people mad - but don't let them fool you into thinking that this is about "science vs. religion" - this is really about philosophy vs philosophy.
All of this is really a tangent because it ignores my fundamental question - why should I deny God's power when debate issues of biblical events? To insist that I deny God, it really a religious statement. Or maybe we can not truly separate supernatural and natural truth? Isn't a the denial of the influence of the supernatural on the natural a question of metaphysics that natural science alone can not answer? To divide truth this way is a philosophical question which natural science is not equipped to handled - but is unavoidable non-the-less.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI do not always interpret the Bible literally at all points. I do in general start with a literal interpretation, and must be convinced otherwise. I do not assume science is infallible - so I do not necessarily find counter arguments that are labeled "scientific" very persuasive. I think (in general) the public has become so enamored of science that it is starting to believe "scientific theories" as if they were gospel. The ideal that science greatest authority of truth is a philosophical position that many unwittingly assent to on faith, and that I find absurd and unscientific in principle. A bit of healthy skepticism is a good thing.
however, i don't think all of the christian faith is necessarily blind faith, so for now i tend to give these parts of the faith a fighting chance in the credibility department -- however, i discredited a literal interpretation of the bible as soon as i read page one.
Originally posted by Coletti
Dino bones, Stone Age tools, and Global magnetic shifts are not "sciences." And half of you list consists sub-specialties. I'll give you credit for stretching reality as far as you could.
I picked 14 different specialities within 7 distinct disciplines which point
to a conclusion that the earth is older than 6000 years. Some are
interrelated, others are not. All unanimously deny the 6000-year
conclusion and none have evidence to suggest the contrary.
A true scientist recognizes that as good as their theory appears - there is alway the possibility that there exists an alternative theory that can explain the data (and may be consistent with other data also).
Absolutely. It is very possible that God has created things just to
confuse us. But is that likely? The only 'evidence' to suggest this is
some people's perverse interpretation of Genesis. There is a bounty
of evidence to suggest that the earth is much older than 6000 years.
Almost all the scientific theories implied by your list are dependent on each other - and assume the validity of the theory of evolution. If A is true, B must be true, and C must be true, and if C is true them A must be true. These theories are, in essences, self-fulfilling prophecies.
Wrong. What does genetics have to do with radioactive-isotope
dating? What does stratiography have to do with bacteriology? What
does a study in global magnetic shifts have to do with astronomy?
Nothing. All of them point to an ancient earth/universe without relying
on each other. There is no interdependencey between genetics and
astronomy. There is no interdependence between plate techtonics
and radioactive-isotope dating.
They all utterly independently support an ancient earth (or universe)
and utterly refute a 'young earth' theory.
All of this is really a tangent because it ignores my fundamental question - why should I deny God's power when debate issues of biblical events? To insist that I deny God, it really a religious statement. Or maybe we can not truly separate supernatural and natural truth? Isn't a the denial of the influence of the supernatural on the natural a question of metaphysics that natural science alone can not answer? To divide truth this way is a philosophical question which natural science is not equipped to handled - but is unavoidable non-the-less.
If you read my first post, you will notice that no one requires you to
deny the existence of God. They are asking you to recognize the
probablity that your interpretation of God is faulty if it is predicated on
absurdities like a 'young earth' theory.
I'm happy to discuss your nature of God if it doesn't require denying
demonstrable truths about the world around us (e.g., ancient earth,
no worldwide flood, no obvious contradictions in historical events like
I've raised in the Gospels).
Nemesio
Originally posted by Colettiwrong again ,, it's about Science vs what passed for science back in the stone age.Here's aspects of 14 different sciences that have to be utterly denied in order to believe in a
6000 year-old earth.
Dino bones, Stone Age tools, and Global magnetic shifts are not "sciences." And half of you list con ...[text shortened]... ce is not equipped to handled - but is unavoidable non-the-less.
The Hubble Constant alone is enough to debunk the timeline of Genesis 1.
Originally posted by ColettiI am unsure who you are talking to. Who insists on assuming God does not exist when discussing these things?
I find it interesting that whenever I am debating about any Biblical events and issues - the first rules seems to be - pretend like God does not exist.
Now I can understand this with my opponents. I mean, with God on my side, I have an advantage. God is by definition a supernatural being, who supersedes the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible for God ...[text shortened]... s there any reason that is not the following: it gives the Christian theist an unfair advantage?
Originally posted by ColettiHealthly skepticism is, of course, the basis of science: it does not rely on irrational beliefs in supernatural occurrences but only what can be observed and tested. It is not, however, "healthy" to adopt a preconceived idea that all interpretations of data MUST be fitted into no matter how absurd a stretch it is.That is exactly what you try to do; you believe in a fairy tale and must deny all data which comes into conflict with it. You can pretend, if you must, that you are being "rational" by doing this, but I can see little difference between your belief in a 4000 years ago worldwide flood and a lunatic's belief that he is Napoleon; both are utterly without support in the real world and their "reality" resides only inside the disturbed minds that harbor such beliefs.
I do not always interpret the Bible literally at all points. I do in general start with a literal interpretation, and must be convinced otherwise. I do not assume science is infallible - so I do not necessarily find counter arguments that ...[text shortened]... ntific in principle. A bit of healthy skepticism is a good thing.