Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 211 of 456 (554814)
04-10-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by slevesque
04-09-2010 11:53 PM


Slevesque writes:
How do you know Paul never met Jesus ????
Paul wrote quite a bit. Especially about Jesus. Yet he never once mentions meeting him, except in a vision.
So why would you assume Paul met Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by slevesque, posted 04-09-2010 11:53 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by slevesque, posted 04-10-2010 3:21 PM hERICtic has not replied

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 212 of 456 (554815)
04-10-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 4:07 PM


Flyer writes:
Justin was a First century church leader. He was one generation away from being taught from the eyewitnesses who wrote the NT.
What eyewitnesses?
I am curious though. We have the amazing gospel stories, occuring during one of the greatest empires and yet no one wrote about witnessing any of the events. No one. We do have authors who lived in that area, who wrote about many religious, economic and social events, yet none wrote about these incredible happenings.
An example: Matthew 27, the dead get out of the graves and decide to walk around.
How is it that NO ONE wrote about this? Imagine the chaos, the fear, the amazement! Yet we have nothing. We have one story in Matthew. That's it.
So why would you accept that this event occured?
Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 4:07 PM Flyer75 has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 213 of 456 (554829)
04-10-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by subbie
04-08-2010 1:23 PM


quote:
Let me expand on that a bit. Science relies on objective evidence that any other person can look at and verify. There is no need to trust what anyone else says about the evidence. You don't need faith in those collecting the evidence. If I don't believe what someone says about their evidence, I can look at it for myself, as can anyone else. As long as I can trust what my senses show me, I can see the evidence myself.
What's more, scientific hypotheses are subject to the acid test: do they work? Science produces results, science does things. What science has accomplished is further objective evidence in support of science.
Yes, but this is not so different from religion (at least, from Christianity). Christianity relies on objective, textual evidence, which any other person can look at and verify. If you don't believe what someone says about what the Bible claims, you can look at it yourself.
Theological claims are subject to the acid test: are they consistent with the text? This establishes the claims; belief in these claims is a second step. This belief produces results in one's life, both subjective and objective.
Theology and science are done in analogous ways. So much so that Augustine called theology "the queen of the sciences" (but this was before the advent of modern science).
quote:
Religion relies on authority. It depends on believing someone else's word. I can't verify anything in the bible by looking at objective evidence.
Perhaps you overspoke here? You can verify whether or not the Bible teaches the claim in question. You can verify many historical details mentioned in the text. You can even verify some claimed results of Christian faith. But I agree that the fundamental theological claims of the Christian faith cannot be objectively proven.
quote:
I can't share someone else's feeling of peace upon being filled with the spirit of the lord.
True.
quote:
Accepting religion requires faith in what others say. Is it based on "evidence?" Yes, in a sense. But it's not based on objective, verifiable evidence. It is based on evidence that must be taken on faith.
I would quibble here. Such things as historical, archaeological, grammatical evidence are objective and verifiable. Christianity is based, in part, on these. But I agree that there is also other evidence which is not objective or verifiable.
quote:
Science never says, "Believe because I say so." But at bottom, that's all that religion has. That's the difference between faith and evidence.
I don't believe the difference is as clear-cut as you want to believe. Both involve evidence and reason. Both involve faith. We can quibble over how much reason or faith is in each, but that's not my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by subbie, posted 04-08-2010 1:23 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2010 12:25 PM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 214 of 456 (554830)
04-10-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by subbie
04-08-2010 3:52 PM


quote:
quote:
If the evidence for any claim or belief system were ONLY subjective, I would have little confidence in it.
I'd be very interested in hearing what evidence you think exists for religion that isn't subjective.
This has been discussed in depth in other threads, and a detailed discussion would be off-topic for this thread.
But one brief example: City rescue missions are filled with stories of people who were destitute, drunk, homeless, depressed, and suicidal, with nothing to live for. They then heard the Gospel, believed it, found purpose and meaning in life, and became valuable, contributing members of society. Does this PROVE Christianity? No. But Christianity claims to give purpose and meaning to one's life, and this provides objective evidence that it indeed can do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by subbie, posted 04-08-2010 3:52 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 12:35 PM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 215 of 456 (554831)
04-10-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by subbie
04-09-2010 2:35 PM


Reason and evidence
quote:
quote:
I was only trying to show that theology involves evidence and reasoning. (This should be obvious, but some in this thread dispute it.)
And you are ignoring those who point out that it involves only subjective evidence and appeals to authority. So far as I've been able to tell, that's the argument that people are making here, not that there is no evidence.
No, I am definitely not ignoring those who make such claims. In Message 141 I demonstrated that Christian theology involves reason and objective evidence, disproving the claim that religion "involves ONLY subjective evidence and appeals to authority."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by subbie, posted 04-09-2010 2:35 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by subbie, posted 04-10-2010 3:27 PM kbertsche has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 216 of 456 (554832)
04-10-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 11:55 AM


quote:
Yes, but this is not so different from religion (at least, from Christianity). Christianity relies on objective, textual evidence, which any other person can look at and verify. If you don't believe what someone says about what the Bible claims, you can look at it yourself.
Aside from the fact that conservative Christians are often wrong about what the Bible says this IS clearly different. Nobody in science would take a book as the final word.
quote:
Theological claims are subject to the acid test: are they consistent with the text? This establishes the claims; belief in these claims is a second step. This belief produces results in one's life, both subjective and objective.
Some people say so, but that itself is a theological claim. And a strong faith commitment is required to make it. So really you are emphasising the differences between science and religion here, and showing that your religion starts with far more faith than science requires.
quote:
I would quibble here. Such things as historical, archaeological, grammatical evidence are objective and verifiable. Christianity is based, in part, on these.
Given how little positive suppport for the religious claims these offer - and the much greater evidence against the reliability of parts of the Bible - this cannot be seen as showing that Christianity has much of a basis in evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 11:55 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:45 PM PaulK has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 217 of 456 (554834)
04-10-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 12:07 PM


But Christianity claims to give purpose and meaning to one's life, and this provides objective evidence that it indeed can do so.
How does this evidence the claim that God exists in the first place? Many non-theistic organizations give people purpose and meaning in their life. I don't see how providing purpose and meaning leads to the conclusion that God exists. Can you lay out that reasoning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:07 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:51 PM Taq has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 218 of 456 (554835)
04-10-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Taq
04-09-2010 3:12 PM


quote:
quote:
I thought I explained this?? The text is our "data" and its grammatical structure can be considered evidence. We analyze the grammatical structure using reason, and conclude that the GS rule applies to it. We apply the GS rule, and through reasoning we conclude that Paul viewed Jesus as God.
What I am interested in is the logic and reason Paul used to reach this view. The GS rule only allows us to discern what Paul believed, not why he believed it. Again, defining the claim is not the same as using reason and logic to arrive at a claim. If I gave you a specific definition for "leprechuan" would that be a logical and well reasoned argument for the existence of leprechuans?
Paul's logic and reason is an interesting question, and perhaps a good topic for a Bible study thread. But I was not trying to address it here. It is not necessary to establish my claim that theology involves evidence and reason.
quote:
quote:
I believe you asked me for an example of evidence and reason in THEOLOGY.
I did. What you gave me was reason and evidence as it is applied in linguistics.
Close; this is reason and evidence as applied to Greek grammar. Greek and Hebrew grammar are part of theological studies. Theology rests on original language study, history, philosophy, and other fields. The study by Wallace that I referenced was excerpted from his PhD thesis submitted to a theological seminary.
There are a number of sub-threads going on, so let me remind everyone of what I've been claiming in this thread. The thread started with the OP claiming that evolution relies on faith. I joined the thread in Message 25, where I intentionally and explicitly broadened this claim. I claimed that science involves faith, and that it does so in two ways. As an aside, I also mentioned that religion (especially Christianity) relies on evidence. Some in this thread disagree, claiming that religion involves NO reason or evidence. I believe it should be obvious that any scholarly field of religious study (e.g. theology) involves reason and evidence, but even this claim generated disagreement. So I presented an example of a grammatical/theological argument in Message 141.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Taq, posted 04-09-2010 3:12 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 12:49 PM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 219 of 456 (554836)
04-10-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by PaulK
04-10-2010 12:25 PM


quote:
Aside from the fact that conservative Christians are often wrong about what the Bible says this IS clearly different. Nobody in science would take a book as the final word.
The analogy is between Scripture and nature. Science studies nature; if someone disagrees with an interpretation of nature, he can go and examine nature himself. Analogously, Christianity studies the Bible. If someone disagrees with an interpretation of the Bible, he can go and examine it himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2010 12:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 12:53 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2010 1:03 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 225 by Coyote, posted 04-10-2010 2:23 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 220 of 456 (554837)
04-10-2010 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 12:38 PM


Paul's logic and reason is an interesting question, and perhaps a good topic for a Bible study thread. But I was not trying to address it here. It is not necessary to establish my claim that theology involves evidence and reason.
In this thread you have claimed that theologians use logic and reasoning to arrive at religious beliefs. Why wouldn't Paul's logic and reasoning be applicable here?
Close; this is reason and evidence as applied to Greek grammar.
Yes, otherwise known as linguistics. That linguistics is taught in seminaries is not under dispute. That students study greek and hebrew at seminary is not under dispute. What is under dispute is that religious belief (not our understanding of greek grammar) is reached through logic and reason. Or are you saying that learning a language is the same as believing in a deity?
I claimed that science involves faith . . .
Here is what you said about faith in science in Message 25:
quote:
Is science based on faith? Does science have faith-based presuppositions? Yes, this is a metaphysical consideration. Scientists have faith in their basic senses and in logic. They have faith that the physical world behaves in a consistent and potentially understandable manner. Further, most scientists believe that their theories have some actual correspondence with the physical universe, that the theories are in some sense "real" instead of merely being imaginary non-physical models. None of these positions can be proven; we accept them on faith. But the scientific system works quite well, which gives us some confidence in these premises.
Are you really suggesting that this faith is the same as religious faith? Are you really suggesting that faith in things we can test and see is the same as faith in things we can not test and can not see? I consider them to be quite different, and conflating the two only leads to confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:38 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 8:15 PM Taq has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 221 of 456 (554838)
04-10-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Taq
04-10-2010 12:35 PM


quote:
How does this evidence the claim that God exists in the first place? Many non-theistic organizations give people purpose and meaning in their life. I don't see how providing purpose and meaning leads to the conclusion that God exists. Can you lay out that reasoning?
It doesn't PROVE God's existence. But it does provide EVIDENCE; Christianity makes a claim (the ability to change lives in a positive way) and we see this born out. As you imply, the strength of this evidence depends in part on whether or not other, non-theistic approaches lead to the same result. (But I have never seen an atheist rescue mission, able to provide purpose and meaning to those in the gutter and turn their lives around by preaching a message of atheism!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 12:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 1:01 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2010 5:05 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 222 of 456 (554840)
04-10-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 12:45 PM


The analogy is between Scripture and nature. Science studies nature; if someone disagrees with an interpretation of nature, he can go and examine nature himself. Analogously, Christianity studies the Bible. If someone disagrees with an interpretation of the Bible, he can go and examine it himself.
The question is whether the Bible accurately portrays reality. It would seem to me that whether or not the Bible is accurately interpretted has little to do with whether or not the Bible accuratley portrays reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:45 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 7:49 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 223 of 456 (554842)
04-10-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 12:51 PM


It doesn't PROVE God's existence. But it does provide EVIDENCE; Christianity makes a claim (the ability to change lives in a positive way) and we see this born out.
Evidence of what? The ability to change people's lives or the ability to evidence the existence of God? As I have already shown, non-theistic organizations can change people's lives so no deity is needed.
But I have never seen an atheist rescue mission, able to provide purpose and meaning to those in the gutter and turn their lives around by preaching a message of atheism!)
So no one outside of religious believers have purpose in their lives? Do you really think that? Do you really believe that no one has found purpose in secular causes? Do you really believe that anyone who has quit drugs or made something of themselves required a belief in God? Do you really think that no one has found purpose and meaning in their relationships with friends and family, and that purpose and meaning led them to stop using drugs and make something of themselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:51 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 8:18 PM Taq has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 224 of 456 (554843)
04-10-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 12:45 PM


quote:
The analogy is between Scripture and nature.
Which is a false analogy, unless you reduce religion to literary criticism.
quote:
Science studies nature; if someone disagrees with an interpretation of nature, he can go and examine nature himself. Analogously, Christianity studies the Bible. If someone disagrees with an interpretation of the Bible, he can go and examine it himself.
You are leaving out a lot here. For a start, as soon as you go beyond "the Bible says" to claiming that what it says is true you are invoking faith. And then again, on the liberal side you have many Christians who do not accept that the Bible is absolutely authoritative, dismissing the parts of it that do not agree with their theology. On the conservative side you have many Christians who do exactly the same thing, but can't even admit it. Worse, the conservatives are often hostile to Bible scholarship, which should be an essential part of any serious study of the book.
So, all you are trying to do is to create a false equivalence by taking a very selective view of reality. Which again demonstrates the difference between the apologetic mindset and the scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:45 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 8:24 PM PaulK has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 225 of 456 (554849)
04-10-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kbertsche
04-10-2010 12:45 PM


Interpretations
The analogy is between Scripture and nature. Science studies nature; if someone disagrees with an interpretation of nature, he can go and examine nature himself. Analogously, Christianity studies the Bible. If someone disagrees with an interpretation of the Bible, he can go and examine it himself.
They do! And that is why we have some 40,000 different denominations, sects, and branches of Christianity.
Sorry, religion is not like science and all the apologetics in the world will not make it so.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kbertsche, posted 04-10-2010 12:45 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024