Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

I agree that reason is not the ONLY basis for religious faith, and not necessarily even the PRIMARY basis for many people.

---

It appears that it isn't a basis for faith AT ALL.In fact your whole argument seems to have been nothing more than a series of dubious rationalisations - in fact a demonstration of my point.

quote:

---

But the point I was making in Message 28 was broader: faith and reason work together in religion, rather than being opposed to one another. the use of reason by Christian apologists illustrates this.

---

In other words the main use - or rather abuse - of reason is to generate rationalisations to prop up belief. That is a quite a way from the way reason is used in science.

quote:

---

I understand what he is saying in this and it's not an inconsistency, imo. Both creationists and evolutionists view history/science through their presuppositional lens. In other words, both come to the table thinking, without evidence to what is being theorized, either in the terms of Global Flood or millions of years.

---

This is what Creationists want you to believe. THe fact is that the flood was refuted because the evidence was strongly against it and millions of years was accepted because the evidence was strongly for it.

quote:

---

It's not necessarily the conclusion I would draw in that example. Likely it would be but it's def not 100% provable and never will be. I start with an assumption that the Bible is true, that Noah's flood did occur, and thus much can be explained in light of a world wide catastrophe that completely changed the landscape.

---

In other words you start with the assumption that creationists must be right and you don't even look at the evidence in anything more than a superficial way. But in fact you are wrong. The flood FAILS to adequately explain the geological and fossil record.

quote:

---

Has there not been major flaws at times in radiometric dating??? P

---

No there have not been major flaws. None that would invalidate the methods used at all.

quote:

---

People were not around when rocks were formed, whether you are a creationist or evolutionist this is a true statement, so we can only guess about their content or how quickly radioactive elements decayed millions of years ago, or say, pre-Flood.

---

Again that is false. We can look for conditions that would change decay rates - none relevant have been found. We can look for the consequences of changing decay rates - none have been found. We can use astronomical evidence to see if there is evidence of differing decay rates, and none has been found. Of course creationists are unlikely to let you know these facts because they want you to dismiss the evidence.

quote:

---

Take Noah's flood out of the equation and most believe that there have been other catastrophic events around the world, including an ice age (yes, YEC believe this, it's just a difference of when it occurred) so how do we know how these events affected dating methods.

---

In fact there have been multiple ice ages - creationists only admit to one (again going against the evidence). And we know that they haven't affected the relevant dating methods because we have a scientific understanding of these events. Once again we see science resting on the evidence and creationism desperately trying to dismiss the evidence - in the name of faith.That is the difference. Science is based on evidence and creationism is based on dogma.

quote:

---

Perhaps this is because I see non-religious people in this thread denigrating religious faith. They apparently don't understand it and want to dismiss it as a "blind faith" based on no evidence at all. I am trying to explain that this perspective is simply wrong.

---

Now maybe you actually believe this, but if you do it is despite the evidence that you yourself have produced. In other words it is an example of blind faith. Your arguments abuse definitions and pretend that there is reasoning where there is none. In fact your faith is so blind that you could not even admit that there was no example of reasoning in Acts 17 even though you could not point to one.It's really simple - if you believe your own arguments you are living proof that you are wrong.

quote:

---

Acts 17 does not contain an extended, logical argument, which I have admitted. But Paul DOES mention "evidence" and "reasons" to accept what he says. Whether or not it includes is "reasoning" depends on one's definition of "reasoning" (i.e. does mention of evidence count, or is an extended logical argument required?)

---

The mere mention of alleged evidence seems to fall short of actual reasoning. The actual reasoning would be an explanation of how the "evidence" supports the conclusions.
But really there is no serious argument in Acts 17 and no rational way you could have come to the conclusion that there was.

quote:

---

I am trying to use consistent definitions for words such as "faith", "believe", etc. I do not believe I have "abused" any definitions. But the "blind faith" proponents certainly do so!

---

I realise that to the apologetic mindset the "proper" argument is the one that supports the desired conclusion. However by a more rational argument your statement is another falsehood. Your argument is "my preferred definition of the word faith includes the use of reason and evidence therefore there is reason and evidence supporting religious faith". But this is clearly fallacious reasoning. The correct way to establish that would be to show thee evidence and reasoning - and the very fact that you avoid that is clear evidence that you are at some level aware of the falsity of your views.There is much more evidence of the evasive and selective nature of your arguments - and the fact that you have managed to present no rational case. You would have done far better to keep your silence instead of providing such compelling proof of the blindness of your faith.

quote:

---

You have my argument backwards. You should know as well as I that religious faith uses reason and evidence. This is quite evident in any scholarly theological treatise, where philosophical-type reasoning is used. I have referred to examples of theological reasoning multiple times in this thread. Only one who is completely ignorant of theology and philosophy would try to deny that they involve evidence and reasoning.

---

But not to resolve basic matters of faith. The most you will find there is apologetics - often deceptive or fallacious - intended to prop up faith with the illusion of reason. To the extent that reasoning is correctly deployed it is used to argue over lesser points, with the major issues all assumed from the start.

quote:

---

You argue against religion like the YECs argue against science--lots of rhetoric in an attempt to denigrate and dismiss it without understanding it.

---

On the contrary, because the evidence is staring us all in the face. Your posts are there for everyone to read, and their slippery and evasive nature is visible to everyone. You are arguing like a creationist, determined to "prove" that you are correct, no matter what the truth.

quote:

---

Pretty true statement here except I also think reason can lead one to Christ (God). It has before if someone like Josh McDowell (one of the leading apolgists) can set out to prove atheism yet convert to Christianity, primarily, based on his writings and sermons, based on reason and logic. At this point, I'm not arguing if he was right or wrong, I'm just saying, logic and reason (along with the working of the Holy Spirit) lead him from atheism.

---

I'll agree that McDowell is famous, however his status is not due to the quality of his arguments. Like Strobel his claims to have been an atheist convinced by reason seem to be nothing more than a much-loved myth.

quote:

---

The Bible, if you believe, has verses that back this reasoning up:

​

Romans 1: 19-20: For what can be "known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, "have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

---

And your saying so is a demonstration of blind faith. Of course it isn't true, and it is obviously not true. Yet you think that you should believe it simply because it is in the Bible.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Now, as far as evidence goes, if you're looking for laboratory tested evidence for the Bible, you won't get but there is more then enough historical evidence that validates many parts of the Bible.

---

And plenty to contradict other parts.

quote:

---

If I can believe that C was written X amount of years ago by Y author, and that fact can be validated through archaeology, the fulfillment of prophecy, the structure of scripture, and ancient history, then I can logically and reasonably believe other parts of the Bible.

---

Except that there are NO convincing examples of fulfilled prophecies from the Bible. There are quite a few failed prophecies, though.

quote:

---

One small example, for a couple of thousands of years, many doubted the real existence of Pilate. Ultimately, in 1961, his name was found on an archeological inscription confirming from an outside source that indeed, Pilate did in fact exist and was a real person.

​

http://www.biblehistory.net/Pontius_Pilate.pdf

---

You will note that the page you link to does not claim that Pilate's existence was doubted. Instead it lists evidence that was already known that he DID exist (most notably Philo). Do you have any evidence that this evidence was ignored ? Because there seems to be real reasons to doubt it.

quote:

---

If you read this link, you'll see that other things have been found, such as written letters confirming that Pilate had Jesus crucified just as the Bible says.

---

No, you won't find any such thing. You will find a claim that there WERE such letters, but they have not been found. (The "Acts of Pilate" we have today are known to be a forgery).

quote:

---

Just for clarification, I didn't throw out McDowell's name necessarily because he's famous, but because he came to Christianity through what he says is reason and evidence.

---

One of many that falsely make that claim. The quality of his arguments says otherwise. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of Strobel, his Case For.. series of books seem to be quite popular.

quote:

---

I just made a post before I read yours on just one of the archeological finds, one of hundreds, maybe thousands that independently validate parts of the Bible.

---

I'm aware of much of the archeological evidence and it does very little to validate the religious claims of the Bible. It's not difficult to get a few things right. On the other hand - to name a few examples, we can be pretty sure that there was no literal Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood didn't happen, the Babel story is a myth and that if the Exodus had any basis in fact at all it was a much smaller event.I have to say that apologetics are one of the most convincing arguments against Christianity. The falsehoods and the open displays of bias and illogic show a desperate need for support that isn't there. Much of it is so phony that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the whole religion is phony, too.

quote:

---

I was referring to the letter by Justin Martyr who wrote his letter around 150 AD claiming there were letters of Pilate in the archives.

---

Except that THAT letter doesn't confirm that Jesus was crucified. The original letter from Pilate if it existed would. Personally I don't think that it did.

quote:

---

I'm not trying to derail this thread by discussing archeology and such. I'm just laying out the logical reasons why one can believe the Bible. You may say there is no logical reason but your definition of what is logical isn't going to be like mine and vice versa when it come to anything really.

---

I realise that you have been fooled into thinking that there are good arguments because of your personal bias. But bias is not logic. The arguments presented by apologists are often objectively bad.

quote:

---

All I'm saying, that in my brief studies, there is enough evidence for me to belief A, B, and C, in the Bible, thus I can believe X, Y, and Z.

---

And all I am doing is pointing out that the real situation might be that you have decent evidence for A, weak circumstantial evidence for B and your "evidence" for C is based on falsehoods or even lies. And on top of that the jump from A, B and C to X, Y and Z is likely to be invalid to say the least.

quote:

---

The Iliad pretty much just claims (without so much as saying it) to be just that. You may say the same thing about the Bible, but the Bible CLAIMS to be the Word of God.

---

That's stretching the truth somewhat. The Quran claims to be the literal word of God, but the Bible does not. There are sections of the texts where the author claims to be relaying God's work, and there's that one vague reference to "inspiration" (which is unclear on the meaning and even which texts it refers to), but there is nothing that even clearly covers the whole of the Bible as we have it today.

quote:

---

I wasn't referring to the Quaran...I was addressing Huntard's question about the Illiad.

---

I am perfectly aware of that. I was simply pointing out the fact that the Quran DID claim to be the word of God, unlike the Bible.

quote:

---

By your post I get the impression that for the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, it probably should have said so in every single verse????

---

Then you should have considered more carefully. I would have been more than happy if each book of the Bible had made such a claim. But in fact NONE of them do. Even a claim in one book that covered the entire Bible would have been adequate. If it had unambiguously identified those books as the word of God. 2 Timothey 3:16 does neither.

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.

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.