Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith Science - Logically Indefensible
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 91 of 166 (354071)
10-04-2006 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
10-03-2006 11:50 PM


Re: Religion and Science incompatible
quote:
Paul's statements ARE objective fact. The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact. This is what you don't get. You guys just compartmentalize your facts and judge from sheer prejudice.
The issue at hand was whether the Flood story of the Bible was derived from the Gilgamesh epic. The Bible verse cited (2 Corinthians 10:5) does not speak directly to the subject at all. Any attempt to say otherwise would require considerable interpretation - hardl the stuff of objective fact..
Secondly we do NOT know that the Bible is entirely accurate - in fact we know that it is not.
So the prejudice is almost entirely on your part.
It is your prejudice that claims that the "The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact"
It is your prejudice that claims that we know this - we don't know anything of the sort.
It is your prejudice that says that anyone who disagrees with you has to be prejudiced.
It is your prejudice that assumed that the Bible verse actually spoke directly to the issue when it did not.
The fact is that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the Bible. The hypothesis that the Biblical account is derived from the older story is entirely natural. It is only prejudice which could deny it.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 11:50 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by iceage, posted 10-04-2006 3:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 92 of 166 (354078)
10-04-2006 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
10-04-2006 2:29 AM


Re: Religion and Science incompatible
PaulK, forgive but I thought the point at hand was:
If someone has faith then they have 100% certainty
If they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary.
Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position.
Science requires that objective conclusions be able to be made from physical evidence.
Therefore "Creationist Science" is impossible.
I think after reading Faith's last post Message 79 you can pretty much take this to the bank. She was on topic and pretty much proved the point that the parent post was making.
You are right-on on your other points. She does seem to be avoiding the Gilgamesh issue on other topics here - so many inconvenient facts so little time.
OFF TOPIC BELOW THIS POINT - Please Do Not Respond to this portion or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
One last question I have for Faith.
If the bible is full of Objective Facts can you list the discoveries of the natural world or truely ojective facts that were discovered from a literal or inspired reading of the bible?
I will in advance give you a list of discoveries based on science.
Please provide your list of discoveries that were derived from from the bible and its collection of objective facts so that we can compare.
Here we go with scientific discoveries of the natural world in no particular order.
  • Heliocentric earth
  • Spherical Earth
  • Existence of Galaxies
  • Stars are other Suns or Galaxies
  • Continental Plates and Tectonics
  • Particle nature of light
  • Electromagnetic waves
  • Germ theory of disease
  • Sound as pressure waves thru air
  • Atomic nature of matter
  • Relativity
  • Nuclear energy
  • Quantum Mechanics
  • Chemistry
  • Black Holes
  • Nature of Gravity (not intelligent falling)
  • Genetics
  • Newtons 1st and 2nd law
  • 1st, 2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics
  • Vaccines
  • Antibotics
    Looking forward to you list!
    Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 91 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2006 2:29 AM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 93 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2006 4:47 AM iceage has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 93 of 166 (354084)
    10-04-2006 4:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 92 by iceage
    10-04-2006 3:26 AM


    Re: Religion and Science incompatible
    I don't think that Faith is ignoring the Gilgamesh issue - just tackling it with the same anti-science anti-intellectual methodology she usually hands - "don't look at the facts, just assume I'm right". The most telling point is that she doesn't even bother to look up the Bible verse cited - she just wrongly assumes that it directly speaks to the issue. You'd think that she would actually know the Bible well enough to realise that that was unlikely (I certainly did) and actually look up the verse.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 92 by iceage, posted 10-04-2006 3:26 AM iceage has not replied

      
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 94 of 166 (354089)
    10-04-2006 6:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
    10-03-2006 9:56 PM


    Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position.
    I don't see how 100% certainty makes a person unable to objectively analyze evidence. We can choose not to accept the results of the evidence, but that doesn't mean the person wasn't able to view the evidence objectively.
    Science has an SOP, but humans ultimately decide whether to accept the results or not. Those decisions are based on money, power, faith, career moves, etc.
    A scientist starts with some sort of premise or idea to prove or disprove.
    A creationist starts with a premise from the Bible. I think they can objectively view the evidence, but will reject that which contradicts the foundation of their faith or reject that which will not make them any money, etc.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by Percy, posted 10-03-2006 9:56 PM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 97 by Percy, posted 10-04-2006 9:07 AM purpledawn has replied
     Message 104 by Faith, posted 10-04-2006 2:05 PM purpledawn has not replied

      
    Brian
    Member (Idle past 4959 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 95 of 166 (354090)
    10-04-2006 7:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 83 by nwr
    10-04-2006 12:22 AM


    Re: Religion and Science incompatible
    2 + 2 = 4
    That would depend on who you are talking to.
    I know people who think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
    Brian.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by nwr, posted 10-04-2006 12:22 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22391
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 96 of 166 (354097)
    10-04-2006 9:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
    10-03-2006 11:50 PM


    Re: Religion and Science incompatible
    Faith writes:
    Science would not abandon a position based on a known fact.
    This is untrue, and you've argued the opposite when it suited your purpose, such as when you recently pointed out in another thread how science has changed its view of the age of the earth.
    But this isn't the topic. And neither is this:
    There is lots and lots of room for creative thinking about HOW the Flood happened, how evolutionist explanations are wrong, how the geo column was formed, how genetics works really, etc etc. etc.
    These aren't the topics of this thread. This thread is about how religious faith hinders objective interpretation of evidence.
    Paul's statements ARE objective fact. The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact. This is what you don't get. You guys just compartmentalize your facts and judge from sheer prejudice.
    In my Message 70 I addressed how facts are recorded in books but are not themselves facts. You chose not to reply on-topic. Repeatedly declaring your beliefs while ignoring replies or using them as mere launch points for more declarations is not discussion.
    More briefly this time, science takes advantage of information in ancient texts by corroborating it with other external information. What you are doing is accepting the information in an ancient text as fact and using that as a reason to ignore and/or misinterpret evidence from the natural world. You are doing precisely what the opening post claims that religious faith does, as has already been recently pointed out in this thread. You're like the poster child for the opening post.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 79 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 11:50 PM Faith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 98 by purpledawn, posted 10-04-2006 9:57 AM Percy has replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22391
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 97 of 166 (354100)
    10-04-2006 9:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 94 by purpledawn
    10-04-2006 6:47 AM


    purpledawn writes:
    I don't see how 100% certainty makes a person unable to objectively analyze evidence. We can choose not to accept the results of the evidence, but that doesn't mean the person wasn't able to view the evidence objectively.
    You have got to be kidding, right? Or you misspoke? I'm willing to address this in substantive fashion, but I just want to make sure you really intended to say this.
    Or do you perhaps have some odd view of objectivity. Objectivity is what allows a person or group to accurately place evidence in its proper context.
    The Merriam-Webster site defines objectivity as "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." The creationist certainty in the absolute truth of the Genesis account of creation is a perfect example of the lack of just this quality.
    AbE: This is from Faith's Message 75:
    Faith writes:
    Yes, if I have 100% certainty in the Biblical account of the Flood -- it's more like 99% since it's possible to show me how to read it differently -- then of course everything that opposes it is false, and the evidence is simply wrong or misinterpreted, and since it is we have the job of showing that.
    This is a perfect example of certainty based upon faith affecting objective assessment of evidence. The rejection of the evidence isn't based upon anything related to the evidence itself, but is merely because it is contrary to what an ancient book says happened.
    --Percy
    Edited by Percy, : Add example from a Faith post.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 94 by purpledawn, posted 10-04-2006 6:47 AM purpledawn has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by Brian, posted 10-04-2006 10:02 AM Percy has not replied
     Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 10-04-2006 11:42 AM Percy has replied

      
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 98 of 166 (354108)
    10-04-2006 9:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
    10-04-2006 9:00 AM


    End User, Not Scientist
    Faith is an end user, not a scientist.
    If you're going to discuss whether Creationist Science is possible, you would need to look at what their actual "scientists" do. Not how the end user functions.
    As an end user, I hear reports that science has discovered such and such. Then another scientist reports a contradictory discovery. Both claim to be right. As an end user I will stick to the discovery that works for me.
    How I look at the "evidence" provided isn't necessarily how standard science functions.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by Percy, posted 10-04-2006 9:00 AM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by Percy, posted 10-04-2006 10:44 AM purpledawn has not replied

      
    Brian
    Member (Idle past 4959 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 99 of 166 (354109)
    10-04-2006 10:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
    10-04-2006 9:07 AM


    You must have allowed her back?
    This is a perfect example of certainty based upon faith affecting objective assessment of evidence. The rejection of the evidence isn't based upon anything related to the evidence itself, but is merely because it is contrary to what an ancient book says happened.
    Why do you keep allowing Faith back in the Science Forums when it is obvious she doesn't know what science is?
    How many times has she been excluded from science and allowed back in?
    Do you think that she is suddenly going to understand what the scientific method is?
    Brian.
    Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by Percy, posted 10-04-2006 9:07 AM Percy has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22391
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 100 of 166 (354120)
    10-04-2006 10:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 98 by purpledawn
    10-04-2006 9:57 AM


    Re: End User, Not Scientist
    purpledawn writes:
    Faith is an end user, not a scientist.
    If you're going to discuss whether Creationist Science is possible, you would need to look at what their actual "scientists" do. Not how the end user functions.
    The thread is about how certainty based upon faith affects the ability to assess evidence. It affects all who come within its grasp, scientist and layperson alike.
    As an end user, I hear reports that science has discovered such and such. Then another scientist reports a contradictory discovery. Both claim to be right. As an end user I will stick to the discovery that works for me.
    This doesn't address the topic, either. You're raising a different issue, a question concerning what a layperson is to do when scientists disagree and the layperson isn't competent to assess the evidence himself. So when you follow by saying:
    How I look at the "evidence" provided isn't necessarily how standard science functions.
    It is appropriate that you have put evidence between quotes, because you're referring to evidence you're not competent to assess.
    This isn't completely unrelated to the topic, though. It is somewhat similar in that when one isn't competent to assess the evidence then one falls back on inclinations, biases, preferences, the opinions of friends and so forth. Since the evidence isn't actually being considered, the conclusions are unlikely to be reliable. Creationists arrive at similarly flawed conclusions when they fail to take evidence into account, but for them it's a case of simply choosing to ignore or misinterpret the evidence, rather than being incompetent to assess it.
    So for example, let's say you hear of one study that concludes that a diet high in fiber is healthy while another says it makes no discernible difference. Not having the raw data of the studies available, nor the incredibly complicated analysis software, nor the years of study in the profession, you reach your own conclusions based on your own judgement and without any reliable evidence. In a similar way, creationists believe that the Bible contains the truth about God's creation of the world, and based on this they ignore or misinterpret the clear evidence that the events recorded in Genesis never took place.
    I hope my use of these examples does not draw responses defending the flood or the Bible. They aren't the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread concerns how certainty in a preferred view, in this case derived from faith, can adversely affect the ability to assess evidence. Ironically, this thread has drawn a number of replies that while denying that this is the case provided perfect examples of this very process in action.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by purpledawn, posted 10-04-2006 9:57 AM purpledawn has not replied

      
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 101 of 166 (354146)
    10-04-2006 11:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
    10-04-2006 9:07 AM


    Certainty
    Yes I understand objectivety, I'm trying to look at what the statements are actually saying. Are his statements true before he gets to his conclusion. This attempt is new to me, so my thoughts may be all over the place. I'm trying to stay away from the Bible argument.
    The OP states:
    If someone has faith then they have 100% certainty
    Since certainty is the state of being certain and certain means known or proved to be true, is that statement really true? Faith (not the member) seems to imply certitude even when there is no evidence or proof, but is it certainty or are they just certain in the sense that they are assured.
    If they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary.
    If this is a true statement, shouldn't it be true whether the certainty is faith based or not?
    Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position.
    His conclusion is that they are unable to objectively analyze, not how they present their findngs to the world.
    Are they truly unable to analyze evidence objectively or do they refuse to accept evidence that opposes their faith based position.
    How do they know it opposes their position until they anayze it?

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by Percy, posted 10-04-2006 9:07 AM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by NosyNed, posted 10-04-2006 1:27 PM purpledawn has not replied
     Message 103 by Percy, posted 10-04-2006 1:37 PM purpledawn has not replied

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8996
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003


    Message 102 of 166 (354174)
    10-04-2006 1:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 101 by purpledawn
    10-04-2006 11:42 AM


    Different strategies
    How do they know it opposes their position until they anayze it?
    There are many different strategies. A very common one is to ignore evidence that even hints at being in opposition to their views.
    But we've also seen lots that will avoid following certain lines of argument. They may well have seen them before so they know where they might go.
    Jar is particularly good at flushing out this kind. He starts in very small steps; very simple facts that are hard to argue with and leads along step by step. Very frequently the creo he's talking to goes away or starts off into all sorts of tangents moving like a fly that has been swatted at. They will NOT allow themselves to go down certain paths.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 10-04-2006 11:42 AM purpledawn has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22391
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 103 of 166 (354180)
    10-04-2006 1:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 101 by purpledawn
    10-04-2006 11:42 AM


    Re: Certainty
    I don't think the distinctions you're attempting to draw are very useful or relevant, but what's very interesting is that though you're exploring different avenues than Faith, the underlying misunderstandings seem very similar.
    Gathering evidence and data through observations and experiment and placing them in consistent interpretational frameworks is how science advances our understanding of the universe. Any preconceptions that affect the interpretation or even acceptance of evidence will have an adverse effect on how well the conclusions match reality. If you're absolutely certain the light was green when you went through the intersection, then you might accuse the police department of doctoring the video tape showing you running the red light. And maybe you're right, but I wouldn't put any money on it.
    What creationists are doing is akin to accusing the police department of doctoring the video tape for thousands of red lights. They simply refuse to accept the evidence before them, or they refuse to reach valid interpretations of the evidence. They contrive reasons that are analogous to saying that the tape was doctored, or it wasn't actually their car in the intersection, or it was their car but it was at a different time driven by someone else, and so forth.
    We've all experienced this. "I'm absolutely certain I left my keys on the counter, someone must have taken them," despite that no one would have any reason to take them, there is no evidence of burglary, the car is intact and locked in the garage, etc. Then the keys turn up in the coat pocket that we forgot we wore yesterday because it was suddenly unseasonably cold.
    Certainty definitely affects how we interpret the evidence. There can be no debate about this. It is simply human nature. That's why science requires a large consensus. The large consensus means a new scientific idea has passed muster among a large community of scientists with vastly different backgrounds, religions and nationalities, and this provides an extremely high (but not perfect) degree of objectivity. When a committed core of scientists have all produced and examined the same evidence and through hashing things out at conferences and in journals reach the same conclusions, then we can be pretty sure that those conclusions have a very good correspondence with reality, better, at least, than anything that has gone before.
    By declaring that an account in an ancient text is the final word on origins, creationists cut themselves off from the evidence of the real world that would lead them to conclusions that would be consistent with the real world. Their certainty in the correctness of their Bible-based beliefs causes them to either ignore or improperly interpret evidence.
    Faith provides some of the best evidence of this. Despite being unable to address any issues related to how a flood could cause the layers we see in places like the Grand Canyon, she nonetheless often repeats that everywhere she looks she sees evidence of the flood. She can only do this because she has studiously ignored all evidence of what floods actually do and how floods actually behave.
    In Faith's own reply to you earlier in this thread she states that she already knows that scientists are wrong in interpreting the evidence because the Bible already has the correct account. Faith is only looking for evidence that confirms what she already believes, and if the evidence she finds doesn't do that then the evidence is wrong. Call it what you will, just don't call it science.
    The further evidence for this position is that it is only the closed community of fundamentalist Christians who conclude that the evidence supports a flood. Were it actually the case that the evidence supports a flood then geologists who aren't Christian or American would be able to find it. But they don't. Because it's not there. Creationists see in the evidence, that small part of it that they'll actually consider, what they want to see, not what's actually there. And it is their certainty in the accuracy of the account in the Bible that does this to them.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 10-04-2006 11:42 AM purpledawn has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2006 2:10 PM Percy has replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 104 of 166 (354191)
    10-04-2006 2:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 94 by purpledawn
    10-04-2006 6:47 AM


    A scientist starts with some sort of premise or idea to prove or disprove.
    A creationist starts with a premise from the Bible. I think they can objectively view the evidence, but will reject that which contradicts the foundation of their faith...
    Yes. and yes to much of the rest of your argument here too.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 94 by purpledawn, posted 10-04-2006 6:47 AM purpledawn has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by kuresu, posted 10-04-2006 2:15 PM Faith has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5819 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 105 of 166 (354194)
    10-04-2006 2:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
    10-04-2006 1:37 PM


    Re: Certainty
    Certainty definitely affects how we interpret the evidence. There can be no debate about this. It is simply human nature. That's why science requires a large consensus.
    While I agree with your point that certainty can effect evidence, I think that's exactly why science does NOT require a large consensus.
    Science requires adherence to methodology in an attempt to deal with evidence to draw best conclusions. Consensus on conclusions is essentially meaningless. Indeed if it did have meaning then many faulty theories would still be around, as many changes came from small numbers of scientists with theories opposed to consensus opinion.
    Recognition of increased conflict between theory and data eventually creates consensus among those properly using the methodology. But consensus itself does not argue enough information is available nor that most are actually applying the correct methodology to a subject.
    Put simply consensus is often used to create the illusion of certainty, and so reason to believe something, which is the very thing you are criticizing. Consensus is a form of faith.

    holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
    "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by Percy, posted 10-04-2006 1:37 PM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-04-2006 2:58 PM Silent H has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024