Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Breearg: Lets talk about knowledge and tests

    I put forward the idea that the primary way human beings reliably determine the truth of a claim is by testing it. In our lives we come upon all kinds of claims and when we bother to question them we most often do so by devising a test by which one outcome supports the claim and another disputes it. The more tests we perform the more certain we are that the claim is accurate and the better we can use that claim to predict the outcomes of our actions.

    So If I told you I can fly like a bird, we could test that by having me demonstrate my ability to fly. If I said that I have a floating rock, then I can demonstrate that by placing the rock in water. If you doubt the demonstration you can test the components. is the water actually water, is the rock actually in the water, is there any unseen force supporting the rock and so on.

    Science (not the general term but natural science) seeks to test all knowledge in this way and only accept claims that have proven themselves with tests that can be conducted repeatedly and independently. This practice has yielded a vast expansion of human knowledge and capability that has dwarfed the accomplishments of our ancestors. Even they however practiced such arts, they simply did so with less rigor. When they did use them the results speak for themselves (the wonders of the ancient world).

    Faith also plays a part in human endeavors, giving us courage in the face of uncertainty. It gives us motivation to act and conviction to overcome adversity. And while it has always played a critical role in humanity, it has played a very consistent one. We find faith a part of all human experience from ancient times to the modern times. The specifics of what we believe in have changed many times over history, but the effect remains constant. The detailed truth claims have mattered far less than the conviction to act on whatever those claims were. Faith has not had predictive value, it has had value in its motivation.

    Why go into all this? Because I many parts of your post deal with your faith in the chruch and texts of your church vs the discoveries of science. Your religion has never actually been tested in a verifiable way. We can run no experiments to see if death truly entered the world through Adam or not. There are no tests to see if accepting Jesus does or does not get you into heaven. There are not tests to see if one exegetical principle is correct and another is not.

    On the other hand, there are tests to see how old a piece or rock is or how old a fossil is. They have been tested against items of known age and found accurate in thousands upon thousands of independent tests. They have been used over and over again to accurately date items who's ages are verified by other independent techniques. There is no "interpretation" going on that is anything like the "interpretation" that goes on when you read the bible. With natural science we test everything, with faith you can test nothing but your own conviction.

    I do not hold with mere tradition or self claimed authority. I hold with cold hard reason and cold hard empirical tests. They have proven time and time again to be accurate and effective while faith and superstition have proven to be inaccurate and inconclusive whenever they do try to be predictive or are tested. You say that you trust scripture and the tradition of the church over the repeatedly tested and disciplined practice of natural science. What you have not articulated is why.

    What evidence do you have that the church and the bible possesses greater knowledge. Where has the bible been proven correct and science proven wrong? I can show you reams of examples where "the church "was proven wrong by science. I can't show you the bible is proven wrong because you can always alter the meaning you read in it with an exegeses of your choosing. But I could say the same for any ancient religious text you would care to defend.


    ( Breaking up this post, consider this a prelude you can address if you wish. It is not on topic to your points but a rebuttal of your means of determining which evidence to trust. I will follow up with a look at scripture. )
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So in a country where atheists number around 10%, all the scientists grow up in families where they never are taught about religion? That seems awfully far fetched to me. Knowledge about God is far more common than knowledge about science yet when people become scientists they often shed elements of the faith they grew up with. Could it be that when you acquire real knowledge of the world the ancient superstitions of the past start to look less like literal truth?

    Perhaps you should study science and find out.
    Scientists do study science and in that most don't accept the YEC, their education and objective approach to science -- it looks like within the global pool of our best and brightest natural skeptics, a slight majority of them do believe in God and/or a higher power. There's now even a science of neurotheology and the Noetic sciences. So perhaps, extreme skeptics should consider and observe this changing landscape.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Scientists do study science and in that most don't accept the YEC, their education and objective approach to science -- it looks like within the global pool of our best and brightest natural skeptics, a slight majority of them do believe in God and/or a higher power. There's now even a science of neurotheology and the Noetic sciences. So perhaps, extreme skeptics should consider and observe this changing landscape.
    Perhaps they should but I am not an extreme skeptic. I am not discounting God, I am challenging that the church that claims to have such excellent knowledge of god without any reliable means to test that knowledge. It is one thing to believe in scripture, another to believe that you have the power to read it perfectly in the face of clear evidence that it does not line up with tested and verified knowledge when read in that way.

    Theologians are happy to change some of their readings so long as it doesn't undermine their core dogmas, but others they steadfastly refuse because they have bet so much of their belief and identity on those interpretations. Instead of humbly trying to understand god, they arrogantly impose their own beliefs and desires on god insisting he must comport with what they have imagined no matter what god's creation has to say on the matter.

    The bible was written by human hands, even if it is inspired by god, but the universe itself, that would be gods direct handiwork unsullied by human imagination and desire. Which is more likely to contain the unvarnished truth of its creator?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Perhaps they should but I am not an extreme skeptic. I am not discounting God, I am challenging that the church that claim to have such excellent knowledge of god without any reliable means to test that knowledge.
    Churches don't make claims. People with minds (who may represent a church) and a will makes claims. Who is making what claim?

    It is one thing to believe in scripture, another to believe that you have the power to read it perfectly in the face of clear evidence that it does not line up with tested and verified knowledge when read in that way.
    Well, you brought up the idea of studying science. Many of the scientists who believe in God and/or a higher power do so because they find no fundamental conflict with science and their belief in God, and same with some theologians. So, if you say you're not an extreme skeptic, perhaps you should consider that landscape.

    Dr. Francis Collins
    I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

    As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

    I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry.

    Theologians are happy to change some of their readings so long as it doesn't undermine their core dogmas,
    Right, the core belief is: God IS. I would say that's rather fundamental.

    but others they steadfastly refuse because they have bet so much of their belief and identity on those interpretations.
    What theology are you talking about?

    Instead of humbly trying to understand god, they arrogantly impose their own beliefs and desires on god insisting he must comport with what they have imagined no matter what god's creation has to say on the matter.
    Some theologians are humble. Perhaps you should consider their approach.

    Did you say God 's creation? You believe in God's creation?


    The bible was written by human hands, even if it is inspired by god,
    Right, God can work through his creation. Sounds pretty reasonable and pragmatic to me...

    but the universe itself, that would be gods direct handiwork unsullied by human imagination and desire.
    Does this mean you don't think our world, our little speck, has been sullied by human imaginations?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  5. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Churches don't make claims. People with minds (who may represent a church) and a will makes claims. Who is making what claim?
    Breearg is referring to the Church and the Church fathers as a trusted authority and that their reading of the bible is more telling of the natural world than study of the natural world itself. Presumably if they did not have the authority of "the church" behind them then he would not trust their thinking in the same way. Churches are made of people, it is true, but those people call themselves the Church and put forward official doctrine in the name of the Church that supersedes what any dissident member may claim.

    Well, you brought up the idea of studying science. Many of the scientists who believe in God and/or a higher power do so because they find no fundamental conflict with science and their belief in God, and same with some theologians. So, if you say you're not an extreme skeptic, perhaps you should consider that landscape.
    Been there and done that. Just because I see no conflict with god, does not mean I have any actual reason to believe in such a thing. I do not believe in possibilities as truth. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I would say that what Collins sees is the sympathy between his mind and the system that yielded it. He is welcome to see that as god, I do not. Neither of us however are claiming science must be wrong because of the text of the bible which is the thrust of my objection.

    Right, the core belief is: God IS. I would say that's rather fundamental.
    You and I know that most claim far more than that. You perhaps have a more flexible view of god than they do and I'd call that wise. But they do not dispute evolution simply because "God Is" they dispute it because they think the story of Genesis precludes evolution.

    What theology are you talking about?
    There are quite a few, as many as there are denominations of any given faith. Some claim that only those in the Orthadox church can be saved, others have decided that is false. Some claim that to eat meat on Friday is a mortal sin, others do not.

    Some theologians are humble. Perhaps you should consider their approach.
    I have humility, I do not impose my will upon god or decide what he things or claim what is true of him. What I know of god is nothing.

    Did you say God 's creation? You believe in God's creation?
    I speak from the perspective of someone who believes in god. If there is a god that created the universe, then the universe is his direct creation. I do not believe in god, I do not think a god (of the sort most imagine) created the universe. I could accept the idea that the universe itself is god, since the whole of the universe is supreme in the universe and supremacy is the most essential trait of most monotheism. But that universe isn't one that is specifically catered to human beings or which performs miracles to make us believe in it. The universe does not require or desire worship or set laws about graven images or the like.

    Right, God can work through his creation. Sounds pretty reasonable and pragmatic to me...
    Yes, god could work through his creation, but the bible is not his creation, it is the creation of men. The universe would be god's true creation.

    If you think humans have free will then god does not work directly through us. We in fact choose to act in whatever way we choose and thus our doings are our own will and not the will of god. If you do not believe in free will that is a different kettle of fish. Most theists I know do believe in free will. The bible is but a few pages compared to the massive grandeur of the natural universe. In the bible there is a scant record of a few lives in scant and indecisive words. The book of the universe contains all there is and can be read by mankind for all our lives and never fully comprehended. To think this mere book can compete with all of creation as a source of truth is pure foolishness, theist or atheist.

    Does this mean you don't think our world, our little speck, has been sullied by human imaginations?
    Correct to a degree. Clearly we impact the form and function of the earth by our actions. Certainly so long as we have been here we have altered the earth. But the topic at hand is the prehistory of the earth before man came to inhabit it and how that in-habitation came to pass.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Breearg is referring to the Church and the Church fathers as a trusted authority and that their reading of the bible is more telling of the natural world than study of the natural world itself. Presumably if they did not have the authority of "the church" behind them then he would not trust their thinking in the same way. Churches are made of people, it is true, but those people call themselves the Church and put forward official doctrine in the name of the Church that supersedes what any dissident member may claim.
    Ok, I didn't read his post, but I will.

    Been there and done that. Just because I see no conflict with god, does not mean I have any actual reason to believe in such a thing. I do not believe in possibilities as truth.
    OK, but keep in mind that when you tell someone to go study science, as you earlier did, because they don't agree with your evolutionary view, many (the majority) of scientists who do study and know science, believe in God and/or a higher power and many think a higher intelligence is involved in what drives evolution. Also, Collins is just one of the larger 51 percent pool of natural skeptics in the sciences who believe/recognize God.

    You and I know that most claim far more than that.
    Sure they do. And the details are important and relevant. But the details are insignificant without the first premise: God IS, wouldn't you agree, without the first premise the details mean little. There is no log cabin without the wood.

    You perhaps have a more flexible view of go god.
    That doesn't mean details aren't important to me, they are. But I relate well with Einstein's idea: "I want to know the God's thoughts, the rest are details."

    But they do not dispute evolution simply because "God Is" they dispute it because they think the story of Genesis precludes evolution.
    There is no Genesis without the Creator.

    I have humility,
    So do many theologians. Why are you making the claim that theologians are arrogant? Have you gone through the academic training they go through? Are you an expert in the field? Your comment about theologians seems like a huge generalization for a non-extreme skeptic.

    I do not impose my will upon god or decide what he things or claim what is true of him.
    What theologians impose their will on God?

    What I know of god is nothing.
    You must think you know something about God, since you seem convinced that theologians are wrong and arrogant.

    I speak from the perspective of someone who believes in god. If there is a god that created the universe, then the universe is his direct creation. I do not believe in god,
    I see, so you didn't really talk to God at the Taco restaurant....

    The universe does not require or desire worship or set laws about graven images or the like.
    The way I see it, Sig, (my reasoning) is that once we establish and recognize the first (and most significant) premise: God IS, the details become rationally easier to test and understand

    Yes, god could work through his creation, but the bible is not his creation, it is the creation of men. The universe would be god's true creation.
    You're a far better and experienced debater then me, but you obviously must realize from your comment that "man is part of the universe."

    If you think humans have free will then god does not work directly through us.
    Surely, you're aware of the idea of man invoking God's will in their life and/or surrendering their will to the Father?

    The book of the universe contains all there is and can be read by mankind for all our lives and never fully comprehended.
    What book of the universe are you talking about? Is it for sale on Amazon?
    Last edited by eye4magic; September 26th, 2012 at 10:14 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Ok, I didn't read his post, but I will.
    NP, you and I often get in discussions as part of another one, and you take my comments a bit out of the context they were presented. I don't mind but it can make for some challenging exchanges where your post is not directly counterpointing mine and we have to shift gears to get where you are at.

    OK, but keep in mind that when you tell someone to go study science, as you earlier did, because they don't agree with your evolutionary view, many (the majority) of scientists who do study and know science, believe in God and/or a higher power and many think a higher intelligence is involved in what drives evolution. Also, Collins is just one of the larger 51 percent pool of natural skeptics in the sciences who believe/recognize God.
    Sure. I'm not telling them to study science so they can abandon belief in god. I'm telling them to study it so they know what the evidence is and can have some sense of its validity. Then with the facts in hand they can decide how their belief in god can fit with what we know about the natural world. Presumably god would not write the bible or create the world specifically to confuse people or create seeming contradictions.

    Belief in god is fully compatible with science, but a strict literal reading of the bible isn't, and most don't seem to actually read it that way all the time, but they do seem to have their sticking points they are loath to re-imagine when challenged and they often defend it by dismissing or remaining ignorant of the natural science in question.

    When people tell me to go read X part of the bible I go read it.

    Sure they do. And the details are important and relevant. But the details are insignificant without the first premise: God IS, wouldn't you agree, without the first premise the details mean little. There is no log cabin without the wood.
    Sure, though this discussion kind of assumes god so I don't take pains to challenge his existence in it except when folks are asking what I think or believe directly. I'm trying to step into a biblical perpsective and argue from there that the bible can be read in ways that don't conflict with well researched natural science.

    That doesn't mean details aren't important to me, they are. But I relate well with Einstein's idea: "I want to know the God's thoughts, the rest are details."
    We all have our areas of interest. I'd have to believe more in god to be truly curious about his thoughts. But if I did as you do I'd certainly share your curiosity.

    There is no Genesis without the Creator.
    Sure, that's fine, but its not really the topic I was addressing or of the thread so my omission is intentional.

    So do many theologians. Why are you making the claim that theologians are arrogant? Have you gone through the academic training they go through? Are you an expert in the field? Your comment about theologians seems like a huge generalization for a non-extreme skeptic.
    I'm only claiming those who trust their interpretations of scripture over well established science are arrogant. Not all theologians. I am familiar with their training to a degree (though it varies widely). I am not an expert in the field. None the less I have an opinion that an old religious book is not as reliable a source of knowledge as direct observation and testing and history proves that out fairly often. People have believed all kinds of nonsense based on the bible. Scientists have believed false things as well but they soon correct them and ever seek to do so.

    What theologians impose their will on God?
    Those who claim that they truly understand him and can speak truth for him.

    You must think you know something about God, since you seem convinced that theologians are wrong and arrogant.
    I do know something about God.

    I see, so you didn't really talk to God at the Taco restaurant....
    I'll reserve judgement, he could just have been a cos-player at Pax Prime. I hear he can work in mysterious ways so you never know for certain do you?

    The way I see it, Sig, (my reasoning) is that once we establish and recognize the first (and most significant) premise: God IS, the details become rationally easier to test and understand
    Sure, once you accept God Isn't then the details of that philosophy become more clear as well.

    You're a far better and experienced debater then me, but you obviously must realize from your comment that "man is part of the universe."
    More rabid perhaps, I appreciate your style. Yes, man is part of the universe but there is a distinction in whether or not man's will can alter it or not. If so then man alters the universe in a way that is not god's will. Thus the acts of man may not reflect the will of god. But we address that...

    Surely, you're aware of the idea of man invoking God's will in their life and/or surrendering their will to the Father?
    Here. But... how do you know when they are or are not doing so? No men seemed to live such that they did not displease god in some way (except perhaps enoch or jesus). Even mosses got god's dander up from time to time or misunderstood god's intention. So how would we expect anyone inspired by god not to make any errors or those who read those inspired by god not to make mistakes in translation?

    Yet how could man actually change the natural laws of the universe if god set them down and man does not have dominion over them?

    What book of the universe are you talking about? Is it for sale on Amazon?
    A figure of speach only. I relate studying nature to reading a book. Both are something you examine and learn from.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Sure. I'm not telling them to study science so they can abandon belief in god. I'm telling them to study it so they know what the evidence is and can have some sense of its validity. Then with the facts in hand they can decide how their belief in god can fit with what we know about the natural world.
    As I pointed out earlier, some scientists believe in God/a higher power because of what they observe and study in science.

    Presumably god would not write the bible or create the world specifically to confuse people or create seeming contradictions.
    Do you honestly think that the majority of Christians in the world who are familiar with the Bible are confused by it?

    Belief in god is fully compatible with science, but a strict literal reading of the bible isn't,
    So does that mean you think a non-literal reading of the Bible is compatible with the current science?

    and most don't seem to actually read it that way all the time, but they do seem to have their sticking points they are loath to re-imagine when challenged and they often defend it by dismissing or remaining ignorant of the natural science in question.
    Some theologians are now working with scientists, historians, philosophers and visa versa to deal with the big questions of life, which in some ways can help us process these sticking points. I like the approach by some scientists and theologians on this changing landscape.

    "We want the person who thinks about the world one way to come into contact with someone who perhaps thinks about the world a different way, and see, are they really at odds? Are there points of contact? Are there ways into which they can meld together and yield a richer picture of the way reality is constructed or not? (Prof. Brian Green, Columbia University)

    "Mot biologists, they won't talk to theologians. They might even find it distasteful to do this. But then, again, my work with Sarah Coakley has opened many perspectives and many discussions with historians of science, with philosophers with ethicists." (Martin Novak, Harvard University}
    Ref.

    I'm only claiming those who trust their interpretations of scripture over well established science are arrogant.
    Are you specifically referring to the YEC idea here?

    Not all theologians. I am familiar with their training to a degree (though it varies widely). I am not an expert in the field. None the less I have an opinion that an old religious book is not as reliable a source of knowledge
    The challenge with this approach is that the Bible is not just a book about knowledge and historical events. I can see how one can become a non-extreme or extreme skeptic if that's the only non-objective approach.

    People have believed all kinds of nonsense based on the bible. Scientists have believed false things as well but they soon correct them and ever seek to do so.
    The reason some scientists and theologians have now started to work with each other is because they are willing to consider and re-look at old problems, conflicts, contradictions in a new light. And both sides seem to have something to bring to the table.

    Those who claim that they truly understand him and can speak truth for him.
    What theologians claim they truly understand God and can speak for him?

    do know something about God.
    Then why state: "What I know of god is nothing."

    I'll reserve judgement, he could just have been a cos-player at Pax Prime. I hear he can work in mysterious ways so you never know for certain do you?
    You're the one who seems certain when you say: "I do not believe in god." That appears to be a clear statement of certainty of believing in your no-belief.

    Sure, once you accept God Isn't then the details of that philosophy become more clear as well.
    The human mind can rationalize anything it wants to. That's why stepping outside that process (introspection) allows us to observe our rationalization process and the Divine. Prof Collins, along with other scientists, philosophers, theologians and theists seem to understand this concept: How we come to recognize that God IS: "But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."

    More rabid perhaps, I appreciate your style. [] Yes, man is part of the universe.
    Thus you said: "The universe would be god's true creation." Since the universe includes man, God's true creation includes man.

    but there is a distinction in whether or not man's will can alter it or not. If so then man alters the universe in a way that is not god's will.
    There are probably many things that are not God's ultimate will vs. his circumstantial will. But either way, this doesn't negate God's true creation of the universe and man.

    Here. But... how do you know when they are or are not doing so?
    Well, one pragmatic way would be to first begin an objective/intellectually honest process to recognize or reject the first premise: God IS. If we can't recognize that God IS, it can be rather dicey to know his will in our life when we surrender our will to him. If we come to recognize and internalize even a tiny aspect of God, his Presence, nature, Spirit, grace, love, and goodness in our life, which would amount to a whole lot for our tiny little minds, we would actually become familiar with quite a bit. This familiarity then allows us to honestly and sincerely test our fears and uncertainty using reason and common sense.

    No men seemed to live such that they did not displease god in some way (except perhaps enoch or jesus). Even mosses got god's dander up from time to time or misunderstood god's intention. So how would we expect anyone inspired by god not to make any errors or those who read those inspired by god not to make mistakes in translation?
    What personal dogma are you working from that dictates that God's inspiration can't work through fallible, imperfect, temporal man who, yes, makes mistakes? Do human mistakes invalidate an entire body of knowledge, thousands of manuscripts, events, history, spiritual teachings, ageless wisdom, and revelation? How is that reasonable?

    The problem with this argument, that is so often repeated, is that is completely rejects man's God-given ability to reason and discern.

    Yet how could man actually change the natural laws of the universe if god set them down and man does not have dominion over them?
    I'm not sure what this means...
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  9. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    As I pointed out earlier, some scientists believe in God/a higher power because of what they observe and study in science.
    You have a habit of ignoring the intention of someone's statement to turn it to a discussion of your own agenda. It would be better to first acknowledge the other persons intent and then change the focus. I am asking theists to study science so they can better understand what it is they think is in error before passing judgement. You want to lead me to god by telling me that scientists find reasons to believe in god. Two very different tracks of thought.

    Scientists who believe in god have every right to do so, and I respect their beliefs as much as anyone else. I tend to expect their reasons are superior to others. But the population of scientists has the least number of theists of nearly any profession you can find. More criminals likely believe in god than do scientists. Science is not a hotbed of theism but more like the dry gultch of it. There are indeed theists among scientists and no doubt some use what they have learned about nature to justify their belief. The universe is wondrous and the idea of god is wondrous so it is a reasonable connection to make. But to say that science leads to god I think is premature at this point. It seems to leads more away from such belief than it does towards it, though certainly it has done both.

    Whatever effect it has on your faith, what matters is what effect it has on your understanding of nature and what use that can be to you. It ultimately does not matter where you believe life came from. But the genetic knowledge we gain from the study of how life works can lead us to better medicine and quality of life and that does matter for us. Denying science leads kids to steer away from reliable knowledge and reject that which could lead them to greater discoveries and truth. Not everyone needs to practice natural arts but there is no need to scare anyone away from it with falsehoods as many religious advocates do.

    Do you honestly think that the majority of Christians in the world who are familiar with the Bible are confused by it?
    Now you are asking me what I think, which is different than what I was discussing. I was assuming god was real and saying that if that were so, then it would not make sense for god to guide the writing of the bible such that it contradicts the truths of nature.

    What I think is that the bible is fiction and people read in it whatever they want to read in it. That is not confusing to them, it is affirming. But it is also often utterly wrong when they try to apply it to the natural world because it is a book of old legends, not a book of truth. The truth the bible holds is mostly about the thinking of humans, not about nature or the divine.

    So does that mean you think a non-literal reading of the Bible is compatible with the current science?
    Certainly. You can read the bible to be compatible with anything you want it to be compatible with. You merely need to adjust your understanding of it. This is what people do to make it compatible with their chosen dogma.

    Some theologians are now working with scientists, historians, philosophers and visa versa to deal with the big questions of life, which in some ways can help us process these sticking points. I like the approach by some scientists and theologians on this changing landscape.
    Sure, I am all for folks trying to figure things out and find a unity of truth. I only caution that wanting something to be true can lead you to close your eyes to what is true. But I would also say that sometimes its better for you to believe a lie and be content than see the truth and despair.

    Are you specifically referring to the YEC idea here?
    Yes, YEC, specific creation, and the global flood. The geocentric celestial model used to count in that but is dead now. All those were reasonable beliefs at one time when natural science hadn't shown that they simply didn't happen. The earth is more than 6000 years old, life on earth did evolve and change over time, and there was never a global flood. We have only learned this with certainty in the last 100 years and every year we are more certain of the conclusions. Many other parts of the bible remain untouched by natural science, many will forever remain that way. But there are other stories that theists treat as allegory or as symbolism so I think it reasonable they could retain their faith and yet see those parts of the bible in a different light.

    Perhaps the author of Noah was recording a local flood and simply assumed it was the whole world. Perhaps some exaggeration was used to make it a more compelling legend to teach faith in god. Perhaps the genealogies of the bible are not complete and thus can't be used to measure time. Perhaps the creation of man is figurative and the time scale and means were simply too complicated for a story meant for a very wide and ancient audience. None of that requires you to question belief in god or the principles of morality or worship in the bible.

    The challenge with this approach is that the Bible is not just a book about knowledge and historical events. I can see how one can become a non-extreme or extreme skeptic if that's the only non-objective approach.
    Non objective approach? The bible is a book, that is a fact. It is written in human language, that too is a fact. All books we know of were written by humans. This too is a fact. The bible contains a number of accounts of claimed historical events. This is a fact. What is not a known fact is if God inspired the words in the bible or not. That is unknown, perhaps unknowable. We do have great certainty that some of the events described in it did not happen as described. Others would be highly unusual. That is my largely objective view of the bible.

    What theologians claim they truly understand God and can speak for him?
    The Pope for one. Robert Phelps is another. There are quite a few in fact.

    Then why state: "What I know of god is nothing."
    Different context. What I know of a real god is nothing. What I know of the character God from the bible is a fair bit. What do I know of the real Merlin? Nothing. What do I know of the character Merlin from the legend of King author, a fair bit.

    You're the one who seems certain when you say: "I do not believe in god." That appears to be a clear statement of certainty of believing in your no-belief.
    I believe in my own thoughts absolutely. If I do not believe, then I tell you in full honesty and certainty I do not believe. That is different from being certain there is no god or gods in the universe. To believe I would have to think at the least it more likely there is a god than is not and I don't think that.

    That's why stepping outside that process (introspection) allows us to observe our rationalization process and the Divine. Prof Collins, along with other scientists, philosophers, theologians and theists seem to understand this concept: How we come to recognize that God IS: "But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."
    I will be frank with you MT, that's a load of ********. I am a highly introspective person and I can tell you that my introspection shows that spirit is a figure of speech, not a supernatural force. Introspection does not show you that God IS but if you want to believe God Is you will. It is a belief born of desire. Faith is reason without scrutiny. Uncertainty creates fear, faith banishes uncertainty and thus fear. So people adopt faith because it frees them from fear. I for whatever reason have little fear most of the time so I have little need for certainty of faith. I am content to accept that which is uncertain.

    Leaps of faith are cop outs in a search for truth. They are perfectly fine for living a good life. Objective truth is not always needed for a good life.

    Thus you said: "The universe would be god's true creation." Since the universe includes man, God's true creation includes man.
    Yes, though my child would be my creation but it does not reflect my will, while a statue is both my creation and reflects my will. Unless you believe god guides all human thinking and controls it absolutely (no free will) then the acts of man do not reflect the will of god directly. Do you understand the distinction?

    There are probably many things that are not God's ultimate will vs. his circumstantial will. But either way, this doesn't negate God's true creation of the universe and man.
    Correct, but it remains relevant to if the natural world is a better description of god than the bible is. Its like claiming a book my son wrote is a better description of me than one I wrote. The one my son wrote is second hand, the one I wrote is first hand.

    Well, one pragmatic way would be to first begin an objective/intellectually honest process to recognize or reject the first premise: God IS.
    There are a great many threads on that topic MT, you are welcome to dive into them.

    If we can't recognize that God IS, it can be rather dicey to know his will in our life when we surrender our will to him. If we come to recognize and internalize even a tiny aspect of God, his Presence, nature, Spirit, grace, love, and goodness in our life, which would amount to a whole lot for our tiny little minds, we would actually become familiar with quite a bit. This familiarity then allows us to honestly and sincerely test our fears and uncertainty using reason and common sense.
    I do all that without such belief or recognition. I live a good life and rarely feel fear or personal uncertainty.

    What personal dogma are you working from that dictates that God's inspiration can't work through fallible, imperfect, temporal man who, yes, makes mistakes?
    No dogma at all, just reason and experience. I never said God can't work through the fallible or imperfect, only that it is more likely an infallible source would be more reliable than a fallible one. If you wanted a word spelled properly would you consult a dictionary or a random 5 year old? No dogma is required to answer that I think.

    The problem with this argument, that is so often repeated, is that is completely rejects man's God-given ability to reason and discern.
    I do not completely reject our ability to reason or discern. I respect that ability even if I don't think it comes from god. I am only saying the obvious, humans make mistakes. Nature does not make mistakes because it does not imagine, it simply is and it has no objectives but to be.

    I'm not sure what this means...
    I am saying that man can tamper with the words in a book. But man cannot change the laws of nature.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  10. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: YEC, OEC, or UAEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You have a habit of ignoring the intention of someone's statement to turn it to a discussion of your own agenda. It would be better to first acknowledge the other persons intent and then change the focus. I am asking theists to study science so they can better understand what it is they think is in error before passing judgement.
    Why are you making the assumption that theists don't study or understand science?

    You want to lead me to god by telling me that scientists find reasons to believe in god.
    I have no intention of leading you anywhere. You made the comment that theists should study science. I'm making the point that some theists do study science and indeed become scientists who find no conflict with God and the science they study.

    Science is not a hotbed of theism
    Fifty percent+ from the given pool is a changing landscape, not to mention some of the new sciences that are now researching aspects of theology.

    But to say that science leads to god I think is premature at this point.
    At this stage (and science has under gone difference stages), I would agree, but I guess that could depend on who you ask.

    Now you are asking me what I think, which is different than what I was discussing.
    You made this comment: "Presumably god would not write the bible or create the world specifically to confuse people or create seeming contradictions." That comment makes an assumption that the Bible confuses people. That's why I asked the question if you think the Bible confuses most people who are familiar with it?

    I was assuming god was real and saying that if that were so, then it would not make sense for god to guide the writing of the bible such that it contradicts the truths of nature.
    The Bible is not a science book. The Bible is spiritual book that documents historical ancient events. As far as nature.... does nature have a spiritual side? Some scientists, natural skeptics, have started to ask and research this question.

    Certainly. You can read the bible to be compatible with anything you want it to be compatible with.
    I see. How would the Bible be compatible with science?

    Sure, I am all for folks trying to figure things out and find a unity of truth.
    OK

    Non objective approach?
    Right, non-objective.

    The bible is a book, that is a fact.
    The Bible is a book with a fundamental spiritual message. This is a fact. Atheism rejects the spiritual fundamental message of the Bible.

    It is written in human language, that too is a fact.
    It is written in a human language as a testimony of observed historical events including some allegories and parables that represent abstract spiritual ideas in order to make them more comprehensible for our linear-thinking minds. It is also written by some men who were not educated but yet wrote beyond their limited knowledge and understanding. This is a fact.

    All books we know of were written by humans. This too is a fact.
    The Spirit can work through humans. This is a spiritual fact that atheism rejects. Such is life...

    The bible contains a number of accounts of claimed historical events. This is a fact. What is not a known fact is if God inspired the words in the bible or not.
    No, what is not known by non-believers is how does man recognize and become aware of truth? Once that question is dealt with and figured out, God's inspiration can be addressed. God's inspiration is insignificant until we address how we recognize and become aware of truth.

    The Pope
    I'm not an expert on the Pope and the Vatican, but I don't think this is the case:

    The Catholic teaching about papal infallibility is so thoroughly misunderstood*especially by non-Catholics with a hearty dislike for our Church*that some of the erroneous ideas that one encounters might almost be entertaining, if their absurdity didn’t at the same time reveal such sad misconceptions about the authority which the Pope really has.

    Many, if not most Catholics have heard statements like, “the Pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals” or “the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.” These statements are absolutely true, and simply restate in different ways the Church’s teaching on this subject, which is also contained in the code. But how many people really understand what they mean*and at the same time, what they don’t mean? Let’s take a look first at what the code says on this subject, and at the history behind the law; then we can address Kay’s specific question.
    http://catholicexchange.com/when-doe...ak-infallibly/

    Different context. What I know of a real god is nothing.
    This is confusing to me. The "real God?" Are you saying there is a real God that you don't know anything about and don't believe? What am I missing here in your logic?

    What I know of the character God from the bible is a fair bit.
    So it sounds like the "real God" that you know nothing about, that you don't believe in, is different from the God in the Bible which you also don't believe in. Is that right? If so, how can you not believe in something that you don't know anything about?

    I am a highly introspective person and I can tell you that my introspection shows that spirit is a figure of speech,
    You're free to test and experiment with this. Some people have turned this into a science, since you seem to like science.

    Yes, though my child would be my creation but it does not reflect my will, while a statue is both my creation and reflects my will. Unless you believe god guides all human thinking and controls it absolutely (no free will) then the acts of man do not reflect the will of god directly.
    Why does man have to reflect the will of God directly? For God to create man and give him free will doesn't mean men are robots.

    Correct, but it remains relevant to if the natural world is a better description of god than the bible is.
    What is the description/definition of God from the Bible?

    II do all that without such belief or recognition.
    You asked this question: How do you know when they are or are not doing so? [doing God's will]

    No dogma at all, just reason and experience. I never said God can't work through the fallible or imperfect, only that it is more likely an infallible source would be more reliable than a fallible one.
    I''m sorry to break it to you Sig, but man is fallible. God(practical and pragmatic) can work through fallible-ness. Yes, I understand you reject this.

    [edit] History shows us that when infallibleness has embodied, or close to it, society tends to crucify, stone, burn or torture such people. What's a Creator to do?

    I do not completely reject our ability to reason or discern. I respect that ability even if I don't think it comes from god. I am only saying the obvious, humans make mistakes.Nature does not make mistakes because it does not imagine, it simply is and it has no objectives but to be.
    Why does your dogma require perfection? God doesn't require perfection. Tsunamis kill hundreds of thousands of people. Tornadoes level towns and cities and kill lots of people. Natural fires destroy millions of acre of natural habitat. All this is not perfect goodness.

    I am saying that man can tamper with the words in a book.
    What it seems like you're saying is that you choose to disregard an entire body of knowledge/history and spiritual teachings, because man if fallible. I find this to be somewhat irrational, given that we have the ability to reason and exercise discernment.

    But man cannot change the laws of nature.
    How do we know for certain that man doesn't affect the laws of nature?
    Last edited by eye4magic; September 28th, 2012 at 10:16 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. SPID vs YEC
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 18th, 2006, 08:44 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •