Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#376
#376
volinbham said:
Yes. At least from a scientific inquiry stand point.
Click to expand...

See, I just don't like that use of agnosticism. I think that agnosticism should be a real term, something that addresses a situation and a part of the world - not something that, by virtue of depicting everything, says nothing.

I would like to use agnosticism as part of a real crisis in belief. An agnostic is someone who not only doesn't have absolute evidence (as in the scientists and aliens example), but who has no reasonable inclination towards either hypothesis. And, for good measure, I would like to restrict agnosticism to live hypotheses, in the tradition of William James. It makes no sense to use the term in relation to absurd propositions, ones that have no effect on the believer either way and that aren't a part of his or her mental life.

I may be wrong in that use, but it isn't all that uncommon, references what we seem to mean when we use the word, and keeps it from becoming trivially over (and so under) used.
 
#377
#377
I am wondering why it is so vital for certain people to rule out a deity?

I belive in God, I live a moral and good life, and I believe i am going somewhere when i die. If im wrong? well i still lived a good moral life, still was happy and lived a life of hope, only difference is that I am worm bait
 
#378
#378
ridethelightening said:
Who stands for more to lose and more to gain? I'm wrong, my world goes black and I'm buried in the dirt. Your wrong and you spend eternity in hell
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The problem looks to be that we are all talking with different criteria of justification.

RJD sounds like he is using a typical epistemic justification (as connected with knowledge in something like a justified true belief). This justification is about connection to the world in a proper way...it is about empirical truth and/or falsity.

You, on the other hand, sound like you're using pragmatic and/or moral justification. You'll continue to talk past one another having different conversations.

My thought, and forgive me if you disagree, is that the truth/falsity line of justification has more validity in a discussion on scientific matters. Scientifically bounded theories (which evolution is) are value-independent. It doesn't make one bit of difference if the theory is good or bad morally or practically - that is a problem for implementation and the scientist qua member of society.

Values are real, and values are important. But, they are philosophical concepts, or, for theists, theological/spiritual concepts. We can't pretend that they make truth any more than might makes right. It may be true that evolutionary theory is, if applied, morally bankrupt and spiritually acidic. But, if true, so it remains.
 
#379
#379
turambar85 said:
Curious. But, science as a disciple is necessarily committed to methodological naturalism. Science, as defined by its method and tools, cannot even attempt to seek supernatural causes. It may be that science will 'peter out' and simply be unable to find a natural cause for 'creation', but that is not a failure in objectivity, but is simply a result of the methods being unable to attain truth in that domain.

Similarly, it would be absurd to say something like "any theologian who doesn't use natural causation and scientific understanding in her attempts to define and God is not being objective." Of course she is! She is, at worst, guilty of tunnel-vision. Of limiting herself to one disciple, or to one attempt at seeing the world. But, that isn't a reasonable criticism; practicality demands it. We need specialists, and a scientist must do a scientists job - as should a theologian.
Click to expand...

Let's call it tunnel vision then.

The problem I have with the first paragraph is that phenomena that were once considered supernatural are now viewed as natural. At best an a priori ruling out of a sentient being (as supernatural and thus beyond the scope of science) hampers the progress towards moving what was thought to be supernatural into the realm of natural. Since science relies at it's core on the notion of objectivity, it is a bigger sin (pardon the pun) to not adhere to the rules of open minded inquiry and evaluation of "evidence".

In the larger scope, I'm responding to the oft used argument against a creator that since the notion cannot be subject to falsification the evidence suggests there is not a creator. Atheist's seem to get their panties in a wad about this particular issue and use it to trash believers. The weakness of this approach in my view is an over reliance on science as being infallible in it's ability to eventually uncover all that is.
 
#380
#380
what is wrong with dont lie, dont cheat, dont steal, dont murder, dont cheat on your wife, honor your parents, etc etc?
 
#381
#381
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
I am wondering why it is so vital for certain people to rule out a deity?

I belive in God, I live a moral and good life, and I believe i am going somewhere when i die. If im wrong? well i still lived a good moral life, still was happy and lived a life of hope, only difference is that I am worm bait
Click to expand...

It isn't vital. I care no more (in a vacuum) for ruling out a deity than for ruling out astrology. Any false belief will do. But, unfortunately, we aren't in a vacuum. Theism is the default position, and affects public policy and societal ethics. If false, it is doing some wrong. That is one reason I care. Another reason I argue is that we are in a debate thread. It is the thing to do! :p

I wouldn't seek you out. If you were in a religious forum, I would leave it be. If you were in a non-political/religious board, I would go on my way. But, in this setting, I can't help myself...and why would I?
 
#382
#382
volinbham said:
Let's call it tunnel vision then.

The problem I have with the first paragraph is that phenomena that were once considered supernatural are now viewed as natural. At best an a priori ruling out of a sentient being (as supernatural and thus beyond the scope of science) hampers the progress towards moving what was thought to be supernatural into the realm of natural. Since science relies at it's core on the notion of objectivity, it is a bigger sin (pardon the pun) to not adhere to the rules of open minded inquiry and evaluation of "evidence".

In the larger scope, I'm responding to the oft used argument against a creator that since the notion cannot be subject to falsification the evidence suggests there is not a creator. Atheist's seem to get their panties in a wad about this particular issue and use it to trash believers. The weakness of this approach in my view is an over reliance on science as being infallible in it's ability to eventually uncover all that is.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for all atheists - we don't have a Pope - but I don't know of any (including myself) who use that argument outside of scientific debates and discussions. I, for one, only mention falsification in the context of scientific work. If a theist wants to talk about how his or her belief is a scientifically valid one, I bring it out. If they are equal-timers, I bring it out. I will never say, to a theologian qua theologian, that falsification, as a scientific principle, renders his belief absurd.
 
#383
#383
turambar85 said:
See, I just don't like that use of agnosticism. I think that agnosticism should be a real term, something that addresses a situation and a part of the world - not something that, by virtue of depicting everything, says nothing.

I would like to use agnosticism as part of a real crisis in belief. An agnostic is someone who not only doesn't have absolute evidence (as in the scientists and aliens example), but who has no reasonable inclination towards either hypothesis. And, for good measure, I would like to restrict agnosticism to live hypotheses, in the tradition of William James. It makes no sense to use the term in relation to absurd propositions, ones that have no effect on the believer either way and that aren't a part of his or her mental life.

I may be wrong in that use, but it isn't all that uncommon, references what we seem to mean when we use the word, and keeps it from becoming trivially over (and so under) used.
Click to expand...

There is a fine line between reasonable inclination towards a hypothesis and allowing that inclination to color the manner in which you collect and observe evidence.

I don't disagree in general with what you are saying and don't subscribe to pure agnosticism. I'm suggesting that it allows open mindedness that is essential in scientific inquiry. An atheist or believer has too much vested in the result being x to stick to pure scientific inquiry (assuming the inquiry concerns the topic x).
 
#384
#384
turambar85 said:
It isn't vital. I care no more (in a vacuum) for ruling out a deity than for ruling out astrology. Any false belief will do. But, unfortunately, we aren't in a vacuum. Theism is the default position, and affects public policy and societal ethics. If false, it is doing some wrong. That is one reason I care. Another reason I argue is that we are in a debate thread. It is the thing to do! :p

I wouldn't seek you out. If you were in a religious forum, I would leave it be. If you were in a non-political/religious board, I would go on my way. But, in this setting, I can't help myself...and why would I?
Click to expand...

this isnt a debate, this is nothing but stonewalling at its best. You are religion, and you are wrong, Science be praised
 
#385
#385
turambar85 said:
I can't speak for all atheists - we don't have a Pope - but I don't know of any (including myself) who use that argument outside of scientific debates and discussions. I, for one, only mention falsification in the context of scientific work. If a theist wants to talk about how his or her belief is a scientifically valid one, I bring it out. If they are equal-timers, I bring it out. I will never say, to a theologian qua theologian, that falsification, as a scientific principle, renders his belief absurd.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that if you scan this thread and the other massive thread you'll see a consistent theme that treats the notion of a creator as less valid because is not subject to falsification. I believe both you and RJD have used this argument in some form or fashion.

That is different than the more narrow argument that ID shouldn't be taught as science since it is not science. I completely agree.

However, moving on to claiming intellectual high ground as an atheist because creation doesn't conform to science is a leap that I have not seen justified but certainly is used frequently by those arguing against a creator. It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy - atheism is more valid because it conforms to these rules that specifically don't apply to religion (currently) therefore atheism is more valid.
 
#386
#386
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
what is wrong with dont lie, dont cheat, dont steal, dont murder, dont cheat on your wife, honor your parents, etc etc?
Click to expand...

The etc. etc. part is what I have a problem with. No Gods before me, No blasphemy, Idol worship...they have no moral bearing whatsoever. They serve only to polish the ego of a meglomaniac. And the other ones you mention were around long before the Bible. There is nothing especially significant about them being in the Bible.
 
#388
#388
volinbham said:
Yes. At least from a scientific inquiry stand point.
Click to expand...

This is where my reasons argument comes into play. The reasons for this belief are inadequate. Sure anything is possible, but the evidence for certain things is nonexistent to the point of being laughable. Look at the evidence, and adhere to the best explanation. That is all I am saying.
 
#390
#390
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
why is it so wrong to believe?
Click to expand...

Who is saying it is? If it makes you happy, go ahead, I'm not one to judge. It's a free country, just don't infringe on my right not to believe.

I'm just pointing out what I see as faults in your reasoning and why I believe the way I do.
 
#392
#392
i hear yah, maybe my point is intended for the ones that say religion is stupid, and because they dont believe they are on a higher plane of intellegence then anyone else
 
#394
#394
rjd970 said:
This is where my reasons argument comes into play. The reasons for this belief are inadequate. Sure anything is possible, but the evidence for certain things is nonexistent to the point of being laughable. Look at the evidence, and adhere to the best explanation. That is all I am saying.
Click to expand...

I don't see any evidence that supports the notion of a creator, namely God. At the same time I see roughly the same amount of evidence that rules him out. I see a wash.

I see no evidence that supports the notion we came from nothing, I don't see any evidence that we didn't either. How am I supposed to adhere to the best explanation when there is no explanation given?
 
#396
#396
rjd970 said:
This is where my reasons argument comes into play. The reasons for this belief are inadequate. Sure anything is possible, but the evidence for certain things is nonexistent to the point of being laughable. Look at the evidence, and adhere to the best explanation. That is all I am saying.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that the alien thing not be ruled out - it doesn't mean that it has to one's working hypothesis.

I assume you see that "best" explanation is bounded by what someone views as possible. As such, it is really "best explanation" given what I think could be the reasons for this.
 
#397
#397
As obvious as this is, it still needs to be said...nobody truly KNOWS what happened at the beginning of time. We just have to use what we have to make the best prediction.
As hard to understand as it may be, the world started somehow. It just freaks me out to imagine what was before that.
Based on my life, and all I've learned about the creation theories, I choose to believe in God. Whenever I question His existence, I feel too arrogant to even think that I/we could pull all of this off every day without Him. Also, I can't make myself believe in some creation theory that doesn't involve a creator.
 
#398
#398
Also on the alien thing --- this is just one of a vast number of potential specific hypotheses regarding the "form" of a creator.

An atheistic view that there is no/was no sentient creator in "any form" is a much different statement.
 
#399
#399
volinbham said:
Also on the alien thing --- this is just one of a vast number of potential specific hypotheses regarding the "form" of a creator.

An atheistic view that there is no/was no sentient creator in "any form" is a much different statement.
Click to expand...

I guess we should include in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well. Philosophically, it makes just as much sense as God, or any other creator.
 
#400
#400
KB5252 said:
I don't see any evidence that supports the notion of a creator, namely God. At the same time I see roughly the same amount of evidence that rules him out. I see a wash.

I see no evidence that supports the notion we came from nothing, I don't see any evidence that we didn't either. How am I supposed to adhere to the best explanation when there is no explanation given?
Click to expand...

From my limited knowledge on all the relevant data, the evidence against a creator outweighs the evidence for. if you want to talk philosophy and limits of science that is another issue, but I don't count that as evidence for a creator. At best, it is an explanation of a possibility, of which that thinking can be used to justfily the possibility of an infinite number of explanations.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top