Biblical literalist defends creationism, new earth, and other "science" theories

[Hayabusa Rider]

Scientists are imperfect, the Scientific Method avoids those Imperfections.

Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So now we're mired in a semantic issue about the word "faith" and how it applies differently to religion versus science? Awesome.

Here's a thought exercise. What does the word "theory" mean in common usage? How does that compare to what the word "theory" means in a scientific context? It's different, right? So maybe "faith" can mean different things based on context as well. I can have faith that my car will start when I turn the key based on observable data; it's done that in the past when I've turned the key, and I refilled the gas this morning. My car may not start, which violates my faith in it, but until that happens, I have no reason to expect my car is dead.

When we talk about faith as it applies to religion, we talk about believing in something without tangible evidence. I can have faith in God, just like I have faith in my car, but that's not based on observable data such as talking to God before. I'm placing my trust in something that I can have no direct knowledge of, and believe in despite my lack of evidence. And that's not inherently a bad thing (regardless of how sandorski may view it). But let's not pretend that faith in a deity and faith in science are based around the same areas of thinking, because they aren't. In that context, the words don't mean the same thing, and getting into a semantic argument about the definition is pointless.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So the method has inherent imperfections, or scientific conclusions would never need correcting.

Stop avoiding this.

It has imperfections only in that it does not provide the correct answer the first time, but to attribute that requirement would be misrepresentation.

Again, science or perhaps better stated is that the scientific method provides a device by which that which can be known can be revealed. Both of you insist on assigning inapplicable qualities. You might as well be arguing about the marital status of the number 5.

If I give you a hammer and you can't hit a nail to save your life how is that the hammer's fault? If used with care and understanding it can help make something good, but it's not guaranteed to make you a craftsman. Likewise he says that the scientific method avoids human imperfections. Again a magical attribution. He thinks his hammer overcomes all deficiencies of human imperfections but no, it is not guaranteed to do so. If someone finds something significant but tosses the result through error there is nothing written in the universe that it will be rediscovered later. What it does is provide a means by which something can be systematically discovered and verified. That is the chief advantage of the proper use of scientific investigation. It does not jump out of a bottle and bite people in the face or hold a gun to their head. It does not force anything. It provides an opportunity and means.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And that's not inherently a bad thing (regardless of how sandorski may view it). But let's not pretend that faith in a deity and faith in science are based around the same areas of thinking, because they aren't. In that context, the words don't mean the same thing, and getting into a semantic argument about the definition is pointless.

That's true in the sense that religion is inherently unverifiable, but Sandorsky states the infallibility of the scientific method to prevent human error or bias. That's faith if there ever was any. Anyway, I never said that these things I call faith are entirely equivalent, but they do exist. The difference between the scientific and the religious is that the first is amenable to scrutiny and the latter not and that is the real difference.

OK, that's fine, but for it's superiority as a means of investigation it still does not guarantee that people react rationally at all times, nor correctness. If that were the case then research would be taken solely on it's scientific merit, however that's not the case. It's perfectly reasonable and rational to have faith, as in trust, in the mechanics of the process, however that's as far as logic allows. There are no guarantees.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

That's true in the sense that religion is inherently unverifiable, but Sandorsky states the infallibility of the scientific method to prevent human error or bias. That's faith if there ever was any. Anyway, I never said that these things I call faith are entirely equivalent, but they do exist. The difference between the scientific and the religious is that the first is amenable to scrutiny and the latter not and that is the real difference.

OK, that's fine, but for it's superiority as a means of investigation it still does not guarantee that people react rationally at all times, nor correctness. If that were the case then research would be taken solely on it's scientific merit, however that's not the case. It's perfectly reasonable and rational to have faith, as in trust, in the mechanics of the process, however that's as far as logic allows. There are no guarantees.

Indeed. I think what sandorski was getting at was that the scientific method itself is theoretically perfect, it's the human element of the scientists themselves that undermine it. If we take ego out of the question, science would be continually probing for answers and discarding theories/hypotheses that no longer pass muster. Religion has no built-in method of updating itself; it starts from a point of knowing a universal truth and requires all subsequent observations to fit within that framework. That's not to say that religion and science can't coexist, but religion was never established with the belief of "we might be wrong, in which case do this."

 

[mattpegher]

The fundimental difference between current theories supported by science and theories proposed by "creationist", is that science observes then theorizes then actively searches for observations that are inconsistant with the current theory, modifying the theory to accept empiric findings.
Creationist theories begin with the assumption that a particular history was recorded then attempt to find evidence to support that theory, and discount any findings that suggest that the theory should be modified.

Early observations yeald immature theories which give way to evidence of later observations. So although, scientists once thought, for example, that frogs arose from dirt and water, such theories were cast aside when new data was presented. The consequence of using the scientific method is that even with biased beginnings, an active rebuttal system discards unsupported thought.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Indeed. I think what sandorski was getting at was that the scientific method itself is theoretically perfect, it's the human element of the scientists themselves that undermine it.

Perhaps that's what he meant but that's not what he said hence my reply about faith. To me there is a vast difference between possibility and actualization, or that guarantee I spoke of.

It doesn't matter really though since you seem to take my meaning and I know I'm not being completely incomprehensible to everyone

 

[sandorski]

That's true in the sense that religion is inherently unverifiable, but Sandorsky states the infallibility of the scientific method to prevent human error or bias. That's faith if there ever was any. Anyway, I never said that these things I call faith are entirely equivalent, but they do exist. The difference between the scientific and the religious is that the first is amenable to scrutiny and the latter not and that is the real difference.

OK, that's fine, but for it's superiority as a means of investigation it still does not guarantee that people react rationally at all times, nor correctness. If that were the case then research would be taken solely on it's scientific merit, however that's not the case. It's perfectly reasonable and rational to have faith, as in trust, in the mechanics of the process, however that's as far as logic allows. There are no guarantees.

I did not say this. It is the best Method we have, perhaps we will find a better one some day, but so far the Scientific Method moves us closer to answers to the questions we have than anything else we have devised.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The fundimental difference between current theories supported by science and theories proposed by "creationist", is that science observes then theorizes then actively searches for observations that are inconsistant with the current theory, modifying the theory to accept empiric findings.
Creationist theories begin with the assumption that a particular history was recorded then attempt to find evidence to support that theory, and discount any findings that suggest that the theory should be modified.

Early observations yeald immature theories which give way to evidence of later observations. So although, scientists once thought, for example, that frogs arose from dirt and water, such theories were cast aside when new data was presented. The consequence of using the scientific method is that even with biased beginnings, an active rebuttal system discards unsupported thought.

I haven't a problem with religious beliefs but they have to hold up to close examination. If there is a conflict between something which is observed and can be demonstrated and something which is believed without proper supporting evidence the latter loses. Beliefs based on religious faith can be reassessed, but you can't make things that are just go away, at least with any honesty.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I did not say this. It is the best Method we have, perhaps we will find a better one some day, but so far the Scientific Method moves us closer to answers to the questions we have than anything else we have devised.

I agree with what you say above, however I was going by

Scientists are imperfect, the Scientific Method avoids those Imperfections.

In discussions such as these semantics do matter. An unqualified "avoid" is a definite statement. If you avoid running into another car there is no ambiguity. Method really doesn't do anything if you think about it. It's an artificial construct (artificial does not mean inferior) which allows us to move in a direction of better understanding. As such it does not forbid abuse or imperfect use or interpretation and that's why I've responded as I have.

That said I believe I understand your meaning and there's no disagreement.

 

[mattpegher]

I haven't a problem with religious beliefs but they have to hold up to close examination. If there is a conflict between something which is observed and can be demonstrated and something which is believed without proper supporting evidence the latter loses. Beliefs based on religious faith can be reassessed, but you can't make things that are just go away, at least with any honesty.

The interesting thing is that many religions have over the last century changed their position regarding evolution and the prehistoric record to state that these theories are not inconsistent with their beliefs. Basically stating that their scriptures are not to be interpreted literally as historic record. Its only the literalists that are stuck.

 

[Paratus]

Back to your point. It's perfectly reasonable to have faith in a process which has consistently performed as expected. We all have faith and beliefs and they are absolutely necessary to function. Right now I'm more interested in an analysis of behaviors associated with science and interactions between people about it, and an example would be the commonly expressed sentiment that someone cannot hold religious and scientific views simultaneously. Of course they can and do. These things aren't mutually exclusive although some try to portray them as such, in effect subjecting others to "purity" tests. This is more about social hierarchies and dominance with science and religion being subjects to use. But then isn't what this forum is largely about once you peel back the layers of interaction?

You keep using the word "Faith", when what you mean is "Trust". Religious "Faith" is a form of Trust, but it is not the same as Trust.

Substitute trust if you like but in this context it's a distinction without a difference.

The heart of the matter is faith is the wrong word to use. I actually put it in my post before considering it was the wrong word to use. Faith requires a belief without evidence. That does not describe my feelings on the matter. Which is why I went with trust.

I agree that the answers it provides can be flawed. But as I stated earlier, part of my trust comes from it's self correcting nature. Theories, especially these days, are rarely entirely wrong, and if they are they are caught in months or years instead of decades or centuries. So even though flawed humans may create flawed theories I know the process will eventually mitigate those flaws.

Quite frankly, trust in the scientific method is even more important now. There is too much knowledge for any one person to know more than a sliver of any given discipline. That wasn't the case in the past when a single person like Newton could be an expert in math, physics, optics, finance, etc.

 

[Retro Rob]

The heart of the matter is faith is the wrong word to use. I actually put it in my post before considering it was the wrong word to use. Faith requires a belief without evidence. That does not describe my feelings on the matter. Which is why I went with trust.

I agree that the answers it provides can be flawed. But as I stated earlier, part of my trust comes from it's self correcting nature. Theories, especially these days, are rarely entirely wrong, and if they are they are caught in months or years instead of decades or centuries. So even though flawed humans may create flawed theories I know the process will eventually mitigate those flaws.

Quite frankly, trust in the scientific method is even more important now. There is too much knowledge for any one person to know more than a sliver of any given discipline. That wasn't the case in the past when a single person like Newton could be an expert in math, physics, optics, finance, etc.

Faith is the correct word, as it by definition means "trust, confidence in something".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#/search

You have faith, plain and simple. Faith isn't a bad word, it won't bite you. It can also mean belief without proof. Atheist arbitrarily and ignorantly narrowly define it to castigate religion.

 

[Paratus]

Faith is the correct word, as it by definition means "trust, confidence in something".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#/search

You have faith, plain and simple. Faith isn't a bad word, it won't bite you. It can also mean belief without proof. Atheist arbitrarily and ignorantly narrowly define it to castigate religion.

While faith is definitely a synonym of trust, trust is still a better description of my thoughts. Specifically for referring to reliability and ability.

trust
firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

 

[Jeff7]

Not following you here. What exactly is faked? God creates the universe and everything in it, orderly and maintained. Galaxies and stars are light-years apart, light is created in transit such that all of the laws governing the physics and mechanics are adhered to. There's nothing "fake" about it.
...

In this scenario, this god started the Universe midstream. It was started abruptly in the middle of its normal running process. If that process is followed backward from that abrupt running, it follows back to a singularity event.
Instead of making a pie from scratch, he simply pops a pie into existence inside the oven, and makes its properties such that it behaves perfectly as though it had already had been in there for 10 minutes. Then someone analyzes the pie's temperature, mass, thermal resistance, and chemistry, and can confidently state "This pie has been in the oven for 10 minutes." But no, they're wrong, and the deity giggles quietly from the kitchen, since only he possesses the knowledge that the pie is only 3 seconds old.


Is this an all-powerful benevolent entity, or a 4-year-old trying to play a trick on someone?





a) This whole midstream creation thing was done to guide us toward false conclusions, perhaps done as some twisted attempt at a test for the blind faith design flaw that is present in some of his sentient human creations.

b) A highly-advanced entity could create a singularity type of thing that would permit the eruption of a bubble of spacetime and energy. From that chaotic origin would come tiny pockets of order, still caught in an overall trend of entropic decay. In this case, the Universe is indeed 13.7 billion years old, from the perception of those within its bubble of time. This creator entity also wishes to permit this bubble to evolve according to the laws present within it. So without any further interference in our Universe's orderly progression, the origin of the singularity itself is of no real significance here since there is no way to define a concept of existence prior to the existence of time itself.

c) It's simply one of thousands of creation myths our species has come up with.
Humans can create things with our hands and minds. The world is a big place, therefore a much bigger and more powerful human must surely have created it. Then as our knowledge of the immense scale of the environment beyond our little planet grew, the power and capability of that creator entity also grew. We once had deities responsible for creating portions of the world, then deities that created the entire world. Now we've got a deity that created an entire Universe, allegedly for the benefit of a bunch of insignificant primates on a tiny planet in an extremely ordinary galaxy in an extremely ordinary galactic supercluster.

Faith is the correct word, as it by definition means "trust, confidence in something".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#/search

You have faith, plain and simple. Faith isn't a bad word, it won't bite you. It can also mean belief without proof. Atheist arbitrarily and ignorantly narrowly define it to castigate religion.

I define it as "faith" and "blind faith."

"Faith" - A belief in something which is backed up with evidence.
I've got faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow. There's a lot of evidence saying that it will happen. Is it absolutely 100% going to happen? No, I can't be 100% certain.
Faith that a family member loves me. Why? Lots of evidence to support it. But I've never directly interfaced with this person's brain in order to access the information concerning this bond.
Faith that my money will be worth something a few days from now. My money consists of pieces of thin fabric, round pieces of metal, and electrons or magnetic fields stored in a computer. These things have no inherent value. (Yes, the same is true of gold.) But I have faith that these things will be seen as valuable by many other people, and there is a lot of evidence which says that that will remain true for quite some time.


"Blind faith" - A dangerous human flaw wherein a person knows something, despite the absence of evidence for it.
A drunk or mentally ill person could know that they can walk through a wall. The repulsive force of alike electrical charges says that that's not going to happen.

 

[Retro Rob]

While faith is definitely a synonym of trust, trust is still a better description of my thoughts. Specifically for referring to reliability and ability.

It's all about the word "faith", which has sadly been demonized by secularists.

You've probably only known the word to be associate with "belief without evidence" and that mental connection won't allow you to use the word in normal parlance.

That aptly demonstrates how the willful ignorance of others can have an affect on the general population.

 

[Babbles]

I consider myself a non-theist but have no problem with religion.

However, I have massive issues with Ken Ham and his clueless ilk.

This blows me away:

Neither is a Bible scholar nor scientist. And yet, they are writing as though they know more than people who have spent their lives studying the inerrancy of Scripture. . .

Neither is Ken Ham! He allegedly taught environmental science to grade schoolers, back in the day, but I sure as shit wouldn't consider him a scientist and he surely has zip, zero, zilch theological credentials. Ken Ham would be a sad person to pity if there weren't so many fools listening to this clown.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's all about the word "faith", which has sadly been demonized by secularists.

The reason that secularists separate out the word faith is because, as others have tried to explain, there is a definition problem with it.

When a secularist says he has faith in the Theory of Evolution, what he is really meaning is 'I believe that it is supported by the evidence, and as long as it is still supported I will continue to believe in it'.

When a Theist says he has faith in God, what he is really meaning is 'I believe in God, and no amount of evidence or any argument can ever change that'.

I would hazard to guess that every secularist that has ever tried to separate those two meanings of the word faith has done so because some theists tried to use the definition of faith to claim that the Scientific Method was just another religion being blindly followed. It is a surprisingly common argument among theists.

 

[Retro Rob]

The reason that secularists separate out the word faith is because, as others have tried to explain, there is a definition problem with it.

There is no definition problem...the problem is that secularists simply assert there is no evidence for any religious belief. The central figures in Islam and Chrsitianity are Muhammed and Jesus, respectively. Both were real -- both individuals are the objects of the faith of those who adhere to either belief.

Faith simply means trusting in said person, so its based on rationality. That's all we ever mean when we say that.

When a Theist says he has faith in God, what he is really meaning is 'I believe in God, and no amount of evidence or any argument can ever change that'.

No, what he saying is that he is confident that God exists apart from scientific evidence. Depending on what religious text one adheres to, God exists outside of the realm of science anyway, so direct falsifiable evidence is not required to have that confidence.

Its just that religious beliefs have been misinterpreted and misrepresented, to a large degree.

EDIT: And when I say "misrepresented", I'm speaking in general and am accusing both religious and non-religious people that are contributing to making belief in God seem irrational.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is no definition problem...the problem is that secularists simply assert there is no evidence for any religious belief. The central figures in Islam and Chrsitianity are Muhammed and Jesus, respectively. Both were real -- both individuals are the objects of the faith of those who adhere to either belief.

The existence of a real Saint Nicholas of Myra in the 4th century is not evidence of a fat man that lives on the north pole and flies reindeer around on Christmas eve delivering presents, doofus, but that is precisely what you're suggesting.

Faith simply means trusting in said person, so its based on rationality. That's all we ever mean when we say that.

It takes a special kind of stupid to suggest that trusting a person who you've never met that existed multiple millennia in the past on another side of the planet is "based in rationality."