Evolution and science compared to religious belief

[oxmixmudd]

We still seem to not be communicating. I'm trying to address your claim to be absolutely certain of your knowledge. You simply refuse to talk about it. That's ok. I'll leave you alone now.

In fact you are still confusing what kinds of knowledge science provides with the kinds of knowledge associated with religion.

What does it mean to 'believe' something is true scientifically. Is is something you are ostensibly willing to die for?

To bring it to a level that perhaps is more accessible. I have a child. I am willing to die for that child. But that is based on my belief which can't be validated objectively. Objectively, my child may prove to be a horrible monster that doesn't deserve my life for his/her own. But I would still chose to die for that child based on other factors that are not objectively assessed, that can't be objectively assessed.

The believe in a religious sense is NOT something we achieve through a scientific process. But the capacity to believe in that way is something important, something human. However, it can be tragic in that that capacity can be channeled to great evil, as it is in the religious teachings of say ISIS and others terrorist groups that are misguided in the application of that capacity.

To the atheist, any application of that capacity to belief in God is misguided. But most people are not atheists. And most people have a sense that there is some kind of God out there. The Christian faith (uncorrupted) channels that capacity towards a faith in God where there are NO exceptions in terms of violence towards others for religious purposes. The concept of 'Jihad' does not exist in Christian teaching. But nevertheless, a true believer in Christ is willing to die for the faith. Not in a violent attack on unbelievers, but at the hands of violent unbelievers who would demand they deny what they believe.

I say all that to differentiate what a Christian means when they say they are willing to die for their faith from what is seen today from religiously based terror organisations.

But my point here is that to believe something is true in a religious sense is not the same things as believing something is true in the scientific sense.

What you are asking Jordanriver to do is to, effectively, deny that he actually believes in Christ and what the Bible teaches about him. He can't do that, and you should not be asking him to do that.


Jim

[Roy]

What you are asking Jordanriver to do is to, effectively, deny that he actually believes in Christ and what the Bible teaches about him.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that (i) he holds a double standard w.r.t. his views versus those of others, and (ii) he won't consider the possibility that he might be wrong.

Anyway, since when was admitting the possibility of error equivalent to misrepresenting your views? You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating (un)certainty with (in)correctness.

The point is that there are people of other (non)faiths - Hindus, Moslems, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Bah'ais, atheists and probably ancient Egyptians too - that are just as certain of their religion as jordanriver is. If he is right, they are perforce wrong - and vice versa.

Roy

P.S. Your attempt to differentiate Christians from other religions fails due to the many instances of people of other faiths who have been killed for refusing to convert at swordpoint. Often by Christians.

[shunyadragon]

Many university students with religious beliefs (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Bahai) take science courses. Some state their religious beliefs and sacred texts are compatible with science or evolution when this is not the case. These students start off with a disadvantage because they cannot recognize, accept, or reconcile the conflicts. Are there any particular approaches to help students like this or is it better to say nothing?

Another issue is the religious and philosophical misconceptions these students bring to class. Some think evolutionary biologists are materialists who promote atheism and their own creation story as they practice theology instead of science. Scientists are mocked as dogmatic priests ignorant of their own history.

What evidence do you have that Baha'is cannot accept the science of evolution. Please cite contemporary scientists and Baha'i scholars or other reputable contemporary sources where Baha'is have problems accepting today's science of evolution.

Based on scripture the Baha'is must accept the knowledge of science as having preeminence over scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence.

The Baha'i Faith does not consider any scienitists as materialists, unless they profess to believe in Metaphysical Naturalism. The belief in Materialism is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one.

[pancreasman]

In fact you are still confusing what kinds of knowledge science provides with the kinds of knowledge associated with religion.

What does it mean to 'believe' something is true scientifically. Is is something you are ostensibly willing to die for?

To bring it to a level that perhaps is more accessible. I have a child. I am willing to die for that child. But that is based on my belief which can't be validated objectively. Objectively, my child may prove to be a horrible monster that doesn't deserve my life for his/her own. But I would still chose to die for that child based on other factors that are not objectively assessed, that can't be objectively assessed.

The believe in a religious sense is NOT something we achieve through a scientific process. But the capacity to believe in that way is something important, something human. However, it can be tragic in that that capacity can be channeled to great evil, as it is in the religious teachings of say ISIS and others terrorist groups that are misguided in the application of that capacity.

To the atheist, any application of that capacity to belief in God is misguided. But most people are not atheists. And most people have a sense that there is some kind of God out there. The Christian faith (uncorrupted) channels that capacity towards a faith in God where there are NO exceptions in terms of violence towards others for religious purposes. The concept of 'Jihad' does not exist in Christian teaching. But nevertheless, a true believer in Christ is willing to die for the faith. Not in a violent attack on unbelievers, but at the hands of violent unbelievers who would demand they deny what they believe.

I say all that to differentiate what a Christian means when they say they are willing to die for their faith from what is seen today from religiously based terror organisations.

But my point here is that to believe something is true in a religious sense is not the same things as believing something is true in the scientific sense.

What you are asking Jordanriver to do is to, effectively, deny that he actually believes in Christ and what the Bible teaches about him. He can't do that, and you should not be asking him to do that.


Jim

I hope you know that I respect you. I also hope you know I respect Christian belief as warranted in general. BUT:

You seem to be saying that being prepared to die for a belief or principle, somehow makes that belief 'out of bounds' from critical examination or even critical self reflection. There are things I would die for, but I still recognise that my ideas about just might be wrong. I obviously don't think they are, but they COULD be. Personally, I'd be happy if suicide bombers weren't so invincibly convinced they were right.

Further, Christian evangelism is based on the idea that people of other faiths are wrong about their beliefs and that it is legitimate to question, critique and persuade them. It seems odd to me that you seek to exempt Christianity from this.

[oxmixmudd]

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that (i) he holds a double standard w.r.t. his views versus those of others, and (ii) he won't consider the possibility that he might be wrong.

Anyway, since when was admitting the possibility of error equivalent to misrepresenting your views? You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating (un)certainty with (in)correctness.

The point is that there are people of other (non)faiths - Hindus, Moslems, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Bah'ais, atheists and probably ancient Egyptians too - that are just as certain of their religion as jordanriver is. If he is right, they are perforce wrong - and vice versa.

Roy

P.S. Your attempt to differentiate Christians from other religions fails due to the many instances of people of other faiths who have been killed for refusing to convert at swordpoint. Often by Christians.

Hi Roy,

Not everyone is capable of compartmentalizing what might be from what is. I don't know JordanRiver that well, but his responses indicate to me that he has a hard time speculating on what might be if the Christian faith were somehow not real without internally owning that which is contrary to his faith. This is what I'm seeing. He can't write the words you want him to write without a sense of denying his faith, which he simply will not do. And I don't think it is right to ask him to deny his conscience on this issue for the sake of what appears to you to be a balanced logical argument.

Further, I'm trying to point out that dispassionate logical argument and true belief in a thing are sometimes difficult to reconcile. As scientists, we strive for the full logic of a thing, as we strive for an unbiased assessment of the variables. But belief like that which drives the Islamic suicide bomber, or a Christian martyr (very, very different things I might add - more on that in a minute) isn't the same sort of thing. I'm not sure they are even fully compatible. To have that level of faith, to have that kind of capacity to follow a concept to ones own distruction, isn't fully logical to start with. But in its best form it is necessary and good (and in its worst form it is equally a monster of horrible proportions).

To my 'attempt' as you say to differentiate Christian faith from that of some other religions. I think you are wrong on that. Islam has peaceful followers and violent followers, as does Christianity. But at the core of the two faiths are very, very different approaches to evil, and those differing approaches manifest very differently over history and in individual lives. In Islam, at the core of its faith is a provision for war in the name of righteousness. In the Christian faith is the absolute prohibition of the use of force in any form to 'protect God' or to cause others to do 'what is right. The most violent act of Christ was to drive a bunch of people stealing money for religious purposes from the Temple. No one was recorded as being hurt. In Islam, Mohammed himself led brutal bands of thugs across the lands killing those who would not follow his vision of what it means to follow God.

That there are those that violate or have violated Christ's teachings that give you and others the opportunity to find similarity between those who follow Mohammed directly and in kind does not in any way undermine my point. For those who killed in the name of Christ did so in direct and full violation of Christ's words, yet those who Kill in Mohammed's name do so potentially with the blessings of his teachings. As long as they slit the throats of the infidel for the 'right reasons', they find full justifications for their deeds. No one following Christ can find similar justification for similar actions in His words. They simply do not exist. What the Christian can find justification for is selling what they have and giving it to the poor, or for turning the other cheek, or for not resisting evil with evil, for not hating our enemies, but for loving them instead. What the Christian finds waiting for him after acting out the violent deeds for which radical Islam promises great rewards are tears of repentance or the judgement seat of Christ Himself.

These are HUGE differences. And they bear very different results in the world.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I hope you know that I respect you. I also hope you know I respect Christian belief as warranted in general. BUT:

You seem to be saying that being prepared to die for a belief or principle, somehow makes that belief 'out of bounds' from critical examination or even critical self reflection. There are things I would die for, but I still recognise that my ideas about just might be wrong. I obviously don't think they are, but they COULD be. Personally, I'd be happy if suicide bombers weren't so invincibly convinced they were right.

As would I. I am not saying the belief is 'out of bounds' from critical examination. But there is an element of belief that is not, nor can it be, the subject of critical evaluation. There is a point in belief where one has to take a step of faith, one has to be able to proceed even if all the evidence seems to indicate one might be wrong. And it is at that juncture that belief and critical/objective thinking can't be easily reconciled. But at the same time, IF that element of belief is channeled by pure evil, it becomes something truly horrible. This is what we see in the Suicide Bombers, and it is a horrible thing.

Further, Christian evangelism is based on the idea that people of other faiths are wrong about their beliefs and that it is legitimate to question, critique and persuade them. It seems odd to me that you seek to exempt Christianity from this.

You are correct. And I don't seek to exempt the Christian faith from that same examination. The problem here is that IF what the Christian Faith teaches is true, then all arguments are not equal, all religions are not the same, and it is important for the non-Christian to recognize that Christ is God in the Flesh, and for the Christian to resist being persuaded He is not. If the sun is shining behind the clouds, then arguments the sun has gone out are necessarily flawed. And those that believe it is still shining on the other side of the clouds are right in holding to their confession that is the true state of things. The problem is that when it comes to belief about God, we can't objectively differentiate well between the true and the false arguments the way we can validate if the sun is still shining. Nevertheless, in some infinite backplane of what is actually true and what is actually false, that which is true is asymmetrically related to that is not true. The arguments are not all equivalent. What is true necessitates that which is false yield to it.

Jim

[pancreasman]

As would I. I am not saying the belief is 'out of bounds' from critical examination. But there is an element of belief that is not, nor can it be, the subject of critical evaluation. There is a point in belief where one has to take a step of faith, one has to be able to proceed even if all the evidence seems to indicate one might be wrong. And it is at that juncture that belief and critical/objective thinking can't be easily reconciled. But at the same time, IF that element of belief is channeled by pure evil, it becomes something truly horrible. This is what we see in the Suicide Bombers, and it is a horrible thing.



You are correct. And I don't seek to exempt the Christian faith from that same examination. The problem here is that IF what the Christian Faith teaches is true, then all arguments are not equal, all religions are not the same, and it is important for the non-Christian to recognize that Christ is God in the Flesh, and for the Christian to resist being persuaded He is not. If the sun is shining behind the clouds, then arguments the sun has gone out are necessarily flawed. And those that believe it is still shining on the other side of the clouds are right in holding to their confession that is the true state of things. The problem is that when it comes to belief about God, we can't objectively differentiate well between the true and the false arguments the way we can validate if the sun is still shining. Nevertheless, in some infinite backplane of what is actually true and what is actually false, that which is true is asymmetrically related to that is not true. The arguments are not all equivalent. What is true necessitates that which is false yield to it.

Jim

Thanks. I get what you're saying. I understand that Jordan River is REALLY certain that his version of God is real. I also understand a Muslim or Hindu probably feels the same. To be clear I'm freaking unsure about nearly everything! I get that IF the Christian is right he must seek to convince others. However, as you have ably pointed out there is no way for the Christian to be objectively sure he IS right. I'm okay with that state of affairs.

[phank]

In fact you are still confusing what kinds of knowledge science provides with the kinds of knowledge associated with religion.

Agreed these are very different things. Scientific knowledge is always conditional, always hostage to tomorrow's discoveries. Religious "knowledge" cannot be conditional, since the conditions on which it rests don't exist.

What does it mean to 'believe' something is true scientifically. Is is something you are ostensibly willing to die for?

Probably not. Scientific truths are always subject to test. Indelible personal beliefs are not, and are sometimes worth dying for. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's patriotism, etc.

To bring it to a level that perhaps is more accessible. I have a child. I am willing to die for that child. But that is based on my belief which can't be validated objectively. Objectively, my child may prove to be a horrible monster that doesn't deserve my life for his/her own. But I would still chose to die for that child based on other factors that are not objectively assessed, that can't be objectively assessed.

I wouldn't bank on that. Our species isn't very prolific - we have few children (compared to the tens of thousands of some species) and for biological reasons we must cherish those few. If we did not, we'd have died out long ago.

The believe in a religious sense is NOT something we achieve through a scientific process. But the capacity to believe in that way is something important, something human. However, it can be tragic in that that capacity can be channeled to great evil, as it is in the religious teachings of say ISIS and others terrorist groups that are misguided in the application of that capacity.

Strong religious belief is like foot-binding or neck-stretching. That is, there is a stage of development, a window of opportunity, into which religious indoctrination must be inculcated. Kind of like learning a language - beyond a certain age, learning a new language means a permanent accent for most people.

To the atheist, any application of that capacity to belief in God is misguided.

Well, not just the gods of one's culture. It's important to be aware that, as Dawkins said, there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing. The internet is a great vehicle both for forming and for observing people with similar fixations sealing themselves into echo chambers.

What you are asking Jordanriver to do is to, effectively, deny that he actually believes in Christ and what the Bible teaches about him. He can't do that, and you should not be asking him to do that.

He's not being asked to abandon his beliefs, he's being asked to play by the very rules he established. If it's unreasonable to ask him to engage in a thought experiment, then he's being just as unreasonable.

[phank]

Thanks. I get what you're saying. I understand that Jordan River is REALLY certain that his version of God is real. I also understand a Muslim or Hindu probably feels the same. To be clear I'm freaking unsure about nearly everything! I get that IF the Christian is right he must seek to convince others. However, as you have ably pointed out there is no way for the Christian to be objectively sure he IS right. I'm okay with that state of affairs.

I'm not sure I'm right either. But I don't go door to door, or fund missionaries, to spread my doubts, and neither do Christians. They do this to spread what give every appearance of certainties. Not being able to be objectively sure you're right is great on paper. Here on the ground, the actions of Christians leave no room for doubt of their certainty.

[jordanriver]

the thing of it is, I wasn't even trying to get anybody to admit they were "wrong"

its not about that

not this thread

[jordanriver]

Thanks. I get what you're saying. I understand that Jordan River is REALLY certain that his version of God is real. I also understand a Muslim or Hindu probably feels the same. To be clear I'm freaking unsure about nearly everything! I get that IF the Christian is right he must seek to convince others. However, as you have ably pointed out there is no way for the Christian to be objectively sure he IS right. I'm okay with that state of affairs.

"I get that IF the Christian is right he must seek to convince others."

well, actually, our marching orders are simply to share the gospel.
My interpretation is that I don't know who God intended to save to begin with, so when I share the gospel, its possible that person is not one of "the elect" and I am just wasting time, but mine is not to reason why, ....

the deal is, I cannot convince othere, only God Himself can, if He wants them , if they have already been chosen

[Joseph]

Perhaps you could volunteer to co-teach a philosophy of science class in the philosophy department, develop the notes into a book. Offer it to your science students who are interested. Inevitably, some will learn.

I think literally every introductory freshman text in the natural and social sciences deals with philosophy of science in the first chapter, but it's never enough. Science courses need to include philosophy of science readings, and I include examples as problems arise, but it's possible for scientists to earn a doctorate and never take a philosophy of science class, which tend to be for philosophy majors and not science students. It's a problem. Some scientists think they can generalize their expertise to philosophy of science. Think about Thomas Kuhn.

[Joseph]

What evidence do you have that Baha'is cannot accept the science of evolution. Please cite contemporary scientists and Baha'i scholars or other reputable contemporary sources where Baha'is have problems accepting today's science of evolution.

Based on scripture the Baha'is must accept the knowledge of science as having preeminence over scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence.

The Baha'i Faith does not consider any scienitists as materialists, unless they profess to believe in Metaphysical Naturalism. The belief in Materialism is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one.

I missed this post earlier. Ideally, these are accurate. Let's look at them in the thread under Comparative Religions.

[klaus54]

I thought the deal with atheists was they could never be "right" or "wrong", they are waiting for evidence before making any commitment

Does that apply to YEC and geology, astrophysics, and genetics?

K54

[jordanriver]

Does that apply to YEC and geology, astrophysics, and genetics?

K54

why you askin' me