Jump to content
IGNORED

Science and Faith ARE Compatible


jrad19

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, Bonky said:

Aren't we talking about something above and beyond confidence though?   It's not like any of this is settled, far from it.  We're talking about things that happened way in the past and much is relied on "eye witness" which you stated requires another level of faith.  Doesn't sound like something people should hold dogmatic views on but that's just me.

I agree.  I feel that I have grown a lot in this area since 12 years ago when I started getting involved in these discussions.  I used to be more dismissive of things but I realized that wasn't wise.

I agree here too.   Keep in mind now, I have often [and I mean often] heard from Christians that being a non believer must mean "I'm willfully ignorant", "too prideful", and that when this is all over I deserve to be tortured forever.  It goes both ways.

I haven't read his conversion article in years but if you search "Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism" by Glenn Morton he writes about it there.

Aren't we talking about something above and beyond confidence though?

I don't think so. Given the empirically unverifiable nature of the claims, no one can ever be logically obligated to change their mind. So if someone has been convinced that a particular faith premise is true, it is reasonable for them to assume that arguments that can't obligate a change of mind, won't actually change their mind. It's only unreasonable if they refuse to consider the arguments.

 

It's not like any of this is settled, far from it. We're talking about things that happened way in the past and much is relied on "eye witness" which you stated requires another level of faith. Doesn't sound like something people should hold dogmatic views on but that's just me.

But you are not considering the premise that God can reveal Himself to believers in a manner providing absolute confidence. That level of confidence is only impossible (i.e. can't be logically reconciled) under the secular paradigm. But Biblical theism makes logical provision for such confidence. If the God of the Bible is as real to you as the person standing beside you, then it stands to reason that you won't be convinced otherwise by 'maybe' arguments about His non-existence (or the divine nature of scripture).

 

I haven't read his conversion article in years but if you search "Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism" by Glenn Morton he writes about it there.

I've read a few such testimonies (I can't remember if this was one). From memory, they tend to provide much the same information as secular arguments against creationism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Aren't we talking about something above and beyond confidence though?

I don't think so. Given the empirically unverifiable nature of the claims, no one can ever be logically obligated to change their mind. So if someone has been convinced that a particular faith premise is true, it is reasonable for them to assume that arguments that can't obligate a change of mind, won't actually change their mind. It's only unreasonable if they refuse to consider the arguments.

Right so given the unverifiable claims in the past how did we get this confidence again?  I guess we'll answer that below.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

But you are not considering the premise that God can reveal Himself to believers in a manner providing absolute confidence. That level of confidence is only impossible (i.e. can't be logically reconciled) under the secular paradigm. But Biblical theism makes logical provision for such confidence. If the God of the Bible is as real to you as the person standing beside you, then it stands to reason that you won't be convinced otherwise by 'maybe' arguments about His non-existence (or the divine nature of scripture).

That's nice for those special chosen ones but what about the rest of us lol.  If I want a relationship with someone I don't play games.   Relationships aren't hard...and considering what's at stake?  

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  87
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  3,795
  • Content Per Day:  1.36
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/30/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Science can be trusted right up until the point it starts being used to try to deny Truth.

And Truth would be that God created it all, controls it all, and that without exception.

Edited by Behold
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, Bonky said:

Right so given the unverifiable claims in the past how did we get this confidence again?  I guess we'll answer that below.

That's nice for those special chosen ones but what about the rest of us lol.  If I want a relationship with someone I don't play games.   Relationships aren't hard...and considering what's at stake?  

I think your comments here indicate that you may have missed the point I was making.

You were claiming that we don't have enough information to consider anything to be settled to the point where anyone can be dogmatic. But that is only necessarily true if you assume the agnostic premise. The agnostic paradigm makes no logical provision for that degree of confidence. However, Christian arguments are not formulated under the agnostic paradigm. Christian arguments are formulated on the premise of a supernatural God who personally interacts with His creation. So our arguments cannot be objectively judged by the agnostic premise.

Sometimes unthoughtful Christians will tell an atheist they are wrong because the atheist disagrees with the Bible. In such cases, the Christian is making the error of assuming everyone is on board with the Christian premise of Biblical authority (which atheists obviously don't accept). In order for anyone to truly be objective, they have to be able to think outside of their own faith premise. Arguments are only obligated to be logically consistent with the premise upon which they are formulated. The Christian should recognise that the atheist does not consider the Bible to be authoritative - by virtue of the fact that they are atheist – and that appealing to Biblical authority is meaningless to the atheist.

I think you are making the same type of error in applying the agnostic premise to the Christian claiming absolute confidence. If, as you suggest, our perspective is limited by the agnostic premise, then you are correct in saying no one has enough information to claim such superior confidence. But Christians are not operating on the agnostic premise. The paradigm we promote makes logical provision for supreme confidence.

I'm happy to discuss why you don't like the premise if you like, but that is an aside to my main point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You were claiming that we don't have enough information to consider anything to be settled to the point where anyone can be dogmatic. But that is only necessarily true if you assume the agnostic premise. The agnostic paradigm makes no logical provision for that degree of confidence. However, Christian arguments are not formulated under the agnostic paradigm. Christian arguments are formulated on the premise of a supernatural God who personally interacts with His creation. So our arguments cannot be objectively judged by the agnostic premise.

Except that you may be forgetting that I came out of Christianity given my upbringing.  I didn't know any better but to believe.  It wasn't forced on me in an abusive way but it's what I was taught since I was around 5 or so.  I'm only responding to the claims I see the in the Bible and I hear Christians regularly make.   So let's say someone has a faith paradigm that they can't be wrong about X.   You think that's logical merely because they believe it is within their worldview?  People can believe what they want, but when those people ask others to believe the same then I have every reason to press them for more details and give me confidence that they're on the right track.  It makes no sense for me to promote something I can't defend.

Do you also deny that the Bible states that I am w/o excuse?  This isn't misguided Christians it's their scripture telling them that people are horrible and you can't trust them etc.  I've spent too much time in the Bible and in church I know the talking points. 

 

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Bonky said:

Except that you may be forgetting that I came out of Christianity given my upbringing.  I didn't know any better but to believe.  It wasn't forced on me in an abusive way but it's what I was taught since I was around 5 or so.  I'm only responding to the claims I see the in the Bible and I hear Christians regularly make.   So let's say someone has a faith paradigm that they can't be wrong about X.   You think that's logical merely because they believe it is within their worldview?  People can believe what they want, but when those people ask others to believe the same then I have every reason to press them for more details and give me confidence that they're on the right track.  It makes no sense for me to promote something I can't defend.

Do you also deny that the Bible states that I am w/o excuse?  This isn't misguided Christians it's their scripture telling them that people are horrible and you can't trust them etc.  I've spent too much time in the Bible and in church I know the talking points. 

 

Except that you may be forgetting that I came out of Christianity given my upbringing.

I don't think that alters my point.

 

You think that's logical merely because they believe it is within their worldview?

Logic is the measure of consistency between premise, evidence, arguments and conclusions. If a claim is consistent with it's premise, then it is logical, rational – not necessarily correct, but it can't be dismissed on the basis of flawed logic.

 

People can believe what they want, but when those people ask others to believe the same then I have every reason to press them for more details and give me confidence that they're on the right track. It makes no sense for me to promote something I can't defend.

I'm not really sure why the conversation is going this direction. If I didn't think you had the right to ask “for more details”, I wouldn't be engaging in discussion. And I'm not suggesting you “promote” anything; whether you can “defend” it or not.

 

Do you also deny that the Bible states that I am w/o excuse? This isn't misguided Christians it's their scripture telling them that people are horrible and you can't trust them etc. I've spent too much time in the Bible and in church I know the talking points.

Paul teaches, in Romans 1, that God has placed enough information of Himself in both nature, and every heart – such that a rejection of God is indicative of an intrinsic bias against Him. This is consistent with the Biblical premise that all of humanity has been corrupted by sin. It is not a universal declaration “that people are horrible and you can't trust them”. It just means we all have tendencies against God which cause many to prefer arguments against Him.

I understand it's not what you believe, but it is what we believe. Yes, it implies things about non-believers that you might find uncomfortable; namely, that non-believers, like believers, can be influenced by biases. It's hardly a malevolent sentiment. It just comes back to everyone thinking that they are correct, and therefore, by logical default, that everyone who disagrees is incorrect.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  227
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   126
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/13/2018
  • Status:  Offline

Can't say that I know much about science, yet it is one of the gifts and attributes given to man or woman made in the image of God "Gen 1:26".It is so that  Christianity is based on faith.The Bible mentions this fact many times yet interestingly enough lets here what a Christian who comes from the scientific world, Ernest Lucas has to say about faith: 

      "There are two misconceptions here, The first is that faith has no place in science. In fact it is fundamental to it. Scientists believe without absolute proof(that is, they have faith) that the world is ordered in a rational way and that this order is stable. Moreover, they believe without absolute proof...that the human mind is rational and can discover and understand that order correctly.It is not possible to do science without taking these basic steps of faith...Lif as a Christian begins by putting one's faith in Christ as the saviour through whom we are brought back into a right relationship with our creator.

The second misconception is to think that this act of faith is irrational...There is plenty of evidence in the Bible and in the experience of Christians down the ages that Jesus is who he claimed to be and that the commitment of one's life to him leads to the experience of God which is promised in the Bible.In other words .christian faith is a reasoning and reasonable trust in Christ,based on a good deal of historical and experiential evidence which is available to those who wish to investigate it."(Lucas.Genesis Today,Genesis and the questions of science.36-37)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  289
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   45
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2008
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, Vince said:

I think the difference between these two is that in science it can be demonstrated over and over that the universe is stable, repeatable, and that the world is ordered in a rational way.  Gravity always works the same in all situations.  We have not found any situation where gravity acted uniquely.  With faith, this cannot be demonstrated.  

Can science demonstrate that our universe was stable all the times from the very beginning till now?

We don't even know what gravity is in its nature. What we can speculate is universe is stable NOW, and gravity follows law NOW. Projecting this to the long past or to the long future is outside the scope of science!

Science is almost exclusively about how things repeat themselves RIGHT NOW!

Edited by Hawkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  289
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   45
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2008
  • Status:  Offline

55 minutes ago, Vince said:

We know the universe is stable now and has been for a long time.

We don't know that. It's an assumption instead! In secular terms, this assumption makes sense until it's refutable. However, this is not a proof but an assumption.

Edited by Hawkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  227
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   126
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/13/2018
  • Status:  Offline

I think we should stick to the issue of "Faith and Science" which was originally posited here. If this were a court case then sticking to the "charge" laid would be the principle. In this respect introducing factors about "magnitude" and even latest data indicating an old universe "at +/- 4.7 billion years", whether originating from "latest data"  are points introduced, which in my humble opinion, are totally irrelevant  to the statement originally laid that "faith is fundamental to Scientific experiment" as posited by the author (supra). With due respect, nothing represented here thus far has refuted this particular assertion. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...