And there we go the usual response.
Do you believe in evolution ?
- Thread starter kaka4200
- Start date
- Status
And there we go the usual response.
and I quote you talking about a 'fundamental' definition of a Christian ie a fundamentalist christian
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
I read it and it's a pretty good post, barring the first line.
e: late to the party again, you guys vent far more quickly than I can.
Last edited:
It's a fair comment. You are taking an otherwise reasonable position but over emphasising it to the point it sounds silly.
The problem is that the usual people are demonstrating the fact that they don't understand how science works.
Xordium is one of the few around here that actually understands what science is, and that a lot of people within science take things on good faith as being true or factual. They make priori assumptions.
No, it's the crux of the issue and has been for 1000's of years. We have to assume we exist (we have consciousness) and we have to then assume that the universe is as we envision it. These are things we not only believe in we invest in them we use them to shape our paradigm. This moves them from pure belief into a personal investment which essentially shapes them into we have 'faith' that things are that they are. We then assume there is causation and that we can determine things to find that causation. More assumptions. We assume consistency. These are massive absolutely massive assumption but we rightly need to make them. But then when religious people take something on belief or faith they get challenged. How is that not hypocritical.
By all means challenge people who believe in creationism or a very literal interpretation of any scripture but don't belittle them for being ignorant for doing something that many people freely do without question because they themselves don't actually see that. This is why philosophy should be taught with science so people rightly understand the limitations of their enquiry. You may think the point sounds silly but to many the belief in no god seems equally silly. They just know it. Not all evidence has to adhere to positivism does it?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
I wonder how many scientists also know anything about philosophy or vice versa? Wouldn't the type of person drawn to one of them be predisposed to repel the other? (he said, making sweeping statements so large there aren't brushes big enough to paint them).
Regarding taking texts at face value, and non-'fundamentalists' not doing so:
In Genesis you have two apparently contradictory accounts of the creation of man, one immediately after the other. The first one God speaks and it happens. In the second one God forms the man from the earth and takes the woman out of the man's side. The name of the man 'Adam' also happens to mean 'the man' in its original language. We then have God walking in a garden and a talking serpent. Much of the text is written using a poetic style. Can I ask, at face value, what genre are we dealing with and does it have a modern equivalent?
I would suggest the modern equivalent, if there is one, might not be a science or history textbook. Many Christians in the first 5 centuries of Christianity wrote extensively in ways that suggest they recognised this. The type of Christianity that denies evolution on biblical grounds is very much alien to that which came earlier. The post-reformation de-emphasis on tradition let to the way in which the bible had earlier been interpreted being forgotten. Hence why the Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Anglicans (who underwent a more 'catholic minded' reformation than elsewhere) usually don't have a problem with evolution, as they take their method of interpretation from Christians in the early church.
I've heard a priest I know refer to Young Earth Creationism as heresy. That's perhaps a bit strong but I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment.
In Genesis you have two apparently contradictory accounts of the creation of man, one immediately after the other. The first one God speaks and it happens. In the second one God forms the man from the earth and takes the woman out of the man's side. The name of the man 'Adam' also happens to mean 'the man' in its original language. We then have God walking in a garden and a talking serpent. Much of the text is written using a poetic style. Can I ask, at face value, what genre are we dealing with and does it have a modern equivalent?
I would suggest the modern equivalent, if there is one, might not be a science or history textbook. Many Christians in the first 5 centuries of Christianity wrote extensively in ways that suggest they recognised this. The type of Christianity that denies evolution on biblical grounds is very much alien to that which came earlier. The post-reformation de-emphasis on tradition let to the way in which the bible had earlier been interpreted being forgotten. Hence why the Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Anglicans (who underwent a more 'catholic minded' reformation than elsewhere) usually don't have a problem with evolution, as they take their method of interpretation from Christians in the early church.
I've heard a priest I know refer to Young Earth Creationism as heresy. That's perhaps a bit strong but I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment.
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia;26669920 said:
It was prerequisite for me both undergraduate and postgraduate. Most of the greats were adept at both. It is one of the reasons I am wondering what level people are at. Maybe they just don't teach this stuff any more. Would be interesting to see how much ethics and philosophy people are exposed to.
My reasoning for this being that surely to progress science one must know its limitations and epistemology. And if one is progressing science then they should surely consider whether they should.
Last edited:
If science was put into a 1000 page book, this is worthy of a footnote on page 4.
You can lace everything with assumption. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. You can now go and right on essay on the philosophy of that assumption and it may well be a great read. But really, why does that essay have to be annexed to every single scientific discussion. It's like having to restate that 1+1=2 every time you have to apply maths. It's totally unwarranted. I get that it comes up in the context of evolution because people wrongly bring up a religious element, but beyond highlighting to anti-religious zealots the fact that there is no proof of anything except in maths (as I already mentioned), really, what is the point? It gets dragged on to the point of appearing pseudo-intellectual.
Last edited:
Uriel; said:
Genesis is a narrative which is both doxological and didactic in both form and context. It is a Teaching rather than a textbook. To take it in a literal historical context is to both ignore and misunderstand the nature and intent of the narrative.
(I would also point out the Adam, is both The Man and Mankind..there is no differentiation between the two in Hebrew)
Last edited:
The point is people quite clearly, in this thread, some people do not make the necessary connection and if it is explained time and time again then maybe they will stop being "anti-religious zealots" and think about where their science came from and how it may then be applied appropriately. Therefore, we get better scientists and from that we get better science.
There is also a big difference between assuming the whole universe infinite at it is exists and the sun coming up tomorrow. The later is a deduction based upon countless patterns of evidence the other is an assumption without any evidence that can be presented unless it is taken to be true.
we don't know why mavity exists? so we don't know why evolution does either?
The same here, but then I would be somewhat hamstrung without a solid grounding in philosophy. I find it hard to imagine any scientist not having some grounding in philosophy, philosophy of science and ethics would be a minimum prerequisite I would hope.
Yep, I have seen that and it is an elegant argument if one wishes to be science as pure as that. However, it is my opinion that whenever you study something you need to learn how it came into being. I find it a dangerous path. You can read the opening passages of the most recent book by Hawking. He also argues (not as elegantly as the link you gave in fact far poorer) for the removal of such things because science has the answers! The people who argue these are theorists who never actually really put their theories into practice they never really have to face the enormity of the consequences. We have ample examples of great theorists who have gone ahead boldly and then despaired when the consequences have came to pass. I am sure someone will pop up to say it is a slippery slope fallacy and maybe it is but I have seen far too many scientists do it because they can without ever questioning whether they should. I think when you get into this whole absolute mindset then those questions get largely ignored.
- Status