Originally Posted by JGL57
The ad hominem fallacy - a sure sign of an opponent in retreat. Was this your response to my point?
The ad hominem fallacy - a sure sign of an opponent in retreat. Was this your response to my point?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Lector:
From what i understand from ypur original post you reasoned to discredit scientific proof of evolution in this way:
-The scientific method requires some ammount of observation to take place.
-Evolution cannot be observed
Therefore evolution cannot be proved
Let me present you with the following analogy:
A policeman will never observe the murder taking place, however, through forensic science he may find out who commited the murder by looking at the scene of the crime.
Science can observe evolution (the murder) by looking at the scene of the crime, your claim that science cannot observe evolution, is wrong. Your way of reasoning is one that is often heard from creationists (im not saying you are one) when they take science to laymans terms (is this the word?) and they appeal to public common sense saying evolution cannot be observed claiming that evolution takes thousands of years, or "you'll never see a monkey turn to man", etc..
Now, what is evolution's "scene of the crime"? now i dont know much about the subject, however, according to wikipedia (i know that wikipedia isnt necessarily a reliable source, yet on the articles that i've viewed there were tons of references to what seemed reliable sources, i checked many of them) there's the fossil record and the anatomical record and comparisons drawn between the two to figure out the lineages of different species. There's also genome sequencing which accounts for many species genotypic similarities, etc. Maybe you should check out wikipedias article of evolution as well as many of the sources included at the bottom.
There's also the unofficial Stephen Jay Gould archive website, which features plenty of articles: www.stephenjaygould.com
It is interesting to notice how science has not only seen the scene of the crimee but apparently also the murder itself:
The theory of recapitulation, which has actually been disproved in its most absoloute form by biologists, yet may be acceped in partial form, is an example. Recapitulation, or ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, is the theory that the development of an embryo imitates the development of the species to which it belongs. There are some interesting, if technical, papers about this in the Gould website.
Speciation, the process through which new species arise, has been witnessed too apparently. This is from www.talkorigins.com, (which provides its own references at the bottom of each page):
"Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures." This is from the article "29+ evidences for macroevolution" which I suggest you check out as well.
Finally I adress your concern about my remark on the definition of the scientific method you provided. I didn't imply that your definition was an erroneous one, but the fact that you looked it up on a dictionary seemed rather odd, thats all. I apologize if I may have sounded rude on that occasion, i just meant to imply that there's far more to the scientific method than that definition, in my opinion, and i gather that many epistemologists would be out of a job if it were that simple. I have gotten into arguments of that sort with young humanity students who claimed the most radical things about science and the scientific method, but who knows.
Of course. My apologies.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
First of all, please do not for an instant assume that we worship science.
And second, one could argue that science admits the possibility of mistakes up front. The interpretation of texts such as the Bible is decided UNstatic. It's been "correcting" itself in its own way, simply beneath the folds of the Church. Do you mean to tell me that ever since you first recognized yourself as a Christian, your beliefs have never changed in the slightest?
Por una cabeza
Si ella me olvida
Qué importa perderme
Mil veces la vida
Para qué vivir
My statement was in no way meant as a blanket comment on all atheists; to do so would be as unfair as the blanket statements I dislike being made about Christians. My statement applies specifically to JGL57. I exaggerated a bit, but my point stands: neither science nor religion can definitively answer the question of where we came from and how we got here with definite, empiracle, verifiable, whatever-you-wish-to-call-it PROOF. As I've stated many times before, both evolution and Creationism require a certain amount of faith in the authority of our - for lack of a better term - "sources." By "worship" I exaggerate the idea that the atheist and I are engaged in a similar process - but we are exercising different types of "faith."
Not at all - but my beliefs are not comprable to scientific "fact" (in quotations because it is subject to revision). The Bible says what it says - that we have misinterpreted it throughout history doesn't make the Bible wrong - it makes us bad interpreters. If God is not leading the interpretation, there is a high degree of probablility that the interpretation will be wrong. But the Bible doesn't get re-edited by God every few centuries to correct its "mistakes" or "errors" as science must.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Funny - then why is there over 34,000 christian denominations and only one science.
Science makes progress through time. Religion just repeats the same error from start to now - sort of like famous christian George Bush does, e.g., what christians believe on Monday they believe on Wednesday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, e.g., fifty per cent of Americans, mostly christians, believe as a matter of faith that the earth is six thousand years old, tops. That's real genius.
HUMANS repeat the same errors every daily-religious or atheists. This reminds me of Tolkiens' quote about fish-that if fish had fish lore the bussiness of anglers would be little hindered-humans have their own lore and yet they repeat the same mistakes-if history has taught us anything it is that people constantly make the same mistakes.Science makes progress through time. Religion just repeats the same error from start to now - sort of like famous christian George Bush does, e.g., what christians believe on Monday they believe on Wednesday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, e.g., fifty per cent of Americans, mostly christians, believe as a matter of faith that the earth is six thousand years old, tops. That's real genius.
The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov
human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert
Nor is the Bible constantly expanded in order to encompass more and more knowledge, as science is.
Por una cabeza
Si ella me olvida
Qué importa perderme
Mil veces la vida
Para qué vivir
It's interesting to read the to-ing and fro-ing between belief systems here - whether it's a belief in God or a belief in science; what is apparent here is that whilst everyone is arguing their differences, there seems to be a failure to recognise what you share which is faith (be it in God or science). Science and Religion, seem to me, to be two opposing ends of the spectrum. Religion requires positive belief - i.e. a positive affirmation in the existence of an omnipotent being, albeit that the belief must exist in the absence of tangible proof. Science, on the other hand, requires a negative belief system - so more a case of; I'll believe this in the absence of something proving otherwise, but I accept this belief could probably be wrong. So in reality I get the impression that neither side will ever agree, and perhaps if humans as a race of people spent less time focusing on their differences, and more time focussing on their similarities, there would be fewer wars fought in the name of ideals based on faith (which is not just aimed at religion, by the way).
To answer the original question raised here, I consider myself to be an athiest because I do not believe in the existence of God. For me to believe I would require proof or evidence of some kind; if that evidence became apparent I would then not believe in God but rather know or understand that there was a God, hence no belief. No matter how I dress it up that ability to have faith in something in the absence of some tangible evidence is just not in me, and there's little point in lying or pretending about it. That being said, I would apply the same rules to science and find it difficult to believe that science has the answers because science is constantly changing and disproving and disagreeing with its own conclusions. What you believe one day is wrong the next. Again, science makes bald statements which, on the whole, the general public cannot understand or prove or disprove for themselves (and I've tried reading Stephen Hawkings and it's still clear as mud!) so people are left taking science largely on faith, even though as a system it is supposed to be based on proof.
Either option seems flawed to me - but what I really don't understand is why people feel so strongly about proving their view is right?
Here we go again.
1. Denominations are based on mutual agreements as to what a particular group believes the message of the Bible to be (since any work containing complex ideas is subject to interpretation by the very flexible nature of words themselves). That there are whatever amount of denominations has nothing to do with what the Bible says and everything with how people choose to interpret it.
2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.
Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing.
Which part of this is unclear: the Bible does not claim to be a textbook on the nature of physical reality or our origins. It is a narrative that is concerned first and foremost with the revelation of God's character and his presence in the history of His people. It claims to be nothing more. For you to insist that it stand up to science is absurd. It is not meant to "prove" anything about the earth, the universe or God. For those who believe, it tells us invaluable things about who we are, who God is, who we are meant to be and why the world (the social world primarily) and human nature are the way they are. It was not written as a scientific book. As Bii correctly states above, science and religion both require - to some extent - a degree of faith.
And remember: to the believer, the atheist's dogmatic faith in science can seem just as silly and blind. Each side of the debate believes it is the enlightened side. Facts are persuasive - but they are not ultimate reality.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Actually I misspoke – there are over 34,000 religions, but only about 12,000 christian denominations. IF christianity is the one true religion (a giant IF), then what good is it if everyone is free to interpret it and only one group gets it right? How can I know that it is YOUR group that got it all correct and everyone else is at least slightly off the mark?
No, there is nothing illogical about my statement that there are innumerable religions and denominations and only one science. Science has a lot of branches or disciplines, but so what? Zoologists are not a war with botanists over scriptural disagreements. Astrophysicists do not oppose microbiologist in any way. All of science is of one piece. There is no Baptist chemistry vs. Catholic chemistry, or christian anthropology vs. Muslim anthropology? That would be crazy. I.e., that is the essence of religion – utter disagreement about the basics. There is no disagreement about the naturalistic working assumptions that underlie all of science.
Rather than being illogical, I think you don’t even know what logic is.
Religion is not science and is NOTHING like science. Agreed. Religion is “faith” in things that go bump in the night. Science is “faith” or assumption that what we observe is real and naturalistic and science can only be done under that assumption, and science works or produces based on its reasonable assumption of a naturalistic ontology.
So, let’s keep religion and astrology and crap like that out of science classes – then everyone can be happy.
That doesn’t even make sense. To a Scientologist a christian or a Muslim is a fool. To a christian or Muslim a Scientologist is silly. To a Jew a Mormon is wrong-headed – and the reverse is obviously true.
Atheists have no problem with modern science. The naturalistic assumption is based on reason and observation and a disinterested view and commitment to objectivity. That is how scientists from different countries can verify the findings of each other. Religionists, OTOH, know nothing about anything, and can only have “faith” in their respective narrow, provincial, ethnocentric, narcissistic sectarian belief system – none of which are worth a bucket of warm spit to someone actually interested in understanding the fascinating reality in which we find ourselves.
Religion is just giving up and saying “goddidit”, over and over again, until a normal person just gets sick and throws up.
But this is American and you have your rights. Enjoy them – but you seem to assume e you have some right, some free pass, to avoiding criticism. You don’t.
Thanks Guzman, I appreciate your thorough response, I have not had time to look into it all yet but I do plan on it.
But one thing you did not address for me is that of origin. I know that this is a rather subjective argument, but to me it simply seems more farfetched to believe in a spontaniouse big bang than in a divine creator; I mean which of those takes the greater faith and is there any way to truely, scientificaly back up either one?
Hi Lector,
What about a spontaneous divine creator? At some point, say a gazillion years ago, wouldn't the divine creator need to ... come into existance? I guess I dont see a difference.
Criticism from intelligent, well-spoken, mature critics who thoughtfully consider their opponent's position and question the argument (rather than attack the arguer) with the intention of learning something are welcomed. Diatribes by out-of-control posters with negligible debating skills who attempt to insult, trivialize or mock the position of an opponent with condescension and patronizing attitudes are not; such "arguers" and "arguments" are unworthy of response because they seek not to understand but simply to annihilate.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Posting Permissions
