|
Italics are his comments. I could use some examples for ammunition if needed related to the text that is red:
>you are again trying to prove a point that cannot be proven.
First, let's make sure we both understand what we are debating: I am NOT trying to prove anything. The very nature of faith and religion is such that one cannot prove or disprove god, although I can disprove claims that attempt to mix religion and science.
I disbelieve the concept of god, because I feel that the evidence is not there to support the claim. I also believe the nature of religious faith is such that is does not REQUIRE proof. It is futile for us to go round in circles, trying to prove what is unprovable. I have told you why I do not believe; you have told me why you do.
Furthermore, I do try to show respect to people for their religious beliefs, to the extent that those beliefs do not compel them to harm others, to legislate others' behaviour on the say-so of their religion (rather than on the evidence of demonstrable, quantifiable harm), or to embrace (and spread) pernicious nonsense.
I feel that trying to equate religion to science is the most pernicious of nonsense. They are NOT the same, and they answer different questions. Science answers the "how" of the universe; religion supposes an intent behind it and gives us a "why". Science and religion can peacefully coexist, but not when one tries to masquerade as the other.
>While you certainly have a pretty good grasp of what science tells us, presently,
>it is all based on your faith that these tests that you even admit that you
>haven't performed yourself, are accurate. You rely on someone else's studies
>and evidence as you've seen it laid in the framework of a textbook or
>doctorate. Looking at planets and the universe through a powerful telescope,
>as another example, is hardly the type of hands-on approach you claim needs
>to be used to prove that there is or isn't a God; you are looking at things
>at such a great distance that you cannot even be remotely sure as to what it
>could all mean. Basically, we are both coming in on the same level.
This is a prime example of what I am talking about; to claim that it takes faith (the same kind of faith with which one believes in god) shows a fundamental ignorance of the scientific process and the philosophy by which we understand the physical world.
Let me counter your argument above with an example adapted from something Richard Feynmann (a nobel laureate physicist) said once in a philosophy class as a grad student:
Do you need faith to believe that the interior of a brick exists? You can never actually SEE the inside of a brick; every time you break it open, all you see is a new surface. Yet you can infer the interior from a wide range of observations, and you have confidence that those observations make rational sense. Do you need to run the experiments yourself, or can you take with confidence the body of scientific knowledge that already exists that tells you that the interior of a brick is real?
Trying to render this into a question of whether I can trust all the scientists of the world not to be promulgating a massive practical joke, or whether we can trust our senses in observing the world around us, is merely a tactic to frame the debate around a meaningless philosophical quagmire.
I contend that science and religion are distinct, and the manners in which scientific knowledge and religious faith are passed on are also distinct.
The scientist passes on knowledge in the form of hypotheses and theories which make falsifiable predictions, as well as a body of observational evidence, which is independently and repeatably verifiable, to support those theories. When new evidence surfaces which refutes a theory, the theory is discarded, and a newer, more powerful theory is sought to explain the new evidence. That new theory will make predictions the old one could not, and those predictions are testable.
The passing on of religious faith, however, is not contingent on showing an overwhelming body of evidence. Faith, typically, arises internally, although it is often bolstered by the community. The gnostic theist cannot show to an atheist any objective evidence that cannot be explained by other means. Religion does not make falsifiable predictions; it is not a theory in the scientific sense, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The problem I have is with fundamental religious dogma: "The Bible is the infallible word of God. The Bible says the universe is X. If science uncovers evidence that the universe is not X, then science MUST be wrong."
This dogma requires one to accept the conclusion without, or despite, the evidence. It requires one to filter selectively what evidence science has accumulated, and it requires one to misunderstand the scientific process.
>However, the Bible has never been actually proven wrong.
'Never' is a strong word. I'm sure if I spent some time on Google, I could come up with some specific instances where the Bible was wrong on some point. I have heard (but not investigated myself) that the various timelines in different parts of the bible do not mesh precisely, leading to inconsistancies as glaring as (for example) an individual being recorded as being born at two different times.
>There are many who have tried to show that the Bible is at least in some
>ways incorrect, but they have been continually rebuffed by the evidence.
>Archeology studies found evidence that the Romans did, in fact, crucify
>criminals as punishment, though up until the seventies there were scientists
>(social & historical) claiming that this sort of punishment was too cruel &
>unusual for such a dignified people as the Roman Empire.
I've never heard anybody claim that crucifixion was not practiced at the time of Christ by the romans. I have heard debates on when crucifixion came into being, and when it left popular usage, but the biggest debate I remember was whether nails were driven into the palm of the hand, or into the wrist. A nail driven into the palm would likely tear through the soft flesh between the fingers, whereas a nail driven through the wrist would hold. Then there's the debate over whether nails only were used to affix the victim to the cross (which would require nailing through the wrist), or whether ropes were used, too (which would allow for nailing through the palm).
>Similarly, there
>have been claims that the city of Jericho was a myth made to encourage the
>Jews to continue in their faith. However, the actual foundations of this
>fortress has been discovered, as well. These are obviously just two examples
>of historical evidence that the Bible at least has some truth to it. There
>are quite a few more, however.
I recall reading an article that told of how, at least in some cases, the supporting evidence for biblical accounts is based on only SOME of the total body of archaeological evidence for a site, and that when ALL of the evidence is considered, that account seemed more dubious.
The point I'm making is that by arguing the Bible is never wrong, you're putting yourself into the difficult and unenviable position of always having to defend against evidence that contradicts the Bible. All a detractor needs is one instance when the Bible is wrong to disprove your claim of Biblical infallacy. Often times, the fundamentalist's defense is nothing more, ultimately, than an outright rejection of the evidence, because it contradicts the Bible, and the Bible is never wrong. QED. That is the logical fallacy of 'begging the question', which I mentioned yesterday.
>The problem that I have with your point about science being a continually
>changing study of things is that you don't use the same skeptical eye for
>science.
On the contrary, I believe the problem you have is that I use EXACTLY the same skeptical eye on religion that I use on science. In what way am I, or other scientists, not approaching science with skepticism?
>Science is continually shifting because it's continually finding
>what's wrong with it's previous ideas.
And that is exactly the point of the scientific process; the scientific process makes evidence the prime motivator for theory. As a theory ages, and technology improves, we find new evidence that either contradicts the old theory, or that was not predicted by the old theory. The crowning achievement in the scientific method is the willingness to discard old theories when the evidence suggests they may be wrong or incomplete.
General relativity (GR) is the best description we have for gravity thus far; yet we've already seen some areas where it breaks down, though. No better theory has been put forth to replace it, but we know that it is not entirely correct; it's asymtotically closer to reality, say, than Newton's theory of gravitation, but it's not perfect. For that matter, we still routinely use Newton's theory whever we launch a satellite, or send a probe to another planet; it works admirably well in that regime, and it is much easier to calculate than using GR. We're actively looking for the next theory to replace GR. We are willing to discard a battle-tested theory, no matter how many tests it has passed, because it fails one.
>Instead of seeing that there is a
>design to the universe, most anti-theistic scientists continue to try to
>advance their theories based on non-theistic study and miss the truth of our
>world, entirely.
Again, I think you are "begging the question". The universe is wonderous and complex, yes. The human body is an amazing machine, true. This is the place where science and religion must part company. Science seeks to explain HOW that complexity arose, and it has already done an admirable job of dispelling the darkness. Just two thousand years ago, nearly every physical process was attributed to a mysterious god. Science does not presuppose an intent, nor does it deny an intent. Science says NOTHING about intent. You and I agree that the universe is wonderous and complex. I stop there, and you go further and say it shows intent, design. I cannot refute your claim, and you cannot prove it. Religion seeks to establish a WHY.
There is no need for religion to be threatened by this. Two thousand years ago, men saw a rainbow, and said "god made that happen". In the last few hundred years we learned a lot about the nature of light. We know about the refraction of white light through an optically dense medium. We know about the quantum basis for the interaction of light and matter that leads to the refractive properties of water droplets dispersed in the air. This is HOW the rainbow was made. As for WHY the rainbow was made, the scientist shrugs and says "no reason". The theist can still put divine intent behind that rainbow.
I know many Christians who believe Genesis, but who also believe in the Big Bang, cosmology, and evolution. They believe that these were the tools by which god made the world. They believe it was not as simple as god snapping his fingers and, *poof*, there was man. They accept the explanations science has given us; they just go one step further, and ascribe intent, while science is mute on that point.
>I applaud your faith in our minds and reason, but that's
>all it is, Scott; faith. You claim to have no faith at all, but you fail to
>realize that your faith is in man and the human brain. That is certainly
>where you and I would have to differ.
I still disagree with you that this is faith. I quoted in my last email:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1-3).
And you replied to my quote:
>I love this passage! It is so true!
Yes, it is true. There is plentiful evidence that man, and the human mind, is capable of comprehending the universe. Thus, I do not require faith to believe this. I have confidence; that is a different animal altogether.
>That is also where your lack of a
>defense for moral values comes into play, as well.
This sounds like the opening volley of a new debate. State your thesis more clearly, and we'll open up that can of worms! :-)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
