To be honest, if a theist were to simply state that belief is an act of pure faith, I don't really have any problems with that. I am not a theist, but that would be more honest.
I'm sure that would be very convenient, but belief in the existence of pyramid builders is faith.
The problem for me is when theists try to provide rational, empirical justifications for belief - in other words, to suggest there is ultimately a science that undergirds a belief in a god.
The fields overlap. This is simply a way of asking for phenomena which doesn't belong to you to be handed over.
It is problematic because, simply put, no one has provided a compelling argument using science to show simply that there is strong evidence for the existence of a god.
To show "strong evidence" for God in materialism it has to point to purely naturalistic unintelligent processes since anything which does not, is (strong) evidence for future naturalistic processes.
Intelligent design, for example, does a great job of collecting data that has come by centuries of observation but concludes, basically, that all of this would be impossible without an intelligent designer. I can respect that sentiment. But it means nothing without first proving the existence of such a god.
No it doesn't. A complex structure built 750 million years ago is evidence for a designer. Further, any evidence which points to god is deemed to be evidence for future purely naturalistic processes and evidence other than which is currently displayed is required. The process continues to repeat itself.
The big leap of faith in intelligent design isn't accepting the data that already exists - that does not necessarily require faith. The big leap of faith is to assert it must be an intelligent creator god that designed all of this.
Intelligent Design does not identify the designer. That's another field. It's as much of a leap of faith as identifying the designer of the great pyramid. With phenomena in it's varied forms, there is the obvious (light) and then there are the discoveries it furnishes (the nature of light, the speed of light, the travel of light through a vacuum). When dealing with God, there is the obvious (Man only one example) and then there are the mysteries and discoveries (the full nature of man, his relationship to the material etc). What materialism has grown into is so easily refuted it's not even funny. Some people might even think that there is some sort of catch, or that it cannot be that easy. Equivocating materialism with intelligence it is made even more suspicious, but the material mind and its will has no favorites or preferences and yes, it's that easy.
Why? Being redundant here - no one has scientifically proven the existence of a god.
To show evidence for God through physical science it has to be purely physical and point to the non-physical at the same time. Otherwise, it is what "we don't know".
All ID does, ultimately, is to take data and then say that all we do not understand about origins points to [G]od's hand.
It's not what we don't understand but what we do understand and discover. There are no purely naturalistic unintelligent processes capable of building these structures anyway. Intelligent Design does not identify the designer and the assumption that an understanding of man can only be derived from physical science is through assuming that it is the future possession for purely naturalistic processes.
But that argument works ONLY when one first assumes the existence of a god.
Intelligent Design does not identify the designer but the argument is conveniently pulled towards metaphysics in order to assert that it does not utilize physical data. Man, standing as what may be termed an "ancient artifact" is subject to inquiry based on intelligent design. The same for the great pyramid, pottery, stone tools, weapons, other buildings and everything else historical. The only problem is Intelligent Design is pre-ruled out from the scene and can conduct no investigations when it comes to man. A fearful gesture at best, but since the approval of materialists was never needed in the first place it is conducted anyways and has confirmed intelligent design.
Science and creationism work in reverse - which is why science will always cast doubt on faith (until the existence of a god is actually proven). Science remains open to being wrong and continually revises the models and theories it employs with new discovery (as a whole - stubborn people are stubborn people regardless of background). But the "assumptions" made in science are based on observed data and facts.
Rather than being late outgrowths through a material process, man is deemed as being a part of the beginning through creationism. Since the beginning is ultimately the end, and physical science is working its way to the end, it will always stumble upon where man has already been. Religion is through the loss of faculties, not the generation of theories since theories based on origins are made relevant through time's subjugation of man's current endowments. Historical science, which deals with origins using present data, will always base its assumptions and conclusions on physical processes since it is physical science. Further, they will always come in contact with historical artifacts such as man, texts etc and try to present theories where the use of historical texts is only as a template for the implications which are to be avoided in analyzing history. The preceding was creationism (which uses the work done in intelligent design) and not intelligent design.
The "assumptions" made in science are not at all like the assumptions made in faith.
The assumptions made in physical science regarding phenomena which lies outside its scope are faith based.
Scientific theories are not equally based on they same sort of speculations as faith - not at all. Religion relies ultimately on pure faith to assert that there is a god
As much of a faith as it requires to assert that there are pyramid builders. Materialism in this day and age has become so fixated and hardened that now, instead of being a philosophy that rebels against the doctrines handed down by pyramid builders, they now attempt to eradicate their existence altogether. That's going to be a problem since driven by pure emotion, the task taken up has not become entirely clear.
and then to go on and try and prove things like the veracity of scripture (and in the case of Christianity - creationism). At the risk of sounding flippant here (which is not my intent) the following argumentative loop does not work in a scientific arena:
Historical texts will not be laid aside. Not for a materialism.
1. The complexity we see has to point to an intelligent designer.
2. That designer is God.
3. I know God exists and that God created the universe because the scriptures tell us God exists and that God created the universe.
4. I know the scriptures are true because God gave us the scriptures.
5. God would not lie.
6. I know God would not lie because the scriptures tell us God would not lie.
7. The scriptures cannot lie because God gave them to us.
Intelligent design does not identify the designer. From 2 and on you jumped into aspects of metaphysics. You have the property of intelligence available through physical means as it overlaps. And you have physical man. You are asked for a purely naturalistic unintelligent process which is capable of building the integrated complexity found in man.
Please don't get me wrong - my point here is not to ridicule or dismantle faith.
With what? What exactly do you have which shows that man can arise through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes?
I just think it is hilarious when people try and combine the two into some theory of everything.
The fields inevitably overlap.
At this point in time, science cannot with any integrity employ theism to add to theory.
Intelligent Design does not identify the designer, so the implications bearing in on you personally has nothing to do with what is being outlined objectively. Historical science, which does employ the investigation of artifacts for intelligent causes, does identify the designer only if it is physical or has purely physical implications. Otherwise it cannot be evidence for the supernatural since it first does not have to point to future purely naturalistic processes.
The assumption there (that god must exist) has no evidence that has the same value as scientific observation.
As much of an assumption as the earth's magnetic field exists and the needle is evidence for the magnetic field. But of course you would have to read up on the properties of magnetism and it's relationship to the corresponding components within a compass. All this can be negated however since the prior assumption of magnetic fields is all that determines that magnetic fields exist and as a visibleist, there is no evidence for invisible magnetic fields.
Which is why I think creationists should keep their views to the church and home.
I'm sure that would make you happy. Bow down in fear and reverence and allow you what does not belong to you. Where it overlaps, it will be highlighted.
Hey - prove the existence of a god and I might return to "faith" although it would no longer be an issue of faith.
You're a materialist. Any evidence extends into infinity as future physical evidence. And it would still be an issue of faith. I have faith in pyramid builders simply because I am not an apyramidbuildersist. And the great pyramid is not evidence for future naturalistic processes. To deem that there is no evidence for pyramid builders is not the removal of the great pyramid or any naturalistic unintelligent process giving rise to it, but because I have a vendetta, and new commitment. It is not the availability of evidence that varies, but materialism overcoming the mind of the subject.
