For RichardT: why creationism is harmful

[AV1611VET]

What about atheist scientist?

That's two words ---

 

[Naraoia]

That's two words ---

Aaaaargh But nobody's gonna tell you off for using it

 

[AV1611VET]

Aaaaargh But nobody's gonna tell you off for using it

It is kinda condescending --- I may not use it --- but I hate having to differentiate and, quite frankly, don't know what to do.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Because there's people like you out there, TSI (and I say this respectfully), who need to be educated.

People ask, "Why don't we just disappear to Heaven when we get saved?"

"Why does God leave us here?"

And the answer, of course, is because He wants us to go and tell the good news of His death, burial, and resurrection.

I'm not implying you're not saved, I'm implying you need to convey the right message.

[bible]2 Timothy 3:16[/bible]

is there a pot calling the kettle black award??

 

[Naraoia]

It is kinda condescending --- I may not use it --- but I hate having to differentiate and, quite frankly, don't know what to do.

Why on earth would it be condescending? I'd take "atheist" as an accurate and completely neutral description of my worldview, and "scientist" as a compliment (though the latter isn't applicable to me yet). I don't think the people who fall under this term would find it condescending - of course, unless you obviously mean it to be so.

You may hate to differentiate, but it's still better to differentiate than make untrue claims based on a false generalisation.

 

[Vene]

Why on earth would it be condescending? I'd take "atheist" as an accurate and completely neutral description of my worldview, and "scientist" as a compliment (though the latter isn't applicable to me yet). I don't think the people who fall under this term would find it condescending - of course, unless you obviously mean it to be so.

You may hate to differentiate, but it's still better to differentiate than make untrue claims based on a false generalisation.

I'm with her, Godless is only an insult to the theist. It is no more insulting to call an atheist an atheist than it is to call a Christian a Christian.

As far as scientist goes, I think that all who study with the scientific method can be called a scientist, even if that individual isn't paid. But that's just me

 

[Naraoia]

As far as scientist goes, I think that all who study with the scientific method can be called a scientist, even if that individual isn't paid. But that's just me

I wasn't talking about payment, though. I only started my higher education a year ago. You can call me an apprentice scientist if you will As an undergrad student I still do most of my studying listening to lectures and reading textbooks and articles. Not quite the Method yet

 

[AV1611VET]

I wasn't talking about payment, though. I only started my higher education a year ago. You can call me an apprentice scientist if you will As an undergrad student I still do most of my studying listening to lectures and reading textbooks and articles. Not quite the Method yet

HERE is an oldie I used to use a lot.

 

[Vene]

HERE is an oldie I used to use a lot.

This is true, but the process of setting up an experiment with a control and a single variable is pretty commonplace. Direct observation is still knowledge and there is no reason to disregard it either. Basically, use whatever methodology that you can to explain the world, just be prepared to defend why you did what you did.

 

[theFijian]

but I hate having to differentiate and, quite frankly, don't know what to do.

Start by not bearing false witness.

 

[Aggie]

I totally disagree. If nature alone is good enough, why the need for Scripture in the first place? Surely you're not suggesting that these authors died for nothing?

I have to believe that the Apostles were obedient to the Great Commission, even coming to America to spread the Gospel.

(They would even have gone to Antarctica if it would have been inhabited at the time.)

I think they most likely obeyed it to the best of their ability, but I’m doubtful about whether first-century Isrealites would have been capable of making a journey all the way around the lower end of Africa, through the Indian Ocean to Australia. Ferdinand Magellan only barely managed a voyage like this in the 15th century.

I’m going to leave this idea for someone here who’s familiar with archaeology to address, since I’m sure there are people here who are more knowledgeable about it than I am.

But just as I can misinterpret the Bible, I can misinterpret nature as well.

Yes, I already pointed this out myself. Both the Bible and the physical world require the use of our senses in order to gain information from them, as well as the use of logic in order to interpret that information. However, gaining information about the world from the Bible requires a few additional assumptions that aren’t necessary for direct observations. For example, you also need to be sure that of all the dozen or so books that claim to be the word of God, the Bible is the one for which this claim is actually true.

How do you know that this is true of the Bible, and not some other religious text? You haven’t answered my question about that. If the answer is that you can observe and deduce things from the rest of the world that show the Bible to be a reliable source of information, then you’re showing that trusting the information you gain by observing the physical world is a prerequisite for trusting the Bible. In that case, how is it that when the physical world and the Bible appear to contradict each other, you attach more authority to what the Bible says?

Do you see why this is a flawed way of thinking? It would be like letting the contents of a book you’re reading convince you that you are unable to read. When a certain mental process is a requirement to understand something, that understanding can never take precedence over the mental process that’s necessary in order to have it.

Science is always "correcting" last year's misinterpretations of nature.

You seem to think that what I’m saying here is something like, “we should blindly believe whatever science currently teaches.” There are probably some people who have this attitude, but I don’t. I’ve mentioned before that I used to be a creationist, and that I accepted evolution only based on my own observations about the world. There are also a few theories that I’m still skeptical of even though they’re part of science, such as String Theory.

All I’m intending to say is that when we select our beliefs, it shouldn’t be possible for anything to be a more reliable source of information than our physical observations. Since science operates by this same principle, most of the time choosing your beliefs in this fashion will lead you to believe the same thing that’s taught by science. It isn’t possible to know everything this way, especially about areas of study in which humans don’t have a lot of information, so what’s taught by science occasionally changes as people learn things they hadn’t known before. But for the reasons I’ve mentioned, this is still the most reliable way of learning about the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Start by not bearing false witness.

How's this for bearing false witness?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think they most likely obeyed it to the best of their ability, but I’m doubtful about whether first-century Isrealites would have been capable of making a journey all the way around the lower end of Africa, through the Indian Ocean to Australia. Ferdinand Magellan only barely managed a voyage like this in the 15th century.

Your empiricism is getting in the way:

[bible]Acts 8:39-40[/bible]

I’m going to leave this idea for someone here who’s familiar with archaeology to address, since I’m sure there are people here who are more knowledgeable about it than I am.

Forget the archaeologists, they weren't there. Go with the One Who was ---

[bible]Acts 8:39-40[/bible]

Yes, I already pointed this out myself. Both the Bible and the physical world require the use of our senses in order to gain information from them, as well as the use of logic in order to interpret that information.

Where does the Author come in?

However, gaining information about the world from the Bible requires a few additional assumptions that aren’t necessary for direct observations. For example, you also need to be sure that of all the dozen or so books that claim to be the word of God, the Bible is the one for which this claim is actually true.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but may I suggest you hurry up. You sound like an intelligent man.

How do you know that this is true of the Bible, and not some other religious text?

I could go on and on about preservation, following, etc., but my favorite piece of evidence is simply the prophecies.

Israel's history --- written in advance --- fulfilled with 100% accuracy.

You haven’t answered my question about that. If the answer is that you can observe and deduce things from the rest of the world that show the Bible to be a reliable source of information, then you’re showing that trusting the information you gain by observing the physical world is a prerequisite for trusting the Bible.

How would you equate what happened in the physical world in 1948 with what Amos wrote from the spiritual world in 9:15?

In that case, how is it that when the physical world and the Bible appear to contradict each other, you attach more authority to what the Bible says?

Because when the physical world and the Bible don't contradict each other, the Bible is right on the money --- with 100% accuracy.

When a certain mental process is a requirement to understand something, that understanding can never take precedence over the mental process that’s necessary in order to have it.

Again, mental processes can deceive you.

[bible]Romans 12:2[/bible]
[bible]2 Corinthians 10:4[/bible]
[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

This reminds me of the story of Naaman, who didn't want to wash in the Jordan River because he saw it as too dirty.

[bible]2 Kings 5:9-14[/bible]

Or the wake-up call that Nebuchadnezzar got.

[bible]Daniel 3:24-25[/bible]

 

[Chalnoth]

Your empiricism is getting in the way:

That's not possible. Might as well say your intelligence is getting in the way of you learning mathematics.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's not possible. Might as well say your intelligence is getting in the way of you learning mathematics.

And intelligence has never gotten in the way of anything except religion.

 

[Vene]

How's this for bearing false witness?

Even bad science is better than dogma. For example, Lamarckian Evolution was a hypothesis to describe how species change over time. His idea was that as a creature strains to do something it's offspring will gain these traits. It's wrong, but allows for speciation, unlike a certain holy book. Even if it was based on a flawed premise it lead the way for greater development in biology.

 

[Chalnoth]

How's this for bearing false witness?

That writer seems to be very good at it. Many of those are either misrepresentations of outright falsehoods.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even bad science is better than dogma.

So long as he knows that the finger he pointed at me had three pointing back.

 

[AV1611VET]

That writer seems to be very good at it. Many of those are either misrepresentations of outright falsehoods.

Oh, of course!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Even bad science is better than dogma. For example, Lamarckian Evolution was a hypothesis to describe how species change over time. His idea was that as a creature strains to do something it's offspring will gain these traits. It's wrong, but allows for speciation, unlike a certain holy book. Even if it was based on a flawed premise it lead the way for greater development in biology.

And like any other science, it at least allows for people to try to prove it wrong. They did, and in so doing, discovered the right answer.