How do you decide if something is factual?

[tas8831]

That's not actually very hard.

Indeed. From what I have read from evangelicals, the 'literal' parts are the parts that have not yet been shown to be incorrect in some fashion, the metaphorical parts are either those that have been shown to be in error or more likely, those parts that do not fit into a modern day conservative political ideology.

The admonition to love foreigners, for example, is dismissed by many evangelicals today because it goes against their hatred of minorities, and the dismissal is justified by claiming that such admonitions only applied to the ancient Hebrews. Same with caring for the poor and not being greedy.

 

[tas8831]

You say there's no concrete evidence that there is a God...

Where did all this stuff around us come from then?
Did it just poof into existence?

Seems like there's evidence for God to me...

Seems pretty subjection to me.

 

[tas8831]

You need to take another look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity and his use of "frames of reference."

can you explain how that affects the heliocentric nature of the solar system?

 

[Radagast]

The admonition to love foreigners, for example, is dismissed by many evangelicals today

Ironically, I live in Australia. I'm a foreigner. And an evangelical.

 

[Radagast]

can you explain how that affects the heliocentric nature of the solar system?

Basically, Einstein says that heliocentrism isn't "true." You can actually pick any spot in the universe and call it the "centre."

As Dave-W says, however, calling the Sun the centre does give the simplest explanation of solar-system dynamics. In that sense, heliocentrism is "good."

 

[Hidden In Him]

And thus are not "facts." Hence the special pleading - though now that I think about it, it is more likely question begging.

"Pleading" and "begging"....

Actually I'm making statements of faith. I'm a Christian, LoL.

So tell me, are you a believer? If so, do you believe in Heaven and Hell? It sounds like you do not.

 

[Dave-W]

can you explain how that affects the heliocentric nature of the solar system?

It does not. It is just analyzing it from a different perspective.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How about you? How well have your methods worked in the past?

Hmm, when determining what I consider factual, my methodology honestly depends on how important I view the distinction. If I view accuracy on a topic as particularly important, I'll do research myself, as well as look up the research of others (just the latter if it is not feasible for me to perform an experiment).

Usually, when it comes to assessing if a source itself is reliable and likely to contain factual information, I consider the sources it sites, and read if they actually match the claims of the source. If they don't, or are incomplete, then I know this source is not reliable. I only consider articles from scientific journals such as Nature to be reliable as primary sources of scientific information, so a good source should cite at least one such article.

-_- however, if I absolutely don't give a crap about a topic, I usually won't bother debating about it and take someone's word with a grain of salt... or a pile of salt if said person has used unreliable sources in the past.

 

[Papias]

I use a set of Boolean standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

I appreciate the clarity.

At the same time, I have to point out that you don't actually appear to follow these.

For instance,

• Gen 1:17 clearly says that the moon is held up because God set it in the hard dome of the firmament. Science says it is held up by gravity. Do you reject gravity?
• Dozens of verses describe diseases being caused by demons. Science says diseases are caused by germs, etc. Do you reject germs as existing? Do you refuse to go to the doctor?
• Gen 30 says that traits are caused by what is visible during sex. Science says traits are due to DNA. Do you reject the idea of DNA?
• dozens of verses describe a flat earth, under a hard dome, with the small sun, stars and moon inside the dome. Science says we live on globe going around the sun. Are you a flat earther, like the growing number of other Christians who are rejecting a round earth based on what their Bibles say?
• Ps 139 clearly states that babies are formed by knitting, while science says it is by cell division. Do you claim that babies are formed by knitting?

I think that in all these cases and others, it's not so much what the Bibles actually say, as what the person considers socially acceptable among other Christians. In the case of evolution, it's still socially acceptable (even required) among many Christian circles do deny the metaphorical nature of Genesis 1 and reject the evidence showing evolution. This is especially odd since those same people simultaneously say that Gen 1:17 is not literal when discussing what holds the moon up (gravity?), yet that is literal when discussing creationism.

There are plenty of clearly metaphorical and allegorical verses here (especially Gen 1), and it seems to me that it's local social acceptance that determines what science will be rejected more than what the scripture actually says.

In Christ -
Papias

 

[GosDontez]

It was just a matter of time before this became a semantic argument. But isn't that the point?

What is a fact?
How do you define, fact?
How did first "learn" what a fact is? By asking someone or by reading the definitions (Which, according to Dictionary.com, there are 8 of them.)

When it comes down to it, it's all gonna come down to what we choose to believe.

The varying opinions and replies to this post (dare I say?) proves this.

 

[Halbhh]

Between the Creationists and the Evolutionist (I hate to use that particular word, but...), there is a clear difference between what they consider to be factual. One group believes that some sort of creationism is factual, and the other group accepts the scientific account of the formation of the earth and the development of life as factual.

In this thread, I'd like to discuss how we reach our conclusions as to what is factual or not. Not to debate on whether creationism or evolution is factual, but how we arrive at our conclusions as to what is factual.

My own preference is to take a belief I have and put it to the test. If I keep testing an idea and trying to prove it wrong, but every attempt to prove it wrong fails, then I consider that idea to be more and more factual.

How about you? How well have your methods worked in the past?

For every kind of subject where you don't have direct observation, the best way to get real facts is to find independent sites that are only presenting facts and not any theories which would color or cause them to filter their information.

You want sites that are not only neutral, but all about information and facts, and that are agnostic towards all theories.

This reduces confirmation bias.

Then best is to find independent such sites and compare their information.

Now about the particular subject of how old the Earth is, my degree is in Engineering Physics, and it's trivially easy for me to understand the reality of radioactive half lives and what is calibration, and margins of error and such, and those are not even slightly esoteric to me in any way, so it's merely a highly confirmed estimation from multiple independent datings of such as moon rocks and meteorites that show the Earth must be about 4.55 bn years old, and those are straightforward and clear, like measuring the length of a year and the distance to the sun, and calculating mass of the Earth or Sun, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You say there's no concrete evidence that there is a God...

Where did all this stuff around us come from then?
Did it just poof into existence?

Seems like there's evidence for God to me...

True, but it's equally good evidence for a potentially infinite number of ideas for where 'all this stuff' came from - including all the other origin myths, and ideas based on successful scientific theory.

Which raises the question: why this particular myth idea and not another? One assumes the choice wasn't random... or was it not a choice, but chance - being born into a particular culture ?

 

[Aman777]

Between the Creationists and the Evolutionist (I hate to use that particular word, but...), there is a clear difference between what they consider to be factual. One group believes that some sort of creationism is factual, and the other group accepts the scientific account of the formation of the earth and the development of life as factual.

The BEST way is to find the agreement of Scripture, Science and History. When you find this agreement, it is really hard for someone to refute what you have found. There are many Evolutionists here who cannot refute that Fact, but they never cease to try. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Discussions concerning God are matters of faith, but none are provable. Most of whats said, although not provable, doesnt mean it doesn't exist. But it certainly means theres no evidence.

False, since it is really easy to see the evidence God left in the FIRST chapter of the Bible. God's Truth reveals that we live in a Multiverse, that ALL living creatures were created and brought forth from Water. The problem is with one's interpretation, which can ONLY be correct IF seen through the increased knowledge of the last days. Daniel 12:3 The ancient traditional Religious view is easily refuted Scripturally. Amen?

 

[Loudmouth]

Basically, Einstein says that heliocentrism isn't "true." You can actually pick any spot in the universe and call it the "centre."

That's not true, either. In Heliocentrism, the Sun should be on or very close the barycenter of the Sun/Earth system. That is exactly what relativity shows.

 

[GosDontez]

Well one thing is factual. There are a whole lotta judges in this thread.

Judges on what's true.
Judges on what's false.

Judges, judges, and more judges.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well one thing is factual. There are a whole lotta judges in this thread.

Judges on what's true.
Judges on what's false.

Judges, judges, and more judges.

Reality is the only judge of what is real.

 

[hedrick]

I understand your problem. It’s easy to come up with arguments that look scientific even for the most absurd things. You ought to look at a flat-earth site sometime. They have the most amazingly scientific arguments for their view. Now if you know astronomy you can tell that they’re bunk, but not everyone may be able to do that.

So you’re confronted by apparently reasonable arguments in both directions. I can tell all the arguments for evolution, that we see it every day, but there are apparently scientific responses, which you may not be able to tell are bunk. If you investigate long enough, you can eventually tell the difference, but that’s hard.

However I think if you look over history at how ideas develop, it’s pretty obvious when people come to new views because of new evidence, and when they’re making things up to defend traditional views that they don’t want to change.

Also, people who are just holding on to traditional views eventually end up with conspiracy theory. All the biology departments are engaged in a grand conspiracy to defend atheism.

For many Christians, the problem is that if you accept evolution, you end up rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture. In theory there are ways to reconcile them, but in the long run they don’t work out well.

Now first, I think we should be committed to follow evidence. If I saw good evidence that Christianity was wrong, I’d abandon it. I wouldn’t come up with bogus arguments to reject the evidence. In my opinion if you’re not willing to pay attention to evidence, you’re rejecting truth. That is, if you’re not willing to abandon Christianity if it’s wrong, I claim you don’t really believe it’s true. It’s just a belief you like.

But in fact we don’t have to give up Christianity. Suppose the Bible is simply a book written by humans to describe their experiences with God. We’ve still got God guiding Israel, and the prophets coming to judge it. We’ve still got Jesus’ teachings, and his death and resurrection. It’s just that we have them in the form of humans telling us what they’ve seen, with different books written from different (and to a certain extent contradictory) viewpoints. But humans are used to this. We believe everything else in our lives based on imperfect evidence. But we may have to give up a few ideas, like a 6 day creation and probably even the exodus as described, and we may have to be a bit more careful in our theology, taking into account that there are varying views expressed, and we have to assess each of them. But there are fine Christians who take this approach.

 

[lesliedellow]

Feel free to take the question as "factual for ourselves" rather than "objectively true for everyone."

I'm asking how individual people decide for themselves what is true and what isn't true.

1.) Your husband tells you something he witnessed, and on the basis of trust, you would probably believe him.
2.) You hear that there is near unanimity amongst biologists regarding evolution, and, although not a biologist yourself, you assume that there must be a basis for that unanimity.
3.) You are on a jury, and conclude that enough evidence has been presented for you to conclude the defendant really did rob the bank.
4.) You witness something with your own two eyes, and are disinclined to believe it was an illusion.

That list could probably added to. In other words, there is no one way of deciding whether or not something is factual.

 

[Kylie]

Oh! Ok... but my answer would still be largely the same. I get subjective, just like everyone else on the planet.

My sincerest apologies, Kyrie. Maybe I shouldn't have even responded to this thread. It's just that I see constant debating even among Christians on a whole variety of different topics, and at some point you just sit back and wonder if it isn't all a waste of time. Most still end up believing whatever they want to believe until nearly forced to believe something different, and even then they'll often refuse to back off of their original position.

Do you feel there is a way to decide what is factual without being subjective in some way? I'm honestly asking.

Like I said, I like to pout things to the test.

For example, if I want to see if a flame under a pot of water will make the water heat up, I can test that. I can place limits on the variables and I can measure the results. I can get other people to copy my tests, and I can get them to make up their own tests. And if all the tests made in different ways by different people at different times indicate that fire heats up water in a pot in a predictable way - it heats up at such and such a rate when the fire is this particular size - then I can conclude that my results are fairly accurate, and that the results I am seeing are a result of being a part of reality, and not some biased viewpoint that is unique to me.