At times like this...

[Speedwell]

You hit upon why I find it a difficult word to use in this setting. "Truth" carries far to much baggage and ambiguity to really be useful in a discussion like this. Most especially since it is something we can only approach asymptotically as the limited beings we are. Knowledge is a much more concrete and useful phrase I think. Especially since, as I stated, I am not sure that is what people are seeking in a religious context.

The best analogy I can come up with at short notice would be the appreciation of art. Not by the empirical methods of an art historian or a forgery detective--that would be analogous to "science" in this context--but of viewing the work of art for the sensory and emotional experience it provides. Think of Psalms 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Creationists often use this verse as a proof-text for the existence of God, but that is not what it is. It's an attempt to describe the religious experience. That is the "knowing" of religious faith.

 

[Belk]

I think I need a better phrase for what I was describing. I'm not sure 'knowledge' works either, as knowledge of incorrect things is still knowledge. 'correct understanding of the world'?

This still seems problematic though. How can any of us claim a "correct understanding" and how would we know that Religion does not provide it? Do not get me wrong I do not think religion does provide such, but I have a hard time making an absolute claim. It is more in the matter of a personal opinion. I am knowledgeable enough to limited I am.

 

[Belk]

The best analogy I can come up with at short notice would be the appreciation of art. Not by the empirical methods of an art historian or a forgery detective--that would be analogous to "science" in this context--but of viewing the work of art for the sensory and emotional experience it provides. Think of Psalms 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Creationists often use this verse as a proof-text for the existence of God, but that is not what it is. It's an attempt to describe the religious experience. That is the "knowing" of religious faith.

A very good analogy I would say. Admittedly, this is coming from someone who is not religious. Large amounts of salt should be involved.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

This still seems problematic though. How can any of us claim a "correct understanding" and how would we know that Religion does not provide it? Do not get me wrong I do not think religion does provide such, but I have a hard time making an absolute claim. It is more in the matter of a personal opinion. I am knowledgeable enough to limited I am.

If we have a correct understanding of the world, then this understanding will allow us to make predictions about the world which can be verifiied as accurate or not. That is not a matter of opinion but an objective way of verifying the understanding.

 

[Belk]

If we have a correct understanding of the world, then this understanding will allow us to make predictions about the world which can be verifiied as accurate or not. That is not a matter of opinion but an objective way of verifying the understanding.

Which is all well and good for the more concrete aspects of life. If I want to know the erosion rate on a hillside it does a bang up job. Helping me to deal with ancient questions of why I am here and what this whole wide wonderful universe is about are a bit more esoteric.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Which is all well and good for the more concrete aspects of life. If I want to know the erosion rate on a hillside it does a bang up job. Helping me to deal with ancient questions of why I am here and what this whole wide wonderful universe is about are a bit more esoteric.

You have to ask reasonable questions too. What does it mean to ask 'what tthis whole wide wonderful universe is about'? Questions liike that and 'why am I here' are ambiguous, and you might get told that the answer is 42.

Asking for some inner truth as to why you are there presupposes that there is actually a truth to be found. Compared the boring but in my opinion much more likely answer that life and evolution resulting in you exiisting (e.g.) is just a simple consequence of the physical environmentt and laws.

 

[Gottservant]

We can immunize against Covid 19 even if creation was not true. There are many scientists hard at work on a vaccine as we speak.

But you are expecting the immunization to function, on the basis of predictable COVID behaviour?

 

[Kylie]

But you are expecting the immunization to function, on the basis of predictable COVID behaviour?

We understand how viruses work, we understand how the immune system works and we understand how immuniosation works. Do you have any reason to think that these things will work differently in the case of Covid 19?

 

[Gottservant]

We understand how viruses work, we understand how the immune system works and we understand how immuniosation works. Do you have any reason to think that these things will work differently in the case of Covid 19?

I expect that COVID, will act like COVID.

I don't expect COVID to change into a radically stronger virus.

You can't have your cake and eat it too: either we are supposed to develop an immunity or we are not?

Evolution doesn't promise anything?

 

[Kylie]

I expect that COVID, will act like COVID.

I don't expect COVID to change into a radically stronger virus.

You can't have your cake and eat it too: either we are supposed to develop an immunity or we are not?

Evolution doesn't promise anything?

What are you talking about?

Indications are that Covid doesn't mutate that rapidly, so it's not likely to change into something more virulent. It's entirely possible for us to develop an immunity. Indications are that people who have been infected and since recovered are immune to it.

 

[Gottservant]

What are you talking about?

Indications are that Covid doesn't mutate that rapidly, so it's not likely to change into something more virulent. It's entirely possible for us to develop an immunity. Indications are that people who have been infected and since recovered are immune to it.

Yes, but people fundamentally do not get better, hoping that COVID will evolve into something else: they have an immunity now - if Evolution messed with that, it would be disastrous!

 

[Kylie]

Yes, but people fundamentally do not get better, hoping that COVID will evolve into something else: they have an immunity now - if Evolution messed with that, it would be disastrous!

Once again, you appear to completely misunderstand what evolution is.

• A person gets infected by a virus.
• Their body reacts to that virus and eventually forms antibodies that can destroy the virus.
• If the person is infected by that virus again, their body can produce the antibodies again, and the virus is quickly killed. This is called "having an immunity to the virus."
• If the virus has mutated and/or evolved into something else, then the person will not have an immunity to the new version.

There is nothing here that invalidates evolution or our scientific understanding.

 

[Gottservant]

Once again, you appear to completely misunderstand what evolution is.

A person gets infected by a virus.
Their body reacts to that virus and eventually forms antibodies that can destroy the virus.
If the person is infected by that virus again, their body can produce the antibodies again, and the virus is quickly killed. This is called "having an immunity to the virus."
If the virus has mutated and/or evolved into something else, then the person will not have an immunity to the new version.
There is nothing here that invalidates evolution or our scientific understanding.

But you said it yourself "Evolution permits the virus to try again"

You are cheering on, the enemy.

If Evolution permitted the immunity to evolve, you would have the problem that the virus could call the bluff.

Within one simple step, someone who believes in Creation can refute the virus as "abject to design". Abject, an immunity can be developed. An immunity developed, the immunization can be translated to other Immunol variations, that maintain a focus on that abjection. Without design, you would not know what the range of those immunol variations ought to be.

Still think the virus might encourage productive mutations? You're not fooling me! I'm not interested in getting in a "Evolution war" with a virus, I want the virus to heed my immunol response, period (so I will ramp up the intensity of my immunol system, until I get it).

 

[Kylie]

But you said it yourself "Evolution permits the virus to try again"

You are cheering on, the enemy.

If Evolution permitted the immunity to evolve, you would have the problem that the virus could call the bluff.

Within one simple step, someone who believes in Creation can refute the virus as "abject to design". Abject, an immunity can be developed. An immunity developed, the immunization can be translated to other Immunol variations, that maintain a focus on that abjection. Without design, you would not know what the range of those immunol variations ought to be.

Still think the virus might encourage productive mutations? You're not fooling me! I'm not interested in getting in a "Evolution war" with a virus, I want the virus to heed my immunol response, period (so I will ramp up the intensity of my immunol system, until I get it).

Yeah, you are lacking a proper understanding here.

The virus may attempt to reinfect someone who has developed an immunity after being previously infected. But that's because the virus has no way to know who has been infected previously. The virus just tries to infect everyone it can. The fact that some of those people have immunity doesn't change that. The virus has no conscious though and makes no decisions. It's simply been programmed by evolution to do certain things, and those things result in people getting infected unless those people have some defense.

One person fighting off an infection doesn't create a magical shield around them that stops the virus from ever entering their body again. It just means that their body can quickly fight it off the next time.

 

[Gottservant]

It's evolved when it suits you, that's all you seem to be saying.
It's a bug, it doesn't suit you; it's an adaptation, it suits you.
I hate to break it to you, but that's not formal science at all.

If you had said "I welcome disease", that would have been consistent with your ideology, that mutations are good things.

There is no eigenution (set of links) that can compromise an entire category (of species); you should have had courage that design could encompass both being and diseasing - but you are busy excepting yourself from the need to think about it. Sorry, but that's not are survival strategy I can defend.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you had said "I welcome disease", that would have been consistent with your ideology, that mutations are good things.

For the 320th time:

• No one has claimed that mutations are good things. Suggesting they have is a strawman argument.
• Many have claimed, with justification and evidence, that mutations can be good, bad, or indifferent.
• Good is meaningless as an absolute description of a mutation. All we can say - and that is quite a lot - is that the mutation is good for members of this population of organisms that carry it, in the current environment.
  
• The same mutation may be bad for members of other populations of organisms that share that environment, since it may make the population that has the mutation into better predators, or prey that is more adept at escaping predation, etc. From the point of view of that other population it is a bad mutation.
  
• Then the environment changes and all bets are off.

Please don't make a 321st reminder necessary. It is foolish and discourteous to ignore what you are continually being told.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It's evolved when it suits you, that's all you seem to be saying.
It's a bug, it doesn't suit you; it's an adaptation, it suits you.
I hate to break it to you, but that's not formal science at all.

If you had said "I welcome disease", that would have been consistent with your ideology, that mutations are good things.

There is no eigenution (set of links) that can compromise an entire category (of species); you should have had courage that design could encompass both being and diseasing - but you are busy excepting yourself from the need to think about it. Sorry, but that's not are survival strategy I can defend.

Can you please provide a link to a definition of "eigenution".

Thank you.

 

[Kylie]

It's evolved when it suits you, that's all you seem to be saying.
It's a bug, it doesn't suit you; it's an adaptation, it suits you.
I hate to break it to you, but that's not formal science at all.

If you had said "I welcome disease", that would have been consistent with your ideology, that mutations are good things.

There is no eigenution (set of links) that can compromise an entire category (of species); you should have had courage that design could encompass both being and diseasing - but you are busy excepting yourself from the need to think about it. Sorry, but that's not are survival strategy I can defend.

I don't know what you are talking about, but it has nothing to do with anything I've ever said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because the existence of God is not something that can be empirically proven, any testable hypothesis assumes there is no God, which affects the interpretation of any and all data collected to support that hypothesis.

Well, no. Not making an assumption of God (or any other hypothesis for which there is no substantive evidence) is not assuming that there is no God (or any other hypothesis for which there is no substantive evidence), it is simply acknowledging that we can only make inferential models using the data that is available.

If there was some evidential basis for interpreting the data differently (e.g. under a God assumption), then the data could be interpreted differently. Until then, it seems entirely reasonable not to make assumptions about hypothetical contributions for which we have no evidence, whether it's an ill-defined God hypothesis or the hypothesis that white mice are hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who created the Earth in search of the ultimate question.