"Faith in facts"

[lucaspa]

drich0150 started a discussion in another thread that was closed -- http://www.christianforums.com/t7521629-10/#post56457636. I wish to start it up here because drich0150 has an interesting twist to the old creationist argument that "evolution and science are just as much faith as creationism". Drich0150 has what he calls "faith in facts".

His view is that any conclusion or methodology about the past, including the age of the past, before human written history is "faith". I had noted that even written human history is not 100% reliable. The example we were using was a human author in the past claiming "a boat was built" in such and such a year. I pointed out that we could use C14 dating as an independent means of checking on the author's statement and increasing the reliability of the human account.

Me:
You weren't using anything outside what the author said. I notice that you don't mind using C14 dating to get the age of a boat. Don't you find that ironic? You accept the decay rate of C14 to "verify" a historical account, but discard that very same decay rate when you don't want it to be reliable? Have you ever heard of Special Pleading?

All quotes after this are from drich1050:

I simply used c14 and the historical reference point to demonstrate that in these two instances the evidence supports itself. but at the same time I was also pointing to the fact that there are no earlier instances where c14 and the historical record intersect. There by creating the condition of "Faith" that i have referred to since my 1st post..

First, what happens if the C14 dating and the historical document contradict? (as has happened) Which date do you consider more reliable? And why?

Second, if C14 dating is reliable when checked with historical documents, why isn't it still reliable when applied to samples before historical documents? Why does it lose its reliability.

Third, I did point out a way where we have "two instances" in which "the evidence supports itself". That is correlating C14 dating of air trapped in pocket of glacier ice with the counting of the annual layers of that ice. So if the layers say the pocket of air was formed 20,000 years ago and the C14 in the CO2 in the air in that pocket dates to 20,000 years ago, you have the same type of support that you have when you have a human historical document correlating with C14 dating.

lucaspa:

The reason you "refuse to believe either" is because you are making ad hoc hypotheses to avoid having YEC falsified. IF you did not make the ad hoc hypothesis of changing decay rates, then radiometric data would falsify young earth. You refuse to let that happen. Since your ad hoc hypothesis is wrong, there is now no reason for you not to acknowledge that YEC is falsified.
​

Since your assumption that i am arguing from a YEC position is incorrect 90% of your efforts make a moot point. (This is also why i have elected not to address the science bits) (Also because they are yucky

)

No, the efforts are not "moot", because that decay rates change is an ad hoc hypothesis no matter if you claim to be YEC or not. It's an ad hoc hypothesis in relation to the data from radiometric dating that falsify a young earth.

Now, that's an interesting reason not to address the "science bits", but not a valid one. We are talking the age of the earth. The "science bits" falsify a young earth. You can't ignore them and still try to claim that "the earth is young" is a valid position.

lucaspa:

What "systems of belief"? Do you think science is a "system of belief"?
​

Absolutely, your devout worship of it proves that fact.

First, you later claim that "Fact do not equate to truth." so you undermine your own argument here.

Second, you haven't demonstrated that I am "worshipping" science. I am arguing that dating methods are valid, but arguing for a position does not, in itself, constitute "worship". You need to some valid evidence for this "worship".

"faith in facts". Wow. Just how do you have "faith in facts"? If "facts" are not "verifiable evidence", then what can possibly be?
​

Fact do not equate to truth.
Facts are merely statements that can be proven or disproven. A faith in "Facts" is derived from one's strongly held belief that their "facts" are indeed akin to truth.

Ah, a terminology problem. Within your terminology, how do you "prove" or "disprove" facts? However, within your terminology, wouldn't you say that "facts that are either proven or disproven" are indeed akin to truth? After all, wouldn't the "fact" be true if proven and wouldn't it be false if disproven?

For the rest of the world, facts are "repeated observations" or "verifiable evidence". By "evidence" I mean what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or feel emotionally. By "verifiable" I mean that the evidence is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. A "fact" would be that mixing oxygen and hydrogen and adding a spark produces flame, heat, and water. Everyone who does this will get flame, heat, and water.

Hypotheses and theories are "statements that can be proven or disproven". They are, actually, disproven by facts. We can go into the rather complicated reasons why it is, strictly speaking, impossible to "prove", but for right now I am simply going to state that this is the case.

Faith is a nearly unshakable belief in what an individual considers to be "evidence" or fact/truth.

But within your own terminology, "facts" are not dependent on belief. Instead, "facts" can be tested and either proven or disproven. If the "fact" is proven, is your "belief" in the truth of that fact really a "belief"? I submit that it is not.

Let's test your statement against ordinary circumstances. Since I am on a "snow day" today, let's try the statement "snow feels cold to living humans on their bare skin". We can test that by having humans put their hands onto or into snow. In fact, most humans have done this and report that snow is "cold". Wouldn't you say that this statement is "proven"? If proven, why do I have a "faith" in the statement "snow is cold"?

Let's take a different statement: "rocks fall to the ground when unsupported". Haven't we proven that rocks fall when we hold them above the ground and let go? By your standards, we all have a "faith", as in "unshakeable belief" that "rocks fall". In fact, don't we have the same "unshakeable belief" that all objects heavier than air fall if unsupported? Isn't that the reason we don't go up on tall objects and jump off unless we intend to injure ourselves? Do you really consider that the statement "objects fall" is a faith?

It seems as if you have been reading from the "second book" quite a bit more than the first, and have taken all that the second says as "truth" and you use this new "truth" as the standard in which to read and interpret the First...

Isn't that what Christians have always done? Isn't Luke 2:1 reinterpreted in light of what we find outside the Bible? BTW, why did you capitalize "First" when referring to a book?

This appears to be what you find objectionable. So, please go into more detail on why you think it wrong to use the proven statements outside the Bible to decide on the correct (or at least identify incorrect) interpretations of statements in the Bible.

In truth if some event did make a change before "we" had the means to capture and or record this data, there is absolutely no way we could ever possibly know.

Back to the "yucky" science stuff. Yes, there are ways we would know. We can actually test your statement and disprove it.
1. The isochron method would not yield a straight line.
2. The C14 dating of trees and pockets of air in glacier ice would not correspond to the date we get by either counting the rings (in the trees) or the layers of ice.
3. Radioactive decay releases energy, which eventually shows up as heat. Drastically changing the decay rates (and you would have to change the rates by many million fold to convert a 4.55 billion year old age of the earth to less than 20,000 years) would result in a far, far hotter crust than we have now.

It appears that you have an "unshakeable belief" in the statements you make, unshakeable even in the face of evidence that disproves them. It appears you are talking more about yourself when you say "faith" than you are talking about science or scientists. I realize it's easy to project your own views upon others, but in this instance I assure you that your projection is in error.

This is why i brought up Pluto, and the Mini Ice age, because for you the man of science, these "facts" are true until the evidence changes.

But to me those are not facts. Pluto's categorization as a planet is a hypothesis. The "facts" are Pluto's size, its distance from the sun, and its orbital parameters. From those we constructed the hypothesis that Pluto fit into the category "planet". However, upon discovery of more facts -- other objects sharing Pluto's orbit and beyond -- we find that the hypothesis that Pluto fits into the category "Kuiper object" more compelling.

BTW, there was a "Mini Ice Age" during the 1300s or so. That's a "fact". As you were using it -- future climate of earth -- the facts are temperatures at various points around the globe measured over the course of years, thickness and melting rates of glaciers, CO2 content of the atmosphere, etc. From those facts was construted the theory that the earth was headed for another ice age. Now, global temperatures changed as they were continued to be measured year by year, glaciers began to melt, CO2 levels in the atmosphere increased rapidly, etc. All these new facts contradicted the old theory. So, like scientists do, we discarded a theory that was contradicted by facts and constructed a new one. Much like Jesus' disciples and Paul discarded the theory of Judaism and constructed a new theory of Christianity when faced with the new facts of Jesus' teachings and Resurrection.

lucaspa: I'm saying that You are separating science from God. They are not separate.

Does God teach science in the bible?
Is science apart of salvation?
Is science in a Christian's faith a mandate?
Where in scripture has God united Science and His faith?

The Bible is a book of theology. Scripture unites science and God when it insists that God created the physical universe. What does science study? The physical universe. And yes, acceptance of God as Creator is part of a Christian's mandate of faith. See the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. By denying what we find in the physical universe and separating that from God, you are denying God as Creator.

 

[granpa]

true faith is not being afraid to analyze your beliefs objectively.

 

[lucaspa]

true faith is not being afraid to analyze your beliefs objectively.

Well said. The analysis will either support your faith or, if it does not, then change the faith. Notice that this is what theists have done thruout the centuries. They objectively analyzed their faith in Woden, or Mithra, or Jupiter, etc. Many of them, when they did this, decided that Christianity fit their beliefs better and left their former religions to become Christians.

What we seem to have today are people who will not leave their belief in a literal, inerrant Bible. When you think about it, that's very sad.

 

[BrendanMark]

What then, do the Greeks call αλήθές (unhidden, true)? Not assertions, not sentences and not knowledge but the beings [das Seiende] themselves, the totality of nature: the human world and work of God.
Heidegger, Martin – The Essence of Truth – On Plato’s Cave Allegory and Theaetetus [Continuum, 2002, Sadler, Ted trans., p. 9]

That truth emerges from concealment, from hiddenness, into the light is the basic theme of Plato’s Cave allegory and the essence of truth in all of Greek philosophy, upon which that which we call “logic” is founded.

That the divine mystery is not immediately obvious and material, but must be extracted from its eternal and essential concealment, is a bit too subtle and deep for modern folk immersed in the essential superficiality of atheism and its fundamental sophistry.

Those who think that logic is a gift from … well, nowhere … (where does it come from? Just another human invention so invent your own?) fail to consider the source of logic and truth and whether such concepts are even at all possible in principle in the first place in the absence of an eternal source.

Logic in its original essence is recognition and exploration of that which is real, even if hidden from immediate scrutiny and experience, and already in-the-world, not a cultural construction readily replaced by another. A gift from God, and as Christ is the Logos Incarnate (John 1:1) then logos is an aspect, if not a Person, of the eternal Godhead.

Science and history based on scientific research is not a "faith in facts", but a careful use of the logic we find already-in-the-world, and therefore a gift from God.

To my mind, rejecting logic is rejecting the Logos as revealed to us in nature, human experience and thought, and history - as well as Scripture.

Modern views of history, since the nineteenth century, like to speak about “meaning-conferral.” This term suggests that man, on his own, is capable of “lending” a “meaning” to history, as if man had something to lend out at all, and as if history needed such a loan, all of which indeed presupposes that history “in itself” and at first is meaningless and in every case has to wait the favor of a meaning bestowed by man.
Heidegger, Martin – Parmenides [Indiana, 1992, Schuwer & Rojcewicz trans. p.56]

What is the problem with "faith in facts" anyway? One is meant to prefer believing nonsense or untruths because someone in supposed authority told me so? Christianity is an historical religion - it is based on faith in the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ as an historical, factual event concerning Man and God at the most basic level, not as symbol or belief or superstition.

If one's faith is not in the fact of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Logos Incarnate, then it isn't Christian faith at all.

 

[lucaspa]

Science and history based on scientific research is not a "faith in facts", but a careful use of the logic we find already-in-the-world, and therefore a gift from God.

To my mind, rejecting logic is rejecting the Logos as revealed to us in nature, human experience and thought, and history - as well as Scripture.

That's an interesting argument. It is akin to the argument that what science studies is God's book.

What is the problem with "faith in facts" anyway? One is meant to prefer believing nonsense or untruths because someone in supposed authority told me so? Christianity is an historical religion - it is based on faith in the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ as an historical, factual event concerning Man and God at the most basic level, not as symbol or belief or superstition.

Very good. Yes, Christianity is indeed based on a "faith" in a "fact", isn't it?

To clarify, drich1050's "facts" are not what you and I call "facts". His idea of "fact" corresponds to what we would call hypotheses/theories. He states that facts are "statements that can either be proved or disproved." He doesn't say what proves or disproves these statements, however. In science, hypotheses/theories are the statements, and they are "proven" or disproven by data/observations. Data/observations are facts.

Do we have "faith" in hypotheses/theories? I would argue "no". We accept or reject them based on the facts. All hypotheses/theories are held based only on the facts available. When new facts are found, they can cause the hypothesis/theory to be modified or rejected. When science has hypotheses/theories but no data (such as multiverse or tachyons or God), the hypothesis is considered possible. But that is a very neutral position. In the absence of data, possibly the hypothesis is true, equally possibly the hypothesis is false.

If one's faith is not in the fact of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Logos Incarnate, then it isn't Christian faith at all.

The reason we classify this as faith is that we have no physical evidence of the resurrection that is available to everyone today. Some people have personal experience with God and the risen Christ, but not everyone does. And that personal experience is not physical. So part of the reason we have faith is the faith that those who told us about the resurrection told us the truth. If we have our own personal experience, that is "proof" to us, but we realize it can't be "proof" to everyone because we can't show that experience to them.

 

[vossler]

What we seem to have today are people who will not leave their belief in a literal, inerrant Bible.

Whoever you are...God is pleased and will never leave or forsake you!

 

[food4thought]

Quick point of logic on the carbon 14 dating argument. What we cannot know in carbon 14 dating is the exact composition/ratio of carbon atoms in the original document, and we also cannot know what the original carbon atom ratio was in the air 20000 years ago.

With a book, if it claims to be non-fiction, we have a clear truth claim regarding the date the boat was made. If carbon 14 verifies that claim, it indicates that it is highly likely that the guesstimate of the starting carbon atom ratio was correct. In the age of ice layers, it is not clear that each layer represents a year; because it has been widely noted that many times there will be multiple layers formed in any given year due to freezing and thawing. So, we DO NOT have a clear truth claim regarding the age of the ice layer, and also the carbon 14 dating is also not a clear truth claim because we cannot know the actual beginning ratio of carbon atoms.

Therefore, on the one hand we have a clear claim of truth about the age of a boat backed up by carbon 14 dating in the reasonably near past, whereas in the age of an ice layer we have two SUPPOSITIONS that support each other, both of which occured long before the historical period. How we arrive at the SUPPOSITION of what the original carbon atom ratio was must then be scrutinized to ascertain how they came up with the date.

Thus my thoughts are that Carbon 14 dating is a HIGHLY reliable measure of time when it can be known with CERTAINTY what the starting ratio was; but when we cannot know, we must turn to other sources of highly reliable information to ascertain the accuracy of our guestimate of the original carbon atom ratio.

I hope I didn't hammer the same thought too many times here : O

 

[JasperJackson]

I'm reminded of a quote I read yesterday...

‎"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." - GK Chesterton (from Orthodoxy)

 

[Mallon]

Quick point of logic on the carbon 14 dating argument. What we cannot know in carbon 14 dating is the exact composition/ratio of carbon atoms in the original document, and we also cannot know what the original carbon atom ratio was in the air 20000 years ago.

That's why isochron dating was developed. In isochron dating, you don't need to know the original amount of daughter product.

 

[lucaspa]

Quick point of logic on the carbon 14 dating argument. What we cannot know in carbon 14 dating is the exact composition/ratio of carbon atoms in the original document, and we also cannot know what the original carbon atom ratio was in the air 20000 years ago.

Yes, we can. Air is trapped in pockets of ice in glaciers. When we drill ice cores we get air that is 20,000 years old. And we can thus take the ratio of C14 to N14 and the ratio of C12 carbon dioxide to C14 carbon dioxide.

With a book, if it claims to be non-fiction, we have a clear truth claim regarding the date the boat was made.

But we don't know if the author is telling the truth.

If carbon 14 verifies that claim, it indicates that it is highly likely that the guesstimate of the starting carbon atom ratio was correct.

Not necessarily. Not if the individual lied or was mistaken. After all, the author could make a truth claim about when a boat was built hundreds of years before, and the information has become distorted in the meantime.

In the age of ice layers, it is not clear that each layer represents a year; because it has been widely noted that many times there will be multiple layers formed in any given year due to freezing and thawing.

Please document that "multiple layers formed in a year". The layers are formed by dust blowing onto the ice in summer followed by snow accumulation in winter. Cycles of freezing and thawing is going to disrupt that layer of dust.

Therefore, on the one hand we have a clear claim of truth about the age of a boat backed up by carbon 14 dating in the reasonably near past, whereas in the age of an ice layer we have two SUPPOSITIONS that support each other,

Sorry, but you still have the supposition that the author had the correct age. IOW, on your first hand we still have "two SUPPOSITIONS" by your logic. You can't elevate the human claim to absolute truth.

So, in both cases we have independent means which arrive at the same age. In one it is a claim by a human and C14 and in the other it is layers in ice and C14. It is Special Pleading to claim that the first is reliable but the second is not.

Thus my thoughts are that Carbon 14 dating is a HIGHLY reliable measure of time when it can be known with CERTAINTY what the starting ratio was;

You need to ask yourself: how much does the C12/C14 ration have to vary to make the age determined by C14 to be "inaccurate"? Because of the formula, you need massive changes in C12/C14 to make even small changes in the age. A change of even 10% (not likely) is only going to cause less than a 1% change in the age estimate. For an event 40,000 years ago, that is only 400 years.

So we don't need to know with precision or certainty what the ratio was. We only need to be reasonably close. Certainly the ratio can't change enough to squeeze 50,000 years into 6,000.

 

[lucaspa]

Whoever you are...God is pleased and will never leave or forsake you!

I thank you. However, I cannot help noticing the irony that you are Baptist. It appears that the majority of Baptists believe in an inerrant, literal Bible. It is certain that the majority of Baptists are creationists.

 

[shernren]

I thank you. However, I cannot help noticing the irony that you are Baptist. It appears that the majority of Baptists believe in an inerrant, literal Bible. It is certain that the majority of Baptists are creationists.

I doubt he was talking to you.

 

[good brother]

If the Bible is in error about the creation of all things, how can we trust it on matters of eternal salvation? If you "cut out" one part of the Bible, how long before you "cut out another? If you wish to say the bible is in error regarding creation, are you then indicating the Bible is in error when it speaks of the Creator?

I would rather take my chances on the Bible than on the (definitely) fallible minds of humans. I am reminded of what C.S. Lewis said, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

In the name of Christ Jesus, our LORD and Savior and King who reigns forever and ever!

His servant, GB

 

[Assyrian]

This the C.S.Lewis who believed God could use myth to teach us?

 

[gluadys]

I would rather take my chances on the Bible than on the (definitely) fallible minds of humans.

Of course. But what of God's own created works (which, btw, were made by his Word)? No one is asking you to take a chance on humans, but to trust God's works to reveal what God did.

 

[lucaspa]

If you wish to say the bible is in error regarding creation, are you then indicating the Bible is in error when it speaks of the Creator?

Ah, here is the problem in a nutshell. Good brother, I beg you to read the first part of this essay:
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1982/v39-3-article1.htm

What you are doing is tying the untestable statement "God created" to a very specific and testable how that God created. You are saying, if God didn't create this way, there is no God. Can you see the does-not-follow in that? God can create another way: by the processes discovered by science.

If the Bible is in error about the creation of all things, how can we trust it on matters of eternal salvation? If you "cut out" one part of the Bible, how long before you "cut out another?

No one is "cutting out" part of the Bible.
The answers are easy:
1) Claims are separate.
2) There are different types of truth.
3) The Bible already tells us that we should not read Genesis 1-3 literally; they are not history.

In other situations, we never tie claims together like you are trying to do here. For instance, if George Washington did not cut down a cherry tree, does that mean we can't trust any other aspect of his life? Of course not.

Genesis 1-3 are there to tell us theological truths. It tells us 1) Who created, 2) that there is only one god, 3) specifically, that the Babylonian gods do not exist, 4) that God created humans for their own sakes (all Genesis 1), 5) that gaining knowledge is not a way to become God, 6) that all humans will disobey God sometime, and 7) suffer spiritual death from that disobedience (Genesis 2-3) By trying to make the creation stories literal history, you miss all that.

And yes, there are 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3. If you read them literally, they contradict on several major points. That they contradict should be a large neon sign "Do not read these as literal history."

I would rather take my chances on the Bible than on the (definitely) fallible minds of humans.

The problem with this statement is that you are denying that God is Creator. What did God create? The physical universe. What does science study? The physical universe. We, through science, are reading God's other book. By insisting on looking only at the Bible, you are turning your back on God. What are your chances when you turn your back on God?

Are you God's servant, or the Bible's servant?

 

[lucaspa]

I doubt he was talking to you.

He was responding to a quote of mine.

 

[Greg1234]

If the Bible is in error about the creation of all things, how can we trust it on matters of eternal salvation? If you "cut out" one part of the Bible, how long before you "cut out another? If you wish to say the bible is in error regarding creation, are you then indicating the Bible is in error when it speaks of the Creator?

I would rather take my chances on the Bible than on the (definitely) fallible minds of humans. I am reminded of what C.S. Lewis said, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

In the name of Christ Jesus, our LORD and Savior and King who reigns forever and ever!

His servant, GB

It's irresponsibility. The "TE" has become so immersed in Darwinian constructs that biblical exegesis is supposed to now descend from it. It then goes a little further to the point where the inherent materialistic basis of Darwinism (nowhere is there any indication that life originated from matter and all hold the opposite) has compromised the faculties allowing for clear discernment in the midst of theological texts. And everybody holding a Christian title pays for it.

On one hand you have them attempting to convince Creationists that God is responsible for mutations while simultaneously attempting to erase any trace of divine interaction. You have them attempting to uphold select sections of text while at the same time dubbing the authors as sublimely ignorant. They attempt to show that life originated by God and then randomly mutated to men while at the same time saying that attempting to attack abiogenesis is an example of "God of the Gaps". They attempt to show that God created this "machine" which is the earth which then created life while at the same time, in utter shamelessness, attempting to show that occurrences of the verb "create" refer to a natural process. Hence "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" does not actually refer to the creation of a "machine" as they try to outline, but that machine coming into existence by chance. Now, having successfully (or so they think) handed the atheists everything in existence, again, the sheer audacity, they attempt to show that Creationism is leading people to atheism. But there is an upside to all this believe it or not.

1) This kind of carelessness in acting on a whim without the awareness of the consequences which can justifiably be characterized as the lackadaisical approaches of youthful exberance does not necessarily have to be disciplined.

2) A lack of proper discernment of text does not necessarily have to be blotted out.

On that note, simply stating their claims of bacteria to men can be addressed via scientific revelations. They will then have the choice of whether or not to rectify the conditions outlined 1 and 2. But no time need be sacrificed otherwise nor need you worry about whimsical and irresponsible tugs on holy writ by these men.

 

[juvenissun]

Well said. The analysis will either support your faith or, if it does not, then change the faith. Notice that this is what theists have done thruout the centuries. They objectively analyzed their faith in Woden, or Mithra, or Jupiter, etc. Many of them, when they did this, decided that Christianity fit their beliefs better and left their former religions to become Christians.

What we seem to have today are people who will not leave their belief in a literal, inerrant Bible. When you think about it, that's very sad.

That is one of your major problem. If so, faith would worth nothing.
The correct way to treat it is: reconsider the analysis, something must be missing or must be wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

And yes, there are 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3. If you read them literally, they contradict on several major points. That they contradict should be a large neon sign "Do not read these as literal history."

Whenever I see a Christian say this, I always challenge it.

Please tell me where exactly is the conflict. Don't run away!