How do you decide if something is factual?

2PhiloVoid said:

Right. Religion is a whole other epistemic 'game' than science. So, one will approach one sphere of knowledge not only in separate fashion, but ALSO with a different mode of inquiry.

Click to expand...

But isn't the question how well it corresponds to reality?

In the empirical sense, one in which a proposition is demonstrated via the senses, religion (particularly Christianity) will not amend itself.

Click to expand...

But it has. Religion has often changed what it says. For example, at one time, a certain passage from the Bible may be considered literal, but later on, that same passage may be considered metaphorical. Once, many people believed that the creation account was literal. Now, the majority of Christians accept it as metaphorical. (Source)

And each time, it has been religion altering its position to better fit with science.

Unlike science, religion has both a human component, in which a person can undertake inquiries, and a 'God' component in which the religious person has to await for God to orchestrate the finality of belief. This may or may not allow some historical claims to be seen as 'facts.' So, religion (again Christianity in particular) will epistemically float somewhere between subjectivity and objectivity. There might be some things that religious people will come to agree is 'factual' about their faith, but there will be other things that they do not agree on, and the nature of the faith will be such that even IF two Christians agree on a 'fact,' this perception may or may not be enjoined by a person who is outside of the faith.

Click to expand...

I would say that the "God" component you speak of is usually just a part of the person that they think is God, but otherwise I fairly agree. Religion often takes things that are fact and puts a religious spin on them. It's typical of pretty much all religions. Use the fact parts to show that you are correct, so you can get others to believe the non-fact parts. Basically, getting other people to say, "Well, they were right about this, so I guess they must be right about that too."

The other thing to keep in mind, however, is that if we take seriously various elements of the Nature of Science, we will realize that even with our high-levels of objectivity, facts will still be subject to interpretation and/or other cognitive differences.

Click to expand...

But within how much variation? Can you give an example?

Well, you can call it that if you want, but that isn't what it would be. To say that it's just "handwavium" is itself a statement that seems to indicate a tendency to wave away looking into any possible levels of religious cogency. But, correct me on that if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

I think the religious cogency is the handwavium. A system set up so that it can explain away any evidence which would suggest that it is wrong. "We did a scientific study on the efficacy of prayer, and it showed no benefit." "Ah, but the Bible says you can't test God, and that's what you were trying to do, so of course you got those results!"

What excuses. What Eugenie C. Scott provides (again, as an atheist) is no excuse, but the nature of mainstream science [we call it Methodological Naturalism]. Those who adhere to a Philosophical Naturalism (like Dawkins) are in the minority.

Click to expand...

I meant the excuses religion offers to explain why evidence from reality doesn't always agree with the claims that religion makes. It is typically religion which makes the claim that the situation is complicated, but I've generally found that this is because it avoids having the discussion and thus avoid presenting a flawed argument. It's also because trying to find an explanation for something that has no rational explanation is about the most complicated thing there is.

Right, because since we start with Methodological Naturalism in our approach to science, we assume for inquiry sake that no God or other supernatural elements are either at play in our experiments or that if they were to exist, they are not controllable variables.

Click to expand...

If you want to include God, you'll have to show that God is necessary.

I'm not sure I even understand your statement and questions here. Sorry. You may have to reiterate.

Click to expand...

You said, "There is a difference between establishing the truth or falsity of a religious statement, on the one hand, and using hermeneutical considerations to establish the meaning of some religious statement, on the other hand."

I took "the truth or falsity of a religious statement" to mean statements from the Bible (for example) that are taken to be clear unambiguous statements of fact. For example, the Bible claims that Pharaoh kept the Israelites as slaves. This is taken by most Christians to be a statement presented as an objective fact.

And I took "the meaning of some religious statement" as the underlying meaning behind the statement without assuming that the statement is presented as a statement of fact, in much the same way that we can grasp the meaning of Aesop's Fables without assuming that they are telling us that animals really did have those adventures.

So, based on this, I took your reply to mean that there is a difference between establishing that a particular passage is intended as literal truth and establishing that a passage is not literally true, but still has some meaning or message that we are to take from it.

I explained some of this at the top of the post. As far as religion is concerned, and as far as the human side of religion is concerned, if one wants to apply some probability, then that isn't excluded.

Click to expand...

When you say "probability" are you talking about the probability that something is true, or are you saying that there are different amounts of truthfullness?

As an example, if we compare it to coin flips, we can say that there is a particular probability that the coin is heads, but we can't say that it is 30% heads and 70% tails. It is either completely one or the other.

The caveat is that is Christianity is true, then by definition our human inquiries will be curtailed and/or affected by God Himself, unlike in mainline science.

Click to expand...

If Christianity is true, then any effect God has on the real world will be measurable.

And let's also say this:

If God intervenes to ensure that a particular outcome occurs, then we can assume that God's intervention is required because there was no other way for that outcome to occur UNLESS God intervened. That would mean that such an outcome is impossible according to the laws of nature.

Therefore, any intervention of God in our reality will show as a violation of the laws of nature.

And so I conclude that if Christianity is real and God intervenes in any way, then we should see the laws of nature being violated. I'm not aware of any such examples.

By the way, just so we're clear, I'm an adherent of the BioLogos approach to Christian faith and science, and not an advocate of the Intelligent Design or Creation Science approaches.

Click to expand...

Aman777 said:

Sure. The events of those verses have NOT taken place yet. Humankind has NOT yet been given dominion over every living creature, including viruses, mosquitoes and Angels as Gen 1:28 states. Neither has there been a time in the PAST when every living creature was a Vegetarian as Gen 1:30 states. That's because we live today at Gen 1:27 because God is STILL creating people in His Image or in Christ Spiritually. We will not advance to the events at the end of the present 6th Day/Age until AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. That's God's Truth Scripturally. God Bless you

Click to expand...

Claiming that something in the Bible has not yet happened, but assuring us that it will happen some day is NOT scientific evidence.

Aman777 said:

The events of the last days have already begun. Here's an example:

Universal ancestor of all life on Earth was only half alive...
Jul 25, 2016 -

Notice the date.

Click to expand...

First of all, this is in direct contradiction with the Bible. If you want to say this is acceptable evidence, you must also give up a literal interpretation of the creation in Genesis.

Secondly, just because the article was written then does not mean that before that scientists had no idea that life most likely started in water. For example, here's an article on Pubmed that discusses water as being required for life from 1993 - a full 23 years BEFORE your source.

There was the Urey-Miller experiment back in the 1950s which shows that scientists considered water to be the environment in which life first appeared.

And Charles Darwin described a "warm little pond" as an origin of life back in 1871!

So don't give me any of that "Oh, they didn't know until 2016" nonsense.

Then read the following verse written 3k years ago.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

Science and Scripture AGREE. Only God knew and wrote this so long ago.

Click to expand...

So when the Bible says, "And God said, Let the EARTH bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so", what does that mean? Does "earth" mean "water" as well?

Of course, reading the two passages, it sounds to me that the Bible is saying that whales, fish, sea life and birds came from the water, but other animals like cattle, beasts, creeping things etc came from the Earth. So even the Bible you hold up as agreeing with science claims that some kinds of life had a completely different origins to others (some from water, some from earth), which shows that your claim is wrong on two counts! Namely, your claim that the Bible says all life came from the water, and your claim that science and the Bible agree.

Aman777 said:

Not so since Gen 1:21 states that God created and brought forth from WATER, every living creature. Science AGREES literally.

*** Secondly, just because the article was written then does not mean that before that scientists had no idea that life most likely started in water. For example, here's an article on Pubmed that discusses water as being required for life from 1993 - a full 23 years BEFORE your source.

There was the Urey-Miller experiment back in the 1950s which shows that scientists considered water to be the environment in which life first appeared.

Amen but God told us this 3k years ago and it's not just a coincidence since He hid His scientific Truth in Genesis chapter One in many places.

*** And Charles Darwin described a "warm little pond" as an origin of life back in 1871!

So don't give me any of that "Oh, they didn't know until 2016" nonsense.

Science didn't come to a consensus until July 25, 2016. God knew it long before.

*** So when the Bible says, "And God said, Let the EARTH bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so", what does that mean? Does "earth" mean "water" as well?

No. It's a command to Jesus to bring forth TEMPORARILY (subject to death) from the dust of the ground, cattle, creeping things, beasts of the Earth and birds. He has already formed Adam (mankind) on the 3rd Day.

*** Of course, reading the two passages, it sounds to me that the Bible is saying that whales, fish, sea life and birds came from the water, but other animals like cattle, beasts, creeping things etc came from the Earth. So even the Bible you hold up as agreeing with science claims that some kinds of life had a completely different origins to others (some from water, some from earth), which shows that your claim is wrong on two counts! Namely, your claim that the Bible says all life came from the water, and your claim that science and the Bible agree.

Amen, since the living creature Jesus made (His kinds) are temporary and subject to death. God (Elohim-The Trinity) kinds (Their kinds) are ETERNAL, which means they will be in Heaven FOREVER. Amen?

Click to expand...

Dude, again, learn to use the quote function. It's there for a reason.

Tolworth John said:

The difference is one sets out to tell a history, while the other set out to tell a story which is not true, but does teach a moral.

Click to expand...

So the Bible is actual history, and Aesop's Fables are not true, just designed to teach a moral, huh?

You struggle to accept that the supernatural exists, yet accept the Christian ideas of a reasonable, consitent universe and the non mateial things like logic, and morality.
As well as the unexplainably like where does information come from.

Click to expand...

Care to show me how the claims of a "reasonable, consistent universe and the non material things like logic, and morality, as well as the explainable like where does information come from" are Christian in origin?

2PhiloVoid said:

You do realize that this question of yours is philosophically loaded, don't you, Kylie? It's especially so if our goal is to get a glimpse under the hood of the Christian faith as opposed to observing the love lives of algae.

Click to expand...

I am simply saying that the ultimate test of any worldview that seeks to describe reality is how well that worldview corresponds to reality.

While we could get into the whys and wherefores of how Christian faith compares to the epistemic contours of Scientific Investigation, I think I've already laid out the general premise(s) by which you can understand how I approach my own faith. And since I'm not sure you're really interested in being convinced by any of it, I don't know that it would be a good investment of my time to try to further spell this out for you.

What specifically do you want to know? I hope this thread isn't really a 'pose' to get us Christians into a position that is easier to knock over. I've never been one to really liked playing the "Whack a Mole" game at the kiddie pizza place, especially if I played it while envisioning myself as one of the moles. But, I'll leave it up to you as to how you want to proceed. Personally, I'd rather not attempt to rewrite all of the exposition on these things already written by the experts and who have articulated it much better than I probably ever could.

So, what do you really want? Do you want me to proceed and attempt to answer questions for your sake? Or will this be an exercise in playing "Cat-and-Mouse."?

No, this isn't a cop-out. It's a "mouse-out."

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Click to expand...

If you can show me that your religious viewpoint can explain reality better than my own viewpoint can, then I am certainly most interested in hearing about it. But first you will need to demonstrate that it does actually explain reality better than mine.

Really, that's all it is.