Icons of Evolution

[Fervent]

Is that so? How can a person be a Chrfistian without knowing of Christ at least.

The issue isn't what is or isn't known, but how it is arrived at. A fideist doesn't depend on what can be rationally known or understood, but accepts Christ apart from reason entirely separate from knowledge. Agnostic is a descriptor of how it is arrived at, as atheists are not truly without some form of knowledge that they believe makes faith untenable they simply do not arrive at their atheism through gnostic routes. It'd be rather disingenuous to pretend that agnostic atheists are entirely void of some underlying knowledge.

 

[BCP1928]

The issue isn't what is or isn't known, but how it is arrived at. A fideist doesn't depend on what can be rationally known or understood, but accepts Christ apart from reason entirely separate from knowledge. Agnostic is a descriptor of how it is arrived at, as atheists are not truly without some form of knowledge that they believe makes faith untenable they simply do not arrive at their atheism through gnostic routes. It'd be rather disingenuous to pretend that agnostic atheists are entirely void of some underlying knowledge.

That is an interesting possibility. Do you have any idea what the content of such a persons faith might actually be? Surely there must be something about it that is rationally understood? Is it faith you are talking about? Or doctrine?

 

[Fervent]

That is an interesting possibility. Do you have any idea what the content of such a persons faith might actually be? Surely there must be something about it that is rationally understood?

It'd be pretty wide open, but fideists in the past tended to eschew engagement in rational discussion in favor of adherence to dogmatic traditions. The content was to be believed without question, because of the authority it was received from. Today, it might take the form of a more generic skepticism that regards knowledge as imperfect and accept the cultural or familial traditions and express itself as an amorphous belief that simply accepts that the stories of Jesus are generally reliable, even if genuine knowledge of the Divine is beyond human reach. The principle issue would be maintaining that such belief does not, in itself, constitute knowledge.

 

[BCP1928]

It'd be pretty wide open, but fideists in the past tended to eschew engagement in rational discussion in favor of adherence to dogmatic traditions. The content was to be believed without question, because of the authority it was received from. Today, it might take the form of a more generic skepticism that regards knowledge as imperfect and accept the cultural or familial traditions and express itself as an amorphous belief that simply accepts that the stories of Jesus are generally reliable, even if genuine knowledge of the Divine is beyond human reach. The principle issue would be maintaining that such belief does not, in itself, constitute knowledge.

What is the source of this knowledge?

 

[Fervent]

What is the source of this knowledge?

What knowledge?

 

[BCP1928]

What knowledge?

The knowledge that you speak of, the knowledge which is superior to fideism as a basis of faith.

 

[Fervent]

The knowledge that you speak of, the knowledge which is superior to fideism as a basis of faith.

Beats me, people find all sorts of ways to "prove" to themselves their faith is true knowledge of some sort. But the fideist makes no attempt to justify his faith or to defend it with reason. What makes the fideist a more agnostic position than most strains of Christianity is the recognition that reason is not involved in their acceptance of faith, rendering it an equivalent of entering a claim of agnosticism.

 

[BCP1928]

Beats me, people find all sorts of ways to "prove" to themselves their faith is true knowledge of some sort. But the fideist makes no attempt to justify his faith or to defend it with reason. What makes the fideist a more agnostic position than most strains of Christianity is the recognition that reason is not involved in their acceptance of faith, rendering it an equivalent of entering a claim of agnosticism.

Only with respect to doctrine. We are not expected to justify our faith rationally.

 

[Fervent]

Only with respect to doctrine. We are not expected to justify our faith rationally.

Some believe we are, and while I agree to an extent I do believe there's smoke with the ontological argument. But it's probably the most difficult argument to understand.

 

[Buzzard3]

Yes, and we know this from observations of organisms living today. Darwin's contribution wasn't to the idea of mutations, but that the process isn't random but is instead driven by environmental factors that select which mutations are most beneficial to the population. The fossil record only helps us catalogue, it isn't the primary evidence for the theory of evolution and never has been.

Go ahead, prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process.

You can't even prove that mammals did descend from fish.

 

[Buzzard3]

So you can give no reason why anyone should take your unsupported claims over the conclusions of professional scientists, but instead of saying that outright you just post more unsupported claims.

How are you going to learn anything if you don't believe me?

 

[River Jordan]

How are you going to learn anything if you don't believe me?

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[Buzzard3]

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master" (John 13:16)

 

[BCP1928]

How are you going to learn anything if you don't believe me?

The best way is to present evidence which supports your assertions.

 

[Shemjaza]

Go ahead, prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process.

You can't even prove that mammals did descend from fish.

Support with evidence? Sure.

Genetic and fossil evidence demonstrate that vertebrates have a common ancestor and that vertebrates originate as water creatures we would call fish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Support with evidence? Sure.

Genetic and fossil evidence demonstrate that vertebrates have a common ancestor and that vertebrates originate as water creatures we would call fish.

Do you have a series of concatenated fossils to show this? or are you willing to jump the shark to stick to your belief?

 

[BCP1928]

Do you have a series of concatenated fossils to show this? or are you willing to jump the shark to stick to your belief?

Do you have one that doesn't fit the pattern?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have one that doesn't fit the pattern?

 

[Buzzard3]

Support with evidence? Sure.

Genetic and fossil evidence demonstrate that vertebrates have a common ancestor and that vertebrates originate as water creatures we would call fish.

In other words, you can't prove that mammals descended from fish, let alone prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process. That comes as no surprise at all.

 

[BCP1928]

In other words, you can't prove that mammals descended from fish, let alone prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process. That comes as no surprise at all.

We don't have to prove it. All we have to do is provide a plausible and coherent explanation of the existing evidence, Even of the evidence is sketcy that's enough unless you have some evidence which doesn't fit the theory. A scientific theory is not absolute truth, just a plausible and coherent explanation of the existing evidence. If you disprove it all you have is a disproven theory. You haven't got anything to replace it with. Is that what you want?