The Fundamentals?

[Talking Rain]

To me it seems that the key difference between creationists and those (like me) who are convinced that biological evolution is the best explanation we have to explain the diversity of species is one of epistemology. The dichotomy that exists between these two viewpoints is one of what their adherents are willing to base their beliefs upon.

In one corner are those that are strictly evidentiary. If they can't "see" it (or detect it in some way) then they have no reason to believe it. The scientific method (and its everyday variations) is the primary way of learning about the world. That is the general way of recording quantitative data describing a phenomenon, then constructing a hypothesis to explain the data, and planning and carrying out future observation and experimentation to test and expand the hypothesis. All knowledge is tentative and is forever open to being criticized, amended, or abandoned.

The other side would rely upon the same methods when it comes to most mundane everyday types of knowing, but also believes that there is another kind of knowing, what has been classically called revealed truth. The idea seems to be that only through a direct experience of the divine can one learn the deeper truths about he world. These deeper truths include things like divine purpose, morality, transcendence of physical existence and the existence of an afterlife or some other resolution of death. Such revealed truth is something that is simply and purely known to someone after a divine experience or revelation. Or it is known from a holy document that one believes to be the word of the divine due to a similar divine experience or revelation.
(I am obviously biased for the previous flavor of knowing so please fill me in if I made an egregious error here.)

Anyways, the point of all this is just to say that unless we address this fundamental idea of how we can know things the endless debates of evolution vs. creation and atheism vs. theism will remain just that, and we will never gain much understanding or agreement from other side as to where the others are coming from. Part of the problem is that both sides seem to think that they have a fundamental insight into this dichotomy and often are assured of their complete knowledge of the truth because of this.

Theist: "They are to busy worrying about all the STUFF to sit back and look at the big picture."

Atheist: "They are all to busy trying to find a feel-good universe that soothes their fear of death to see that STUFF is all there is to this world."

In conclusion in order to have any kind of reasonable discussions of any of these issues, there first needs to be a discussion of how and why people can be sure that they know anything. What are the acceptable/useful ways of knowing things? I have a feeling this is where the initial differences of opinion lie.

TR

 

[Matthew]

Welcome to the forums. Your post is refeshing for its insight. I also believe that you are correct in claiming that this is a foundational difference between theists and non-theists as well as most creationists and evolutionists.

In one corner are those that are strictly evidentiary. If they can't "see" it (or detect it in some way) then they have no reason to believe it.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. And that forms the basis for part of my theistic beliefs.

The other side would rely upon the same methods when it comes to most mundane everyday types of knowing, but also believes that there is another kind of knowing, what has been classically called revealed truth.

So far, you are absolutely correct.

The idea seems to be that only through a direct experience of the divine can one learn the deeper truths about [t]he world. These deeper truths include things like divine purpose, morality, transcendence of physical existence and the existence of an afterlife or some other resolution of death. Such revealed truth is something that is simply and purely known to someone after a divine experience or revelation. Or it is known from a holy document that one believes to be the word of the divine due to a similar divine experience or revelation.

Most theists believe that God's revelation is found in a document (especially monotheists).

(I am obviously biased for the previous flavor of knowing so please fill me in if I made an egregious error here.)

I can't see an error so far. (Except that I think that if one believes in the previous "flavor of knowing", then it is self-refuting. But perhaps we can discuss it.)

 

[Talking Rain]

Originally posted by Matthew
Welcome to the forums. Your post is refeshing for its insight. I also believe that you are correct in claiming that this is a foundational difference between theists and non-theists as well as most creationists and evolutionists.

Thank you Matthew. I am glad to find someone that I will be able to have a cordial and enlightening conversation with.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. And that forms the basis for part of my theistic beliefs.

I assume you mean that you yourself do not hold this viewpoint, but you do agree that those of the atheism/evolution flavor do tend to hold this viewpoint? do you not?

So far, you are absolutely correct.

Most theists believe that God's revelation is found in a document (especially monotheists).

Ok, I have just found in my limited experience that if you push most theists by questioning why they have 'chosen' a particular document, they refer to some kind of divine experience that revealed to them the truth of their particular holy writ. If this is not the case, please explain.

I can't see an error so far. (Except that I think that if one believes in the previous "flavor of knowing", then it is self-refuting. But perhaps we can discuss it.)

Yes, I would like to discuss this. Please explain how this seems self refuting to you?

TR

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Talking Rain
In conclusion in order to have any kind of reasonable discussions of any of these issues, there first needs to be a discussion of how and why people can be sure that they know anything. What are the acceptable/useful ways of knowing things? I have a feeling this is where the initial differences of opinion lie.

While I think you've done a good job of outlining the main difference between the factions, I think you've made a mistake in identifying this difference as the source of contention, when in fact it is not.

If creationists were content to live within the bounds of their "revealed" knowledge, there would be few to disparage them. But that is not what creationists do. Creationists attack science. They denigrate the work of thousands of honest, hard-working scientists. They use pseudo-scientific misinformation to mislead unwary lay people. They attempt to use political power to force their "revealed" knowledge to be taught as evidentiary knowledge.

They're simply not content to let each individual decide for themselves which form of knowledge is more useful in each situation. It is not their point-of-view that is at issue. It is their attack against free thought and slander of the truth that must be fought.

 

[Talking Rain]

LiveFreeOrDie wrote: While I think you've done a good job of outlining the main difference between the factions, I think you've made a mistake in identifying this difference as the source of contention, when in fact it is not.

Thank you, but I still maintain that this fundamental difference is what needs to be explored if either side seeks to genuinely understand the other.

If creationists were content to live within the bounds of their "revealed" knowledge, there would be few to disparage them. But that is not what creationists do. Creationists attack science. They denigrate the work of thousands of honest, hard-working scientists. They use pseudo-scientific misinformation to mislead unwary lay people. They attempt to use political power to force their "revealed" knowledge to be taught as evidentiary knowledge.

They're simply not content to let each individual decide for themselves which form of knowledge is more useful in each situation. It is not their point-of-view that is at issue. It is their attack against free thought and slander of the truth that must be fought.

I agree that some creationists and theists are much to eager to foist their opinions on others, but those are not the people I am addressing or whom I wish to converse with. I do hope that you will grant me that there are reasonable creationists that are willing to converse about these issues without proselytizing, or at least grant me the opportunity to try and discover a few.

TR

 

[Outspoken]

"Or it is known from a holy document that one believes to be the word of the divine due to a similar divine experience or revelation."

It is more then any document. I would start off by using common sense. The time period given by evolution in accordance with the probablities make it a very unlikely event, several times over.

 

[Ribozome]

Thank you for the post Talking Rain. Very insightful and I agree completely. It would be supremely beneficial to the debate if we were able to articulate our epistemological perspectives. The Christian believes wisdom comes from God. Could it be argued that a materialist should hold less faith in the human intellect as he or she regards it as merely a product of the universe?

 

[Talking Rain]

Originally posted by Ribozome
Thank you for the post Talking Rain. Very insightful and I agree completely. It would be supremely beneficial to the debate if we were able to articulate our epistemological perspectives. The Christian believes wisdom comes from God. Could it be argued that a materialist should hold less faith in the human intellect as he or she regards it as merely a product of the universe?

Thank you very much.   I'll take any compliments I can find

Ok, materialism (very good choice of words) as an outlook definitely should reduce our confidence in the accuracy of our ideas and belief. With this comes the idea that knowledge comes with careful study and experiment and should be crosschecked and should be reproducable by others. (The same idea that leads us to the checks and balances of the US and other governments) Human beings are falible and must be careful when formulating conclusions.

TR

 

[Talking Rain]

A bump for Matthew. I was hoping to hear from you again on this. perhaps another time...

TR

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Talking Rain To me it seems that the key difference between creationists and those (like me) who are convinced that biological evolution is the best explanation we have to explain the diversity of species is one of epistemology. ...
In one corner are those that are strictly evidentiary. If they can't "see" it (or detect it in some way) then they have no reason to believe it. The scientific method (and its everyday variations) is the primary way of learning about the world. ... The other side would rely upon the same methods when it comes to most mundane everyday types of knowing, but also believes that there is another kind of knowing, what has been classically called revealed truth. The idea seems to be that only through a direct experience of the divine can one learn the deeper truths about he world. ... Such revealed truth is something that is simply and purely known to someone after a divine experience or revelation. Or it is known from a holy document that one believes to be the word of the divine due to a similar divine experience or revelation.
TalkingRain, you don't have two different methods of knowing here. What you describe for science and theists is the same method of knowing: personal experience.  All those observations, measurements, and everything you ascribe to science are personal experiences.  And, as you note, theists use personal experience of deity, whether their own or that of others written down somewhere, as their method of knowing.

The difference is not the method, but what is considered as evidence.  IOW, what type of personal experience is considered valid. 

Science limits itself to only those personal experiences that can be experienced by everyone under approximately the same condition.  Mix alcholos and aldehydes together in a test tube, and everyone will get ketones.  Run an electric current through water, and everyone will get hydrogen and oxygen.

But, run to the shore of the Red Sea, raise your arms and shout for the water to part, and it won't happen for everyone.

Now, does science say those one-time personal experiences are wrong or false?  NO!! Absolutely not!!  And that is the mistake of atheists.  You assume that science says one-time personal experiences are automatically false.  It doesn't and can't.  It simply says that science won't consider them.

Anyways, the point of all this is just to say that unless we address this fundamental idea of how we can know things the endless debates of evolution vs. creation and atheism vs. theism will remain just that, and we will never gain much understanding or agreement from other side as to where the others are coming from.

The argument is not between evolution and creation. It is between evolution and creationism.  Both evolution and creationism are a how of creation.  It is part of the problem that atheists equate evolution to denying creation by a deity instead of as an alternative method of creation by a deity.  As long as you view evolution as denying creation, the argument will go on.  But you will not be doing science in that argument, but proselytizing.

Part of the problem is that both sides seem to think that they have a fundamental insight into this dichotomy and often are assured of their complete knowledge of the truth because of this.

Atheists and theists definitely think they have the only truth about ultimate reality.  Science is agnostic.  It doesn't know, and can't know using its legitimate methods, where a deity exists or whether it supervises nature.  So what you have is a battle between opposing beliefs using science as their battleground.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
[BI would start off by using common sense. The time period given by evolution in accordance with the probablities make it a very unlikely event, several times over. [/B]

This is part of an ongoing attempt to refute evolution, hoping to get deity as the alternative.  As LiveFreeOrDie has pointed out, it is part of the attack on science by creationists, distorting the data as they go.

Outspoken, don't you think this has occurred to biologists?  The calculations you have seen, such as those by Hoyle, are GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out.  In addition, natural (cumulative) selection works to make very improbable events probable.  That also reduces the "unlikely".

Finally, a couple of years ago a study found that natural selection working in the wild is capable of biological change 10,000 times faster than observed in the fossil record.  There's more than enough time. So much so that the question now is: when natural selection can cause change so fast, why is the rate of change in the fossil record so much slower?

 Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG.  Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poeciliareticulata).  Science 275:1934-1937, 1997.  The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.

 

[Morat]

Atheists and theists definitely think they have the only truth about ultimate reality. Science is agnostic. It doesn't know, and can't know using its legitimate methods, where a deity exists or whether it supervises nature. So what you have is a battle between opposing beliefs using science as their battleground.

That's untrue and you know it. I'm an atheist and I don't think I know the truth (much less the only truth) about ultimate reality.

So, rather obviously, not all atheists think that way. I can't speak for theists.

 

[Matthew]

I assume you mean that you yourself do not hold this viewpoint, but you do agree that those of the atheism/evolution flavor do tend to hold this viewpoint? do you not?

Yes, I do. (I was away from these forums because of busy classes, and nearness to exams.)

Ok, I have just found in my limited experience that if you push most theists by questioning why they have 'chosen' a particular document, they refer to some kind of divine experience that revealed to them the truth of their particular holy writ. If this is not the case, please explain.

This becomes slightly complicated. Although some theists believe in their document because of personal experience, others do not. They believe in a Christological argument for the Bible, or some other type of argument. But, even they do not, for the most part, believe solely in that argument (it does not form the basis of their faith). Rather, it confirms that their faith is rational and should be believed at this time.

So, there are in general, three groups of belief on this subject:

1) Bible is true because 'It is the Christian document' and 'I know that Christianity is true because of a personal experience'.

2) Bible is true because of (1) and an argument confirms this

3) Bible is true because of an argument.

Yes, I would like to discuss this. Please explain how this seems self refuting to you?

OK. Your statement was,

If they can't "see" it (or detect it in some way) then they have no reason to believe it.

So, I will rephrase this as:

1) If there is no evidence for x, then one should not believe x.

But what would you accept as "evidence"? My guess is that only material evidence that is both repeatable and observable would be accepted.

1') If there is no (repeatable, material and observable) evidence for x, then one should not believe x.

If that is the case, then there is no such evidence that could prove (1'). Therefore, according to (1'), I should not believe (1'). And I do not.

 

[Matthew]

This is just a quick notice to all posters: Talking Rain and I wish to discuss knowing, not insult each other, or hear insults! Further, this thread is about knowledge, not evidence for creation/evolution.

It would be appreciated if your postings were in line with the intents of this thread.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Matthew
1') If there is no (repeatable, material and observable) evidence for x, then one should not believe x.

If that is the case, then there is no such evidence that could prove (1'). Therefore, according to (1'), I should not believe (1'). And I do not.

Funny, 1' rather seems like common sense to me.

"Since there is no material evidence that you are a fish, then one should not believe that you are a fish."

For the materialist, 1' is taken to be the core ontological committment. It's the starting point for all knowledge. As such, there is no need to justify itself with itself.

I'd be rather interested to see what you are offering as an alternative. How do you, or the theist in general, decide which truth claims "x" are true? Please state your core ontological committment in a form similar to 1' above.

 

[seebs]

I disagree, LFOD, there are many things which are not repeatable, or which are very hard to observe materially. (e.g., "I exist" is basically untestable.) You need a few reasonable axioms before you can start using that rule.

It depends somewhat on exactly how we understand "repeatable".

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by seebs
I disagree, LFOD, there are many things which are not repeatable, or which are very hard to observe materially. (e.g., "I exist" is basically untestable).

I don't understand. There is plenty of repeatable, material, observable evidence that I exist, starting with that big dent my rear end leaves in the chair when I stand up.

I agree there are probably a few other axioms in the mix, but I'm trying to keep things simple for now.

I also agree that there are many claims for which the evidence is not repeatable or hard to observe materially (e.g. "I love chicken"), however those are invariably claims about subjective truth, not objective truth.

 

[Outspoken]

"Outspoken, don't you think this has occurred to biologists? "

1. I am not basing my opinion on those numbers
2. Just because you have a 1 in 100000 chance doesn't guarentee that you will get 1 in 100000. You might not get one until 2340592.


"when natural selection can cause change so fast, why is the rate of change in the fossil record so much slower?"

good question, so what's your answer?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat
I don't think I know the truth (much less the only truth) about ultimate reality.

So, rather obviously, not all atheists think that way. I can't speak for theists.

Then you aren't really an atheist and will have to find a different label for yourself.

If you believe deity does not exist, then it logically follows that you also believe that the material processes are the ONLY processes at work in the universe, there is no purpose in the universe, and there is nothing after death.  These constitute ultimate reality.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Matthew So, there are in general, three groups of belief on this subject:

1) Bible is true because 'It is the Christian document' and 'I know that Christianity is true because of a personal experience'.

2) Bible is true because of (1) and an argument confirms this

3) Bible is true because of an argument.

How about: I believe the Bible is true because I trust the people who wrote it and that they set down their experiences accurately?  I have seen many Christians attempt to construct arguments to believe the Bible based on 1) archeology or 2) prophecies.  However, push comes to shove, doesn't it ultimately come down to trusting the author to accurately reporting the experiences? 



So, I will rephrase this as:

1) If there is no evidence for x, then one should not believe x.

But what would you accept as "evidence"? My guess is that only material evidence that is both repeatable and observable would be accepted.

1') If there is no (repeatable, material and observable) evidence for x, then one should not believe x.

If that is the case, then there is no such evidence that could prove (1'). Therefore, according to (1'), I should not believe (1'). And I do not.

Nice rephrasing.  As I pointed out, all evidence is personal experience.  The "repeatable and observable" is a subset of evidence that is called "intersubjective".  So, if you set the condition that the only evidence you accept is observable and repeatable, then you can try to claim "there is no evidence". 

However, I have yet to see anyone accept only intersubjective evidence. All of us in most areas of our lives accept our personal experience as valid when it is not intersubjective.

Instead, let me submit that agnostics and atheists are doing the same thing as theists -- relying on their personal experience.  And their experience is no experience of deity.  Therefore they do exactly what theists do -- place their personal experience as above the experience of anyone else.  Since their personal experience is no experience of deity, then they reach their different conclusions.