Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Speedwell]

I respect scientists but not on this one. Scientists are pressured to agree with it If a scientist doubt evolution and say it then is laughed by everyone and probably don't get a job so you have that.

I depends on why he doubts it. Does he have some new evidence? Or just a particular interpretation of an ancient holy book?

 

[VirOptimus]

An atheist saying that a christian doesn't know anything about theology. You not even believe in God. The most important part of life!

Well, from your posts its obvious you dont know theology.

Belief do not translate to knowledege.

 

[AV1611VET]

What should we call someone who doesn't even believe in reality?

Empiricists?

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[inquiring mind]

Belief do not translate to knowledege.

Seeing is believing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Seeing is believing.

Hence the term "blind faith".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Seeing is believing.

It's a popular phrase, but if taken literally, leads to believing that David Copperfield really can fly and illusionists really do saw their assistants in half...

 

[inquiring mind]

Hence the term "blind faith".

No... "blind faith" would be believing without seeing.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's a popular phrase, but if taken literally, leads to believing that David Copperfield really can fly and illusionists really do saw their assistants in half...

I just don't think I want to spend time comparing illusionists to the Almighty Lord.

 

[Ophiolite]

Seeing is believing.

Only for the gullible.

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I don't accept unquestioningly what I think I have seen, so why would I accept the word of others, especially on important matters. I don't doubt the sincerity of many people, dead and alive, who claim to have seen certain things; nor do I doubt the powerful human talent for self-deception.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I just don't think I want to spend time comparing illusionists to the Almighty Lord.

That's understandable, faith-based beliefs are vulnerable to doubt; but the fact remains that human perception is unreliable and easily mistaken.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - R. Feynman.

 

[inquiring mind]

Only for the gullible.

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I don't accept unquestioningly what I think I have seen, so why would I accept the word of others, especially on important matters. I don't doubt the sincerity of many people, dead and alive, who claim to have seen certain things; nor do I doubt the powerful human talent for self-deception.

That’s certainly rational... do you think there’s no gullibility at all in rationality?

 

[Ophiolite]

That’s certainly rational... do you think there’s no gullibility at all in rationality?

Rational analysis is only as good as the data used. If one is careless in the acquistion/selection of data, or fails to rationally assess its limitations or rationally identify missing data, then the conclusion may be indistinguishable from one arrived at via a careless, gullible mindset. However, if one maintains a rational approach throughout the full analysis process then gullibility will be absent.

If you are asking whether rational approaches can themselves be gullible, then I give you a definitive "NO". The only way that could occur would be by redefining "rational", or "gullible", or both.

 

[inquiring mind]

.

Rational analysis is only as good as the data used. If one is careless in the acquistion/selection of data, or fails to rationally assess its limitations or rationally identify missing data, then the conclusion may be indistinguishable from one arrived at via a careless, gullible mindset. However, if one maintains a rational approach throughout the full analysis process then gullibility will be absent.

If you are asking whether rational approaches can themselves be gullible, then I give you a definitive "NO". The only way that could occur would be by redefining "rational", or "gullible", or both.

I’m not trying to be tricky – just curious. Outside a scientific laboratory and controlled experiment, if you witnessed an extraordinary event of some kind, which do you think you would believe... what you actually saw (or even thought you saw) and interpreted, or what you tried to rationalize it to be (or was told to rationalize it to be)?

 

[Silmarien]

Empiricists?

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Er, I'm pretty sure empiricists believe in reality. Well, most of them, at least.

That's understandable, faith-based beliefs are vulnerable to doubt; but the fact remains that human perception is unreliable and easily mistaken.

Not to get hardcore Cartesian, but all beliefs are vulnerable to doubt!

 

[NBB]

Well, from your posts its obvious you dont know theology.

Belief do not translate to knowledege.

But theology is about God and if you don't have any experience with him or have the spirit of God then your knowledge about theology is useless and probably all your opinions about God are wrong.

 

[Ophiolite]

.


I’m not trying to be tricky – just curious. Outside a scientific laboratory and controlled experiment, if you witnessed an extraordinary event of some kind, which do you think you would believe... what you actually saw (or even thought you saw) and interpreted, or what you tried to rationalize it to be (or was told to rationalize it to be)?

For me the clue lies in the use of the word extraordinary. i.e the event was extremely unusual, or implausible, or even seemingly impossible. My immediate reaction would be "what actually happened here? I know what appears to have happened, but that seems very unlikely. What evidence could I now examine in order to determine what really occurred? What evidence would be needed to convince me that what I thought had happened was actually the most plausible explanation?"

In the absence of evidence in either direction my conclusion would be simply, "Boy! That was weird."

To illustrate this is not just a hypothetical response I'll cite an example from more than fifty years ago. As a teenager I was fascinated by the ideas of ESP, clairvoyance, telekinesis and the like. One of the experiments I conducted was to sit in my living room and try to move a vase that sat on a shelf by the power of my mind. The vase was of stable design, about eight feet away from me and at least three inches from the edge of the shelf.

Around the third or fourth time I tried this I left the room and went about other business for a couple of hours. When I re-entered it the vase was lying on the floor. What were the possibilities:

• Someone else had entered the room and knocked it over. However, the only plausible possibility was my parents, both of whom declared they had not been in the room and were unaware of the fallen vase.
• My parents were lying and had knocked it over and not bothered to pick it up. However, this would have been wholly inconsistent with their behaviour throughout their lives.
• A bird had flown in the window, knocked it over, then flown out again. However, the windows were closed throughout.
• An earthquake had dislodged it. However, the area is not prone to earthquakes and not even a minor tremor was reported.
• Passing traffic had generated enough vibration to shake it off the shelf. However the house was set 100m or more from the road which had only light traffic. No similar event occurred before or after.
  
• I had moved it by telekinesis. However, telekinesis has never been demonstrated convincingly in any well designed experiment.

Consequently, my conclusion was - and remains - Boy! That was weird.

 

[VirOptimus]

But theology is about God and if you don't have any experience with him or have the spirit of God then your knowledge about theology is useless and probably all your opinions about God are wrong.

Seriously? Theology is the study of religious belief.

As god(s) cant be proven (or disproven) they cant be studied.

 

[Silmarien]

Seriously? Theology is the study of religious belief.

As god(s) cant be proven (or disproven) they cant be studied.

You don't get to redefine the word "theology" to make it mean whatever you want it to. The study of religious belief would be psychology of religion. Theology is something very different, and whether you think it can be appropriately studied or not is irrelevant to its definition.

 

[pitabread]

But theology is about God and if you don't have any experience with him or have the spirit of God then your knowledge about theology is useless and probably all your opinions about God are wrong.

Trotting out the "True Believer" defense isn't a particularly strong position to hold in a debate. Especially since there are many True Believers of various faiths that would happily disagree with your theological views.

 

[VirOptimus]

You don't get to redefine the word "theology" to make it mean whatever you want it to. The study of religious belief would be psychology of religion. Theology is something very different, and whether you think it can be appropriately studied or not is irrelevant to its definition.

Sorta kinda, but in the whole you are right and my post was in error. Mea culpa.