Christians and Evidence

[badtrunk]

i cant figure out why anyone would try to claim that christianity, or any other religion, would ever try to equate itself with science. the factual evidence needed to prove scientific theories can not be compared in any way to religious dogmatic fantasy. in science something is either known or it is not, while in religion, we are told that ''faith'' is all we need. in the eyes of rational people, proof is all you need.... when proof is laid out, there is no need for belief in anything not upheld by evidence. hello everyone!!

[minorwork]

Not all, but there are some, the Young Earth Creationists, who are dishonest, disingenuous, and will lie if they deem it worthwhile to the pursuit of their cause; getting their ticket thru the pearly gates..

I'd like to make sense of this but I guess I don't know enough YECs to do so. How would promoting a belief get their ticket stamped? I suspect this sentiment, too, is personal-based.

Not a sentiment. You could have heard him too if you'd been there. He feared punishment after he died and to prevent that he had to believe on faith that the earth was, at the most, 12,000 years old. He called his beliefs the "price of admission" to heaven. Go figure.

A Baptist minister was not as jovial and was definitely in fear of hellfire and brimstone.

When you ask, "How would promoting a belief get their ticket stamped?" I sympathize. I don't see what good it'll do them either. They need to concentrate on the "here and now" instead of "when and then." If, while they are alive, they can go visit heaven and hell, well then, now we would be getting someplace. That the two poles of human experience exist means they could be explored and charted.

[minorwork]

i cant figure out why anyone would try to claim that christianity, or any other religion, would ever try to equate itself with science. the factual evidence needed to prove scientific theories can not be compared in any way to religious dogmatic fantasy. in science something is either known or it is not, while in religion, we are told that ''faith'' is all we need. in the eyes of rational people, proof is all you need.... when proof is laid out, there is no need for belief in anything not upheld by evidence. hello everyone!!

Hey. Nice post. Time to get dirty, eh?

I've found that people believe all sorts of nonsense for varying reasons. Is it going to rain? This question might give some insight as to the basis of our beliefs.

Truth. Knowledge. Will it rain tomorrow?
By declaration - Gonna' rain tomorrow. Will eventually be verified.

A Posteriori and A Priori - by experience and by definition. A Posteriori: I can see rain and feel rain. Uses senses. A Priori: I have been taught the definition and language associated with the a posteriori event; raining. Decided upon knowledge. Right and left distinguishment another example.

Authority - The weatherman says it is going to rain tomorrow. Right more often than declaration.

Scientific method - By gathering data on site and looking to past patterns and prediction testings, a prediction can be made. By recognizing inherent limitations in the process, a percentage chance of it raining is given. Better than authority for predicting local conditions.

[Pyrastra]

Science can only be trusted when in the hands of a conscionable human being. IOW, only Christian scientists can be trusted to present the facts and nothing but the facts.

Are you serious or do you jest? Surely you jest.

One would wonder the objectivity of such a statement. How was this percentage derived? Is it just hyperbole? I must say, to be honest, your posts make sense the other 0.1% of the time.

I do believe that would be an expression for 'almost always'.

Circumstantial evidence like the proverbial square peg in the round hole ("See, it fits!")? Evidence is illusory, a web held together by assumption and preconception and willful bias. It only deceives the naive.

Oh, yes. And the saintly Christian scientists are the only sophisticated, unbiased people who can use evidence objectively.

Could we see the demonstration? What force of law and what belief are you referring to? Your post is too vague to have any validity.

Noah's Ark is a prominent example, I believe. There isn't enough water to flood the whole world, for starters.

Who poisoned your well? I bet your life would be a great psychological study. There is some strong stimuli lurking here; this kind of strong reaction against "family values" is not casually propagated. Someone in your family preaches too much?

Ad hominem is uncalled for.

they are compatible. When one veers from the truth, it becomes anathema to the other.

So long as they stay VERY far away from each other.

2) Even God admittedly made mistakes. Remember the flood?

That's right. A perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God.

Why persecute anyone?

How is this relevant to what you quoted? It was not suggested that anyone should be persecuted.

Now there's a statement that we can examine through a POLL! I say that the atheists overwhelming outnumber American Christians.

Well, speaking from experience, atheists DO dominate the world wide web, it seems.

Are they unique in this sense? How would anyone behave differently? What does conviction mean?

Don't take my word as anecdotal evidence, but concerning science and theology, it seems to me that the atheists I know are more open minded than the theists I know.

Or science!

Except science works.

To be valid and sound.

Sound as in logically sound, no? Then I would agree with you. But sound realistically? I have my doubts.

What test failed when it was applied to Genesis? What test did Noah’s Ark and the flood fail?

No evidence to support the claim that Eve came from a rib, for starters. The flood? Well, well. The flood story's not that universal, and you'd think it would be if it flooded the whole world. Instead, it is most common (even non-Christian catastrophic flood tales) around the Mediterranean.

Secondly, which “demonstrably {wrong} beliefs” are you referring to?

Young earth creationism, I would expect.

And who are you referring to?

If I had said that, I'd be referring to Kurt Wise.

"If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

[Shade]

...For Christians where Christianity is concerned, written claims of supernatural events are interchangeable with actual evidence of supernatural events.

Nowhere in life do we accept such nonsense. Why do Christians insist it be so for their claims?

Because there isn't any actual evidence.

[Jinei]

Sound as in logically sound, no? Then I would agree with you. But sound realistically? I have my doubts.

Yes, he's mixing the Logic terms with Science.

If I had said that, I'd be referring to Kurt Wise.

"If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

I've been looking for this quote for quite some time now and I didn't know who said it. This is just one reason why purely Christian scientists may be reluctant in capitulating to the fact that a given claim or theory has been adequately refuted that any real scientist would drop it and move on. Not to say that all Christian scientists would be so blind; only that Christians are by no means the ideal scientists, as loser suggests.

[Cephus]

Piltdown Man was blatant abuse of scientific 'privilege' and the scientific method (a fraud) and was not discovered for over forty years.

Hardly. Piltdown was a fraud perpetrated by creationists, most likely Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had a hand in it, and it was almost immediately questioned by science. While it was not definitively demonstrated to be a fraud for 40 years, by then it was regarded as little more than a curiousity by most of the scientific community.

Try again.

[Rainbow]

For Christians where Christianity is concerned, written claims of supernatural events are interchangeable with actual evidence of supernatural events.

Nowhere in life do we accept such nonsense. Why do Christians insist it be so for their claims?

What is : supernatural ?

[rez]

What is : supernatural ?

I can't believe this. What is so hard about this. I don't even understand that sentence Zharvic wrote.

It is simple. Christians, Muslims, Palm readers, ghost hunters etc...do not subject their reality claims to the same standards that other reality claims are subjected to.

When the car salesman says this car only has be driven for 12 miles you say prove it. When a Christian says they saw god, its just simply accepted.

[RavenFlame]

When the car salesman says this car only has be driven for 12 miles you say prove it. When a Christian says they saw god, its just simply accepted.

They're different in that God can't be proven; that's why it's faith-based, not science-based.

[rez]

They're different in that God can't be proven; that's why it's faith-based, not science-based.

Well if you would have read my Explain Reality thread you wouldn't have said this.

They are both claims about reality. The reason why god can't be proven is because the claim is disorganized and backwards. In reality, you don't make up claims that you have no business backing up. If you can't backup your claim, then nobody is going to take you serious.

1) There is a universe.
2) We want to explain it.
3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?


Of course, we use the explanation that works. The explanation that provides information, seems to be a good way of identifying if the explanation is useful.

Funny thing is theists admit this. Otherwise they wouldn't deny the reality claims that contradict their reality claims. The big bang didn't create the universe, the gods created the universe.

[RavenFlame]

They are both claims about reality. The reason why god can't be proven is because the claim is disorganized and backwards.

Explain how it is "disorganized and backwards."

In reality, you don't make up claims that you have no business backing up.

One of my favorite adages: "There are always exceptions to the rule."

If you can't backup your claim, then nobody is going to take you serious.

Which reality do you live in?