I've just read the whole thread, and in general it is extraordinarily thoughtful and respectful. Thank you all!
post #201 of 269
6/12/09 at 3:54pm
bluegoat - what you said makes total sense to me. and i do understand the distinction between a scientific argument and a metaphysical one. for me personally i think it is reasonable to conclude that there is something...whether or not that something is god.. i haven't the slightest idea i would actually love to learn why you think that it is god.. i discuss this subject often with a good friend of mine and he has challenged me to come up with a logically sound argument for the existence of god. i have wanted to start a thread for awhile but i don't really want to upset anyone by asking them to 'prove' why there is a god or something. i respect people's faith either way and i didn't want to be rude.
my other question is once people have decided that the underlying principle is god who do they get to the belief that god is what the bible (or any religious text) says? i am with you all the way up to that part of it..how do you get from an underlying principle existence to the bible?
and last ... i think i love you. that is one of the best explanations of why someone believes in god that i have heard in awhile. i always hear arguments that are based around what the bible says and what science can't explain. i have never understood why science would contradict the existence of god or why the lack of a scientific explanation is proof of a god. what you said makes complete sense to me. i like metaphysics it makes my brain dizzy.
|I think people who believe in god are basically saying, "the universe is so complex it could not have possibly come into being on it's own, therefore it must have been created by something even more complex that did come into being on it's own." That is not a satisfactory answer to the big question. It is just displacing the question onto something else.|
|I doubt all dragon legends are in any way based on dinosaurs. The history of dragons is not actually what a lot of people thing, earlier ideas of dragons were often not quite what we tend to imagine today. For example, many couldn't fly. Many were more snake-like, and I think there might be even a few descriptions with fur.
But it seems to me that stories and myths are full of monsters, and many have only a tenuous connection to real creatures. I don't think we need to look to any real creatures to discover where Grendel came from, for example - he comes from people's nightmares.
|my other question is once people have decided that the underlying principle is god who do they get to the belief that god is what the bible (or any religious text) says? i am with you all the way up to that part of it..how do you get from an underlying principle existence to the bible?|
|the problem with inductive reasoning is that is uses correlation to 'prove' causation? ok that makes sense.. correlation does not prove causation. common sense.|
|i understand things better when i can apply them to something specific. so do you reject the data obtained by carbon dating b/c inductive reasoning was used to interpret that data?|
Well, yeah. But in many cases it certainly seems to. For instance, water heated to 100 degrees C boils. It isn't far-fetched, common-sense-wise, to assume that the heating of the water causes it to boil. It works, it's repeatable, we go "Duh" and move on. But philosophically, it's by no means proven, and it ends us being a very interesting conundrum. .
The whole "We don't have any biases, we go wherever the truth leads us" line woefully fails to recognise that science does have a very specific philosophical position, which is based on faith and involves fallacious reasoning. When creationism, which is openly based on a similar faith-based set of presuppositions, rejects certain evidence because it disagrees with the presuppositions which formed that evidence, it is accused of being biased (or usually far more insulting terms). This is a) ironic and b) fails to engage with the reason many creationists believe what they do, which is primarily presuppositional. I've found in many discussions with scientists or science-oriented folks that philosophy tends to be very dimly regarded (one friend, a biology major, famously referred to philosophy as "not a real degree" at Uni - I can only assume she classed it with marijuana-smoking hazy musings on the meaning of life, rather than the logic-based discipline it is). So the discussions tend to go nowhere.
lol actually i was saying that showing correlation is not enough to prove causation. heating water, like you said, is repeatable. it is reasonable to conclude that heating water to a high enough temperature will cause it to boil.
however, i read a new article on co sleeping not long ago that said co sleeping increases the chance of SIDS b/c both co sleeping and SIDS rates have gone up in the past couple of years unemployment has gone up too.. are they prepared to conclude that the unemployment rate also causes SIDS?
|lol actually i was saying that showing correlation is not enough to prove causation. heating water, like you said, is repeatable. it is reasonable to conclude that heating water to a high enough temperature will cause it to boil.|
|however, i read a new article on co sleeping not long ago that said co sleeping increases the chance of SIDS b/c both co sleeping and SIDS rates have gone up in the past couple of years unemployment has gone up too.. are they prepared to conclude that the unemployment rate also causes SIDS?|
|ok so young earth creationists do not believe the earth has been around that long and thus the interpretation must be incorrect?|
|sooo way uber oversimplification time. lets say i don't believe chickens lay eggs. if i sit there and watch a chicken lay an egg can i conclude that since i do not believe that chickens lay eggs that must not have been what happened?|
|What is the fallacious reasoning behind science, and why should rejecting evidence that disagrees with your presuppositions not be derided as bias.|
i was hoping you might find your way here! so why isn't this the argument presented by most christians? by fallacious reasoning are you referring to inductive reasoning?
why would science people not think well of philosophy? i would think that intelligent people would appreciate logic.
the presuppositions are the kicker so to speak. unless both sides can accept a common set of presuppositions they will never really reconcile.
what about religious scientists? i know there are some.. i know a few