A question about Religon and Progress

[Jon Miller]

Most people who beleif in God have that beleif be a central assumption. On the same level as the beleif in empiricism. Why should the existence of a creator need to be deduced or 'proved' when other assumptions aren't required to be (and in fact, can't be)?

JM

[ramseya]

well yeah, religion doesn't require any observation. You're right, you don't need to deduce God from anything. But therein is a major problem as you create an arbitrary belief. I would hope that a priori 'proof' of God went out with Bishop Anselm and Avicenna.

The assumptions behind empiricism are simpler and require less 'leaps of faith' (mainly that observations are true and that the universe isn't my mind's conception) than a priori belief in God... although even this argument from simplicity involves the assumption of the validity of Ockham's razor.

[Jon Miller]

They are just assumptions/beleifs and so equal. Any set of assumptions that are internally consistent are reasonable (well, reason itself arises from assumptions, but you get my point).

I don't see how you can argue that the 'leap of faith' is less either.

It is only if you choose to assume that God exists, or not.

I think that all this 'proof' of God's existence business is stupid, His existence is fundamentally not able to be probed by science and all other 'proofs' or 'disproofs' are circles.

JM

[SlowwHand]

Belief. Faith. Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by ramseya
Traianvs:

At the risk of weakening your valid argument concerning the very common misconception that science is a belief system...

technically speaking, empiricism is just one epistemological method. A rationalist could argue against science's assumption of the validity of observations. It is somewhat of a leap of faith to be certain that observations are valid but it is no more of a leap than others which we accept readily such as that other people exist and that the universe isn't contained within my head.

But in science, every observation must be able to be made by anyone in the world. That is not something to be believed. What do you mean the validity of the observations could be questioned? I believe you are referring to the fact that what we as humans perceive could be entirely different from what say other species perceive, and that observations are not necessarily reality. Okay, but that's not the issue here. Humans all observe in similar ways, and although some people people interpret things differently (like paranoiacs for example) we can still describe why a book lies on the table instead of hovering above it. I don't think it's something to believe in. I don't "believe" in evolution either. It's just there. Some things about it might be interpreted differently, but I don't understand why I should "believe" in simple logical observations.

If I have to question everything like that I might as well wonder whether or not the world around me is real or not, that it's all my imagination. Well, every argument ends there, and besides that's another discussion .

[onodera]

Is the evolution of viruses and bacteria observed in laboratory conditions not enough for you, BK?

[Robert]

Originally posted by ramseya
Ben:

Planets have been discovered by astronomers not through observation of a planet but by deduction from indirect observations, such as the effect of a strong gravitational pull on stars causing them to 'wobble'.

No one has ever gone to the sun and taken a sample to prove that it is made up of hydrogen and helium yet through spectroscopy, we know its composition.

Similarly, we do not need to witness the direct change from one species to another to know of evolution's factuality.

I'm sure that our astronomes have made a lot of mistakes we might discover in the future regarding the size and number of planets they have discovered.

If you really want to compare the theory of evolution to the discoveries of extra-planets, you're only making the theory of evolution less likely.

Our knowledge of extra-planets is really young. A lot will change there in the coming years/centenia.

[Robert]

Originally posted by onodera
Is the evolution of viruses and bacteria observed in laboratory conditions not enough for you, BK?

Not for me.

I'm a database developper. I've seen many 'evolutions' in databases as a result of copy-mistakes. Sometimes colors change or data-changes.

I defenitely have no doubt that there have been copy-errors that actually improved a database or a software program. (better color-style, etc.)

But I defenitely don't believe that ms-dos 3.0 will evolve into Windows XP sp2 if you copy it billions by billions by billions by billions of times. Not even if you let every copy be 'selected' by an individual.

Natural reproduction may have a higher 'mutation rate' then software-copying but in the end the mechanics are quite the same.

As an information analyst I don't believe that information is changed in such a way that total new kinds of information appears. Changes: yes. Good changes: rare, but yes. Total new data-systems: no.

[Sandman]

Dog breeds:

[Robert]

Originally posted by Sandman
Dog breeds:

They're all dogs. Despite that they may look different, there's actually very little real difference between them.

[Sandman]

If humans can do that in a few thousand years, presumably it can happen on a more profound level over millions of years.

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought Ben was a Mennonite?

You are right. I was a mennonite.

I was baptised an Anglican as a baby. In March 2001 I did my profession of faith in the Mennonite church, and joined a year later.

In November of 2003, I started my RCIA, and in April of 2005, I had my first confession, confirmation and first communion all at the same time.

Since then I've been a Catholic, so 3 years and a bit now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Planets have been discovered by astronomers not through observation of a planet but by deduction from indirect observations, such as the effect of a strong gravitational pull on stars causing them to 'wobble'.

They have also been observed through occultation, which is direct observation.

Now the thing about the extra-solar planets is that they can make predictions about the orbit once the observations are complete. You can pinpoint the location of the planet and the sun in relation to one another just by knowing the time you are observing. It is predictable.

Secondly, you can replicate the same observations in another lab. All you have to do is observe the star slowly over a long period of time, from two locations that are fairly far from each other.

Evolution doesn't make predictions, nor can it be replicated in a lab.

No one has ever gone to the sun and taken a sample to prove that it is made up of hydrogen and helium yet through spectroscopy, we know its composition.

No, but you can excite a sample of hydrogen gas and helium gas and observe the same spectra. This is why we infer that since we observe the same spectral lines, that there is hydrogen and helium on the sun.

We needed all the infomation on spectra lines before we could understand what the spectrum of the sun meant.

Similarly, we do not need to witness the direct change from one species to another to know of evolution's factuality.

Yes, sir we do. In order to postulate that organisms can in fact evolve from one another, then we ought to have direct observations showing this is so. That we do not have these observations does not prove that evolution is wrong, merely that it is a scientific theory, as of yet, unsupported by direct observation. It has not been confirmed.

Genetic similarities between organisms

If A is similar to B, then does that mean that A comes from B or B comes from A?

atavism, homologous structures, etc. all serve as indirect evidence for evolution.

It's circumstantial evidence. If someone is murdered in a haystack, does that mean everyone with hay on their clothes is a suspect?

I am sure you have heard these arguments before so nothing will persuade you.

You presume to know much about me. Why don't you try your best arguments and I will try mine? What have you to lose?

Hell, I'm sure you've heard of the Enlightenment-era watch-maker concept of God which wouldn't preclude evolution and is in keeping with your apparently Catholic faith.

I believe God can and does intervene in the world. I'm not a Deist, and Deism is contrary to the Catholic faith.

[Ben Kenobi]

Theologists make reasonable arguments based on belief, but exactly that is the fatal flaw: it's a belief.

How is this any different from a hypothesis?

That is why it's not a science, and evolution is. People who adhere the principles of evolution don't "believe" in it.

They do so. They believe in it because they believe it to be true. People who believe in religion believe it to be as true as the earth they stand upon. Darwinists believe that Darwin's arguments are rational, and are based on reason in an attempt to understand the inner workings of nature. Theology does the same.

Like you are doing now, religious people claim evolutionists believe in it, like if it were a competing religion.

They do believe there are two competing paradigms. Otherwise Darwinists would accept Christianity, because there would be no conflict between the two. The reason there is conflict is not because theology is science, but because Darwinism is a theology.

You had better think from a neutral point of view, and perhaps then you'll see that's it not a belief, whereas theology is inherently based on a belief.

Darwinism is based on a belief too. I don't see the difference between the two. Both try to explain the origins of the world, in such a way that is rational, but not empirical.

That is why theology can't be a science like we would traditionally describe that concept. It's not because it uses similar methods of thinking about a particular religion doesn't make it a science altogether.

Theology is only similar to science in that it employs reason. The difference between science and theology is empiricism, nothing more.

Darwinism is not an empirical theory, yet it employs reason, hence it is a form of theology.

[Ben Kenobi]

I suppose Ben takes his observations of life and assumes quite naturally that life must have been consciously created and organized. In a way, this is an inference and he could argue that certain aspects of life are good forms of indirect evidence for a creator.

I would question, however, if Ben would have deduced a creator following his observations or would the observations have 'proved' his creator for him?

Good question! I hope you aren't cynical in asking this. I think I've always believed in God in some way shape or form, but for a considerable portion of my life, I've not been a Christian. Between 7 and 19 I never stepped in a church at all.

My understanding of God before I became a Christian was on the weak anthropic principle. I believed that because the world showed great order and precision, that it was evidence of a designer of somesort. Much as one finds a watch, one presumes a watchmaker. The watch does not organise itself. I rejected the idea that God would act on the world, because if the world were perfect, then he would not have to act at all.

Since then I've had reason to believe otherwise. If you want to claim that a Christian only knows God through indirect means, then you may wish to rephrase your question.