Vinnie

""""Um, I see science dealing with reality, but have a lot of difficulty seeing where religion does, except in very general ethical matters that don't require a reference to religion."""

Can I assume you are an atheist?

Don't strip what I said out of context:

I am speaking from a Christian perspective, not from an atheists point of view.

A practical position some Christians take regarding science and religion:

Vinnie

wildernesse

Tricia,

I’m glad that the verse strengthens your faith—it helps mine also. And I’m interested in the fact that you agreed that faith is not provable. So, if faith is not provable (by definition) and we believe by faith that God commanded the universe into existence, then our belief in God’s command is not provable. Does it make it untrue? Not necessarily.

And, yes, I do care about the fate of nonbelievers—as a Christian and as a human (no those aren’t mutually exclusive!). But I don’t believe that my salvation, or that of anyone else, rests exclusively on the first book of the Bible. Think of the basis of your salvation—what makes you a Christian? Is it the literal reading of Genesis? I doubt it.

I’m not advocating that you take my position, or anyone’s position other than your own. But I would like to hear what you think about my questions.

Vinnie,

What are other biblical verses you are thinking of that define faith? (I'd like to know so I don't have to rely on just Heb.) And how can you really have "faith" in something that you have evidence and proof of? If there were demonstrable evidence, there wouldn't be atheists. How do you know that God exists? Is that evidence able to get past faith? I haven’t found my evidence to negate faith—but that doesn’t make my faith less real to me. What did the blind man say? “One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!” John 9:25

Also, “many Christians” wouldn’t accept “blind faith”. Many Christians don’t accept evolution. Many Christians don’t accept the NIV. Many Christians don’t accept that the Braves are a good baseball team. So? If you’re wrong, it doesn’t matter how many of you there are.

Just a note on reasoning <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html" target="_blank">(Argumentum ad numerum)</a>—not whether or not your statement is correct or incorrect.

--tiba

Vinnie

""Also, “many Christians” wouldn’t accept “blind faith”. """

I said "not all" Christians accept blind faith. If there are 1 billion Christians that number could range anywhere from 1 Christian to 999,999,999 Christians. I gave no explicit number as far as I can see. The idea of "faith" is commonly advocated as blind belief in something for which there is no evidence." This is assumed to be the natural definition by many Christians and skeptics. I am simply pointing out that not all Christians accept faith in such a manner. That in itself does not make it wrong or right. I also pointed out that the definition does not mesh with biblical statements. That, also, in istelf does not make it wrong or right. I do not see that as an argumentum ad numerum. I see it as people using a questionable word uncritically. What seems clear is that I am saying the word "faith" needs to be examined. There are obvious reasons not all accept that definition and the word faith is rarely ever qualified in discussions. Definitions are important in discussions. Pointing out that not everyone uses the word in the same way is not a fallacy.

"""Many Christians don’t accept evolution. Many Christians don’t accept the NIV. Many Christians don’t accept that the Braves are a good baseball team. So? If you’re wrong, it doesn’t matter how many of you there are."""

I agree, if you are wrong it doesn't mattter how many of you there are. That is not the context my statement was made in.

"""""And how can you really have "faith" in something that you have evidence and proof of?"""""

I'd say not all Christians use "faith" in the same manner as you do. But your question seems to assume faith has that one meaning. My "not all" comment comes closer to exposing a fallacy than to actually being one as far as I can see. That is the context of my "not all Christians" comment. The word is rarely ever qualified.

According to m-w.com:

Faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Am I correct in saying that your use of faith falls into 2 b (1) ? " firm belief in something for which there is no proof".


""""If there were demonstrable evidence, there wouldn't be atheists."""""

If there were demonstrable evidence of the earth's antiquity there would not be young earth creationists.

I think your statement is just as errouneous as mine.

""""""How do you know that God exists? Is that evidence able to get past faith? """"""""

In the absolute most deepest sense I do not know for sure. And I would say, ultimately, NO evidence gets past faith of the "belief in something for which their is no evidence" kind.

"""""What are other biblical verses you are thinking of that define faith? """"""

I'll get back to this later.

Vinnie

wildernesse

Vinnie,

I’m sorry that I misquoted you, but I think that my little rant is still valid. Note that I didn’t say whether your comment was correct or not.

Also, I don’t think that I was using a word (faith) without saying which definition I was using out of the several definitions that the word has. I quoted the same definitions from Webster on the previous page—I’m not sure that you’ve read that post of mine to Tricia. Since Tricia had agreed with me that faith could mean something that couldn’t be proven, I think the definition of faith was qualified to have a limited meaning here.

If there were demonstrable evidence of the earth's antiquity there would not be young earth creationists.

To borrow your phrase, I’ll get back to this later. Right now, all I can think of is “but there IS evidence!”—which of course isn’t an answer. Is my assertion erroneous? Never—the mere suggestion is ludicrous!

And I think you’re right—we can’t on the deepest level of logic-knowledge know whether God is there or not—and that’s where my faith steps up and says yes. This is where the blind part comes in.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts about this and other topics!
--tiba

Tricia

Just an update: I went to the library and checked out Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu with essays by Isaac Asimov, Stephen Gould, Kenneth Miller, etc. and another book Richard Dawkins, A River Out of Eden. I look forward to discussing any questions I have about these two books.

~Tricia

edited to put edited.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Tricia ]</p>

KeithHarwood

Way to go!

So do I. A hint, though. Start the discussions as new topics. This one is getting rather long in the tooth.

Tricia

gotcha.

~Tricia

The Other Michael

Hi Vinnie,

yes you may.

However, one of your quoted sources mentions that "only facts" are taken into account as a common point between theology and science.

That appears a very shaky statement to me, especially since it appears (at least to me) that theists are, in general, woefully short of "facts" to support their claims.

cheers,
Michael

Quetzal

Tricia: Good on ya. Montagu's book is good, although a bit dated. I look forward to talking with you about "River" as well. Let us know if you have any questions.

hezekiah jones

By way of returning to the subject of this thread's OP, Ruse put out a book, But Is it Science?, a couple years after McLean. It contains several articles by Larry Laudan and Philip L. Quinn, in which Overton's opinion is torn to shreds on the grounds of Ruse's five "essential characteristics of science."

They're well worth reading especially in light of the fact that the Discovery Institute bases a considerable portion of its potential legal argument in favor of "intelligent design" upon them.