Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[PeterMP]

And in reality we don't seem to observe any supernatural stuff.

 

This is only true if we require our defintion of "observe" to be consistent with ONLY things that are generally considered natural.

 

It is only true if we discount evidence for things and observations for non-natural things as not evidence because they don't meet the criteria normally used to define what is natural (i.e. repeatable and reproducibile).

 

**EDIT**

And I'll go ahead and point out now that essentially the suggested approach here realistically ends up forcing us to conclude that things science (especially quantum mechanics) says can happen don't practically happen and potentially causes us to say that people that did see things that even science says can and should happen are wrong and/or dillusional.

[alexey]

This is only true if we require our defintion of "observe" to be consistent with ONLY things that are generally considered natural.

It is only true if we discount evidence for things and observations for non-natural things as not evidence because they don't meet the criteria normally used to define what is natural (i.e. repeatable and reproducibile).

That's true. Although, I think it's clear that we no longer observe the kind of supernatural stuff that supposedly happened in the past.

Edit: just saw your edit... Yes sounds like we are making the same point.

[Larry]

This is only true if we require our defintion of "observe" to be consistent with ONLY things that are generally considered natural.

 

It is only true if we discount evidence for things and observations for non-natural things as not evidence because they don't meet the criteria normally used to define what is natural (i.e. repeatable and reproducibile).

 

Recall once reading a column in a sci fi magazine, entitles "Irreproducable Phenomena" 

 

The column observed that there is a category of phenomena which some people claim can have a profound effect on people. 

 

These phenomena, while loosely related under a broad, umbrella, label, are often sub-divided into siner and finer labels to describe certain specific types of this larger phenomena. 

 

Some people seem to be much more easily affected by this phenomena than others.  In fact, there are many people who claim to be unaffected by the entire categoty, and many of those are willing to assert that they don;t really think other people are affected by them, either.  That, for some reason or another, many people simply claim (or fool themselves into believing) that they're affected. 

 

The practitioners of this "art " seem to be in pretty much universal agreement that this art can be enhanced by training.  But almost all of them also agree that some people seem to simply possess talent with this phenomena, without any training whatsoever.  And that there are many other people who simply seem incapable of ever acquiring any talent whatsoever, even with extensive training. 

 

Some practitioners of this "art" employ devices of various types to exhibit their talents.  Others use no devices whatsoever. 

 

Most practitioners agree that there are some practitioners who are vastly more talented than others, with this art.  But all of them agree that no matter how revered the practitioners, sometimes they fail to produce any results whatsoever.  And some times, those who have no recognition whatsoever will produce results which will far outstrip the results produced by those most recognized. 

 

Pretty much everybody agreed that this phenomena is almost impossible to quantify.  (Although there seem to be some things while often tend to enhance the odds of a successful result.)  And that even when circumstances are as nearly identical as possible, that the results will vary wildly between one iteration and the next, and between one participant and another. 

 

----------

 

Those of you who have read this magazine regularly no doubt believe that I'm discussing things under the broad label of "psi phenomena". 

 

But I was describing music. 

 

Almost everyone will believe that music is not something which is scientifically reproducible or quantifiable. 

 

And yet, virtually no one will use the fact of it's irreproducibility to argue that music doesn't exist. 

[Larry]

That's true. Although, I think it's clear that we no longer observe the kind of supernatural stuff that supposedly happened in the past.

Edit: just saw your edit... Yes sounds like we are making the same point.

 

 

In Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End (my favorite book), the extraterrestrial who has been put in charge of the Earth is speaking to the Secretary General of the UN, about why so many religious people seem to regard him as evil, and seem to be fighting him. 

 

The Supervisor (his title) observes that many religious people fear science.  But, he points out, not because they fear that science will prove their religion wrong.  He observes that the preacher who they were discussing is not worried that the Overlords (humanity's term for the aliens) are going to prove that there has never been a Great Flood, or that Jesus was NOT the Son of God. 

 

But, rather, he asserts, they are fearful that science's continuing advances will rob the Universe of it's mystery.  Of it's supernatural aura.  Of that characteristic which causes people to invent mythical explanations for the things they don;t comprehend. 

 

"So far as I'm aware, science has never disproven the existence of Thor.  But he has few worshipers, today." 

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF,

Let me clarify. How do we decide which parts of the bible should be taken literally? I see no other reliable way other than comparing it to reality... And in reality we don't seem to observe any supernatural stuff.

Do you have this same problem when reading a biography?

Really, if you're just playing obtuse or just aren't aware of how to differentiate between literary devices, either way it isn't flattering.

[alexey]

Do you have this same problem when reading a biography?

Really, if you're just playing obtuse or just aren't aware of how to differentiate between literary devices, either way it isn't flattering.

I have no problem with literary devices. I just do not understand why you think any of the supernatural stuff is for real.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I have no problem with literary devices. I just do not understand why you think any of the supernatural stuff is for real.

Ok, I assume you realize that you just moved the goal posts.

[alexey]

Ok, I assume you realize that you just moved the goal posts.

I tried to communicate that even though the bible contains truths in it, none of it should be taken literally.

Then it comes down to the approach you have for extracting those lessons and finding those truths. I understand how this process can be constructed on typical approaches for studying literature, doing science, or working with history. I do not know any approaches that can keep some supernatural stuff but not other supernatural stuff.

[alexey]

The Supervisor (his title) observes that many religious people fear science.  But, he points out, not because they fear that science will prove their religion wrong.  He observes that the preacher who they were discussing is not worried that the Overlords (humanity's term for the aliens) are going to prove that there has never been a Great Flood, or that Jesus was NOT the Son of God.

 

But, rather, he asserts, they are fearful that science's continuing advances will rob the Universe of it's mystery.  Of it's supernatural aura.  Of that characteristic which causes people to invent mythical explanations for the things they don;t comprehend.

Or maybe they didn't like that whole "Supervisor" and "Overlord" stuff

 

imho this is more about preserving identity rather than mystery.  I see science having real mysteries.  There isn't much mystery in "god did it"

[Larry]

Or maybe they didn't like that whole "Supervisor" and "Overlord" stuff

I'd strongly recommend reading the book.

"Overlords" is the term humans used to refer to the extraterrestrials. (Perhaps part of the reason for the grandiose title was the fact that the Overlords never descended from their space ships. Never even communicated with humanity, except for daily meetings with the Secretary General, and even HE never saw them, he merely sat in front of a blank TV screen and spoke to Kirellen.

The head Overlord, Kirellen, didn't even like the term "Overlords", and said that he thought of himself merely as "Supervisor".

(IMO, it's a REALLY great book. Despite the fact that I have a later edition in which Clarks basically says that he's rather embarrassed by all the ESP and similar things that he put in the book, and that he now thinks are utter bunk.)

There are elements in the book that I think are just masterfully written. Plot surprises that I sure didn't expect. An ending that I really didn't expect. And extraterrestrials who I actually felt for.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I tried to communicate that even though the bible contains truths in it, none of it should be taken literally.

You do of course realize that there is a lot in the Bible that is historical....right?

[alexey]

You do of course realize that there is a lot in the Bible that is historical....right?

I understand how you can find historically valid information in the bible. 

 

I do not understand how you conclude which supernatural stuff is allegory and which supernatural stuff is for real.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I understand how you can find historically valid information in the bible. 

And yet you just said that none of it should be taken literally.

 

I do not understand how you conclude which supernatural stuff is allegory and which supernatural stuff is for real.

So because you don't understand how I conclude which is allegory and which is literal than you just believe that it all should be taken figuratively (allegorical, metaphorical or otherwise)?

Honestly, that sounds a lot like evolution and climate deniers who say those things can't be true because they don't understand the science, and we've already established that their thinking is goofy.

The question you're asking is one of hermeneutics/exegesis which is the method one employs when reading any written text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

[PeterMP]

For what it is worth, I also think it is always important to point out that the idea of reading parts of the Bible in a non-literal manner pre-dates the advent in science and the "knowledge" that a literal reading of things like the creation story is not accurate.

 

There were important people that easily pre-date science that said it might not make sense to take certain parts of the Bible literally as an actual history lesson.

 

And in fact that type of thinking was what drove many early scientists.  People like Galielo were heavily influenced by St. Augustine (who pre-dated them and was an important Catholic thinker) who said that we can understand creation through studying it.

 

Not that everything we need to know about creation was contained in the Bible.

 

It is true that the Church has changed its ideas of creation and evolution due to science, but that largely was the vision of St. Augustine.

[alexey]

And yet you just said that none of it should be taken literally.

 

So because you don't understand how I conclude which is allegory and which is literal than you just believe that it all should be taken figuratively (allegorical, metaphorical or otherwise)?

Honestly, that sounds a lot like evolution and climate deniers who say those things can't be true because they don't understand the science, and we've already established that their thinking is goofy.

The question you're asking is one of hermeneutics/exegesis which is the method one employs when reading any written text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Thank you for the info and the link.

 

Yes I do not understand how you can decide where to draw that line.  It seems one can draw an arbitrary line in the sand like Ken Ham, or let science/history slowly turn the whole thing into allegories that are, in some cases, loosely based on historical events.

 

People say that faith is the belief in the unseen.  I do not see a good way to pick which unseen stuff to believe.

[Larry]

I think I have trouble with your assertion that it is possible for something to "predate science". 

 

Well, at least anything human.  Not trying to claim that humans were practicing science before the formation of the Earth, or anything like that. 

 

(I suppose, in this thread, you need to make such things clear.) 

[twa]

I think I have trouble with your assertion that it is possible for something to "predate science". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

have we ever settled what science is?

[Jumbo]

and mi amigo actually pops in to add defining "is" to the mix...dude...lol....

 

 

but that's not why i'm here...i just need some social support for properly resisting mucking up a decent conversation with any of the funny, one-sided, mocking pics I love to use and get so few (for me) chances to do so...

 

...noooooobuddy nozzzzzzze da trubbbblle i seeeeeeeen (sung in the key of Ry Cooder's Jazz version)

[PeterMP]

I think I have trouble with your assertion that it is possible for something to "predate science". 

 

Well, at least anything human.  Not trying to claim that humans were practicing science before the formation of the Earth, or anything like that. 

 

(I suppose, in this thread, you need to make such things clear.) 

 

I'm using the word science there as a process i.e. the scientific method.  Roger Bacon is generally credited for formalizing the scientific method, and he lived in the 1200s.

 

Galileo who is considered the father of modern science was born in the 1500s.

 

St. Augustine lived in the 300s

 

People like Aristotle and Plato aren't generally considered scientists even though they may have thought about problems and even dome some "experiements" and considered natural philosophers and not scientists doing science.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

 

"Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences such as physics."

 

Anyway the idea that all parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally easily pre-dates ideas related to evolution and heliocentrism and most of what we consider scientific information today (i.e. information derived from the scientific method).

[twa]

and mi amigo actually pops in to add defining "is" to the mix...dude...lol....

I love the arguments over who are real scientists....almost as fun as real Americans

[AsburySkinsFan]

Thank you for the info and the link.

Yes I do not understand how you can decide where to draw that line. It seems one can draw an arbitrary line in the sand like Ken Ham, or let science/history slowly turn the whole thing into allegories that are, in some cases, loosely based on historical events.

IMO that arbitrary line is exactly what Fundamentalists like Ham do indeed draw, it is with that same hermeneutical marker that many atheists use when "disproving" scripture. Quite honestly it serves neither side well, and is one of the biggest signs to a trained eye that someone doesn't know what they're talking about. Some ancient theologians did work with a heavy allegorical hermeneutic, but even for them there are clear parts of historical biography, they just instead saw everything (even historical events) as having multiple layers (historical, allegorical etc). Modern Liberal (not a pejorative term) theologians of the 19th-20th centuries (Jesus Seminar) heavily influenced my Enlightenment principles chose a philosophical hermeneutic that rejected virtually all of the things that were supernatural in the Bible. They determined this by popular vote. They are all but laughed at by most other theologians as much for their methodology and their outright rejection of anything supernatural. You're using a hermeneutic similar to Liberal theology which is to reject supernatural (because apparently the divine isn't so divine) in favor of turning everything in scripture into a philosophy.

People say that faith is the belief in the unseen. I do not see a good way to pick which unseen stuff to believe.

Because if God could be seen then God would not transcend creation.

[Sea Bass]

Thank you for the info and the link.

 

Yes I do not understand how you can decide where to draw that line.  It seems one can draw an arbitrary line in the sand like Ken Ham, or let science/history slowly turn the whole thing into allegories that are, in some cases, loosely based on historical events.

 

People say that faith is the belief in the unseen.  I do not see a good way to pick which unseen stuff to believe.

 

Faith is a first step towards knowledge.  

It applies to both science and religion.

Where would science be without someone saying "I'm going to try to do something without first knowing the results"?  Scientists take leaps of faith all the time.

If you want a scientific experiment to help you know God, I can give you one.  Are you willing to take a leap of faith and follow the path on which it takes you?  I think you'll find religion is not as immoral as you and Bill Nye seem to think.

[PeterMP]

Faith is a first step towards knowledge.  

It applies to both science and religion.

Where would science be without someone saying "I'm going to try to do something without first knowing the results"?  Scientists take leaps of faith all the time.

If you want a scientific experiment to help you know God, I can give you one.  Are you willing to take a leap of faith and follow the path on which it takes you?  I think you'll find religion is not as immoral as you and Bill Nye seem to think.

 

I've had signficant discussions on the merits or non-merits of faith, but I do think the way you are equating faith in God and in science are not at all equavilent.

 

At some level, there is almost always information about the results.  I've never conducted an experiment where if done safely my life was at risk any more than it is when taking a shower.  The likely result of me conducting the experiment is not my death.

 

From there, if the experiment "fails" or "succeeds", it is normally a "success" if it is a well designed experiment (i.e. I've learned something).

 

It doesn't seem to me to take more faith to conduct such an experiment as compared to taking a shower, starting a car, or boarding an airplane.

[s0crates]

I'm using the word science there as a process i.e. the scientific method. Roger Bacon is generally credited for formalizing the scientific method, and he lived in the 1200s.

Not to nitpick, but I think you mean Francis Bacon, and he lived in the 1500s.

[PeterMP]

Not to nitpick, but I think you mean Francis Bacon, and he lived in the 1500s.

 

No, I meant Roger Bacon, but Francis Bacon is also given a lot of credit and certainly popularized the idea:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon

 

(Though reading the wiki page now seems to suggest that there is debate over Roger Bacon's role)

 

"He is sometimes credited, mainly starting in the 19th century, as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and later Arabic scholars, such as those of Muslim scientist Alhazen.^[2] However, more recent reevaluations emphasize that he was essentially a medieval thinker, with much of his "experimental" knowledge obtained from books, in the scholastic tradition."

 

So maybe Francis Bacon is the better answer.