I have always said the same, but you do not seem to notice.
So why did you accuse me of
You can’t have it both ways!
No, I do not. That is binary thinking.
Your definition of “Inspiration” needs some work, then.
If it means the backwards view that you have, no.
If so then why are you sticking to a view over 2000 years old>
I hope we are not still talking Binary. I acceept some, but not all of the scientific view.
Perhaps you have a limited view f the world as well.
You are mistaken.
I do not claim ether majority, or correctness. I claim diversity, but that seems to choke some people. There is a human need to be seen to be right.
except that it is the view of every single writer of Scripture.
IOW you are already rejecting a core belief. Why then, do you object to my viewing other beliefs as faith specific?
I dobt that you know my view of inspiration. Perhaps I do not know yours. The position I argue against is that Scrioture was authored or vetted by God and that “Inspiration” means That God breathed the correct words.
If that is not your view I apologise.
MY view is that the writers wrote their beliefs and understandings within the cultrue and faith they were raised with. Paul was still a Pharisee,in outlook, even after conversion. Paul wrote to the people of his time, I very much doubt that he expected his words to be held as sacrosanct.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
148
How so?
For example, we could look at the absorption lines in stellar spectra. We don’t have to assume the constancy of natural laws in order to observe these absorption lines.
We understand that here on Earth these absorption lines are the product of the laws of nature. You can’t change those spectra without changing the laws of nature, and everywhere we look we see these same spectra (although redshifted for distant galaxies).
Science uses the same assumptions you use to function everyday. We assume that thermodynamics won’t suddenly stop working and cause us to die in a spontaneously forming vacuum. The assumptions of science are the same practical and pragmatic assumptions that you probably never even think about when you are using them.
For me, the concept of nullius in verba plays a large role. I need something more than “because I say so”.
We would also have to look at other religions. For example, would it be fair to say that Mormons have data supporting the existence of a lost tribe of Israel in pre-Columbian North America?
And there are people who believe just as adamantly in gods you don’t believe in.
The scientific approach is repeatability. If you are making the conclusion that the Earth isn’t moving, then present repeatable observations that support your conclusions. The scientific approach is to start with data that everyone has access to and everyone nominally agrees with.
Within any religion, a similar feature may be the tenets of the religion, or perhaps some sort of basic doctrinal statement or creed, something like the Nicene creed. These are all aspects that everyone in the religion agrees to and is external to them.
Without falsifiability we run into dogmas. I think that is the part most people find difficult. If you can’t know if you are wrong then how do you know you are right?
That gets into the whole subjective v. objective morality debate that I have had elsewhere. It’s probably best if we don’t go down that long and windy rabbit hole. However, you points are well taken.
That is still claiming that the holy Spirit wrote it. it is not a valid argument.
I think you will hae difficulty backing up that assertion. Not that you ever back up your assertions.
The ceed is not Scripture, nor is it a summary of scripture. The creed is a summary of the human belief. The age of the earth (or science), as you so often state, has othing to do with belief in God.or the basics of our faith.
It seems we are understanding and using the word ‘fact’ differently. Although ‘fact’ is sometimes used in a broad sense, my understanding about ‘fact’ is that it refers to observations that are the same for everybody, independent of our worldview or interpretation of the observations. In that sense, ‘facts’ are objective.
Our explanations of what the facts tell are less objective. As you noted, we need various assumptions to interpret the facts. If we follow generally accepted rules in the interpretation, our interpretations are more objective than if we rely on personal opinions but even in that case, the interpretations are not facts (sensu stricto). Whether the earth moves or not is not a fact, it is an interpretation of the facts we have. The facts we have strongly suggest that earth moves around our sun and the whole system moves in space, which is why I consider that explanation very likely and credible.
Scientific theories and hypotheses attempt to present the best possible (the most credible) explanations of the facts we have. Some underlying assumptions may include misunderstandings and we may get better observations (facts) in the future, so the scientific theories and hypotheses are, by nature, never giving a certainty that the current explanation is the absolute truth. Often, scientific theories need to be modified after we get more complete data.
Yet, those challenging the prevailing theories should present an alternative interpretation that can explain the facts as well as the prevailing theory.
What is often neglected is that the interpretations about biblical scriptures have many similarities with scientific hypotheses.
We may start by thinking that the text (ink on papyrus or pergament) is the fact - it is the same for everybody, a believer or an atheist. To get credible interpretations of the text, we need multiple layers of assumptions.
First, we need to transform the ink smudges to readable letters.
Then, we need to identify words from the continuous chain of letters and put imaginary blanks and punctuation marks between the assumed words and sentences.
Third, we need to interpret and translate the possible meanings of the words and sentences to something that we can understand - I guess non of us is a born user of Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew, so we rely on assumptions of what the words and sayings originally meant.
Then, we need to decide whether the text is a credible part of the ‘canon’ (the library of widely recognized authoritative scriptures) or a less influential scripture.
So, even before we can start serious discussion about how we should interpret and apply the teachings of the biblical scriptures to our life, we need to go through several layers of interpretations based on more or less widely accepted assumptions.
When the understanding about the interpretation of the text gets better (of any of the above layers), we possibly need to modify one or more of our interpretations.
Our interpretations about the biblical scriptures are fallible, not absolute truth or ‘word of God’. In that sense, our interpretations of the biblical scriptures can be compared to scientific hypotheses. Evaluating how truthful our interpretations about the biblical texts are is more difficult than evaluating the reliability of scientific hypotheses because we can observe and measure the material creation but not the thoughts of God.
Let me start with this because this is the heart of what started this whole discussion. Yes it would absolutely be fair from my perspective to say that a Mormon who accepts the Book of Mormon as truthful would have and appeal to as data any claims made inside said work. We can dispute whether or not the Book of Mormon is what they believe it to be but we don’t get to define what is or isn’t data for anyone. Data can represent things known or assumed as facts. Now I it is my view that things assumed to be facts can be challenged and those beliefs can change through honest inquiry. For me it is an integral part of my worldview that Scripture is inspired and teaches truth. Thus, scripture serves as data about the world for me. I do believe it to be accommodated, however.
You said you wished people would look at the data. I don’t disagree in theory. It would be nice for more people to be scientifically literate but my original point said they do look at data, just not data you agree with. When you think about origins, I suspect data to you is limited at least primarily, if not exclusively to purely scientific data. But my point was that other people are using data from within their own frameworks. It’s not that they don’t like data, they love it. They are analyzing data from within the confines of their belief system which means they just use different data than you do to answer this question. Now if you are using the word data precisely as @knor did: “observations that are the same for everybody, independent of our worldview or interpretation of the observations” then we are talking past one another. But I think he needs to modify his description slightly to include the word “nominal” as you did.
Personally, I think it’s a good idea to defer to science on simple questions of how things happen but I don’t think that is the end of the issue and if current scientific theory did teach something that appears contrary to a central tenet of my faith (e.g. free will doesn’t exist or morality is subjective or a unified mind is made up), I am not going to immediately cave and bow down to it. Especially not 1) when there is quite a bit of interpretation mixed in with science today, 2) some modern physics seems to violate some very integral rules science is based on 3) people forget the limitations of science as they celebrate it successes, and 4) when most scientists seem woefully ignorant when it comes to a proper understanding of the philosophy of science and the underlying faith scientific reasoning is based upon. This was not always the case and it’s not inconceivable science gets things wrong to me. I tend to default to consensus positions on most issues. That is not an argument, however and I suspect we all have a hierarchy of truths in our worldviews.
I would say these spectral lines come from the heavens but they don’t fall from heaven. We point instruments at these shining celestial objects and assume the electromagnetic radiation from those them enters our devices that are carefully crafted using a knowledge of optics, waves and so on. Someone has to make the equipment used for this. It’s done under the assumption of what you are trying to say we do not need to do. Not to mention the minute we try to offer an interpretation and connect the dots of what we see we are naturally assuming the constancy of the laws of physics and assuming a shared experience and that we will all actually see the same data. We are also committed to Occam’s razor and dare I say, things like the principle of sufficient reason? It’s built in and there is no way around it in my opinion. Science has a bunch of underlying axioms built in we all take for granted. I say this only to point out that it’s not the only game in town for learning about our world. For this reason I will dismiss out of hand popular quantum mechanical interpretations that saw off the branch they are sitting in and violate things like the law of non contradiction which I believe science itself cannot exist with out.
Everywhere we look doesn’t mean this happens everywhere because we can’t look everywhere throughout space and time. That is one of necessary leaps we allow in science and in life as we connect the dots. But the regularity of nature appears unwavering to most of us. We notice patterns and we run with them and extrapolate them to all of reality. We then build fancier models and theories based on them. All in all the laptop I am typing from suggests we seem to be doing okay on that front. But despite the scientists argument from incredulity to the contrary, this is still not a guarantee of accuracy.
Yes. That is the point. None of these assumptions are scientifically provable. They are “beliefs.” Occam’s razor is extremely important to science. So is falsifiability, repeatability, the idea that the same cause produces same effects, seeking natural causes for natural phenomena, assuming the future is like the past, etc. All based on metaphysical beliefs or purely rational principles, not scientific ones. I would go further to Aristotle’s act and potency and I see
Why does anyone have to know (exhaustively) they are right? That sounds like a personal issue. Can anyone ever even exhaustively know they are right? Or do we just all have degrees of confidence? Do we have to know our moral views are correct to be moral or participate in a moral life? A lot of people I know never even think or care about many of the issues we fuss over on here very much.
I hate to revert to this again but if morality can be subjective why can’t a person’s conception of truth be the same? Why can’t a person say there probably is an objective truth but I can’t exhaustively know it so I am going to run with the subjective truth of my own experiences. Why does anyone need to follow along with your experiences that seem to really value the scientific method? I know you don’t want to open this can of worms but once you dump objective morality to me, everything else becomes trivial in comparison. Morality should be accepted as an underlying axiom or guiding principle like Occam’s razor or the regularity of nature. It along with free will is that obvious to me. It is my opinion that scientism/materialism just can’t account for them and refuses to let any non scientific foot in the door and denies the obvious.
We also run into practical problems with falsifiability. A large portion of the population just doesn’t trust scientists on key issues like global warming, vaccines, etc. You can have all the falsifiability you want. Doesn’t mean people will listen to what your theories say nor does it mean people will not prioritize other modes of knowledge they deem superior to the scientific method. So when you say: “And there are people who believe just as adamantly in gods you don’t believe in” I say so what? There are people who just as adamantly reject your scientific beliefs as you adamantly accept them. I understand the value of expert sources but unlike some on the forum, I don’t think truth is actually a popularity contest. The failure of people to accept an argument doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right or wrong. it just means they don’t accept it.
Most people don’t understand science well enough to either care about some of these issues or don’t know enough about science to actually vet many of its claims. That is the honest truth. Can you imagine a typical person who maybe took a few science classes in high school trying to decide whether Hugh Ross or Ken Ham gets radiometric dating correct?
It is a common obstacle in this kind of talks that we use the same words but mean different things with the words. That leads to talking past one another. I assume that this problem is common in discussions at the border of science and faith (/theology) because science uses terms in a much more precise (limited) meaning than people do in their everyday talk. General dictionaries do not necessarily reveal how the terms have been defined and used within (a branch of) science.
I do not know how many comments on this forum has been written just because the persons do not understand correctly what the other one is trying to say. Probably thousands, every year.
Much of these misunderstandings could be avoided if the writers would define what they mean with the terms they use. It is not realistic to demand such definitions in every discussion, which puts a bit pressure on both the writer and the receiver, to try to understand the message of the comment even when the other one uses the terms in a different meaning than I do.
3 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
155
At least for me, this makes the word “data” meaningless. If data can be whatever you want to believe it is, then that isn’t data. What is stopping someone from making something up at the drop of a hat and calling it data?
It might be helpful to flesh this out a bit.
That seems pretty silly to me. We can use the same type of instruments here on Earth and get the same spectra from the same elements. When we point these same instruments at stars we get the same results. It seems rather strange that the laws of physics would change in such a way that stars would give us the same results as those here on Earth.
Yes, we can’t do science without the law of parsimony (i.e. Occam’s razor). In fact, we can’t make any sense of reality without that law. Once you introduce the supernatural you can’t rule out the supernatural as the cause of anything. Weather? Supernatural. Fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene? Could have been put there by a supernatural being, so we can’t use them. This problem was outlined by George Romanes 140 years ago. He uses the word “superstition” which I think is a bit overboard, but the argument is dead on.
They are the same axioms you use on a minute to minute basis in your daily life.
Then where does it not happen?
Again, we can test for the uniformity of natural laws through time and space.
I thought most people want to know if they are right.
So is the Earth flat because some people believe the Earth is flat and that a flat Earth is true?
They don’t have to. That’s how we end up with things like the Flat Earth Society.
That hasn’t been my experience. In each of those cases those that doubt the consensus will still cite scientific studies as a reason for the position they hold. They still try to hold onto scientific plausibility while arguing against the scientific consensus. My own mother once told me, “I don’t accept global warming because of the science.” From what I have seen, they don’t trust the science because it conflicts with the beliefs they already hold.
For me it just means: “facts assumed to be true.” I think those can be overturned.
It’s not “whatever you want to believe it is.” I have been using “facts assumed to be true.” And a fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” It is close to your own definition but subtly different because you just would disagree with some of the things Christians believe such as the assumption that the Bible is the word pf God. From this it naturally follows that the Bible has data that can be used to form a worldview and make statements about reality. You seem to articulate a science only approach. I don’t share that.
Nothing. This happens all the time. You are free to question the data of other worldviews or distinguish between types of data --which brings me back to my original point–it’s just not data you accept. I don’t expect atheists to accept the Bible as valid data. I can communicate around this easily enough. I can’t understand why would we not expect christians to take it as such though?
To quote a wise man: “I need something more than “because I say so”.”
All using the same assumptions. I am not disputing the results, simply laying out the necessary assumptions underlying science here.
Law is an interesting word choice since we like to haggle a lot over semantics on this forum.
I think this is problematic for two reasons. One, I don’t think a materialist can exhaustively rule out the supernatural for any explanation anyways. They can just deem it unpleasant and come up with a system that excludes it by default. That is not ruling it out, that is just ignoring it as a possibility. Second, this distinction between natural and supernatural results from a deist conception of God. One I do not share. In my view, metaphysical arguments can be used to show all reality depends on God at all times. Science is just our best explanation for efficient or material causes which is only one aspect of reality that depends on God every step of the way. Science cannot explain all of reality itself and it must take on faith a number of assumptions to get going.
There are a lot of background assumptions in science and a lot more philosophically at work than just jumping onto the scientific method bike and riding it into the sunset. Some modern skeptics seem to think science fell from heaven just as some believers think the Bible did, or that angels deliver meat to supermarkets in cellophane packaging. Reality is more complicated. As Feser writes in a different but relevant context:
Lazy shouts of “unfalisfiability!” against theological claims just ignore all this complexity – the distinctions that have to be drawn between empirical claims on the one hand and claims of mathematics, logic, and metaphysics on the other; between extremely general empirical claims and more specific ones; between philosophy of nature (which studies the philosophical presuppositions of natural science) and natural science itself; and between the testing of a thesis and the testing of the auxiliary assumptions we generally take for granted but conjoin with the thesis when drawing predictions from it.
So, falsificationism is a rather feeble instrument to wield against theology. And in fact, atheist philosophers have known this for decades, even if New Atheist combox commandos are still catching up.
You have just offered the equivalent of a fundamentalist “all or nothing” argument. I share your desire for certainty in life but we are not afforded any such thing by a naturalistic worldview. Our desire to be comfortable, control and neatly organize reality via our thoughts is not an argument. It’s just wish-fulfillment. Welcome to religion. You could never scientifically or otherwise prove a super-being didn’t put fingerprints at a crime scene. We just ignore that possibility. Who says reality has to be palatable? Philosophical skepticism is a tough cookie. I think you just have to put it out of mind and out of sight. Not liking something or it making you uncomfortable is not really an argument against it. Is’t that what you would say to me about objective morality?
I agree it is overboard because theists can make strong metaphysical arguments for God’s existence. I wonder if Roman’s philosophical system could make the same for parsimony?
This really doesn’t add to the discussion. I have already pointed out Occam’s razors is a necessary belief of science. This is why. But it seems we have to accept this principle on faith. Otherwise science doesn’t get off the ground. It is not a law, it is not a necessary truth. It is a convenience, a convention, a security blanket or something else. If someone wants to argue it’s so obvious we should just make it an axiom. Sure, I’ll agree but I’m also bringing objective morality, free will, the intrinsic worth of humans to the party.
Which certainty does not necessitate it is correct. But my point was that science is only one way of knowing about the world. A proper philosophy of science precedes it and is higher than it and to a Thomist, metaphysics is even more fundamental than both. So I object that the only real “data” in the world is scientific data. If you want to use data in that sense that is fine. I do not share that convention.
I didn’t make the claim that it didn’t. Only that your examples do not prove the opposite. It is equivalent to saying “I saw 250 people wearing a red shirt”, therefore “everyone everywhere for all time must wear a red shirt”. That is obviously fallacious. There is a logical leap there–one we all probably take, but it is there regardless and there is no point in denying it.
That was a reductio ad absurdom argument against your viewpoint.
I am uncertain how that is different than “a large portion of the population just doesn’t trust scientists on key issues like global warming, vaccines.” The science comes from the scientists doing the research. I wasn’t saying it was due to questioning the character of the researchers but many do this as well. Naturally global warming and vaccines are big business and whenever there is money involved or funding is needed, a typical person usually considers doubt as at least plausible. They usually don’t understand the scope of the consensus nor much of the science. My father’s knowledge of science is probably mostly limited to him watching the Big Bang theory.
An argument against rocks falling from the sky was based on the assumption that all rocks had to come from planets, and that went against the law of gravity.
Which led to realizing that the above assumption was actually backwards.
This brought to mind a situation in a geology class where the professor insisted that information about the weather didn’t count as data, but a grad student showed conclusively that a certain variation in geological data was due to weather – specifically air pressure. The issue had to do with tilt-meters on the flanks of a volcano; somehow ambient air pressure was affecting the readings.
Which suggests that the meaning of “data” is somewhat field-dependent.
Not necessarily. That’s a bit like saying that the moment you allow the idea of firearms then law enforcement can’t rule them out as the cause of every impact. With the supernatural you would do the same as with those firearms: ask if it provides the best explanation, or if something else explains a situation just fine. If a hammer at the scene of a crime explains the dent in a metal door there’s no need to invoke firearms; if air pressure and humidity explain a stormfront there’s no need to invoke the supernatural.
Of course this is where the “god of the gaps” fallacy comes in: the accompanying error would be that if there is no object at the scene of a crime that can explain the dent in the door then “firearms did it”, which for the supernatural comes out as if there is no meteorological explanation for some weather phenomenon then “God did it” . . . which isn’t an answer in either case because there may be explanations that don’t require anything supernatural.
I’d compare it to the “grand tour” of planets used by NASA with certain probes: there was no need to invoke relativity to calculate the course for the spacecraft since Newton (and five decimal places of pi) were sufficient. There’s a sort of rule from a philosophy of science course that applies (I don’t know how universally this is applied): a lesser explanation is to be preferred.
The “lesser explanation” guide applies here: in one astronomy course, the question was asked, “How would this look different if the laws of cosmology were different?” The question was ruled out because there was nothing in the data that didn’t fit known laws.
Though the professor was always delighted when some new observation “broke” an accepted ‘law’ or paradigm for the very reason that it might point to some law we had wrong or hadn’t found yet!
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
160
For me, data are facts demonstrated to be true. If you have to assume the data, it isn’t data. Data is produced, not assumed.
If you have to assume your data, that’s exactly what it is. You can assume anything is true. What distinguishes data, at least to me, is that data can be demonstrated to be true independent of the one making the claim.
Data is something that is demonstrated. No data is based on “because I say so”.
We are testing those assumptions when we test light coming from distant galaxies and stars.
I am talking about an active deity, so that’s not Deism. If you want to throw out natural explanations because someone can dream up a supernatural explanation that explains the data then we would need to throw out all of science, not to mention anything we have built based on human logic and reason.
It would be helpful if this were fleshed out a bit.
That makes zero sense, and it completely misses the basic concept of falsifiability. It’s a simple concept. What observations, if made, would prove you wrong?
You have offered arbitrary distinctions. When should the supernatural be invoked, and when shouldn’t it?
What I do is the success the scientific method has had in predicting new observations and explaining the observable and repeatable data we do have through testable theories. When your sick you seek out medical treatments based on science. You do this, I would assume, because science works.
If you are casting doubt on the uniformity of natural laws that would seem to require some data, no?
The fact of the matter is that we have run the experiments. If malleable laws of nature were the norm then we would have seen them changing. We would have the evidence. Telescope and observatory surveys have looked at millions of stars and galaxies, and none of them show anything different than the laws we see here on Earth. So why is that?
If you have to assume something to make sense of your data, it means your hypothesis wasn’t sufficiently robust – or you need an additional hypothesis.
The difference would be that “natural” explanations cover the way that the deity normally does things, not that He isn’t doing them.
You can’t have because it is clear that they do beleive it as written.
What you aregue against with Adam is to contine to beleive it , but in doing so you are going away from the original text. Whehter you like it or not Genesis 1-11 is writen as, and taken by Paul (et al) as, real history
No, The Trinity is not in Scripture as such.
The creeds are a summary of Christian belief.And that is not the same thing.
You most certainly do – you cannot conceive of anything between “God wrote every word” and “It’s merely human writing”.
No – that requires assuming something contrary to how literature works. It comes from assuming that the ancient writers operated under the same worldview as you do.
No, it wasn’t, because no one back then wrote “real history”. That the first Creation account is an edited version of the common Egyptian creation story is sufficient to overthrow the “history” claim, since the Egyptian story wasn’t meant as history in the first place – as demonstrated by the fact that some of the temples in Egypt had differing creations stories but no one saw any contradictions.
And the only place that Paul may have regarded any part of Genesis 1 -11 as history would be the matter of Adam – but believing there was an actual Adam does not require taking Genesis 2-3 as “real history”; mythologized history works just as well. And that’s beside the fact that to an ANE person, which Paul still was, a “fable” given by God was considered just as authoritative as “real history”, indeed actually more so because of the divine authority behind it.
The Trinity is in scripture “as such” just as much as it is in the Creed, given that all but one word in the Creed is lifted from scripture – and all that word does is summarize what Jesus said about Himself.
It certainly is, unless you don’t think Christianity is correct.
Proves you do not follow my understanding. God speaks in Scripture, especially when preceded by
“This is what the Lord your God says…” or words to that effect.
But we haven’t gone there for some time so you wouldn’t remember.
It has nothing to do with how literature works! It has everything to do with what the those people believed.
Irrelevant!
What it is, and how it was understood are not always the same.
(you prove that!)
Not the way you quote it. There is not single citation proof, nor is it specifically addressed. The word Trinity is not in Scripture.
(I am not saying I do not accept it)
Stop it before I die of laughter.
Talk about binary thinking, You empitemise it. (not me). You are obsessed with right and wrong.
