An analogy for evolution

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Vinnie

No, it’s my very uncontroversial Christian view that Christian scripture is more than mere human writing.

I have always said the same, but you do not seem to notice.

@Vinnie

You accuse me of all or nothing but you know nothing about my model of inspirations. I have written against all or nothing here:

So why did you accuse me of

@Vinnie

You are a cautionary example of what the conservatives try to reduce many of our interpretation to: picking and choosing.

You can’t have it both ways!

@Vinnie

@RichardG

So you assert that God has some stake in Scripture as in either wote or vetted it.

You assert the opposite.

No, I do not. That is binary thinking.

@Vinnie

Asking why I believe in some form of Biblical inspiration is like asking a duck why it has a beak.

Your definition of “Inspiration” needs some work, then.

@Vinnie

@RichardG

IOW you are not even prepared to look beyond your fixed view of Scripture.

Are you?

If it means the backwards view that you have, no.

@Vinnie

My view on scripture, like my view on other things evolves.

If so then why are you sticking to a view over 2000 years old>

@Vinnie

I think the scientific evidence in favor of evolution is strong

I hope we are not still talking Binary. I acceept some, but not all of the scientific view.

@Vinnie

No, your views on scripture, right or wrong, are a fringe minority

Perhaps you have a limited view f the world as well.

@Vinnie

but you come off as if you represent consensus opinion.

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.

@Vinnie

@RichardG

he moment you claim anything other than a historical view of Genesis 1 you are contradicting your view of God written Scripture.

Nonsense for anyone with the word genre in their vocabulary

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?

@Vinnie

You also have a narrow view of inspiration

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]

@Vinnie

I’d say these observations are based on models and data that also assume the constancy of the laws of nature.

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).

@Vinnie

I don’t think there is a way around that circularity. It’s a belief and only once you grant it or certain assumptions can you use it to show that that laws of physics are constant through time and space.

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.

@Vinnie

Yes and I am certainly only giving my view. What you wrote here is definitely part of my point. How we approach the world will determine what we see as data. For a non-theist I suspect science dominates often. Though I’m sure there are other options people take as we are very diverse. For a Christian, sometimes scripture dominates. For those like me, science, scripture, Church tradition, personal experience and metaphysics all have to exist together in a coherent whole…. each one having a say or providing data to complete my worldview. It’s a puzzle I have to piece together.

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?

@Vinnie

For me, a transforming experience with God alters how I view everything. As the C.S. Lewis quote goes: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” It is an axiom of my life now. It’s no more silly than positing the constancy or continued regularity of the laws of nature or expecting their continued regularity.

And there are people who believe just as adamantly in gods you don’t believe in.

@Vinnie

I understand the idea of facts vs beliefs. Something probably should separate, “I have two arms” from “there is an invisible pink unicorn hiding under my bed.” But I think it’s dangerously easy for people to call what they accept as true facts vs what they disagree with or are simply not convinced of as being beliefs. Even in conventional knowledge, “facts” change. That the earth didn’t move was once a fact. Now it isn’t. I mention this because we would also seemingly need to distinguish between the mere idea of a brute fact and identifying actual facts. It seems there is a social aspect to this. We have to approach the issue with similar axioms and rules and then a consensus forms. Can we ever even excise “facts” from a popularity contest? It seems me to our underlying metaphysics will largely dictate how we approach the issue of what is data and what is not about the world.

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.

@Vinnie

I don’t think my belief in God is subjective whereas my belief in the efficacy of the scientific method is not. Falsifiability is metaphysical, not scientific.

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?

@Vinnie

Trying to turn science into facts and everything else into beliefs is what leads to this sort of problem. Maybe I’m just a hopeless romantic but I don’t subscribe to a world where you can’t even have moral progress because that implies moving towards some objective good that is a made up fiction. Objective good at one time was acquiring more slaves and increasing your families wealth and quality of life. To me a world mere you can only have brute, neutral moral change and not moral progress or reform seems completely at odds with reality and not very objective.

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.