Expressing bad attitudes to historians and critical scholarship without realizing it

Faith & Science Conversation
,
161

I would open the lid and smell for myself. I also like this quote (although maybe a bit too sacrilegious for this site, but bear with me):

“Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
–George Carlin

That is the testimony I hear from most Christians. The evidence for them is personal in nature, and can’t be verified in an objective sense. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what faith is.

3 Likes
162

two things

  1. you are assuming that there is a correct answer available

  2. You are claiming that there is evidence that you will accept

The first is beyond this discussion

The second I cannot give you. (That does not mean I have none.)

Richard

163

I accept empirical evidence, such as the evidence I have been giving you throughout this thread. is there a reason you refuse to either accept or address this evidence?

Stanford has a pretty good website on philosophy, and you can find their entry on the scientific method here:

“The standard starting point for a non-inductive analysis of the logic of confirmation is known as the Hypothetico-Deductive (H-D) method. In its simplest form, a sentence of a theory which expresses some hypothesis is confirmed by its true consequences.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

This is the scientific method I am using. If a theory is correct then you should see observation A. If the theory is not right then you should see observation B. You then set up some sort of experiment or comparison of data that can detect observation A or B if they exist. It’s really that simple. If a theory is correct then it will have true consequences in our physical reality, so you determine if those consequences are seen. @glipsnort says pretty much the same thing in the article I keep linking to you (that contains the evidence you don’t seem to want to discuss):

“One question that comes up frequently about evolutionary biology is whether it really boils down to speculation and assumption. Most of evolution happened in the distant past, after all. We claim that humans and chimpanzees descended from a single ancestral species over millions of years, for example, but none of us was there to observe that process. To a scientist, though, the right question is not, “Were you there?” but rather “What if?” What if we do share a common ancestor–what should we see? How can we test a hypothesis about the ancient past?”
https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations

1 Like
164

I accept that you find it compelling. I do not accept your conclusion which assume ToE to be correct.

Yes, but it is not the philosophy I am using!

Why can#'t you see tht the same data can give a different result depending on the viewpoint (concsption)?

Why can’t you see that is a loaded question?

You are putting the answer before the assessment. You will see what you expcet, regqrdless.

9I am not accusing you of lying. You see and belive whqt you do. It isstill subject to your viewpoint)

Stop trying to teach me. I know why you beleive what you do, it is a shame that youu cannot reciprocate (without insult or bias)

Richard

165

It’s not a loaded question. It’s just a question: what should we see if common descent is true? Do we see it? Unless you’re hallucinating, whether you see it or not depends on what’s really there, not on what you expect. (And lots of times, we don’t see what we expect when we’re doing science – that’s why we do it.)

Because it many cases it isn’t true. What different result do you see if you compare human and chimpanzee DNA from a different viewpoint?

4 Likes
166

a chasm

Richard

167

There is a chasm, as would be expected given separate and distinct evolutionary paths taken over the past six million years.

There is also clear genetic evidence of common ancestry prior to this split, including overall similarity, ERV’s and other pseudogenes in common, the GILO mutation, and the chromosome 2 fusion. Separately, these are very strong indications of common descent, and there is no plausible alternative explanation when taken together.

3 Likes
168

That may be your interpretation of comparing the DNA, but that’s not the comparison. DNA is a molecule, a physical thing. Does your viewpoint change the molecules that we’re comparing? Do you see different nucleotides present than I do?

1 Like
169

I make no such assumption. I am pointing to evidence that is consistent with the ToE. That’s why I conclude, not assume, that the ToE is probably correct.

What philosophy are you using?

I can see it. For example, Flat Earthers look at the same data I do and they come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.

I AM ASKING YOU WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE!!!

What would YOU expect to see if common ancestry is true?

What would we expect to see if gravity is a distortion of spacetime (i.e the theory of relativity)? We would expect to see light bending around the Sun and other massive objects. Do we see that? Yes. That is evidence for relativity.

If germs cause disease, what would you expect to see? You would expect to see the presence of specific microorganisms correlated with the presence of specific symptoms (i.e. Koch’s postulates and the Germ Theory of Disease). Is that what we see? Yep.

ALL OF SCIENCE WORKS THIS WAY!!!

Then what do you see? What would you need to see in order to accept common ancestry and evolution?

2 Likes
170

What does that mean?

1 Like
171

You’re misreading me. I said if for some reason you can’t verifiy whether the milk has spoiled, like not being home, and the babysitter is allergic to milk, you still make a decision with respect to the available evidence. This isn’t a perfect example.

It’s evidence that is sufficient to convince them of a particular truth claim irregardless of what another person says is false. The conviction of sin is like this. The whole world can say otherwise, but the person knows the truth about their actions.

And in being convinced of their sin, they can see that Jesus is the only religious leader in the history of the world to die as a propitiation for sin. Coupled with some pretty compelling evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (ie. The Resurrection of the Son of God) and it’s a compelling case to be a Christian.

1 Like
172

Then you make a decision without any verifiable evidence.

Sure, people are convinced by unverifiable and subjective evidence. It’s part of being human.

People are convinced that the Earth is flat, or that the moon landings never took place. They are convinced that 5G causes cancer. People are convinced of a lot of things. However, I don’t see any way of starting at “they are convinced it is true” and jumping to “therefore, it must be true”. People are fallible, and we are quite capable of being convinced something is true even when it is false.

Do you think people of other religions have just as compelling a case for what they believe?

2 Likes
173

Would the testimony of a second 4yo verify
the claim? :slightly_smiling_face:

The difference is this is a demonstrably false claim

It depends… sometimes… and other times no. YECs in particular. Determinists too.

174

The testimony is what we are trying to verify.

The condition of milk in a jug is also potentially testable in the very same way.

175

Historical events are sometimes not verifiable in this way. Nor are miracles in every instance. Or miracles of providence as Dale was good at highlighting, ie a Turkish translator in Dallas.

1 Like
176

Yes, some things must be taken on faith.

You can do a Google search for “Sai Baba miracles” to read about a whole host of miracles performed by or in the name of Sathya Sai Baba, a man who claimed to the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. There are eyewitness testimonies of these miracles. Needless to say I am skeptical of these claims, and I suspect you would be too. Nonetheless, there are 10’s of millions of people within this religious movement.

177

Not in the sense you mean, when you were the one asking God to provide a Turkish translator

I’m on the fence with alot of this stuff. Right now I am listening to a book by Albert J. Raboteau called Slave Religion, and I’m not totally dismissive of the pre-Christian or highly synchretist beliefs/experiences of different slave groups throughtout the Americas.

It’s definitely an attitude that has changed for me since Michael Heiser came into my view.

1 Like
178

IDO NOT EXPECT TO SEE ANYTHING

That is the whole point.

Richard

179

Indeed they do. I do. But the claim itself is not evidence. My trust of the person and their testimony doesn’t make it evidence. We have all been lied to - even by people we trusted.

I gave you a good example of a possible “testimony” (claim) that the “right person” might latch onto and accept as true because they want it to be, or have some grudge against you, or trust me.

Testimony and verification are not the same thing. Trust is not verification. Reagan’s mantra demonstrates it succinctly: trust but verify.

Every parent of siblings knows this.

Why would it be beyond the means of methodological naturalism to verify a miracle, if absolutely everyone on the planet experienced it at the same time? Something observable, measurable, witnessable. Say a real mass healing of everyone on the planet at once.

1 Like
180

I forget how many years ago it was, but I remember that how RNA only delivered the exons to be translated was a mystery – and I see it isn’t really included in the diagram, just labeled.

And that includes humans, BTW. I remember in a biology course reading about how some researchers were hunting down people with long (and dependable) genealogies with ancestors buried in known locations so they could match DNA and run the stats. As I recall they ended up with some families in Scandinavia where frozen ground preserved the DNA well. There was also something about someone working with Cistercians because they had breeding records of sheep reaching back to the thirteenth century (I don’t recall where they planned to get DNA to match to the generations of sheep, though).

That’s fun stuff. I remember when someone got seismic readings that indicated that a leading edge of a subducting plate, a piece hundreds of kilometers long, had broken off and the new leading edge was diving at a different rate than the old. That discovery threw a lot of ideas into turmoil!

Which means doing science.

It’s not just science, it’s common sense! Dairy farmers here do the same thing in monitoring their herds – and not many were trained in science.

No no no no no! You set it aside because if it is sour there are dozens of baking recipes that call for sour milk (starting with pancakes)!

Some of us tried that in my university days. Among university folks, anyway, the majority snorted and said that “invisible man” was a child’s concept of God.

As any Christian would, because God is orderly and doesn’t go about moving the goalposts.

And as one of my science profs (astronomy) said, don’t be surprise if the observation turns out to be C – in fact be delighted, because those are the sorts of results that really break new ground.

Because that’s not how the real world works, unless by “viewpoint” you mean “theory”. What comes to mind is the loggers here who are very practical and who would laugh at your idea because it ignores how things actually work.

Nonsense. I watched Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, and atheist science people work together in the lab, and it was pretty standard that they expected different things due to differing worldviews – but they all agreed on that if a hypothesis said A should happen and not B, then if B happened the hypothesis was falsified.
That’s one of the strengths of science: it serves to exclude differing worldviews and pare things down to how they really work.

2 Likes