I will say that skepticism, in the formal sense, is hard to give up once you discover how useful it is. Something as simple as understanding how some of the various logical fallacies work opens your eyes to biases you hadn’t noticed before. Once you understand what the empirical data is and how it illuminates the workings of the universe it is very, very difficult to use faith to justify a different view. For example, it is hard to justify Geocentrism based on faith given the observations we have for Heliocentrism.
What I see is a lack of arguments or justification for those other philosophies. People need a reason to come to a different conclusion than what is supported by empirical data. “Because I say so” just isn’t going to cut it.
The scientific methodology applies when you can produce hypotheses from theoretical principles that can be tested against repeatable empirical observations. In other words, when a physical process has predictable consequences in nature you can look for those consequences. For common ancestry and evolution, one of those consequences is a nested hierarchy of species. What do we observe? A nested hierarchy. From @glipsnort 's article that I often link to:
Darwinian Evolution is atheist and it is an attack on Christianity. That is not only my belief btw, its also the belief of a large number of Christian denominations and Christians. Up until about 2 decades ago, Christians were being led astray by TEism and its Darwinian roots, however, thanks to a number of well known YEC groups, we now have an increasingly strengthened defense against non theological claims about God and our origins.
There is a wealth of decent science out there now that throws enormous doubts on the Darwinian model…strangely enough, even a considerable amount of evidence against it from secular sources who are not YEC!
Google response to the query “non christian evidence against darwinian evolution”
Whether you are blind to it or not, the Bible clearly states that this earth was created in 7 days and that God breathed the breath of life into Adam nostrils and he became a living person.
This theme is repeated throughout the bible and the really interesting thing is, Christ in Matthew 24 uses a real life historical example of Noah and the flood as evidence to support the real life second coming.
The notion that the story in Genesis 6 is allegorical or symbolic…if that is true then the Second coming of Christ is also symbolic and not a real future event. That means Christian salvation and eternal life is a hoax and we are all lost after this life on earth.
Anyone who adhears to the notion that the flood statement in Matthew 24 is symbolic has an insurmountable problem because the apostle Peter also makes the same connections in 2 Peter 2. Supporting evidence for a truth claim cannot be a mythical fairytale…that’s not how evidence works in the real world.
Google response to the query “can mythical fairytales be used as supporting evidence for truth claims”
Creationism is godless and an attack on Christianity. It is godless because it calls God a liar and refuses to see or understand all the data God sends to us from the earth and sky. It is an attack on Christianity because it makes it look stupid. It is in agreement with many atheists on the incompatibility between science and the Bible, working together with them on discrediting the Bible as a source of truth.
Darwin and evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Darwin was baptized Anglican and raised Unitarian. His was inspired by the work of William Paley seeing evidence for God in the Natural world. So atheism had nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin’s own investigations.
As with many others, his encounter with other people on his journeys certainly challenged attitudes of superiority of Europeans and Christianity, which tended to call natives around the world “savages.” Thus it is hardly surprising that Christianity was divided in its reactions to the work of Darwin, for Christianity itself was already so divided on issues of rationality and prejudice. The work of Darwin made the stand of conservatives demanding that European Christians be entitled to taking whatever they wanted from the rest of the world so much more difficult to defend.
So I have long seen the opposition to evolution as the work of blasphemers abusing Christianity as a tool of power. It was important for them to get Christians to disregard reason and evidence in the world so they would be ready to do whatever evil their Christian leaders claimed was commanded by God.
As for Darwin’s religious views at the end of his life, he continued to see it as absurd that evolution was in conflict with religious belief. But it is hardly surprising that he became more agnostic personally when he saw so much opposition among the religious establishment to the truth and the abuse of religion for the purpose of power and prejudice.
The addition of “fairytales” biases Google’s answer.
Try “can myths be be used as supporting evidence for truth claims”
Emphasis is mine. Note that myths can explain the things the Bible claims to explain and given the Bible doesn’t attempt to provide any scientific answers it is ok to consider parts of it myth.
Both you and Google have a jaundiced view of a truth. Not all truths are scientific or based on verifiable fact. I like cheese. That is a truth but you would be hard pressed to prove it scientifically. Any Truth about God will not be within the scope of science. So a myth that reveals truth about God wi;; not be verifiable by science yet will be truth;
Correct. The existence of God cannot be detected and both Jewish and Christian doctrine say as much. If you believe that God is beyond time and space then by definition He can not be detected.
Just for interest, as a matter of history, it wasn’t always thus. In late bronze and early iron age up to about 600 BCE, the nation of Israel fell into two religious camps: the monotheistic and polytheistic monolatry (both of these groups were polytheists) are attested in the biblical text). The latter camp consists of people who believe in a single, chief god and multiple divine sub-gods. In the former, people believed in a single, chief god and lesser gods who were not divine. the former triumphed so that by the end of the exile, the vast majority of Israelites with hardline, in-your-face monotheists with YHWH 'Elohim at the helm. Not only did they not have lesser, non-divine gods, but they had given up their idols as well.
The Goggle AI tries to return what you are expecting, not necessarily the best answer. I don’t know what you think my view of truth is, but I believe the Bible can give us truth for the things it was meant.
Totally agree.
Which is really just your opinion and while it might be true for you it isn’t necessarily true for me. “Truths” should have a slightly bigger scope, IMHO.
You believe in a conspiracy theory created by Christian apologists, not scientists.
Large numbers of people in the US and Australia believe conspiracy theories. It’s why we have a measles outbreak in Texas. The fact others believe as you do doesn’t make any of you correct, especially since this pseudo-scientific belief is of such recent origin.
This is bizarre. Any claim about God is theological by definition, and scientific claims about human origins make no reference at all to God or theology. You guys are seriously tilting at windmills.
Define “decent science.” Are you talking Doug Axe and the Discovery Institute? The “science” produced by YEC apologists? None of them can get a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that isn’t pay-for-play. Your Google AI result is worthless. The sources that it draws from aren’t “secular” at all. Folks who argue there wasn’t enough time for evolution or the statistical improbability of life arising from non-life (which has nothing to do with biological evolution, by the way) are invariably “intelligent design” apologists. They have a religious agenda. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record is an AI hallucination. There are plenty of transitional fossils, starting with the first H. sapien at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco.
You seem to be the blind leading the blind. The Bible clearly states the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, heaven is a dome above our heads, the earth rests on pillars, hells is below the earth, etc. The Bible is filled with ancient science. You pick and choose which ones to take literally and which ones to interpret metaphorically, depending which science you choose to believe and which to discard. I take it all seriously. That’s where we differ.
More silliness. The parousia doesn’t depend on Genesis 6, nor do salvation and eternal life. Those are all NT concepts.
Correct.
Correct.
But it goes beyond that. It doesn’t matter what Darwin believed. Thousands upon thousands of scientists have worked on the theory over time, many of them Christian. If the theory of evolution was an atheistic conspiracy, it would’ve been exposed long ago.
Correct. As Pascal said 350 years ago, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
In Christianity, bibliolatry refers to an excessive reverence for the Bible, sometimes interpreted as a form of idolatry. It can manifest as an overly literalist interpretation of scripture, a dismissal of other theological perspectives, or an emphasis on the Bible’s authority to the exclusion of other sources of truth.
Elaboration:
Definition:
Bibliolatry is characterized by an undue reverence or worship of the Bible itself, rather than the God revealed within it.
Biblical Basis:
Some biblical passages, like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, are interpreted by some to suggest the Bible’s completeness and authority, which can lead to bibliolatry.
Criticism:
Critics of bibliolatry argue that it can lead to a rigid, legalistic approach to faith, neglecting the importance of personal relationship with God and the role of spiritual interpretation. They point to passages like John 5:39-40, where Jesus encourages seeking God directly rather than relying solely on written laws.
Examples:
Overly Literal Interpretation: Taking every word in the Bible literally, even when it’s understood to be symbolic or figurative.
Refusal to Engage in Contextual Understanding: Dismissing historical, cultural, or literary contexts when interpreting the Bible.
Denial of Other Sources of Authority: Believing the Bible is the only source of truth, rejecting tradition, reason, or experience.
Distinction from Reverence:
It’s important to distinguish bibliolatry from a healthy respect for the Bible as God’s inspired word. A proper reverence for the Bible involves using it as a guide for faith, but not as a literal legal code.
Importance of Interpretation:
While the Bible is considered authoritative, its interpretation should be done with discernment, taking into account different theological perspectives and the nuances of the text.
Examples of how bibliolatry is used:
Some accuse creation scientists of turning the biblical text into an object of worship, while others claim that certain interpretations of Calvin’s views have led to a legalistic approach, according to a letter from a Christian college science department chairman.
“The idea of biblical infallibility gained ground in Protestant churches as a fundamentalist reaction against a general movement towards modernismwithin mainstream Christian denominations in the 19th and early 20th centuries.”
Teaching the Bible cannot be an attack on the Bible…that is circular reasoning that falsifies its own claim/complaint. The bible actually teaches that its very easy to know when teachings are heresy (an attack on Christianity)
“The Berean Jews were more noble than most, for they searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were true” Acts 17:11
The data that we glean from the earth and sky does not prove that that knowledge comes from God. You are ignoring that the Bible very clearly teaches that “all the earth has been corrupted by sin”. This isn’t an arbitrary statement…its literally means everything physical and spiritual (as is also a central theme of the Bible salvation story)
The agreement among many atheists is your reasoning for accepting that the atheist is right and the bible wrong there? That’s a rather absurd supporting reference you use there because those same atheists look at your claims and laugh even more because they clearly see the theological holes in your world view. That’s even worse to be honest because at least my world view remains 100% consistent with the interpretation an atheist would naturally come to when reading bible statements about Creation, The Flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, and the resurrection of Christ. An atheist would confidently agree that those topics in the bible are written by its authors from the perspective these individuals believed they all really happened!
the easiest way to discredit a belief is to pick out holes/inconsistencies within the belief itself. (ie find any internal disagreements in the world view). That is also exactly what the legal system does when weighing evidence in courts of law. The principle certainly applies here and the holes in TEism are so massive, they make the notion of religion a complete laughing stock…an example of where the bible explains that “you are neither hot not cold… God will spew luke-warm out of his mouth” Revelation 3:16
It is not a teaching of the Bible, but a distortion by those abusing the Bible.
It is easier to believe that all the data coming to us from the earth and sky all telling the same story is from God than the words of someone claiming to speak for God, who is just one among many. And yes I certainly reject your magical interpretation of Genesis 6:11 as a transformation of the whole universe to make it lie to everyone.
The agreement is between creationists and atheists, both saying science and Christianity are incompatible. Just because a fantasy story is consistent doesn’t make it true. The library is full of fantasy stories like this.
It is certainly possible to construct a strawman full of inconsistencies and call it “TEism” as you have done. But there is no need to do any such thing with creationism. Their lies and inconsistencies are easy for everyone to see and read for themselves.
It seems to me that the definition and scope of “Truth” underpins much if not all the discussions here.
.
The truth identified by science is limited to what scientists can identify. However, Biblical truths would appear to depend on perspective and belief. The problems arise when science (scientists) imposes its truth onto belief.
Religious faith, almost by definition, is the antipathy of scientific methodology
So when scientists start dictating what is Biblical truth the person of faith can, and often does object.
I would suggest that truth is not define scientifically, nor can any person decide on what scope truth covers .Truth is not governed by the scientific method, nor is its definition always binary
