“Subjective nuances” are only involved when you try to do eisegesis, as exemplified in the extreme by YEC.
I don’t care about geology when it comes to the text.
Neither do I, but the loudest voices here forever insist, on filtering reality through dead words, so we must engage in dubious battle, in the hope that a single unknown lurking brilliant mid-west teenager struggling like Dembski (qv), can see that faith and science are utterly separate magisteria.
1 Like
If faith and science were separate magisteria, that would imply that “neoatheism” is wrong to say that science disproves faith. From a Christian perspective, science is a submagisterium of faith - it is the faith-based approach to understanding the physical workings of creation. That does not excuse misrepresenting science in claimed support of faith, but rather is a call to do good quality science as a way of honoring God and serving others. Of course, a clear and consistent definition of faith is needed. A popular bad neoatheist argument is to claim that faith and reason are opposites, therefore anything that they label as faith is unreasonable. A more reasonable definition of faith is putting trust in something. Such trust may be reasonable or unreasonable. Whether or not someone has good reason for a particular instance of faith does not automatically match whether the object of that faith is actually trustworthy. But the “magesteria” categorization uses faith more in the sense of “the faith” -a collective set of beliefs such as a particular religious or atheistic ststem. Reason itself requires faith in the reliability of reasoning and in the accuracy of the premises used.
2 Likes
Of course “neoatheism” is wrong to say that science disproves faith, as, in fact, in truth, objectively, ultimately, faith and science are separate magisteria. It would be wrong even when they aren’t, especially when they aren’t, in the minds of believers such as yourself. For whom science has to be ultimately subservient to faith. To statistically undetectable, logically unnecessary providence. And therefore its reasonable faithless conclusions cannot be ultimately accepted. I have good will toward faith, as it is psychologically, therefore evolutionarily reasonable. In ultimate logic, pure, hard, logic, it isn’t. In brute fact, it isn’t. But we’re not wired that way. We’re wired for bias. For apophenia. And yes, reason is just as axiomatic as faith. With true warrant and justification. The meaningless mathematical determinism of reality. The alternative is unreason. Not faith. They each stand utterly alone. Both refuting unreason.
1 Like
So… do you reject the idea that an ancient meteor destroyed all the large reptiles (land and marine) … but did NOT destroy cows, zebras, horses and other large mammals because they were not yet present on the planet?
G.Brooks
Does that have bearing on the text?
No, only cows, zebras, horses. Unless ‘bear’ is included in ‘other large mammals’.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
That’s gotta be the worst typo set I’ve ever done.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.