Assuming evolution is discovered to be junk science, would you believe in God?

[Little_Nemo]

@Galileo

We agree on the important stuff.

No, I don’t think we do.

[Galileo]

Okay, on what important things do you think we disagree?

[Cheesesteak]

@Galileo

I suggest that it is “trust” if someone has *some * knowledge of the underlying science and of scientific methodology, but it is “faith” if someone has little or no knowledge of current science.

It’s faith if they don’t know what science is, or if they don’t appreciate how the scientific method applies to the claim that is being made. Case in point, food X is:
Good for you
Bad for you
Cancer causing
Cancer preventing

People buy into these claims, and it’s mostly faith because human nutrition and long term health is so complicated that it’s nigh impossible to make a single sweeping claim about many food products.

I suggest that there’s always *some * data for any faith-based belief. The disagreements are about the relevance, validity and interpretation of the data.

When it comes to many faith based beliefs (creationism, existence of God) I think we would have a disagreement about what counts as data. The story of Adam and Eve or Noah or Moses isn’t data about the nature of the world, as much as it’s data about various creation beliefs.

[Galileo]

@Cheesesteak

When it comes to many faith based beliefs (creationism, existence of God) I think we would have a disagreement about what counts as data. The story of Adam and Eve or Noah or Moses isn’t data about the nature of the world, as much as it’s data about various creation beliefs.

Sorry, but that’s a pretty silly argument.

First, I’m not discussing creationism.
But, even if I were, your argument goes something like this:

1. You say that there’s (unspecified) data.
2. I say that there isn’t.
3. To support my position, I am pointing out that three stories (none of which you actually mentioned) are not data.
4. So, since I can point out three things that are not data, by implication there’s no data.

[Steve_MB]

@Galileo

But, if scientists can demonstrate evolution in a lab, then why haven’t I seen speciation in my lifetime? Huh, huh!!?? And, if I have, then why haven’t people observed thousands of new species emerging throughout the history of human civilization? What’s all this crap about evolution taking millions or even billions of years? And, what’s a billion anyway, 100 million?

My all-time favorite creationist argument:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

[Cheesesteak]

You said there is “always some data for any faith-based belief”. When you say “always” and “any” then you can be shown wrong if there are any faith based beliefs that do not have data supporting them.

Is there actually data to support the idea that the God of Abraham exists?

[Sandwich]

@Galileo

Little Nemo, I didn’t say that someone “has to rely on faith”. I’m merely saying that, when it comes to evolution, most people accept it on faith. They don’t really understand it (as evidenced by comments about “moving up the evolutionary ladder”), they’ve never read a primary source of research (let alone done any research themselves) and they have little if any knowledge of the underlying science. And yet, they still accept it as true. How would you describe that type of acceptance?

If I were to describe it in the context where it might be confused with religious belief then I would take care to distinguish between the two. I see you prefer to imply that they are the same. Interesting! Perhaps you would care to be more direct about it. I’ll get you started:

“Believing my shaman when he explains how the daughters of god made the world out of mud on the back of a turtle, is the same as believing my schoolteacher when she reports the scientific consensus on the workings of transistors because…”

Sandwich

[Der_Trihs]

@Galileo

I suggest that it is “trust” if someone has *some * knowledge of the underlying science and of scientific methodology, but it is “faith” if someone has little or no knowledge of current science.

No, because science has a record of success. Someone can be quite ignorant of science and know that it can be trusted to generally provide accurate knowledge just by looking around at all the products of that science.

As opposed to religion, which has a relentless record of being wrong about anything it claims.

@Steve_MB

My all-time favorite creationist argument:

Ha, I recall seeing that when it was originally posted. Someone linked to it on another board with the title “Creationist almost discovers the Sun.”

[Galileo]

@Cheesesteak

You said there is “always some data for any faith-based belief”. When you say “always” and “any” then you can be shown wrong if there are any faith based beliefs that do not have data supporting them.

If I say that there is always some data, it’s not a counterargument to point out that *something * isn’t data. You need to provide an argument that demonstrates that there’s no data, i.e. for every possible thing that could be presented as data, it is not actually data. Can you do that?

Is there actually data to support the idea that the God of Abraham exists?

Yes, there is.

Want an example? Many people say that they have experienced him directly.
Don’t believe them? Fine. Don’t accept their claims as being valid or persuasive? Okay. But, their testimony is data.

[Steve_MB]

@Der_Trihs

Ha, I recall seeing that when it was originally posted. Someone linked to it on another board with the title “Creationist almost discovers the Sun.”

Creationist provides a logical explanation for the creation of light on the first day and the creation of the sun and stars on the fourth day:

The sun isn’t the only source of light you know? Think of a cloudly day, there’s light coming from somewhere.

[Cheesesteak]

@Galileo

If I say that there is always some data, it’s not a counterargument to point out that *something * isn’t data. You need to provide an argument that demonstrates that there’s no data, i.e. for every possible thing that could be presented as data, it is not actually data. Can you do that?

Prove a negative? Sure, I’ll get right on that. Disproving everything that could possibly ever be presented as data. Easy.

Yes, there is.

Want an example? Many people say that they have experienced him directly.
Don’t believe them? Fine. Don’t accept their claims as being valid or persuasive? Okay. But, their testimony is data.

So “data” means any claim made by anyone about anything. Guess I don’t need to bother proving that negative anymore.

[Meatros]

@Steve_MB

Creationist provides a logical explanation for the creation of light on the first day and the creation of the sun and stars on the fourth day:

First: Love Glenn’s (Og rest his soul) site.

Second: That’s hilarious

Third: Why not appeal to the moon (as a second source of light), which the bible indicates makes it’s own light?

Granted, it wouldn’t make sense with that quote (unless it was night), especially since the Sun would be still providing the light…

Sometimes I wish yahooanswers was like a message board. I’d have loved to see the back and forth between the person who posted that gem and the one’s responding to it…

[Galileo]

@Cheesesteak

Prove a negative? Sure, I’ll get right on that. Disproving everything that could possibly ever be presented as data. Easy.

I see. So what was the point of saying this:

When you say “always” and “any” then you can be shown wrong if there are any faith based beliefs that do not have data supporting them.

It sure seems that you are saying that I can be shown to be wrong by proving a negative.

So “data” means any claim made by anyone about anything.

I did not say that. This is what I said:

Many people say that they have experienced [God] directly.

Would you care to address what I actually said?

Also, have you provided any data in this thread?

[Bridget_Burke]

@Damuri_Ajashi

A lot of people on this message board act as if the inability to prove God’s existence is conclusive proof that he doesn’t exist. So even if presented with overwhyelming proof of his exsistence, they will choose to believe ANY other conceivealbe explanation rather than teh existence of God. They have a faith as strong as the pope’s, they just believe something else.

For some time now, the Pope hasn’t had a problem with Evolution. From a fairly conservative Catholic source:

The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Don’t blame him for the beliefs of the Biblical Inerrancy crowd. Parochial school kids learn about Evolution & all that other stuff. Catholic universities provide advanced scientific degrees that will stand up anywhere.

[Voyager]

@Galileo

But, if scientists can demonstrate evolution in a lab, then why haven’t I seen speciation in my lifetime? Huh, huh!!?? And, if I have, then why haven’t people observed thousands of new species emerging throughout the history of human civilization? What’s all this crap about evolution taking millions or even billions of years? And, what’s a billion anyway, 100 million?

That would be because you’re not looking. As usual talk.origins has some good examples. Section 5.0 has the examples, the rest provides definition and background. Another good example, which I don’t have time to look up, is that lab rats from the same stock and separated between the east coast and west coast facilities speciated.
Notice that some of the speciation in the examples was not induced by the experimenter, but just happened.

I assume that you are parodying the creationist position, but most of what they believe comes from ignorance which is easy to fight.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@CurtC

The OP’s question is comparable to a Hindu person asking him “if the flat-Earth theory were proven to be true, would you then believe in Vishnu?”

How do you even start to imagine that the idea that the world was flat could be true? And what does that have to do with Vishnu?

For what it’s worth, traditional Hindu cosmology presents the universe as a cylinder standing on its end, with the heavens at the top and the earth a flat plane bisecting the middle.

So Vishnu* is* a flat-earther.

[Cheesesteak]

Let’s try again.

I said "People who have faith in God are not missing data because they haven’t had a chance to review the documents or perform the experiments, it’s because the data doesn’t exist. "

You replied "I suggest that there’s always some data for any faith-based belief. The disagreements are about the relevance, validity and interpretation of the data. "

I replied"I think we would have a disagreement about what counts as data. The story of Adam and Eve or Noah or Moses isn’t data about the nature of the world, as much as it’s data about various creation beliefs."

You reply regarding data that God exists "Many people say that they have experienced him directly.
Don’t believe them? Fine. Don’t accept their claims as being valid or persuasive? Okay. But, their testimony is data. "

Fundamentally, we are disagreeing about “data”. You want to call a person experiencing God, and relaying the story as data. I don’t consider that data, at least it’s not data that can be used to explain the nature of the universe. It may be useful data when discussing how people feel certain things, but it doesn’t say jack squat about how the universe was created.

If someone misunderstands the works of Arthur Conan Doyle and believes Sherlock Holmes is real, that’s not data supporting the belief that he’s real. It’s data showing how people can believe incorrect things.

[Galileo]

@Cheesesteak

I said "People who have faith in God are not missing data because they haven’t had a chance to review the documents or perform the experiments, it’s because the data doesn’t exist. "

You replied "I suggest that there’s always some data for any faith-based belief. The disagreements are about the relevance, validity and interpretation of the data. "

I replied"I think we would have a disagreement about what counts as data. The story of Adam and Eve or Noah or Moses isn’t data about the nature of the world, as much as it’s data about various creation beliefs."

You reply regarding data that God exists "Many people say that they have experienced him directly.
Don’t believe them? Fine. Don’t accept their claims as being valid or persuasive? Okay. But, their testimony is data. "

Fundamentally, we are disagreeing about “data”. You want to call a person experiencing God, and relaying the story as data. I don’t consider that data, at least it’s not data that can be used to explain the nature of the universe. It may be useful data when discussing how people feel certain things, but it doesn’t say jack squat about how the universe was created.

You left out an important piece. My reply about the data that God exists was in response to your question:

@Cheesesteak

Is there actually data to support the idea that the God of Abraham exists?

Nothing in your question mentioned how the universe was created. Seriously, in a post where you lay out almost everything that you and I said, how did you manage to include my answer and leave out your question?

If someone misunderstands the works of Arthur Conan Doyle and believes Sherlock Holmes is real, that’s not data supporting the belief that he’s real. It’s data showing how people can believe incorrect things.

Perhaps if “someone” misunderstands it, but what if it’s someone that you already respect and admire, and that person gives you a detailed explanation for believing that Sherlock Holmes is real? What if many people say that Holmes is real? And what if you were already considering the possibility that he was real? In simple terms, you don’t believe that Holmes is real because there is too much contradictory evidence. But you could probably concoct some scenario under which the statement “Sherlock Holmes is real” is true.

What you seem to be missing is that some claims are more credible than others, based on the specifics of the claims, the source of those claims, and on what we already know. What people say can be important and relevant. Or it can be rubbish.

BTW, do you consider courtroom testimony to be data?

[typoink]

@Der_Trihs

No, because science has a record of success. Someone can be quite ignorant of science and know that it can be trusted to generally provide accurate knowledge just by looking around at all the products of that science.

You might be interested in the writings of Paul Feyerabend, who made some strong cases that a lot of the “big” scientific accomplishments violated a lot of the methodological rules of accepted science and that science is essentially “taking credit” for creative thinking of a different sort.

I’ve never been quite convinced, but it’s certainly good reading if you’re interested in the topic of scientific justification.

[Find_Friends]

@typoink

You might be interested in the writings of Paul Feyerabend, who made some strong cases that a lot of the “big” scientific accomplishments violated a lot of the methodological rules of accepted science and that science is essentially “taking credit” for creative thinking of a different sort.

I’ve never been quite convinced, but it’s certainly good reading if you’re interested in the topic of scientific justification.

Okay, I’ll reserve judgment on how valuable his work is until I read something by him. But I’ve been down the path on this with folks in a local philosophy group. So I will say this:

Sure, creativity and imagination lead to breakthroughs. But it’s the experimentation and peer review that make the difference in science.

- Jack