# "Double Truth", Christianity, and Evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096 "2006-08-17T16:34:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/21 "2006-08-21T14:01:14Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > My point is that if they are explorable by human beings then they are not truly different realms; just different regions of the same one. Fair enough. Let me amend my statement to say that science is insufficient to the task of discovering the entire truth. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/22 "2006-08-21T14:03:28Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Fair enough. Let me amend my statement to say that science is insufficient to the task of discovering the entire truth. I’m not at all sure that’s any better, as it will have the same problem with ‘discover’ as previously mentioned by ‘explore’, but I do not wish to labour a point. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/23 "2006-08-21T14:09:24Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m not at all sure that’s any better, as it will have the same problem with ‘discover’ as previously mentioned by ‘explore’, but I do not wish to labour a point. No, that is an excellent distinction. Just sloppiness on my part. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/24 "2006-08-21T14:18:13Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > At the same time, as a devout Christian, I believe there are spiritual truths which are not subject to logic and reason and which cannot and should not be proven. Then how do you know they are true? More specifically, how do you know the “spiritual truths” of Christianity are true and those of conflicting world-views such as Islam or Buddhism are false? If there is no more proof for one faith than another, by what criteria can you choose one and reject the rest? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/25 "2006-08-21T15:00:17Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What is irrational about this claim? > > > [@Siege](#): > > > > At the same time, as a devout Christian, I believe there are spiritual truths which are not subject to logic and reason and which cannot and should not be proven. Basically, I don’t want to believe in a god who’s so small he can be completely defined by man. The first sentence is an out and out _denial_ of logic and reason; you don’t get more irrational than that. The second is an emotional statement of what **Siege** wants, not one of fact, and is therefore irrational by definition, although not the same way. If there was such a word I’d call it “arational” ( in analogy with amoral ); a statement to which rationality does not apply. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I think that the hangup might be the way the word “truth” is used in the OP. Science is one way of discovering truth. It is not the only way, however. It is certainly, as an epistemology, not in opposition to faith. They explore different realms. I disagree. Faith is by nature opposed to science, because science _questions_. Just by doing it’s job science undercuts faith. > [@Apos](#): > > The Truth of religion is grandiose, arrogantly certain, irrelevant to pretty much every functional cause and effect in our common plane of existence, and of dubious universality. All that sounds like a description of something that _isn’t_ true. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/26 "2006-08-21T15:22:46Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The first sentence is an out and out _denial_ of logic and reason; you don’t get more irrational than that. “As a devout Christian, I believe X” is a perfectly valid logical assertion. > [@](#): > > The second is an emotional statement of what **Siege** wants, not one of fact, and is therefore irrational by definition, although not the same way. If there was such a word I’d call it “arational” ( in analogy with amoral ); a staement to which rationality does not apply. To use your analogy, are all amoral things immoral by definition? Amoral and immoral are two different concepts. Her statement is not irrational precisely because, as you point out, rationality does not apply. Would it be irrational of me to say “I like butter beans?” > [@](#): > > I disagree. Faith is by nature opposed to science, because science _questions_. Just by doing it’s job science undercuts faith. Science does not oppose anything. As **Mangetout** has noted, it is as system of exploration. It is not the only system, and it cannot answer every question. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/27 "2006-08-21T15:28:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Science does not oppose anything. As Mangetout has noted, it is as system of exploration. It is not the only system, and it cannot answer every question. I’m not sure that’s what I said at all… My point was this: how can _any_ question be answered meaningfully without exploration? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/28 "2006-08-21T15:32:46Z")
I’m not sure what meanginfully means, but it’s easy to answer questions and find the answers meaningful from the comfort of your Lay-Z-Boy. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/29 "2006-08-21T15:41:43Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > I’n curious as to what prompted the need to hypothesize a “double truth” at Oxford in the 14th century Aristotle…most specifially, Aristotle’s writings and Averroes’s commentaries on them. When Aristotle was reintroduced to Europe, it caused quite a stir, and Aristotle’s philosophy became really well respected by scholars. The only problem with that is that a lot of what Aristotle believed, and tried to logically prove, was considered heresy by the Church…things like “The universe is eternal”, for example, contradicted the Church’s belief that God created the universe. So, because of this, the Catholic Church condemned a lot of Aristotle’s beliefs So to deal with this, the scholar Siger of Brabant came up with the idea of “double truth”, which is a little different than I think **Siege** understands it. Siger said that it’s possible for two statements that are contradictory to both be true. So, for instance, “God created the universe” is true, because the Church says so, and so is “The universe is uncreated”, because Aristotle proved it. Even those these two statements contradict, one must believe that both are true. The concept is, of course, most famously known from George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four”, where he called it “doublethink”. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/30 "2006-08-21T15:47:02Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] “As a devout Christian, I believe X” is a perfectly valid logical assertion.[/qutoe]The word was irrational, not illogical. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > To use your analogy, are all amoral things immoral by definition? Amoral and immoral are two different concepts. Her statement is not irrational precisely because, as you point out, rationality does not apply. Would it be irrational of me to say “I like butter beans?” “Irrational” in the sense that I used the neologism “arational”, yes. That’s _why_ I derived it from amoral and not immoral. I wasn’t criticising that part of her statement, just pointing out that it isn’t, strickly speaking, rational. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Science does not oppose anything. As **Mangetout** has noted, it is as system of exploration. It is not the only system, and it cannot answer every question. Science oppsoees all sorts of things, by it’s nature; nor did I claim that it’s the only way to answer questions or solve problems. Trial-and-error, sheer luck and ( if the problem is simple enough ) straightforwoard perception/reasoning come to mind for the latter. As for the former, by it’s nature science opposes ignorance and falsehood, within the domains it can explore. You can try to hide things, but “Mother Nature is a blabbermouth; she’ll answer anyone who asks the right questions”. You can try falsification, but you’ll just destroy your credibility when you get proved wrong. Science opposes faith because science asks questions and faith denies questions. According to faith, you are supposed to just _believe_; according to science, you must doubt. They mix as well as matter and antimatter. > [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m not sure that’s what I said at all… My point was this: how can _any_ question be answered meaningfully without exploration? It can’t; that’s why faith is useless, at best. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/31 "2006-08-21T15:56:49Z")
Ghetto edit : Sorry, pressed submit instead of preview. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > “As a devout Christian, I believe X” is a perfectly valid logical assertion. The word was irrational, not illogical. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > To use your analogy, are all amoral things immoral by definition? Amoral and immoral are two different concepts. Her statement is not irrational precisely because, as you point out, rationality does not apply. Would it be irrational of me to say “I like butter beans?” “Irrational” in the sense that I used the neologism “arational”, yes. That’s _why_ I derived it from amoral and not immoral. I wasn’t criticising that part of her statement, just pointing out that it isn’t, strickly speaking, rational. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Science does not oppose anything. As Mangetout has noted, it is as system of exploration. It is not the only system, and it cannot answer every question. Science opposes all sorts of things, by it’s nature; nor did I claim that it’s the only way to answer questions or solve problems. Trial-and-error, sheer luck and ( if the problem is simple enough ) straightforwoard perception/reasoning come to mind for the latter. As for the former, by it’s nature science opposes ignorance and falsehood, within the domains it can explore. You can try to hide things, but “Mother Nature is a blabbermouth; she’ll answer anyone who asks the right questions”. You can try falsification, but you’ll just destroy your credibility when you get proved wrong. Science opposes faith because science asks questions and faith denies questions. According to faith, you are supposed to just _believe_; according to science, you must doubt. They mix as well as matter and antimatter. > [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m not sure that’s what I said at all… My point was this: how can any question be answered meaningfully without exploration? It can’t; that’s why faith is useless, at best. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/32 "2006-08-21T16:14:36Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > “As a devout Christian, I believe X” is a perfectly valid logical assertion.[/qutoe]The word was irrational, not illogical. These are your words, my bolding – “_The first sentence is an out and out **denial of logic** and reason; you don’t get more irrational than that_.” > [@](#): > > “Irrational” in the sense that I used the neologism “arational”, yes. That’s _why_ I derived it from amoral and not immoral. I wasn’t criticising that part of her statement, just pointing out that it isn’t, strickly speaking, rational. But not i_rrational,_ which was the point in contention. Coining a word and attempting to slide the debate over to the new definition is not, strictly speaking, logical. I understand that you are picking up the torch of the anti-religious segment of the SDMB. I have no use for religion myself. I was challenging **badchad** to prove the irrationality of Seige’s statement using the facts and logic he claims to have in his quiver. Perhaps it would be best to let him respond. > [@](#): > > Science opposes faith because science asks questions and faith denies questions. According to faith, you are supposed to just _believe_; according to science, you must doubt. They mix as well as matter and antimatter. The kinds of questions that faith deals with and the kinds of questions that science deals with do not overlap. > [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m not sure that’s what I said at all… My point was this: how can any question be answered meaningfully without exploration? Point taken. Science is not the only way to eplore, however. Some questions are not under the purview of science. That does not make their exploration meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/33 "2006-08-21T16:24:52Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > The kinds of questions that faith deals with and the kinds of questions that science deals with do not overlap. To the degree that’s true, it’s true because science has repeatedly forced faith to back off. Given it’s head, faith is all encompassing; it eliminates everything but itself, and reduces the faithful to mindlessness. Faith _still_ interferes with such matters as evolution; being faith, it’s nearly always wrong. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Point taken. Science is not the only way to eplore, however. Some questions are not under the purview of science. That does not make their exploration meaningless. That’s debatable; if science can’t be used, it’s arguable whether or not you’re exploring the question or just making things up. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/34 "2006-08-21T16:34:22Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > To the degree that’s true, it’s true because science has repeatedly forced faith to back off. Given it’s head, faith is all encompassing; it eliminates everything but itself, and reduces the faithful to mindlessness. Faith _still_ interferes with such matters as evolution; being faith, it’s nearly always wrong. You are missing the point. If a person were to have a revelatory experience, there is no way scientifically to explore it. > [@](#): > > That’s debatable; if science can’t be used, it’s arguable whether or not you’re exploring the question or just making things up. Set up an experiment that explores whether my claim to love my mother is an accurate description of the way things are in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/35 "2006-08-21T16:49:30Z")
> [@badchad](#): > > Because people deliberately, consistently, and invariantly say very complementary things about religion that aren’t true. As Nietzsche put it, sometimes one remains devoted to a cause only because his opponents will not cease to be insipid. > > … > > It’s debate, I bring up many points, facts and reasoning, I just don’t go out of my way to pander to my opponents feelings. Simple courtesy isn’t pandering to your opponents’ feelings; it’s conducting yourself in a civilized, mature manner–one that, incidentally, is more conducive to fostering rational thought and genuine reflection than the repeated insults you find necessary to hurl at the religious. It seems to me that your antagonistic stance and hostile bearing are counter-productive to your own cause. Being being so consistently provocative and rude, you cause persons not to examine their own positions, but to become angry and defensive. What does that accomplish? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/36 "2006-08-21T16:49:47Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > You are missing the point. If a person were to have a revelatory experience, there is no way scientifically to explore it. Because a “revelatory experience” can’t at present be distinguished from lying or delusion. That’s why they should simply be dismissed as meaningless. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Set up an experiment that explores whether my claim to love my mother is an accurate description of the way things are in the world. We don’t have a workable truth/lie detector yet. That’s a limitation of modern technology, not an innate limitation on science. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/37 "2006-08-21T17:07:18Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Because a “revelatory experience” can’t at present be distinguished from lying or delusion. That’s why they should simply be dismissed as meaningless. This is a circular argument. Since science cannot at present explore it, it must be meaningless. You are simply re-affirming the premise. > [@](#): > > We don’t have a workable truth/lie detector yet. That’s a limitation of modern technology, not an innate limitation on science. What does a lie detector have to do with anything? If I claimed to be able to bench press 500 pounds you would not need a lie detector. The truth about whether I love my mother is not contingent upon whether I say I do. I could think I love her but be wrong. Whether or not I love her is simply not the kind of question science answers. It is not falsifiable. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/38 "2006-08-21T17:19:16Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > This is a circular argument. Since science cannot at present explore it, it must be meaningless. You are simply re-affirming the premise. I didn’t say anything about science; I simply pointed out that a claim that something was “revealed” to you out of the ether is an empty one. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What does a lie detector have to do with anything? If I claimed to be able to bench press 500 pounds you would not need a lie detector. The truth about whether I love my mother is not contingent upon whether I say I do. I could think I love her but be wrong. No, you can’t. Love is an emotion; you either love her or don’t, and you **know** if you don’t. A reliable lie detector could easily determine if you love your mother or not. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Whether or not I love her is simply not the kind of question science answers. It is not falsifiable. With the right technology, it’s easily falsifiable. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/39 "2006-08-21T18:03:15Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I didn’t say anything about science; I simply pointed out that a claim that something was “revealed” to you out of the ether is an empty one. I did, and that is what you were responding to. > [@](#): > > No, you can’t. Love is an emotion; you either love her or don’t, and you **know** if you don’t. I could be delusional. I could be drunk. You may have insufficiently defined “love” in your question. You may be unable to define love. I will go so far as to assert that you _are_ unable to define love. > [@](#): > > A reliable lie detector could easily determine if you love your mother or not. > > With the right technology, it’s easily falsifiable. Appealing to imaginary instruments seems a bit like appealing to imaginary sky pixies. Go ahead. Set up the experiment. Think of it as a thought experiment. I stipulate the right technology. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096/40 "2006-08-21T18:08:25Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > We don’t have a workable truth/lie detector yet. That’s a limitation of modern technology, not an innate limitation on science. You avoided the real point to what Contrapuntal was saying. We have no way of studying or quantifying qualia such as love (and a working lie detector wouldn’t get us any closer to that point). But very few cognitive scientists would dismiss them as irrelevant or nonexistent. I don’t think you can present your viewpoint as being particularly rational or scientific when you’re ignoring the great deal of scientific work that has been done in the field in favor of your own ideology. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/double-truth-christianity-and-evolution/369096.md?page=3)