Equilax: Are you saying it isn't possible for a thoughtful and intelligent person to go through a process where he or she decides for him or herself that the bible is correct? Sounds like you are taking issue with the way arguments should be be made, and it appears from the website that the way they're making an argument is flawed.... And yes if you find any evangelical group they will make this kind of statement about the Bible. This is a statement of beliefs.

(December 4, 2014 at 2:07 am)Jhayward Wrote: Equilax: Are you saying it isn't possible for a thoughtful and intelligent person to go through a process where he or she decides for him or herself that the bible is correct?

Of course that's possible. It happens all the time. But it's not what's happening here. "Scripture is our supreme and final authority in all matters it addresses." Not only should it not be- reality should be the final authority- but when you go into any given area with that outlook, then what you have is a presupposition that will lead you to discard all the things that don't match with scripture. Good science is not done that way. Honest rational discourse is not done that way.

You can't have a thoughtful and intelligent anything if you start with "what I already believe is necessarily perfectly right."

Quote: Sounds like you are taking issue with the way arguments should be be made, and it appears from the website that the way they're making an argument is flawed.... And yes if you find any evangelical group they will make this kind of statement about the Bible. This is a statement of beliefs.

That statement of beliefs practically disqualifies them from being good scientists, as you previously asserted. It's the only reason why I brought it up; "creation science" sources often do things like that (in fact, a few of them use word for word identical statements of faith, despite being unconnected entities) and a lot of the time the people who buy into that aren't aware of the dishonesty at the heart of the source. They just take the lip service that's being paid to science at face value, which is what frauds like those guys thrive on.

Esquilax: what is reality? The scientists have made the decision for themselves at some time that the Bible is right and is to be trusted along with science. On the other hand some humanists have made the decision that there exists a natural explanation for everything. And so this view will shape the way that they look at origins science. Should the scientists back up to the time before they decided to trust the Bible? Can a humanist back up to the time before which he decided that there is a natural explanation for everything? Is that possible? Can anyone truly be intellectually honest? What are the sources of truth by which one can determine reality? Reason? Science? If there were something supernatural how would one know?

---

... Stepping away from Christianity, let's take the example of the show on TV called long island medium. Is this all made up? Is it an elaborate scheme? Is there a natural explanation?

Religion does not want you to think, for fear that the circular logic may be exposed.

Education encourages you to think.

(December 4, 2014 at 2:07 am)Jhayward Wrote: Equilax: Are you saying it isn't possible for a thoughtful and intelligent person to go through a process where he or she decides for him or herself that the bible is correct? Sounds like you are taking issue with the way arguments should be be made, and it appears from the website that the way they're making an argument is flawed.... And yes if you find any evangelical group they will make this kind of statement about the Bible. This is a statement of beliefs.

I agree with you, Jhayward. My sister is much better educated than me, and she is still a Christian. If a person takes classes in comparative religion or philosophy, then maybe he/she will lose faith. Probably people with a liberal arts education are more likely to lose faith. I lost faith in college, but it wasn't because I became more educated. I was under a lot of stress and God was out of the office at the time.

(December 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm)Jhayward Wrote: Why is it assumed that as education increases, Christianity will decrease? That the population of Christians is less intelligent that atheists? Are there not dumb Christians and dumb atheists? As education increases, intolerance will decrease. Fundamentalism will decrease, yes.... and thoughtlessness will decrease. But do increased critical thinking skills lead to a choice against Christianity? What percentage of scientists in the US are Christians? Are the Christian ones dumber than the atheist ones?

Intelligence and education are two different things ie. you can be intelligent but uneducated. There are many Christians who are much more intelligent than I am, but this does not always mean they are highly educated. Even the Christian PhD's, I would contend, are not necessarily 'educated,' as Esquilax noted about the Statements of Belief.

I read a book that was touted as '50 prominent PhDs who have written essays on why they believe in literal Creationism.' I read this truly hoping to gain some sort of understanding for their position. In the end, every argument amounted to 'the Bible says so.' One author even admitted to having, as a test, literally cut out every passage in his Bible that disagreed with science. When he was finished, the book could not hold form under its own weight. The author's conclusion: siding with the Bible, regardless of the evidence. He may be intelligent; he may have an extensive education; but he is not educated.

(December 4, 2014 at 9:54 am)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: ...
He may be intelligent; he may have an extensive education; but he is not educated.

How do you define educated? Maybe you mean he didn't apply critical thinking to his beliefs? Or maybe you mean his education wasn't relevant to evaluating his beliefs? (There are lots of areas of learning.)

As far as I'm concerned, it has a lot to do with how your mind works. If you have a sceptical mind, and choose to apply it consistently, you'll be an atheist. If you don't apply it to religion, or don't have a sceptical mind, it's much more likely you'll be a theist. But not necessarily.

Of course, indoctrination causes a lot of damage which is carried into adulthood. This can cause an otherwise sceptical mind to overlook all the problems with theistic claims because it has been conditioned to accept them without question.

And of course, your ability to reach valid conclusions is also based on what you know, hence education.

I know some people will howl at this and say they are sceptic theists, but you're not, sorry. You aren't using the same standards you claim to apply to everything else, since not one good argument has turned up ever. If you have the magic bullet, and not the normal apologist bullshit, then bring it on.

[/highhorse]

(December 4, 2014 at 2:33 am)Jhayward Wrote: Esquilax: what is reality?

That which is demonstrable as objectively real.

Quote: The scientists have made the decision for themselves at some time that the Bible is right and is to be trusted along with science.

Which is also not an accurate description of what's happening with the Reasons folks. See, the bible isn't something you trust, because the bible isn't evidence of anything. The bible is a series of claims that can either be verified or disproved by the reality that those claims inhabit. Many of those claims, including the more important ones, have not yet been given the kind of justification one would need to believe in them. Science, by contrast, is a method by which such justifications can be derived; it is not a set of claims in and of itself.

The point I'm trying to make is that ultimately, the bible is subordinate to reality and science. That's not to say it's necessarily untrue, just that it requires reality and potentially the scientific method to be confirmed as true, which is the same thing you'd expect of any truth claim; you read the claim and then, if it's true, you'll be able to find that the real world exclusively conforms to that. The Reasons folks are going precisely the opposite way: they've decided the bible is right, and so the things in reality that don't match with it must be wrong by default. This is why they are not good scientists.

You can't have a "supreme authority," in science. Hell, if you're a rational person at all you must be prepared to drop even your most cherished of beliefs at a moment's notice, to change them in accordance with the evidence. Reality is king, not a book that purports to describe it.

Quote: On the other hand some humanists have made the decision that there exists a natural explanation for everything. And so this view will shape the way that they look at origins science.

You're looking at it a bit backwards. You don't start with the view that there exist natural explanations for everything and conduct your science from there. You don't start with any such views. You start with an open mind and allow your observations to guide your views wherever they might lead, regardless of what that is. When you see humanists accepting that things have natural explanations, it's because all we have ever seen, in the entirety of human history, has had a natural explanation. Therefore, the probability of a natural explanation is necessarily greater than for anything else.

Quote: Should the scientists back up to the time before they decided to trust the Bible? Can a humanist back up to the time before which he decided that there is a natural explanation for everything? Is that possible? Can anyone truly be intellectually honest?

See above. If the bible is challenged by the evidence, or if the evidence favors a supernatural explanation, that should prompt either side to abandon their previous beliefs and follow the evidence. The sort of creationists that have statements of faith won't do that because they're dishonestly presupposing the truth of their own worldview, but humanists don't do the same thing. Don't mistake a tentative conclusion for a presupposition; after all, we're the ones here asking for evidence against our own interests.

Quote: What are the sources of truth by which one can determine reality? Reason? Science?

Reality is the only source of truth. Reason and science are methods by which one can observe that truth.

Quote: If there were something supernatural how would one know?

I don't know. I'm waiting for the theists to tell me how they know, without begging the question or falling for logical fallacies.

Quote:... Stepping away from Christianity, let's take the example of the show on TV called long island medium. Is this all made up? Is it an elaborate scheme? Is there a natural explanation?

Ever heard of cold reading, or hot reading? If you peel back the glossy veneer Long Island Medium projects, what you see is that there is an easy natural explanation: this supposed psychic is lying. When she's taping her show and has the benefit of time, her staff members interview people in advance and feed her information. When she's forced to perform live, her failure rate is mysteriously much higher. Even former mediums who've given up the act have come forward to explain how she does it using entirely mundane means.

In short: yes, it's all made up. Yes, it's an elaborate scheme, and yes, there is a natural explanation.

By the way, I don't think there is such a thing as "origins science." Unless it refers to research into comic book characters. There are disciplines of science (physics and astronomy among them) that study a great many things, and among those is evidence regarding the possible origins of the universe. "Origins science" is another of those terms that is designed to put science in a bad light, ironically by trying to make it sound more like religion.