RE: Death Threats After Supporting Evolution
August 30, 2012 at 5:12 pm
(This post was last modified: August 30, 2012 at 5:13 pm by CliveStaples.)
(August 30, 2012 at 2:18 pm)Faith No More Wrote: That has to be the biggest "if" in history. I'm pretty sure that my dad had read the bible and knew that it held no accurate, scientific claims, but I can't say that for certain. My parents are very tight-lipped about their religious beliefs, so I'm guessing he has read the bible simply because of the fact that my dad reads everything that interests him.
(August 30, 2012 at 1:38 pm)System of Solace Wrote: No, it's not flawed.
I'm guessing his dad has actually read the bible and what it says about the world versus what modern science says. Without reading it, you may have a good idea of which would be right, considering the bible's static information from thousands of years ago written by men who understood very little of our world or the universe, or modern science. Really, your question is quite pointless. It's like saying, "'I liked ___'s speech.' 'You did? Well, what if he was dead? Then you wouldn't have liked it.'"
Of course the Bible would have been right, although we would have not thought that. But the Bible doesn't say that.
You've both missed my point.
I'm distinguishing between "science and the Bible conflict" and "our current understanding of science and the Bible conflict".
If our current understanding of science (call this "S") conflicts with a Biblical claim (call this "B"), then there's basically four cases:
1) S is true, B is false; our current understanding of science is accurate, and the Bible's claim is wrong. For example, if B = "The Earth is flat" and S = "The Earth is round".
2) S is true, B is true; this is a contradiction, since S contradicts B.
3) S is false, B is false; the Bible's claim is false, but our current understanding of science is also false. For example, if B = "The world will end in 2011 in a divine apocalypse", S = "The world will end in 2011 because of Aether confluxion" (where Aether confluxion is some currently-widely-held (but false) scientific view of physics).
4) S is false, B is true; the Bible's claim is true, but our current understanding of science is wrong. E.g., if B = "The laws of quantum physics hold," S = "The laws of Newtonian mechanics hold".
(August 30, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A single axiom is all that is required, and it may very well be wrong, but would still be a useful approximation were that the case (interestingly this same axiom must also be leveraged in the case of religion, or any human endeavor). You're attempting equivocation. Stop.
Are you addressing me? I'm not sure what term you're saying that I have equivocated on.
Quote:The particulars of the world around us can be known. Nothing else is required. Even this can be modified without impact. Compare that the laundry list of bullshit which must be swallowed in the case of religious belief (all the while including this in the list - of course).
Is that an axiom? Or can you prove it?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
