Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[The Grand Nudger]

First, a real miracle would not be opposed to scientific fact. It is simply non-natural causation and not violating anything except the idea of a closed system (a metaphysical question and not a scientific one). However the claim of a real miracle can be examined and are not exempt from scrutiny by science and other fields. The fact that we cannot be certain does not mean we cannot assign a low probability and dismiss beliefs of low probability. 

So science can comment on the supernatural after all?

We should discard god-of-the-gaps beliefs if there is no other reason to believe supernatural causation. But God creating the universe and life are not god-of-the-gaps beliefs. We might not know how this came about, but we believe because it is core to theology that he did.

Both of those are god of the gaps beliefs, textbook.........? We were discussing whether or not we should discard such beliefs, however. Have you discarded such beliefs? In what way does being core to theology provide a rationalization for exemption? In a "Hey fellas, I really need this one" sort of way? Why not describe what we "should do" more accurately? This could all have been avoided. I guess it doesn't sound as good. We should exempt those beliefs which, absent or non-factual, would make our faith impossible to rationally maintain.

Do you have examples of a belief you -have- discarded, a gap argument you -have- passed on? I'm curious. I assume there are plenty.

[SteveII]

First, a real miracle would not be opposed to scientific fact. It is simply non-natural causation and not violating anything except the idea of a closed system (a metaphysical question and not a scientific one). However the claim of a real miracle can be examined and are not exempt from scrutiny by science and other fields. The fact that we cannot be certain does not mean we cannot assign a low probability and dismiss beliefs of low probability. 

So science can comment on the supernatural after all?

It can comment on the reasons why we think some cause was supernatural. It cannot say whether something is or is not. 

We should discard god-of-the-gaps beliefs if there is no other reason to believe supernatural causation. But God creating the universe and life are not god-of-the-gaps beliefs. We might not know how this came about, but we believe because it is core to theology that he did.

Both of those are god of the gaps beliefs, textbook.........?   We were discussing whether or not we should discard such beliefs, however.  Have you discarded such beliefs?  In what way does being core to theology provide a rationalization for exemption?  In a "Hey fellas, I really need this one" sort of way?  Why not describe what we "should do" more accurately?  This could all have been avoided.  I guess it doesn't sound as good.  We should exempt those beliefs which, absent or non-factual, would make our faith impossible to rationally maintain.  

Do you have examples of a belief you -have- discarded, a gap argument you -have- passed on?  I'm curious.  I assume there are plenty.

No they are not god of the gaps beliefs. From Wikipedia: "God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." Christians believe that God created the universe because 1) he said he did and 2) it is foundational to theology that God created the universe for a specific purpose: for us. Same with life. God creating life endows is with purpose and value. 

I have abandoned 'god of the gap' arguments (not beliefs). I would have previously argued life...therefore God, etc. A belief I have changed my mind on is the literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago.

[robvalue]

I want to give you credit for abandoning the literal 6 day creation Steve

The literal creation story is absolutely ludicrous and at direct odds with reality, so I applaud you for cutting off that dead wood.

[RoadRunner79]

  "are you claiming that which is non-living, cannot become alive?" Or basically just asking why behind your claim.

No, why would you even think that?  Life had to begin from something that was not living ... it is necessary for evolution ....

Ok... so why do you say that science has "proven" that a man who has been dead for three days cannot come alive again?

Even the simplest life requires the specific arrangement of a complex sequence in order to carry out the functions for life.  In the case of a being that was once alive, the material is already present and arranged.  It just needs to be made living again.  I would agree, that in Christ's case that some repair was necessary; however is this any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?    Keep in mind as well, that it was not just natural forces and random chance, that are behind the resurrection of Jesus.  The description attributes an outside and intelligent interaction (God) as the cause.  

So by what distinction do you say that science as proven against the one, and yet accept the other?

[The Grand Nudger]

So science can comment on the supernatural after all?

It can comment on the reasons why we think some cause was supernatural. It cannot say whether something is or is not. 

At every turn this gets more inconsistent.  When it;s done commenting, and the comment is "didn't happen this way", we rationalize.  We exempt.  We forget that we ever mentioned science as a metric or an authority and say "but we don't know for sure".  

No they are not god of the gaps beliefs. From Wikipedia: "God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." Christians believe that God created the universe because 1) he said he did and 2) it is foundational to theology that God created the universe for a specific purpose: for us. Same with life. God creating life endows is with purpose and value.

Your continued insistence upon this shady territory of what you feel cannot be disporoven by metrics which you do not accept as authoratative in the first place makes this yet another disingenuous comment.  You -do- support your belief with those gaps, you even go to the trouble of manufacturing them.  Repeatedly.   Perhaps that's because you realize that "he said so, and we need it to be true" is rationally insufficient, and ofc you do so in the face of good science regardless. At no point do I see you discarding this contradictory narrative for the reasons you've offered.  

I have abandoned 'god of the gap' arguments (not beliefs). I would have previously argued life...therefore God, etc. A belief I have changed my mind on is the literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago.

Except that this is a true religious belief...it was done supernaturally.  As such the metrics you offered for discarding them are inapplicable, as per your comments on the matter. I don't think that you've arranged the sets of what you do and don't believe in this way. I think that this, amusingly, is yet another contradictory belief which you will not discard.

You think YEC is silly, and it is...but it isn't any more or less silly than miracles, or supernatural causes, or the endless prattling on about disproving your religious beliefs. This is why I asked for an example. Don;t you think that a YEC can defend this belief by using exactly the same sort of waffling you've engaged in, in just this thread? I;m not personally interested in the batshit things you believe. I won't ask you what they are or to prove them. I'm trying to put together a cogent description of how you manage your beliefs, whatever they may be.

[madog]

No, why would you even think that?  Life had to begin from something that was not living ... it is necessary for evolution ....

Ok... so why do you say that science has "proven" that a man who has been dead for three days cannot come alive again?

Even the simplest life requires the specific arrangement of a complex sequence in order to carry out the functions for life.  In the case of a being that was once alive, the material is already present and arranged.  It just needs to be made living again.  I would agree, that in Christ's case that some repair was necessary; however is this any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?    Keep in mind as well, that it was not just natural forces and random chance, that are behind the resurrection of Jesus.  The description attributes an outside and intelligent interaction (God) as the cause.  

So by what distinction do you say that science as proven against the one, and yet accept the other?

Look brain cells die if deprived of oxygen for more than 6 minutes .... FACT .... 

[chimp3]

No, why would you even think that?  Life had to begin from something that was not living ... it is necessary for evolution ....

Ok... so why do you say that science has "proven" that a man who has been dead for three days cannot come alive again?

Even the simplest life requires the specific arrangement of a complex sequence in order to carry out the functions for life.  In the case of a being that was once alive, the material is already present and arranged.  It just needs to be made living again.  I would agree, that in Christ's case that some repair was necessary; however is this any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?    Keep in mind as well, that it was not just natural forces and random chance, that are behind the resurrection of Jesus.  The description attributes an outside and intelligent interaction (God) as the cause.  

So by what distinction do you say that science as proven against the one, and yet accept the other?

Resurrection after 3 days being "any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?" ? Yes. Much more difficult. Next "smarter than a 5th Grader" question?

[Homeless Nutter]

Ok... so why do you say that science has "proven" that a man who has been dead for three days cannot come alive again?

Even the simplest life requires the specific arrangement of a complex sequence in order to carry out the functions for life.  In the case of a being that was once alive, the material is already present and arranged.  It just needs to be made living again.[...]

LOL... Who the hell did you learn biology from? Dr. Frankenstein?

To you it may appear, that dead body has the same "arrangement" as a living one, but no - as soon as you die, the trillions of bacteria present in your digestive system begin to decompose your organs. Within few hours irreversible changes to the cell structure on a molecular level are so severe, that this "material" can "carry out the functions for life" no better than a compost heap. Cell death can not be undone any more than a house can be "unburned".

  I would agree, that in Christ's case that some repair was necessary; however is this any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?  

Well, let's see, shall we? It took god 9 months to get Jesus from a cell to a baby. Further 15-20 years to form him into an adult human. Seems like this "arrangement" takes a lot of time.

Do an experiment - bake a cake. You'll need all sorts of materials, the knowledge of how to combine them, some time and energy, in order for your creation to carry out the functions of a cake. Done? Good. Now - smash it on the ground. So - since the material is already present and arranged and you made the cake - I imagine you'll also be able to put it back together again, as if nothing happened? I mean - it will require some "repair" but is this any more difficult than the "arrangement" in the first place?

Or, to give another example - what's easier: slowly setting up thousands of dominoes in a continuous line, or making them all stand back up at the same time, after they were all knocked over?

[vorlon13]

I want to give you credit for abandoning the literal 6 day creation Steve

The literal creation story is absolutely ludicrous and at direct odds with reality, so I applaud you for cutting off that dead wood.

Inquiry;

is advocating/encouraging apostasy equivalent to advocating/encouraging atheism ??

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... so why do you say that science has "proven" that a man who has been dead for three days cannot come alive again?

Even the simplest life requires the specific arrangement of a complex sequence in order to carry out the functions for life.  In the case of a being that was once alive, the material is already present and arranged.  It just needs to be made living again.[...]

LOL... Who the hell did you learn biology from? Dr. Frankenstein?

To you it may appear, that dead body has the same "arrangement" as a living one, but no - as soon as you die, the trillions of bacteria present in your digestive system begin to decompose your organs. Within few hours irreversible changes to the cell structure on a molecular level are so severe, that this "material" can "carry out the functions for life" no better than a compost heap. Cell death can not be undone any more than a house can be "unburned".

  I would agree, that in Christ's case that some repair was necessary; however is this any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?  

Well, let's see, shall we? It took god 9 months to get Jesus from a cell to a baby. Further 15-20 years to form him into an adult human. Seems like this "arrangement" takes a lot of time.

Do an experiment - bake a cake. You'll need all sorts of materials, the knowledge of how to combine them, some time and energy, in order for your creation to carry out the functions of a cake. Done? Good. Now - smash it on the ground. So - since the material is already present and arranged and you made the cake - I imagine you'll also be able to put it back together again, as if nothing happened? I mean - it will require some "repair" but is this any more difficult than the "arrangement" in the first place?

Or, to give another example - what's easier: slowly setting up thousands of dominoes in a continuous line, or making them all stand back up at the same time, after they were all knocked over?

Thanks for a good and thoughtful post.  Biology (much like history) wasn't the strongest subject for me in high school (seemed like just memorization).  I do find that in both cases, that my interest are greater now than they where then, and I can learn how the stuff works, rather than just memorizing lists.

However, you only talked about the difficulties on one side of the discussion.  What is the difference in origin of life, and resurrection of life?   Is it time or the quantity that is the issue?  The OOL discussion isn't easy either especially from a naturalistic perspective.