Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[Augustus]

I disagree and citations will follow. Moral interpretations are not an issue here.

An example from Origen (early 3rd c) on Genesis:

Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it…No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it…It is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account….And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well theories prove other theories, or themselves. No they don't.

Wanna shoot off some fireworks near a leaky oxygen canister? After all, the combustibility of oxygen is just a theory. So no risk of explosion, right?

 

[Jagella]

Try the Vatican - or one of its branches. I bet there is an RCC in driving distance.

One Catholic I used to know said that all science is bad and that "bad science" would no doubt include the Theory of Evolution. My Catholic Dad used to say that Darwin was in league with the Devil, and my mother didn't even know what evolution is. "Sophisticated" Christians to be sure!

But despite these Roman Catholics, doesn't the Catholic Church officially recognize the fact of evolution? It depends on what you mean by "evolution." The Theory of Evolution is based on undirected, impersonal, biological change while these Christian sects have created their own version of evolution tossing God into the mix in effect nullifying the undirected and impersonal evolution that we know from science.

You must be stuck somewhere in the bible belt where Southern Baptists are dominant. You've got a bad sample there. Worldwide Christianity is sophisticated, just not in that part of the US.

No, I don't live among those tobacco-chewing hick Christians in the deep South. I live in central Pennsylvania, and it doesn't look to me that the Christians here up North are much more sophisticated than the Christians in Mississippi. I'll keep looking for those sophisticated Christians nevertheless.

 

[Rival]

Wanna shoot off some fireworks near a leaky oxygen canister? After all, the combustibility of oxygen is just a theory. So no risk of explosion, right?

Please don't give people ideas

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please don't give people ideas

Well, there's eating rotten, raw meat because, hey, germs are just a theory.

 

[Colt]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. There is no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

Jesus healed people and even raised Lazarus from the dead. He returned from the apparent death of his body on his own volition as he said he could and would.

 

[Jagella]

Jesus healed people and even raised Lazarus from the dead. He returned from the apparent death of his body on his own volition as he said he could and would.

No he didn't.

 

[firedragon]

This isn't science. I've already told you that. It's pure reason. All facts are assertions, but not vice versa. Use the definitions above instead: All "piece of information presented as having objective reality" are "statement that [the claimant] strongly believe is true." It analogous to "All men are mortal." It can be Venn diagrammed.

Hmm. Okay. I can agree that all facts are assertions but not all assertions are facts. In this case, none of them are facts.

So no then to my offer? You're still attempting to send other out to fetch for you, are you? And if you take me up on that offer, I still won't be discussing philosophers of science with you. I'd be discussing the facts science uses to come to conclusions, such as why it claims the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

I must apologise for not responding to your ad hominem. But science does not conclude facts. Thats how science works.

Incidentally, this is incorrect. Facts are the source of the laws and theories that unify those facts.

Nothing in the OP are facts.

First the sealioning and now a little Bulverism? How about you quote some science on the age of the universe or earth? If you do the research, you will understand better why their ages are asserted as fact. Then bring it here, and I will help you understand it better. Or not. Your call.

Cheap ad hominem will not be responded to.

Science says that the age of the universe is some 13 or 14 billion years old. But that is not established as "fact" or "knowledge" because that is not how science works.

 

[shunyadragon]

An example from Origen (early 3rd c) on Genesis:

Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it…No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it…It is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account….And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification

Bad example, except yes it describes an an allegorical interpretation, but not the view of the authors of the NT..I acknowledged both literal and allegorical interpretations of the Bible

Going off topic of this thread.

I will refer to the scripture itself in an appropriate thread, which I will start, and we will be dealing with scripture itself,

 

[Heyo]

But despite these Roman Catholics, doesn't the Catholic Church officially recognize the fact of evolution?

"Pope John Paul II, in a speech given on October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” states that “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”1 He goes on to note that the progressive acceptance of the theory by researchers and the convergence of the latest discoveries in various sciences are “decisive arguments in favor of the theory.”2" from The Pope and Evolution

 

[Heyo]

No he didn't.

Yes, he did. And so did Deadpool and Superman and Palpatine and Sherlock Holmes. Literary figures do that often.

 

[Sheldon]

That 45% sounds high, even for America, strange place though it is. I doubt there’s anywhere else in the world where evolution is disputed, including those countries where religious practice is the norm.

My bad it was 40%, who ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%).

I found this from Wikipedia on some other nations:

It's been an ongoing problem for medical research in the US apparently, since all medical research is necessarily predicated on the fact of shared ancestry, so recruiting qualified people domestically is made more difficult by the high percentage of adults who deny this.

State funded faith schools were introduced in the UK by Labour, when they reversed a longstanding policy, under Tony Blair. A series of investigative programmes portrayed a dismal picture, with "science" teachers telling pupils it was a matter of personal choice between species evolution and creationism.

 

[Colt]

No he didn't.

You don't want it to be true.

 

[shunyadragon]

The use of the word 'fact' in the context of science is often misused in the layman world. In some cases as in the opening OP I tolerate it and provide a mild correction, because yes, most of the opening OP correctly list knowledge of science that has demonstrated as beyond a reasonable doubt. Correct use of 'fact' refers to individual physical 'facts' or evidence that supports a hypothesis and theories.

One unfortunate use of 'fact' that baits 'Literal Creationists' is stating that the 'Theory or Science of Evolution is a 'Fact.' This is an incorrect use of 'fact.' It is more correct to say" The science of evolution and abiogenesis is supported beyond any reasonable doubt by Scientific Methods and the objective verifiable evidence.

Yes there are many and I mean many unanswered questions, but 'arguing from ignorance' that due to 'unanswered questions' of the science is in some way flawed only reflects the intentional ignorance and religious agenda of those that assert this negative view of science.

 

[KWED]

That would be a personal decision. For me, there is always the possibility of human error interpreting a divine source.

So all belief based on holy scripture is subjective and could be entirely wrong - the believer has no way of knowing?

 

[KWED]

Modern Miracles

"Science cannot currently explain" =/= "miracle". That is pretty straightforward.
Just think about all the stuff that science used to be unable to explain but now can. It's basically a "god of the gaps" argument.

Also, science isn't really in the business of explaining anecdotal claims of extraordinary events, other than to point out how easily it is for us to be fooled by our own imagination.

 

[KWED]

No I did not.

Er, yes you did...
"This entire post represents an erroneous 'arguing from ignorance'"

Not really accurate. 'Arguing from ignorance' is to make a claim based on the lack of evidence.

No it isn't.
"This issue cannot be resolved due to lack of evidence" is not an argument from ignorance.

I know what 'arguing from ignorance ' means,'

Your initial use was questionable. Your "clarification" confirmed this.
Look, don't worry too much. People quite often misunderstand informal fallacies. You aren't the first and won't be the last.

 

[KWED]

You refuse to examine the scientific evidence so you are posting from ignorance. You should start here: Steps of the Scientific Method

With all due respect, you are misunderstanding what science is and what it does.
I have read many of the reports claiming to show the existence of a spirit world, life after death, past life memories, etc and none of then stand up to examination.

Why don't you cite your favourite and we can examine it in detail.

 

[George-ananda]

So all belief based on holy scripture is subjective and could be entirely wrong - the believer has no way of knowing?

I think the believer can judge for himself the overall intent and value of the text.

 

[George-ananda]

"Science cannot currently explain" =/= "miracle". That is pretty straightforward.
Just think about all the stuff that science used to be unable to explain but now can. It's basically a "god of the gaps" argument.

Also, science isn't really in the business of explaining anecdotal claims of extraordinary events, other than to point out how easily it is for us to be fooled by our own imagination.

I've heard multiple cases of miraculous healings seemingly directly tied to a spiritual personage. Way enough evidence for me to believe this happens.

My best understanding is that these acts involve forces and energies outside of the physical plane of nature familiar to current science. Perhaps science of the future will understand this better,