some thoughts on creationism

[Valjean]

Well, no, it's not the best method. It's a method that works best when investigating the physicality of existence. But there are other methods that work better at investigating other aspects of our experience of existence. And failing to recognize this is exactly the danger of becoming a 'true believer". In this case, in scientism.

Science has no eclipsed those other methods of understanding existence. In fact, or glaring abuse of scientific knowledge just serves to show us how insdiquate science alone is in term of providing us real understanding. And your wildly grandiose assessment of it is called 'scientism'.

Science of not the enemy of anything. Neither is religion. But scientism is a real problem. Just like religion is when it becomes a fettish.

Philosophy has been dealing with many of these questions for thousands of years. What progress do we see? What has been resolved?

Unless we can objectively verify a claim with repeatable, empirical testing, how is it any more than speculation?
What tools does philosophy use to verify claims?

 

[PureX]

Philosophy has been dealing with many of these questions for thousands of years. What progress do we see? What has been resolved?

Unless we can objectively verify a claim with repeatable, empirical testing, how is it any more than speculation?
What tools does philosophy use to verify claims?

Why would I bother with this discussion when it's clear that you only intend to maintain your current science bias?

 

[Valjean]

Because you've made proposals and claims, in a debate forum, that I'd presume you'd want to talk about?
If you don't want to discuss these ideas, why are you here?

 

[PureX]

Because you've made proposals and claims, in a debate forum, that I'd presume you'd want to talk about?
If you don't want to discuss these ideas, why are you here?

I see no "discussion" to be had. Only a stupid argument that will never rise above or resolve because you can't be wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Why would I bother with this discussion when it's clear that you only intend to maintain your current science bias?

Cuz maybe if you did some of the other people like penquin and I might see your logic. As it stands you have made assertions without evidence that you have something important.
You don't want to be dismissed unfairly.

 

[gnostic]

Philosophy is an endeavor, not an ideology. It is the endeavor of developing and testing many different possible ideologies in relation to our experience of being.

Ow? "testing" ha?
How are they tested? What's the methodology?

Through the application of logical debate.

PureX, a debate is just TALK, whether it is logical or illogical.

You are not testing any concept or claim with some debates.

And beside that, not everyone is logically astute.

Take "you" for example, my experiences with reading your comments, so far in "this thread" alone, haven't shown to me that you are as "logical" as you believe yourself to be...not by half.

Especially on your comments about "purpose", "design" and "intelligent" in nature...they are hardly your best works in logic. I find that @Valjean , @TagliatelliMonster & @Pogo being more logical with their arguments than yours.

But any argument, from either sides (be it yours or their), are not logical enough, unless one or more of you have some evidence to support the respective arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see no "discussion" to be had. Only a stupid argument that will never rise above or resolve because you can't be wrong.

He asked you questions.

This seems to be you acknowledging you can't answer them and then just go for a species of ad hominim seemingly as a tactic to hide the fact you don't have answers.

 

[Massimo2002]

There have been quite a few creationism threads here lately and all of them were tediously similar to each other...........

But here's the thing about creationism:

Nobody examining the reality of the natural world would ever conclude that some being like God "did it" unless they had preconceived notions about God at work in their head

The evidence alone does not point to God or anything like that, God is a total non sequitur, you may as well go about saying "Mr Potato Head did it!" that would be just as valid

Nobody who had never heard of God would see the evidence and then conclude that some entity with the features of God created it, the evidence does not lead to God, God is an enormous assumption

The bible is the only reason to think that God created reality, none of the evidence points to that and I think the reason the so-called "creationists" have it in for things like evolution is because evolution shows us that their dear book is not a literal scientific account, which is what they think it is

As such, believing God did it has nothing to do with evidence, it is a fantasy and the evidence does not naturally lead to the idea of there being a God - unless you already believe that

This is the sentiment I wanted to express in this thread:

I wish creationists would be honest and say that they choose blind faith over reason and evidence, I would have much more respect if they said this instead of pretending to be interested in science in a pathetic attempt to beat their opponents at their own game

I don't even think creationism should be called something with an "ism" at the end as that bestows undue dignity on it, I think "willful ignorance" is a more accurate term

I found this picture earlier today and it reminded me of some of the threads we've had here on RF recently, I thought I'd share it here:

View attachment 86588

Edit: I found this as well

View attachment 86595

You are wrong. Christians can still support science and be a Christian they aren't contradictory. And second any rational thinking person would conclude that this world was created by something and didn't just come about by random unguided chance as atheists always like to say.

 

[Valjean]

You are wrong. Christians can still support science and be a Christian they aren't contradictory. And second any rational thinking person would conclude that this world was created by something and didn't just come about by random unguided chance as atheists always like to say.

Being raised believing in magic and having rational thought and critical analysis suppressed, as is the case with a religious upbringing, retards the development of said reason and logical thought.

You propose Kalam's cosmological argument. It sounds initially reasonable, based on our personal experience with the material world, but it neither follows logically nor does it comport with modern theoretical physics. It is not a conclusion a rational person would jump to.

"Created by something" doesn't specify planned creation by an intentional personage, but this is what apologists are talking about. Here, too, there is a problem if you regress your argument to the creation of the creator.

I don't think I'd characterize Big Bang Cosmogeny as"random, unguided chance." This isn't a tenet of atheism, and I doubt you'd find scientists describing it thus, either.
The nature of the proposed singularity is unknown, as is the mechanism of the expansion. What is known is that the physical laws and constants of our universe became fixed at the expansion, and, once fixed, the physics dictating the development of the universe is neither chance nor random.
Unguided, sure, here's no evidence of guidance.

 

[Pogo]

You are wrong. Christians can still support science and be a Christian they aren't contradictory. And second any rational thinking person would conclude that this world was created by something and didn't just come about by random unguided chance as atheists always like to say.

It looks really complicated and I don't understand it therefor God is literally the argument from ignorance fallacy. It is not a rational thinking persons way of concluding anything.
That said Christians can still support science and most do, but they know better than to drag him into a lab thinking an old book is showing them how he did things.

 

[Eddi]

You are wrong. Christians can still support science and be a Christian they aren't contradictory. And second any rational thinking person would conclude that this world was created by something and didn't just come about by random unguided chance as atheists always like to say.

LOL

Calling creationists "rational" and "thinking"

That's a good one

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are wrong. Christians can still support science and be a Christian they aren't contradictory. And second any rational thinking person would conclude that this world was created by something and didn't just come about by random unguided chance as atheists always like to say.

I have as of yet to see a creationist even try to do so. Perhaps you could be a first.

 

[Yazata]

But here's the thing about creationism:

Nobody examining the reality of the natural world would ever conclude that some being like God "did it" unless they had preconceived notions about God at work in their head

Yes, it probably does depend on what preconceptions one is already attaching to the phrase "some being like God".

The way I look at it is like this: There are fundamental metaphysical questions, such as what mathematics and logic are, why the physical universe seemingly conforms to them, what the "laws of physics" are, where these "laws" came from and why they are as they seem to be and not something else, and the ultimate and most fundamental question of all: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does existence exist in the first place?

The idea that the fundamental metaphysical questions even have answers is obviously an assumption, which might be captured by the Principle of Sufficient Reason: For all X, If X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists. Science typically assumes this principle for physical phenomena, when it assumes that every event or state of affairs has an explanation for science to find. Science's success in finding explanations (whether real or hypothetical) for physical phenomena has led to the widespread faith among much of the general public that science can, at least in principle, explain anything.

Application of the Principle of Sufficient Reason to the fundamental metaphysical questions I outlined above is more controversial, in part because doing so leads to infinite regresses.

But historically, dating back to the ancient Greek philosophers, there's been a tradition of assigning the word "God" to whatever the unknown explanation for the fundamental metaphysical questions might be. That idea has survived as "Natural Theology" in the Christian tradition down to today. We see it in Aristotle and in Aquinas' Five Ways, It's found in Islam and the Hindus have their own versions.

Personally I'm an agnostic, but I take these kind of ideas very seriously. It's why I find myself wavering between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. I don't have a clue what the ultimate answers are, but I just intuitively feel in my gut that there are unknown answers that neither I nor anyone else knows anything about. I feel surrounded by mysteries at every moment. (That's my version of spirituality, perhaps.)

I don't really believe that ancient Hebrew or early medieval Arabic mythology have any of the answers that I seek, so I don't look there. I have little confidence or even interest in what Aquinas called "special revelation". But that said, I don't think that science has the answers either. Science assumes basic principles like the universe being logical and that it necessarily conforms to regularities ("laws") describable in mathematical form. Science isn't much help in explaining or justifying those assumptions except pragmatically (they seem to work in achieving science's very limited ends of correlating empirical phenomena). As to why reality takes this form or behaves this way, science is silent.

The evidence alone does not point to God or anything like that, God is a total non sequitur, you may as well go about saying "Mr Potato Head did it!" that would be just as valid

But what if we follow the tradition of Natural Theology and define "God" as 'Whatever the ultimate explanation is'? Or follow Neoplatonism and conceive of the Godhead as the ultimate unknowable "Source" from which everything else flows, beyond everything including logic and concepts?

I wish creationists would be honest and say that they choose blind faith over reason and evidence,

But saying "nature did it" without providing any fundamental explanation of 'nature', while saying 'we don't ask those questions' and dismissing them as empty "metaphysics" in the manner of the Positivists really sounds like willful ignorance to me.

It becomes insufferable when it becomes unfounded intellectual arrogance:

View attachment 86588

That might carry more force if scientists were more willing to actually address the nature and explanation of "the cosmos". Describing regularities within it, even mystifying those regularities in arcane mathematical heiroglyphs, doesn't really hide the fact that they are avoiding the most basic questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But what if we follow the tradition of Natural Theology and define "God" as 'Whatever the ultimate explanation is'? Or follow Neoplatonism and conceive of the Godhead as the ultimate unknowable "Source" from which everything else flows, beyond everything including logic and concepts?

Because that can dilute the meaning of God to the point where it means practically nothing. And it would still lead to abusive equivocation fallacies by believers. It would create more problems than it solves.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, it probably does depend on what preconceptions one is already attaching to the phrase "some being like God".

The way I look at it is like this: There are fundamental metaphysical questions, such as what mathematics and logic are, why the physical universe seemingly conforms to them, what the "laws of physics" are, where these "laws" came from and why they are as they seem to be and not something else, and the ultimate and most fundamental question of all: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does existence exist in the first place?

The idea that the fundamental metaphysical questions even have answers is obviously an assumption, which might be captured by the Principle of Sufficient Reason: For all X, If X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists. Science typically assumes this principle for physical phenomena, when it assumes that every event or state of affairs has an explanation for science to find. Science's success in finding explanations (whether real or hypothetical) for physical phenomena has led to the widespread faith among much of the general public that science can, at least in principle, explain anything.

Application of the Principle of Sufficient Reason to the fundamental metaphysical questions I outlined above is more controversial, in part because doing so leads to infinite regresses.

But historically, dating back to the ancient Greek philosophers, there's been a tradition of assigning the word "God" to whatever the unknown explanation for the fundamental metaphysical questions might be. That idea has survived as "Natural Theology" in the Christian tradition down to today. We see it in Aristotle and in Aquinas' Five Ways, It's found in Islam and the Hindus have their own versions.

Personally I'm an agnostic, but I take these kind of ideas very seriously. It's why I find myself wavering between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. I don't have a clue what the ultimate answers are, but I just intuitively feel in my gut that there are unknown answers that neither I nor anyone else knows anything about. I feel surrounded by mysteries at every moment. (That's my version of spirituality, perhaps.)

I don't really believe that ancient Hebrew or early medieval Arabic mythology have any of the answers that I seek, so I don't look there. I have little confidence or even interest in what Aquinas called "special revelation". But that said, I don't think that science has the answers either. Science assumes basic principles like the universe being logical and that it necessarily conforms to regularities ("laws") describable in mathematical form. Science isn't much help in explaining or justifying those assumptions except pragmatically (they seem to work in achieving science's very limited ends of correlating empirical phenomena). As to why reality takes this form or behaves this way, science is silent.



But what if we follow the tradition of Natural Theology and define "God" as 'Whatever the ultimate explanation is'? Or follow Neoplatonism and conceive of the Godhead as the ultimate unknowable "Source" from which everything else flows, beyond everything including logic and concepts?



But saying "nature did it" without providing any fundamental explanation of 'nature', while saying 'we don't ask those questions' and dismissing them as empty "metaphysics" in the manner of the Positivists really sounds like willful ignorance to me.

It becomes insufferable when it becomes unfounded intellectual arrogance:

That might carry more force if scientists were more willing to actually address the nature and explanation of "the cosmos". Describing regularities within it, even mystifying those regularities in arcane mathematical heiroglyphs, doesn't really hide the fact that they are avoiding the most basic questions.

The principle of sufficient reason is worthlessly circular in that it assumes that sufficient reason exists.
Also science does not assume regularity, rather it is a theoretical observation that has known exceptions such as certain phenomena that are regular only in aggregate but random otherwise.

Evolution has developed curiosity and a desire to find causes for phenomena, while useful it often leads to cognitive stress reduction sidetracks like religion and assumptions of ultimate causes.

 

[Yazata]

Because that can dilute the meaning of God to the point where it means practically nothing. And it would still lead to abusive equivocation fallacies by believers. It would create more problems than it solves.

Yes, the 'God' of Natural Theology does seem to reduce what is ostensibly a religious deity to whatever the unknown answers are to a set of metaphysical questions. It isn't clear why a metaphysical function like 'first cause' would be a suitable object of religious worship. That's an argument that keeps me attached, however loosly, to agnostic atheism.

Nevertheless, the idea of the Ultimate Explanation, the Ultimate Source for all of reality, does have tremendous emotional resonance for the philosopher in me. I can easily think of it as the ultimate goal of all inquiry, or all intellectual striving. And that attaches me, however loosly, to agnostic theism.

But whatever my motivations might be, the fact remains that Neoplatonism has had a huge impact of the history of Christianity, particularly Eastern Orthodoxy and many of the more mystical and contemplative currents throughout Christianity including in the Latin west. It's also basic to some of the deepest strands of both Islamic and Jewish thought. And it bears obvious resemblance to Hindu Vedanta.

The idea of "God" as the unknowable Source of reality itself, transcending all human language and conceptualizations, is an idea with a long religious pedigree.

Of course these theistic traditions typically flesh out Natural Theology with Revealed Theology that enables them to turn the abstract metaphysical functions into a more personalized object of religious devotion. That's where I don't follow them.

Neoplatonism and Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I guess that my point in this thread is merely to point out that natural science doesn't really address these kind of issues. If all of reality does in fact flow from some unknown Source, then the fact of reality itself can be said to be our evidence of that Source and evidence of its transcendent and inexplicable activity. The fact that reality is orderly and rational does arguably suggest that these characteristics derive from whatever explains reality itself.

 

[Pogo]

I guess that my point in this thread is merely to point out that natural science doesn't really address these kind of issues. If all of reality does in fact flow from some unknown Source, then the fact of reality itself can be said to be our evidence of that Source and evidence of its transcendent and inexplicable activity. The fact that reality is orderly and rational does arguably suggest that these characteristics derive from whatever explains reality itself.

This is just God of the gaps, you want there to be a god so you rationalize it by saying our ignorance is evidence for something transcendent and inexplicable.

“God of the gaps” refers to the argument that gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence for God's existence and direct intervention. One example of the God of the gaps argument is the argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignoratiam.

 

[metis]

“God of the gaps” refers to the argument that gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence for God's existence and direct intervention.

I thought it referred to the wide gap between the ears of YECs?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I guess that my point in this thread is merely to point out that natural science doesn't really address these kind of issues. If all of reality does in fact flow from some unknown Source, then the fact of reality itself can be said to be our evidence of that Source and evidence of its transcendent and inexplicable activity. The fact that reality is orderly and rational does arguably suggest that these characteristics derive from whatever explains reality itself.

I think after reading some of your posts here that there is one thing you have not really addressed...

Dont you wonder about the other part of epistemology...YOUR FUTURE?

I am a Christian because, historically, it is the only valid option that provides any credible answer to the other part of epistemology. I want to know about my future beyond this life and am willing to have faith in the Christian bible in order to potentially experience that answer.

Some might say, "Adam, yours is blind faith"

However, is it really?

Well, we all know from loads of external evidence that Christ's disciples really existed...we know from the writings of these men, and others after them (early church fathers and historians), that it is almost 100% certain Christ really existed and lived among them. So, the only faith part comes in the last few chapters of the gospels after the crucifixion...the resurrection and ascension into heaven.

Two other points...

1. When we look at the historicity of the entire Bible, we can validate a very large part of it with external evidence...there's a ****load of external evidence that supports the authenticity of the writers of various parts of the biblical text...we know they existed and when and also of rulers/kings that lived at those times in history.

2. When we compare each of the writers in the bible with other writers, given they existed at different times and in different parts of the then-known world (where there was no telegraph or internet), given that the early record of the bible was largely oral and therefore Chineses whispers would certainly be a point of contention if it was fabricated and God did not actively preserve His word, its impossible that the writings of the bible could be internally consistent if it wasn't actually true (ie if the entire thing is fabricated).

Given the above, the best bet is that the entire Christian story is true and really does have a valid Epistemological answer for our future beyond this life.

I know some individuals will likely bring up Islam as an alternative (as it also worships a single God in heaven). Islam came much later than judaism and Christianity and i think it is further evidence in support of the Christian philosophy.

So my point is, its isn't really blind faith at all. The only faith part is whether or not Christ was actually God and will come again to redeem us as is claimed. Given so much else can be proven on the balance of probabilities, I'm willing to accept the part that does require faith.