quote:KarlE, I think you were ambiguous, but I do think Q misunderstood.
Perhaps. It's happened before. But I think I was clear in context of the post to which I was responding. Of course, BlackBlade's agreement with BQT's "correction" is evidence to the contrary.
My ONLY point here, though, is that Mormons believe the fruit was literal. Adam ate something forbidden and thus brought about the fall.
Sorry Karl, looks like it's backwards day for me On reading your post I thought you were saying that Mormons did believe it was a sexual transgression. Sorry about that.
Instead of my clarification, I should just put a big +1 to what you said.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:KarlE, I think you were ambiguous, but I do think Q misunderstood.
Perhaps. It's happened before. But I think I was clear in context of the post to which I was responding. Of course, BlackBlade's agreement with BQT's "correction" is evidence to the contrary.
My ONLY point here, though, is that Mormons believe the fruit was literal. Adam ate something forbidden and thus brought about the fall.
Sorry Karl, looks like it's backwards day for me On reading your post I thought you were saying that Mormons did believe it was a sexual transgression. Sorry about that.
Instead of my clarification, I should just put a big +1 to what you said.
But see he also thought that Mormons believe it was DEFINATELY fruit that was eaten.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, they do. Maybe not everything, but most of the things we are discussing here.
Until this thread I would have said that Christians believe that God is omnipotent and that Jesus is divine. I would have been wrong. I think there are enough variations that we need to be pretty careful about "Christians believe" statements.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, they do. Maybe not everything, but most of the things we are discussing here.
Until this thread I would have said that Christians believe that God is omnipotent and that Jesus is divine. I would have been wrong. I think there are enough variations that we need to be pretty careful about "Christians believe" statements.
Oh I don't think anybody made the argument as a Christian that Jesus wasn't divine here.
But I agree with you its typically not safe to try to generalize what EVERY Christian thinks.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But see he also thought that Mormons believe it was DEFINATELY fruit that was eaten.
I still do, unless you can provide a direct quote to the contrary. (Or more specifically I will say I still believe it is Mormon doctrine, regardless of what individual Mormons do or do not believe). I was devoutly Mormon for 25 years and I am sure of what I read, though I am not 100 percent sure it was a doctrinal pronouncement. It was from a church authority whether or not he was acting as such at the time. I'll see if I can find the quote, but all my LDS books that I haven't given away are in storage. I might be able to find something online, though.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to back Karl up on this one, because I remember the same thing. It may have been in the Brigham Young manual a few years back or an older Talmage book or something, but I remember a General Authority quote that said that the fruit was literal, and caused a chemical change in the bodies of Adam and Eve as they ate. It seemed more of an opinion than a matter of doctrine though, as I've heard other authorities make comments that imply the opposite.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am positive that Talmage in The Articles of Faith quoted himself at a general conference talk where he said no fruit was involved. I know Mormon Doctrine says the same thing, but Ill try to find the quotation from Talmage.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I expected my post earlier this day only led to confusion. Fortunately not too much, though. Perhaps it even went unnoticed by everybody but mr. Scopatz. My error was that I wasn't being specific enough. So here's my attempt at a correction.
Since I only numbered the commandment I was referring to, instead of actually typing it out, I should have expected a reaction along those lines. This is helped along by the fact that the passage in the bible that describes the ten commandments actually contains fourteen statements in an imperative form. To be more specific, I was referring to the one about not having a 'graven image' of God. Earlier on in this thread the importance of interpretation was stipulated. I whole-heartedly agree with this. So just for kicks I'm gonna submit to you three possible interpretations of said commandment. (My apologies if my paraphrases seem somewhat common.)
1. It is not allowed to make any graven images of God, so you all keep your chisels away from stone or wood. (Which is the most narrow interpretation I can come up with.) 2. It is not allowed to make any images of God in any medium. (Letting the reins go a bit there) 3. It is not allowed to let your mental definition of the idea of God become too restricted.
Now, obviously I try to adhere to the third interpretation. I realise that my interpretation of the text hinges on the word graven, which I personally take to be used metaphorically. And so, according to my way of thinking anybody who at the mentioning of the word God automatically pictures some huge guy on a cloud is breaking that commandment.
Now, why do I consider this to be the first commandment when the partitioning and/or sequence of the commandments is still a point of debate? Because the two statements that precede it aren't commandments but actually an introduction (hello, my name is...) and the stipulation that this is to be a monotheistic religion. Which makes the graven image thingy the first actual commandment.
I sincerely apologise if my rambling have offended anyone, for that wasn't my intention. Also my apologies for interrupting an ongoing discussion.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the world as we now know it. Their physical condition changed as a result of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became mortal. They were able to have children. They and their children would experience sickness, pain, and physical death.
While this isn't an unambiguous reference, it is unlikely to me that the fruit in this explanation is metaphorical. No mention in this or other articles I just read mention a metaphorical nature in the fruit.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's one by Talmage, in General Conference in 1913 and also quoted in Jesus the Christ:
quote: “He was warned that, if he did [partake of the fruit], his body would lose the power which it then held of living for ever, and that he would become subject to death. … Here let me say that therein consisted the fall—the eating of things unfit, the taking into the body of the things that made of that body a thing of earth.”
And one by Joseph Fielding Smith:
quote: "Adam [and, by extension, all of the animal creation] had no blood in his veins before the fall. Blood is the life of the mortal body." After Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, blood became "the life-giving fluid in Adam's body, and was inherited by his posterity. Blood was not only the life of the mortal body, but also contained in it the seeds of death which bring the mortal body to its end. Previously the life force in Adam's body, which is likewise the sustaining power in every immortal body, was the spirit." - Joseph Fielding Smith, Man: His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954), pp. 362, 376-77.
posted
I know that Talmage also said later on that everything from the rib, dust, and fruit were tokens or symbols meant to represent other things. However, perhaps some of these things were literal as well as having symbolic meaning? It's certainly not unprecedented in scripture.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Bows head in shame* I may be beaten in this regard.
Pretty surprised that I could confuse Talmages views so badly. I can remember McConkie saying it was metaphorical and its found in Mormon Doctrine, but I was sure he cited somebody else when he said it.
I already knew about the blood effect of the forbidden fruit, but I am still pretty sure its not accepted doctrine that it was actualy fruit that caused the change. But again I could be wrong, its pretty clear today I am off my rocker Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't think you did confuse his views badly BB. From what I've read, Talmage did view many things from a metamorphic standpoint, including much of the Creation story (see my above post). It was more Fielding Smith and McConkie that were big into the literal explanations.
I think the Creation is one of those things where the details are not really nailed down into hard doctrine at this point. The fact that the Creation story is currently used so symbolically in certain forms of LDS worship further muddies the water.
posted
The good thing about being a Christian-biblical-literalist is that you have to accept Ecclesiastes as holy writ... and that's some majorly cool black humor!
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I've read, Talmage did view many things from a metamorphic standpoint,
Part of the confusion could be a slightly different use of the word metaphor. Or more often, rather than calling something a metaphor in discussions of scripture they call something a 'type' (see dictionary.com "type" definition 12.) In these cases "type" usually referred to something literal in the past that served as foreshadowing of something to come. Many Christians believe that Moses raising the brass serpent in the desert, which the stricken had to look to in order to be saved from poisoning was a "type", symbolizing the future Christ being raised up and only through whom mankind could receive salvation. The raising of the brass serpent in this case would still be considered a literal event even though it was also a "metaphor" for the future atonement.
It's very likely that what you read, BlackBlade, was a case of discussing the literal fruit in the Garden of Eden as a "type" of something to come in the future. I've heard something similar in the context of the physical fall being a type, mirroring the spiritual fall all men are supposedly subject to.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your post Karl. That described the concept I was trying to get across with my awkwardly phrased "...tokens or symbols meant to represent other things. However, perhaps some of these things were literal as well as having symbolic meaning?" Types is exactly the word I should have used.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, I just now came back on line today, and noticed your question. I believe the days of Creation Week were literal days. There is nothing figurative about them. The text very specifically says, for each day, "the evening and the morning were the ... day." Days by Hebrew reckoning are from sunset to sunset. The dark portion is counted first, then the light portion. Evening-morning.
If the days of Creation Week were long periods of time, then how could the plants created on the third day (Gen. 1:11-13) survive until on the fourth day "God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...." (Gen. 1:16)?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
God created light before He created plants. The fact that He created the sun and moon later doesn't have anything to do with that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, thank you for answering my question. I have talked with several YECists who in fact do believe that the "days" in the Genesis account of creation are figurative rather than literal. I'm certainly not trying to defend the idea, just to see if you were a holder of it. I couldn't tell from those posts of yours which I have read.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the days of Creation Week were long periods of time, then how could the plants created on the third day (Gen. 1:11-13) survive until on the fourth day "God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...." (Gen. 1:16)?
To counter this, how could one even speak of evening and morning if there is no sun or moon?
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
even in modern times it is not uncommon to say
On morning of the Qing Dynasty. Also you are assuming that Moses was using time as measure by us. Isn't it just as possible that God related the events to him and he wrote it down as he heard it? Does God take time by our sun? Seems more unlikely then otherwise if you ask me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the days of Creation Week were long periods of time, then how could the plants created on the third day (Gen. 1:11-13) survive until on the fourth day "God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...." (Gen. 1:16)?
To counter this, how could one even speak of evening and morning if there is no sun or moon?
posted
David and Lisa, it is one thing to have light, but it is another thing to have the light reach the surface where the plants are, bright enough to sustain photosynthesis. Remember "the waters above the expanse"? If the lights that make day and night only became visible on the fourth day, then perhaps there was an impenetrable cloud cover until God cleared things out on the fourth day. Some creationist scientists have speculated that with the "waters above the expanse," you could not actually see the globe of the sun and moon, only a large bright area. The lesser light was not the moon, but translucence from the sun conducted optically around to the night side of the planet by the waters above the explanse. They say it should have been a pearly glow, like a global night light. You could only see the stars in a small circle near the poles (if at all). Some of the things said in Genesis one are stated from the viewpoint of us people who live after the Flood changed things. We can see the stars, so of course the Genesis account has to mention the stars. But I suspect that before the Flood, the stars were not visible (except perhaps in thin circlar areas near the poles).
I do not believe the sun was created during Creation Week. I think its light was not able to reach the surface of the earth until the fourth day of Creation Week. The sun was there already, along with the watery formless void of the earth, and the rest of the universe. But as I said before I think the rest of the universe is only about 10.000 to 12,000 years old. God only created earth's biosphere (and arranged the atmosphere and waters above the expanse) during Creation Week. So I do not stand with the YEYU creationists who hold that the entire universe was created during Creation Week. But I am closer to their view than to the views of people who believe in long ages involving millions or billions of years being plugged in at any point.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Some creationist scientists
What a cute oxymoron.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I do not believe the sun was created during Creation Week. I think its light was not able to reach the surface of the earth until the fourth day of Creation Week.
You certainly do pick and choose when it comes to taking the Bible literally. It doesn't say "And God allowed the light of the sun (which had been around since the first day) to penetrate". It says that God created the lights.
Note, by the way, that despite the limitations of English, the word "light" as in "let there be light" and the word "light" as in "the two great lights" are not the same word in the original Hebrew. The former is "ohr", which means light itself. The latter is "me'or", which means something that gives off light.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some of the things said in Genesis one are stated from the viewpoint of us people who live after the Flood changed things.
Ah so. But none of it is written from the viewpoint of people who, oh I dunno, don't know radiocarbon dating from their elbow? As Lisa says, you surely do pick and choose what things you're going to consider. This isn't just twisting science around to match your preconception, now you're twisting the Bible around to boot!
[ December 07, 2006, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not believe the sun was created during Creation Week. I think its light was not able to reach the surface of the earth until the fourth day of Creation Week.
So light moved really slowly back then, huh?
I respect your right to believe this confused mess of cosmogony, Ron, but I can promise you'll have very few converts from among more empirical non-believers...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I respect your right to believe this confused mess of cosmogony"
No, you don't respect his right, or you wouldn't have said such a snarky comment. That has nothing to do with my belief in what he says. I don't. However, having respect means at least showing respect.
By the way kmbboots, I wrote some answers to a few of your questions from earlier.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Ron is totally off base here, David, but you're misreading him. He thinks the light wasn't able to reach the surface because of cloud cover; not that it was moving slowly.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa there are thousands of qualified scientists with PhDs and everything, who are creationists, because they believe that the creationist explanation fits all the observed evidence best, leaving fewer unanswered questions than evolution and uniformitarianism leave. As I have mentioned before, one of the most representative sites presenting the views and research of creationist scientists is The Creation Research Society Quarterly.
An example of the scientific investigation they do is when Dr. Russell Humphries and some colleagues contracted with a professional lab to analyze the amount of helium still trapped in granitic zirconium, and measure the rate at which it is slowly diffusing out of the rock. In response to critics, they went back and did this again at low temperatures. The results confirmed their earlier conclusion that the amount of helium still trapped in the rock indicates a relative young age, only six to ten thousand years. Since this test does not require any prior assumptions about the rate of radioactive decay always being constant, as do all conventional age testing methods involving ratios of radiogenic elements, this test is more definitive. It actually calls into direct question the assumptions uniformitarians make about the constancy of radioactive decay rates in the past. Their measurements prove the assumptions made by uniformitarians are wrong.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Response to critics? Would you care to link me to what he did in response to one of the much bigger criticisms, that he took measurements in a vacuum (which inside the ground certainly is not, and pressure has a huge effect on diffusion rates)?
edit: btw, Lisa's a creationist herself, so I find your argument hilarious for that reason as well.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, How do you reconcile the different accounts in Genesis? Things are not in the same order.
Also, speaking of the flood, is that literal as well - Noah and two of every animal etc.? How would that work?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, it was before most of the animals had evolved. <grin> Basically, you had Noah and two paramecia.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
What I mean by that is that all the explanations of how Genesis is compatible with observable phenomenon is useful in stopping Christians from surrendering their faith to Secular Evangelists.
It is not, however, a very useful thing in converting Secularists or people of other faiths to accept Christianity.
This is what is happening here. The logic and explanations of the faithful basically rely on what Farm Girl said: "I believe it is so." Those without faith can not change her mind, and she can not make someone else have that same faith.
Now I don't like the Creationists who are so pushy in demanding that their "faith" be accepted as science by everyone. You are not going to convert anyone by debating the nature of Sun and Light and Clouds as described in the Bible. It seems a bit arrogant that they demand, just so their defense is a bit stronger, that we must accept as science what they accept on faith.
But I find equally if not more unacceptable those who seek to destroy anothers faith simply because they can. Those who demand that others surrender faith in exchange for science because they have had bad experiences with faith, or do not understand it. Especially I find hypocritical people proclaiming their love of science who ridicule people of faith, because the people of science can not understand that faith. Lack of understanding should be the one thing that draws people of science into investigating faith, not ridiculing it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Kate, it was before most of the animals had evolved. <grin> Basically, you had Noah and two paramecia.
Plenty of room, then!
Dan, about this:
quote: What I mean by that is that all the explanations of how Genesis is compatible with observable phenomenon is useful in stopping Christians from surrendering their faith to Secular Evangelists.
I think that the kind of Christianity that focuses on stuff like Creationism etc. is likely to encourage Christians to become atheists. Or at least to turn away people who are looking for faith but who are not willing to abandon reason.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_Raven, what I do not like is when people insist you have to ignore reason and empirical science and in essence be some kind of fool to have faith in the Biblical account of origins. Creationism requires no more faith than does evolution and uniformitarianism. Uniformitarians believe that in the beginning was nothing, and then suddenly nothing exploded. Evolutionists have to believe that meaningful DNA sequences in the enormous complexity necessary to produce significant new characteristics of an organism can be written by natural processes operating by random chance. When you gain a really realistic appreciation of the immense odds against such a thing happening, you know it is flatly impossible. In the face of this, evolutionist have to believe that something utterly impossible happens routinely. That is beyond faith; it is presumption.
By way of contrast, how much of a logical leap is it to consider that intelligently designed genomes must have been designed by Intelligence?
The whole scientific method is based solely in faith--faith that natural laws will not spontaneously change. As a simple historical fact, the scientific method was originally devised by creationists, hundreds of years ago when all scientists were creationists. The reason why they could devise the scientific method with its predictions of experimental repeatability, is that they believed that the Creator created an orderly universe, and He maintains His creation. Anyone who uses the scientific method to "prove" anything, is relying upon this same faith, whether they are honest enough to admit it or not.
True science is only to be found in creationism, because creationism is the truth. This is the way the earth and universe actually did originate. There can be no science apart from truth. The term "evolutionist scientist" is the real contradiction in terms. Sooner or later, everyone will know this is so. Truth cannot be concealed and suppressed and misrepresented forever.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I find equally if not more unacceptable those who seek to destroy another's faith simply because they can. Those who demand that others surrender faith in exchange for science because they have had bad experiences with faith, or do not understand it.
It doesn't occur to you that some people might have a fondness for truth, and get annoyed when others are deliberately obtuse? A faith based on outright lies deserves no respect.
quote:When you gain a really realistic appreciation of the immense odds against such a thing happening, you know it is flatly impossible.
Not if you do the calculations correctly, without the conceptual errors that creationists spout. The odds calculations that your average creationist site puts up are based on total miscomprehensions of how the evolutionary process actually works, to the point of verging on lying.
quote:The term "evolutionist scientist" is the real contradiction in terms. Sooner or later, everyone will know this is so. Truth cannot be concealed and suppressed and misrepresented forever.
Quite right, though the various fundie churches have been having a good run at it. And, by the way, I am a scientist, and I'm here to tell you that you are spouting utter crap.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The whole scientific method is based solely in faith--faith that natural laws will not spontaneously change. As a simple historical fact, the scientific method was originally devised by creationists, hundreds of years ago when all scientists were creationists. The reason why they could devise the scientific method with its predictions of experimental repeatability, is that they believed that the Creator created an orderly universe, and He maintains His creation.
This actually raises an interesting historical issue.
17th century physics was dominated by two figures: Descartes and Galileo. Each had a different approach to what was then called "natural philosophy." Descartes sought to derive truths about space, time and matter from our knowledge of God's divine nature. Galileo, on the other hand, began with empirically verifiable facts such as the behavior of falling objects, and tried to derive from these the nature of matter.
For a while it was quite unclear which method was the right one -- until Newton. Newton chose Galileo's method, created from it the first truly successful theory of motion, and science has proceeded thus ever since.
All of this points to a flaw in Mr. Lambert's analysis. Obviously science does rest on the assumption of an orderly universe, but that needn't involve God. In fact, the method of doing science by appeal to God's plan was tried, and rejected, in physics 300 years ago.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, you are begging the issue. Galileo still had to believe that there were "empirically verifiable facts" because there is a Creator who maintains the order of His universe. Otherwise, neither he nor Newton could have any confidence that the gravitational constant might change the next moment, and the whole world and universe fly apart. The universe does not police itself, unless you wish to posit that the universe has a mind. In which case you might as well believe in God.
And Sir Isaac Newton, by the way, was a devout Christian, who wrote many articles on religion, including commentaries on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.
Bringing up Descartes is a false issue. No one is talking about taking his approach. And just because Galilieo was opposed by some clergy in the Catholic church does not mean that he was unreligious in his approach to science. Any belief in the orderliness and predicatability and repeatability of the universe requires inescapably faith in a Creator who maintains the universe. There is simply no way to get around it, though I am sure you will keep trying.
King of Men, you do not have enough authority to persuade me that I should believe you are correct in what you say, when I know better. So I suggest you keep to the evidence, and to logical argument, and not presume to pontificate about how you are a real scientist and are qualified by that to call me names. How good a disciple of science are you really, when you show such poor intellectual discipline?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any belief in the orderliness and predicatability and repeatability of the universe requires inescapably faith in a Creator who maintains the universe.
Are you saying that it's self-contradictory to believe that the universe will behave uniformly and yet that there is no God?
I don't remember that from any of my logic textbooks.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that he is saying (and I would agree) that both beliefs - the belief in God and the belief that the universe obeys certain laws and will behave uniformly - require faith in something ultimately unprovable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I suggest you keep to the evidence, and to logical argument, and not presume to pontificate about how you are a real scientist and are qualified by that to call me names.
I was not calling you names. I was calling you out on calling me names; to wit, you called me dishonest:
quote:The term "evolutionist scientist" is the real contradiction in terms.
This is nothing but an attack on my integrity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must have said something right, both sides shot at me.
quote:Dan_Raven, what I do not like is when people insist you have to ignore reason and empirical science and in essence be some kind of fool to have faith in the Biblical account of origins.
I didn't say you had to be a fool, or even a non-scientist. I said that science based on faith will not attact others to your faith. Using a spin on science to attract or detract from ones faith is not good for Science.
Ron, believing in the orderly nature of the universe, or even in a God that creates such orderliness does not equate to believing in YEC, Christ, or the Bible. I find the argument "Evolution is wrong so the Bible is right" to be a bit short on the logic.
Allah, God, or a dream of Vishnu could also be the cause of our creation, as could something that we don't have quatified as a religion at the moment.
quote:It doesn't occur to you that some people might have a fondness for truth, and get annoyed when others are deliberately obtuse? A faith based on outright lies deserves no respect.
Yes it did occur to me. That is why I stipulated that I got mad not at people defending truth, but people who just liked to attack others faiths. A fondness for truth is a good thing. An overt fondness for what you think is truth is not. Lieing and bearing false witness, even in the name of God and Truth and saving souls, minds, future generations, etc -- falsifying the evidence for a worthy cause is not a worthy, honest, holy, or scientific thing to do.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lieing and bearing false witness, even in the name of God and Truth and saving souls, minds, future generations, etc -- falsifying the evidence for a worthy cause is not a worthy, honest, holy, or scientific thing to do.
It isn't quite clear to me: Are you accusing me of doing any of these? If so, could you please point to where?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Galileo still had to believe that there were "empirically verifiable facts" because there is a Creator who maintains the order of His universe. Otherwise, neither he nor Newton could have any confidence that the gravitational constant might change the next moment, and the whole world and universe fly apart.
I think that the fact that the universe has not yet flown apart is an empirically verifiable fact, and every day it does not fly apart bolsters the theory that the laws of physics, as observed in nature, are stable.
We don't have to assume the existence of God in order to assume, for the sake of argument, that something we have verified again and again in experiment is stable enough that we can take it for granted as we move forward. Especially if we continue to test our initial discoveries to refine them and verify that they are not changing.
I believe in God, and in a very specific religion, but I also think that the scientific method is an excellent means of establishing a common base of scientific knowledge that does not depend on religious faith — a force which, while powerful, pushes different people in such widely disparate directions that to use it as a foundation for science would be to stop science in its tracks.
I, for one, am very glad that our shared base of knowledge is not founded on religion — because for one thing, it wouldn't be MY religion In America, the most dominant religion, at least from my experience, is the modern Born-Again wave of Protestant Christianity. I have some serious, fundamental disagreements with Born-Again philosophy. Could I be satisfied with a version of "science" founded on Born-Again principles? No, I seriously doubt it.
Much better to have a system that puts all of our subjective faith-based beliefs aside, and relies instead on what we can observe.
Sure, for the sake of making progress, we have to make a few assumptions here and there ... but even then, we're always free to go back and question old assertions and refine our model of reality.
That process sounds far more attractive to me than the prospect of settling disagreements or discrepancies in the evidence with an old-fashioned Bible bash Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The universe does not police itself
I think it is an equally valid argument that the universe is not policed by anything at all. The universe will continue to be the universe if humans manage to wipe themselves out or if humans go on to take over the entire solar system.
quote: This is what is happening here. The logic and explanations of the faithful basically rely on what Farm Girl said: "I believe it is so." Those without faith can not change her mind, and she can not make someone else have that same faith.
I agree. Deep down, I think that everyone, no matter how they argue or what they do, will still believe what they believed before an argument. When the topic cuts down to such basic spiritual (and when I say spiritual, I do not mean religious) beliefs that nothing will change someone's mind.
I've been reading along for awhile now, and see some people so adamant that their belief is the right belief that anyone who doesn't agree is beyond hope. I beleive that everyone has the right to believe in anything they want, as long as that believe does not interfere with how I live my life. When policy and social norms are based on a certain basic belief, one belief is given power over another. I believe that that is wrong.
Belief has a tremendous ability to cloud logic. When evidence arises that goes against someone's belief, they often find new justifications and rearrange their beliefs, but they still believe in the same thing. There gets to be a point where there is so much evidence that these rearrangements are no longer possible, and people get angry.
I do not believe that there is a god policing this universe, but if I saw something like what happened in 'To All Things That Are in the Earth,' from the Intergalactic Medicine Show, I would try to justify why cherubs and angels were actually flying around. I would probably do what the protagonist did and continue to pursue my belief, regardless of the evidence that was before me. I hope that I would get to a point where I recognize that what I believed was wrong, and then change.
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone was accusing a government official of flip-flopping, but the official responded with something (I'm paraphrasing) like "When I get new information, I use it. What do you do with new information?"
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
On reading your post I thought you were saying that Mormons did believe it was a sexual transgression. Sorry about that. 
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
