“If I’m waiting at a bus stop with no bus in sight, I have faith a bus will arrive.”

(rolls eyes)
Um, it’s…easy…to demonstrate that the bus stop exists. Buses have actually been, y’know, OBSERVED. Buses stop at bus stops all the time. Honest. You have knowledge that the bus will arrive. “Faith” doesn’t enter into it. Any more than you have “faith” that, if you don’t eat, you will become hungry.
Read your bus timetable, cretin.

In saying:

“This is certainly incorrect! This shows errors about the way you conceive science, philosophy, and religion. Science is not math; it is not axiom based. A lot of these laws are related to such a degree that some laws can be inferred from others. The very concept of “natural law” is not a precision thing. Furthermore, a property of the universe does not need to be “created”. Mentally speaking, creation may solve a problem for you, but push come to shove, creation is a type of willful action. The action requires some sort of property of the universe in order to cause it to be. That, in essence, is something like another “law”. If laws of the universe must be created, that law must be created too.”

I would ask for more clarification on this point. An assertion such as this, which would defy the very rules of logic that science is predicated on, deserves a bit more space. Whatever started/created/(insert description here) the universe was supernatural by definition, since it caused the natural. You are saying that whatever caused the universe required a property of what it created. In other words, you are saying that the universe existed before it existed, if it aided in the cause of its existence.

“There is infinite regress here. Your asking about the laws “popping out of thin air” is meant to remind us to think about the origin of the laws–I appeal to the same statement to ask you where God got the power to create laws–did it pop out of thin air? Be careful when you answer, lest may give the same response I did–that a state of the universe does not need to be created to exist.”

Until you are able to prove the assertion called into question above, then your entire argument is invalid. Please prove your supposition that the cause of the universe required a property of its effect. Please also understand that you are now arguing from the stance of philosophy and faith since there is absolutely no way for you to observe, test or make predictions of whatever caused the universe, since all we can observe is the universe and its contents. Anything outside of this, and you are speculating. If you do have further knowlege than this then you have outpaced the admissions of the greatest scientists of all time.

To reiterate the invalidity of your suppositions, and to speak specifically to the criticism of the infinite regression: Whatever would have created the universe (and thus the laws which govern it) would have to be seperate from the universe. The effect can not be the cause. So, it is irrational to say that the cause is or could be “a state of the universe.”

Since time is a property of the universe, then whatever it was that created the universe would not be affected by time. It would be outside of time, and thus infinite. So, your accusation of infinite regression does not apply.

I believe in God, not because I choose to hide from fact and reason, but because reason tells me that He must exist. If it does not tell you that He does, that is fine. We all have the presuppositions that we work from, that define how we interpret reality. I am the first to admit that. Until you or anyone else admits theirs (including scientists), then these discussions are useless.

I hope you are well…

I’ve been spending more time on this than I really should.

> A disagreement is different than disbelief. I don’t disbelieve what you are saying, I disagree with it. You disbelieve me and my God. This is perhaps the root of the difference of trust and faith. Not believing is a lack of trust, disagreeing is a lack of faith. I have no faith in science, you don’t trust the revelations of God. Since I trust the revelations of God (scripture and the universe around me both tell me of the glory of God the Creator), I can say I believe. If I disagree with what God tells me (and there are times I do), I lack faith.

Interesting phrasing. I’ll have to ponder on it.

> If you won’t believe in the supernatural, all this is just a lot of bunk. I can’t change that opinion you hold, but I can tell you that if you’re looking for personal evidence of its reality, you will find it in Christ, but only if you give yourself to Him. You must reach a point where you aren’t coming to God for what He can give you, but because you recognize your need for Him. Until then, His glory will be masked – he wants no guests at the wedding feast who don’t appreciate the wedding party and just eat all the food.

Two points. 1) Your response assumes that I have never been a Christian. This is untrue. “Knock, and a door will open. Seek and ye shall find.” Well I knocked and a I sought, but no doors opened and no finding occurred.
2) “Personal evidence of reality” is a bit of an oxymoron. I realize people tend to treat personal (i.e. subjective) evidence as the most important in their lives, but when describing what is known of “reality” it is really pretty weak. There’s no reliable method of validation and no way to cross-compare. That’s why it’s ultimately unconvincing. You might convince yourself, but it’s darn hard to convince others.

> The only specific point I will address in this post is Irishman’s comment about others loving us that “we project our own emotions onto them, and because we want it to be true.” If that is how you have experienced love, I am truly, truly sorry for you. I sincerely wish for you a newer, deeper, better kind of love.

I mentioned that as one means we have of identifying if others love us. Because without being empaths (either telempaths or direct touch empaths), we just cannot experience someone else’s emotions. We can witness them experience their emotions, and there’s some level of bleed over from that, but their experience is not our own.

> If we are to continue this discussion (or at least if I am), we need to keep to broader contexts.

You’ve been thoughtful and considerate. I understand the time commitment to adequately address everything is huge – it’s impacting me, too. If I can summarize, you came to this thread to address what you considered an overly-simplified and misrepresentation of Faith as a thought process, especially within the context of religion. Your motivation was to convey this religious view with a thoughtful and respectful manner. My responses have been tailored to address specific statements you made with which I disagree about terminology and meaning. I have tried to clarify what my thought processes are and justifications for the statements that you disagree with or don’t follow. I think perhaps we may have reached the limit of where we are clarifying our positions for each other and now are getting caught up in restating our points of disagreement. I’m not averse to continuing meaningful discussion, but I’m not sure how profitable it will be for either of us. I know I am not being convinced to change my mindset, and I suspect you aren’t changing many of your opinions. I hope that our example can demonstrate how a reasonable disagreement can proceed without animosity. Thanks for your participation.

As much as I would enjoy a point-for-point rejoinder to your previous post (which provided much intellectual pleasure), I cannot afford the time it would take to do the research to be properly informed to enable me to formulate the answers I would like, what with three kids under 6, a wife who enjoys spending time with me, and a job which has nothing to do with science. Not to mention that we could continue dueling for some time without drawing blood, or one of us could lash out and cause significant harm to the other for no real purpose.

A disagreement is different than disbelief. I don’t disbelieve what you are saying, I disagree with it. You disbelieve me and my God. This is perhaps the root of the difference of trust and faith. Not believing is a lack of trust, disagreeing is a lack of faith. I have no faith in science, you don’t trust the revelations of God. Since I trust the revelations of God (scripture and the universe around me both tell me of the glory of God the Creator), I can say I believe. If I disagree with what God tells me (and there are times I do), I lack faith.

A question: who is the most influential scientist? I’ll leave you to answer that, but follow me on this point. Archimedes is a more important scientist than the local high school science teacher because of the influence on science each wields. If person “A” has more influence than person “B” than it is possible that person “C” has more influence than person “A.” If we can establish a continuum, then we can establish some kind of objectivity. Therefore, in this subjective analysis, we can objectively say that C is more than A, which is more than B. If we put more letters on the graph, we might disagree on where to place some, but we could come to a general consensus about where most should be, and some examples would be very clearly on one end or the other. (This is probably known better to you than I, but Google uses the same “Mass intelligence” to rate and sort their search results. Their problem is that there is no test of individual intelligence or knowledge – everybody gets their one vote. You and I can be peer-reviewed.)

Once we have established that a continuum exists, then we must admit that there is an ultima thule on either end. This doesn’t mean the continuum stops, but there is a final point of reference beyond all the others. You might disagree with the placements along the continuum, but you wouldn’t disbelieve them.

Christianity requires that you believe the continuum exists (of truth, not scientists’ relative influence), and that you agree that The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the superior end point (not just the ultima thule). Additionally, you must agree with what God has commanded in His scripture – agree in thought, word, and deed. This distinction is often related to the work of the Holy Spirit: belief comes at the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and is a gift from God. Agreement (or the fruit of the Spirit) is the daily working out of finding new ways to love the Lord your God. To agree with Him in new and deeper ways. To always say Yes to His will and not your own.

If you won’t believe in the supernatural, all this is just a lot of bunk. I can’t change that opinion you hold, but I can tell you that if you’re looking for personal evidence of its reality, you will find it in Christ, but only if you give yourself to Him. You must reach a point where you aren’t coming to God for what He can give you, but because you recognize your need for Him. Until then, His glory will be masked – he wants no guests at the wedding feast who don’t appreciate the wedding party and just eat all the food.

As was mentioned before, what is real is not real because it can be proved – it is real because it is real, whether it can be proved or not. The only specific point I will address in this post is Irishman’s comment about others loving us that “we project our own emotions onto them, and because we want it to be true.” If that is how you have experienced love, I am truly, truly sorry for you. I sincerely wish for you a newer, deeper, better kind of love.

If we are to continue this discussion (or at least if I am), we need to keep to broader contexts. I hope I have demonstrated that I at least am not an idiot, but I freely admit that I cannot refute each and every specific point of quantum theory you bring up – not because I believe a satisfactory answer doesn’t exist, only because I am not the one qualified to answer them, and I don’t have time to research them, which I would actually really like to do.

Thanks again for your time.
-Kyle

Irishman:
>> If you wish to deal with God scientifically, then you have to submit the claim to the rigors of science.

Kyle Kivett:
> I have no desire to deal with God scientifically.

But you are the one who brought God into the science picture. You’re the one advocating including God in science. That can only be done within the framework of science.

> Science is not big enough to understand God,

Yes, God is inscrutable. What was I saying before, something about defining away the ability to subject the claim to testing?

> Keep in mind, however, that the Bible is not a science text (thank goodness! Speaking of narcolepsy training…) but a collection of writings in several genres, including historical narrative (originally from oral tradition, so memorization is a primary concern over science) and poetry (where figurative language trumps scientific clarity). This does not however, negate the reality or accuracy of the text within its genre.

Thank you for acknowledging that. That puts you ahead of folks at the ICR and other Creationist organizations. Yes, the Bible is a collected work involving historical tradition, cultural learnings, moral injunctions, teaching parables and allegory, and stories to cope with the “big” questions of origins and meaning. The trick is sorting out the various elements and knowing which is which.

> In the same way, when the Bible speaks of the breadth and glory of creation in Job 38-41 (within the context of poetic language in one of the oldest books of the Bible), we may interpret that he is referring to actual elements of creation in figurative language, or perhaps of unobserved elements of creation in literal language. In either case, the veracity and impact of God’s wisdom and strength compared to man rings true.

Careful, you could be making the mistake of treating allegory as historical when ascribing existence to God. Like I said, knowing which is which.

> However, when I read them with an attempt to find the author’s intent, they are more tolerable. How can we know the author’s intent? Only from context, which is at the root of most Biblical misunderstandings and misapplications. Critics of the Bible often refer to passages about God killing women and children, without reading the context that perhaps it was better for them to die (especially the children) in innocence that be raised as God-haters. This is a hard teaching, I admit (and this truncated discussion of it remains insufficient), but context provides clues to a greater God than the misogynist, bigoted war-monger as which He is often portrayed. Certainly, misogynist, bigoted war-mongers will worship a God who is the same, but most who rewrite God to fit their needs are no better than a run-of-the-mill athiest or agnostic.

Interesting example. This is a particular example of God taking an action that we, today, judge morally as evil, in contradiction to the proclaimed eternal goodness of God. Your comment is that we must evaluate the context of the situation. Isn’t that the dreaded evil of situation ethics? Be that as it may, your particular example isn’t particularly comforting. Your comment about the intent of the author is noted. Now consider that the actual author is some human trying to convey a message, rather than God himself. Is it not possible the message to be conveyed is morally wrong? Is it not possible that the person conveying the message misunderstood? Further, is it not possible that the God mentioned isn’t a real being, but rather an allegorical one used to frame the message in a manner to make it easier to tell, just like Santa Claus?

Irishman:
>>“No evidence for God? That’s because God wants to be inscrutable.” You know what? That makes the claim untestable in the physical sense. Untestable claims are unjustifiable.

Kyle Kivett:
> Not sure what you’re referring to in your quote above

Sorry, that way my attempt to represent a common argument used by Christian apologists.

> I wouldn’t think of it as a Christian teaching, because Christians glory in the miracle that God chose to reveal Himself in the Incarnation (God became man in Christ) and in the revelation of Himself in scripture. In the ways that God is inscrutable, it is because of the ontological difference between He and us, not because He has not desired to communicate to us.

I didn’t mean it so much that God was completely unrevealed, but rather that whenever we encounter possible contradictions (i.e. the “problem of Evil”, why so-and-so had to happen, etc) we questioners are always provided the “God works in mysterious ways” answer, as if that answers anything.

> Much like we would really like to teach our cat to use the toilet, but their brain power can’t handle more than a litter box.

Funny you should mention that, I have, in fact, read a book about how to toilet train a cat. It actually isn’t that difficult, merely taking a consistent effort over a period of time and a few strategies for slowly allowing the cat to adjust expectations. I have not actually tried it myself on any cats, not having any available, but the authors claim to have used it successfully.

Kyle Kivett:
> To know God’s intent is different than knowing that God has intent – I’m at this point only interested in the latter. Intelligent Design (ID) merely expresses that intent exists – determining what that intent is remains a question of faith, but we needn’t know why God created anything (the system we call the Periodic Table, for instance) to recognize the inherent design.

But you’re proposing we use that intent to interpret the results of science. How can we if we don’t know the intent.? As for recognizing the inherent design, that is a definitely arguable point. Systematic pattern does not equate to design.

Irishman:
>>But if God can be twisted, shaped, and reformed to avoid any form of scrutiny, then you cannot prove you know God’s intent. Ergo, it’s all guessing games.

Kyle Kivette:
>God cannot be twisted, etc.,

Sorry, interpretations or understandings of God.

Kyle Kivett:
> Perhaps I overstated my case, but science has to be more than mere pragmatism, doesn’t it? Besides, didn’t Heisenberg question the very nature of objectivism?

That is a difficult question to address from the framework of pure philosophy. There are serious unanswerable questions about how we define reality, what it really means, and how our experience of reality relates to the reality itself. Or if our conceptions of reality bear an resemblance to an actual reality. Science cannot answer those questions – they are outside the framework of science. What science can say is that it has provided a very strong performance of success at connecting with objective, physical reality. It provides results that are consistent, repeatable, reproducible, and systematic. It allows us to make predictions about future events (i.e. mathematical equations to determine numbers for conditions not currently being met). In the overall philosophical position, science does boil down to pragmatism. We use it because it works. We judge it right or wrong based upon how good of results it gives us. Now many people do ascribe some extant reality to the world, and do feel that science connects to that reality, our concepts match that reality as best we can, and the concepts and theories of science are our insights to understanding how things really are. But those are ultimately conclusions that must be evaluated on some other framework (philosophy) because they are inherently not objectively measurable, and are assumptions within science.

> I guess you could say that I treat science with the same sketicism you treat faith because I don’t accept “objective verification of evidence” as certain, just as you don’t accept scripture as certain. Simply put, I don’t trust humans (at least not their observations), and you don’t trust God (at least not the interpretations you’ve heard). I hope I’m not oversimplifiying the issue, and I don’t mean that to be a hypercritical statement – do you agree with me on that point?

I would phrase it differently. It’s not that I don’t trust God – I have no evidence of God to know if he even exists, let alone measure his trustworthiness. I do not trust the descriptions and justifications for the existence of God and his identity. They do not measure up for me, they are inconsistent with my experience of reality and with the best logic I can parse. So in a sense, I guess you could say we both don’t trust humans. I don’t trust scripture (written by the hands of humans), and I don’t trust revelation (experienced by others and relayed through the words of humans). The only revelation I could possibly trust would be directly experienced by me, and even that would be scrutinized to my best understanding of how brains work and work funny. I rely on objective verification of evidence, because it works. I haven’t seen anything that works even close to as good, much less better. It may be pragmatism, but it’s what I’ve got.

Kyle Kivett:
>>> One way to prove the existence of God is to answer the question, “Does anything exist?” … If we can agree that things exist, then we ask, how did they come to exist? Working backwards, we can continue to ask that question ad infinitum. But there must have beeen a first thing that existed that caused all the other things to exist. This primo genitor, by definition, must be self-existent (nothing caused it) and eternal (it must have been there before time began). It may have other characteristics, but these are logically necessary.

Irishman:
>>Careful: you are relying on our current conceptions of causality and necessity. Modern physics shows us that our current conceptions may not hold at the extreme ranges beyond our experience level. What cosmology tells us is the very nature of causality and time may cease to apply at the extreme.

Kyle Kivett:
> Pardon me for saying that this is perhaps your weakest retort, and seems a bit out of character for you. Do I understand you to say that laws may exist which govern conditions we cannot experience? That doesn’t sound very much like scientific naturalism. In fact, it sounds like God-speak. This goes to my point that God is so much bigger than science – what is outside our experience is merely part of His reality.

I suggest that your attitudes are filtering what I said to mean something other than I intended. Scientifically, it is known that things at the extreme conditions outside our common experience behave funny. The speed of light is a constant. That is in direct contrast to our concept of any other type of velocity and motion. Similarly, at the quantum level there is inherent indeterminancy. This is not an artifact of how we measure results on that scale, it is an inherent property of the universe. Our ability to experience is shaped by the conditions under which we developed (evolved). We see EM radiation within a certain narrow band of wavelengths. There are huge swaths of the EM spectrum that are invisible to us – our eyes do not perceive them. There are sound frequencies that our ears cannot discern, no matter how loud they are. These are realities of our bodies that we have found some ways to extend through technology, but are built in to the hardware (i.e. the flesh, the DNA). Our experience of motion and light and such is all stuck at the level of our bioloigical system, even though our brains are able to conceive ideas much different, and our technology gives us glimpses into realms we are otherwise blind to. We can tinker in these realms and read the results, and the results in those realms don’t match our experience in the common realm. But the patterns are consistent and the results are explainable. You can call it different laws working in those realms, but I don’t like that terminology because it lends itself to anthropomorphic interpretations that are not intended. Rather, I would say that the universe behaves differently on those scales. The big challenges in modern physics are mapping between the different scales to tie the diverse behaviors together with one coherent system.

My point to you is that what we consider time appears to be inherently linked to the Big Bang itself. If so, there is no meaningful “before” the Big Bang. That is inherently difficult to grasp, because our logical concept of time is not inherently limited in that way, so we can’t grasp that any more than we can truly grasp infinity, or four spatial dimensions. Causality is a principle within this universe – it is an underlying principle derived from our common experience. But just like the nature of time and observation are different than our common experience, so too might causality be different. We just have difficulty grasping that because it is so at odds with common experience.

Kyle Kivett:
> Actually, you have projected an identity that I hadn’t intended. According to my definition above, personality is not necessary and not mentioned. By calling that eternal and self-existant entity God, I have perhaps unwittingly brought the baggage of my previous mentions of the Christian deity. I suppose I should have called it “god” or perhaps even “hnfrsp” to lose any connotations with any previously known word…. The rest of your point is in agreement with my earlier statements.

It seems to me you inherently projected something more onto the “first cause” by the nature of connecting it with any deity. The concept of deity itself is a projection of identity, of anthropomorphism, of form and will. Unless you allow “deity” to be so vague and undefined as to be meaningless as a word. I suppose that is allowed in some allegorical manner, but it certainly does confuse the masses. They keep looking for a bearded guy in the sky rather than a tendency for existence over non-existence, or some other equally vague description of a condition of being. To me that reeks of obfuscation rather than illumination.

Irishman:
>>There is no process distinction to limit changes within species from changes to new species. (snipped – see above for complete context)

Kyle Kivett:
> While I don’t deny that species vary according to age (egg to birth to sexual maturity, etc.) and that species can even alter and change (average height of humans, moths changing color, etc.), the evidence seems lacking to support the idea of one species mutating into another species.

I guess the question that has to be asked is what would you find convincing? There have been some very lengthy generational experiments demonstrating how speciation occurs, using the methods found in nature to change the offspring to produce a desired result that is different than the ancestors. Over generations, the results are significant enough that if the two end points were compared side by side, they would not be deemed the same species. These experiments were not formally documented, because they predate science as a methodology. I’m talking about agriculture and animal husbandry. Just think of corn for one example. “Ah, but that’s artificial selection,” you say. Yes, but it uses the inherent capabilities within the biological system without understanding the details of how they work. Sure, it’s consciously directed instead of unconsciously directed, but the mechanisms are the same. Selective breeding is the same thing as what occurs in the wild – the only difference is “who” is doing the selecting. In the wild, that “who” is predation and disease and sexual selection rather than an outside director. But the result is the same thing, using variations within the genetic population to provide the most viable offspring. Viable being one of those fuzzy words defined by context.

I think ring species are another pretty good example. The two end points are different enough that fertile interbreeding cannot occur. That seems to be the standard working definition of speciation.

Usually when pressed, Creationists describe wanting to see something like a rat turn into a bat, or a fish grow legs. But the thing is, that’s not speciation, that’s change at a much higher taxonomical level – say class or order. That kind of change will not be witnessable, because the scale of change is so dramatic, it takes time. The fossil record does not work in such a way as to capture an unbroken record of every individual along the process, from the original pair all they way through the ten-thousand generations or so it takes to get to something different enough for a Creationist to admit “that’s a different ‘kind’”. That’s simply an unrealistic expectation. But what we do have is several cases of strings of fossils that show progressive similarity. Each successive form is close to but different from the previous one, and they produce a string that goes from one extreme to another. An example is the record for the horse, growing from a dog-sized critter to the modern horse. I suppose to be fair, there is a small amount of interpretation to read that as a connected string of changes and not completely independent creatures that happen to have just the right similarities and live in just the right areas and timescales to fit the hypothesis they are ancestral forms. Scientists feel the best fit is to connect them, rather than explain the string of coincidences to produce data that fits the hypothesis but has some other non-identifiable cause.

Kyle Kivett:
> While I’ve heard of fossils of lifeforms that many see as evidence of transitions between species, I am struck by the consipicuous absence of the expected quantity of them. If transitions arise through random mutations, wouldn’t you expect to see more mutations that didn’t work in the fossil record? Certainly more than mutations that were efficacious. I suppose this could be answered by saying that only the mutations that worked survived long enough to reproduce enough to put them in the position to be captured in the fossil record.

Bolding added. Yes. Fossils are not a necessary outcome of death. Fossils only form in the right types of soil conditions. The record only builds under the right geological conditions. If conditions are wrong, fossils that did manage to form can be eroded away through subsequent exposure to wind and water. Thus a record can be erased. Given the unlikelihoods and contingencies that are inherent to the formation and preservation of fossils for them to be present and discovered, it is not surprising that they are few and far between.

Kyle Kivett:
> Regardless of my lack of training, I remain unconvinced by much of the evidence science presents and I can’t help but notice the prejudice against faith generally and Christians in particular (see the earlier posts by others in this forum!) You might say that this is a result of stubbornness, ignorance, or plain idiocy, but I hope through this discussion I have at least given you pause before you reach these conclusions.

Any prejudice against faith generally and Christians in particular is usually built up from exposure to people professing faith, especially Christians. Perhaps that isn’t fair, but it is true. I would hope we can reduce prejudice and approach people as individuals, but the reality is that some responses are built upon previous experience. And yes, I see how that works both ways.

Kyle Kivett:
> Many people wish to avoid the existence of an omnipotent creator that would hold them accountable for their actions, and use macro-evolution to explain how our current world came to be. While this is not a scientific reason, it is not unreasonable to imagine that many scientists hold this view.

It may not be unreasonable to think that some scientists hold that view, but I think it is unreasonable to think most scientists or atheists hold that view. In particular, I reject your assertion as to causation: “an omnipotent creator that would hold them accountable for their actions”. I do not see most atheists (whether scientists or not) as motivating themselves by a desire to be free of judgment for their actions. Rather, there is a rejection of the premise of an omnipotent creator, largely on grounds of lack of evidence and incompatibility of the premise with experience. Leaving aside the particular motivation for lack of belief, you are correct that many people feel “macro-evolution” makes a supreme creator unnecessary. However, it should be noted that there are plenty of religious people who have no issue with “macro-evolution”, they accept the evidence of changing forms over time and common ancestry as the results of scientific investigation and if they ascribe it to God, do so as God’s mechanism. Whether or not some atheists use Evolution as a justification for lack of belief in God, that does not negate the accurace of Evolution as a scientific explanation.

Kyle Kivett:
> Which makes it odd that science would refuse to consider the idea of Intelligent Design. Is the very concept of supernaturalism so logically impossible that science turns up its nose prejudicially? Is ID considered an illegitimate mechanism merely because it is untestable? If so, then the same could be said for macro-evolution. I’m not just asking hypothetically – I haven’t heard a scientist defend their refusal to consider ID, and I’m very curious to hear what you say.

Intelligent Design is a complex issue. “ID” is a label that has a couple of levels. At the top-most level, it is primarily a philosophical position – the premise of a conscious entity creating and controlling the universe as a whole, and the development of life in specific. Most ID proponents (in fact, all the predominent advocates and the creators of the term) are religiously motivated defenders of a pre-conceived position, rather than relying upon evidence to frame a conclusion. As such, they cherry pick the “evidence” to support their pre-conceived result. That is not science. It’s primarily philosophy, with bad science or pseudoscience around the fringes to give it credence.

At a lower level, one can look at the supposed evidence presented by ID, the mechanisms of change and methods for identifying the action of an intelligent agent. This level can be evaluated scientifically. This is the level of “Irreducible Complexity” and “Specified Complexity” come into the picture. The thing is, these concepts are not scientifically validated. IC is best described and proposed by Michael Behe. However, statements made by Behe in his book have been explicitly contradicted by the scientific literature. These examples were identified and descibed during the Kitzmiller (Dover) case. Behe claimed particular biochemical pathways were inexplicable and had not been studied. Yet evidence was presented of scientific articles addressing those biochemical pathways that were published before his book. And even more have been since his book first came out. Simply put, the evidence condemns IC as unsupported. But even more, the assumptions that ground IC as a premise are unfounded. The assumptions underlying IC do not match what Evolution actually says and the premises biologists use for how complex pathways form from simpler ones. It’s poor science. Specified Complexity suffers from similar faulty assumptions and failure to generate scientific validation.

So scientists reject ID because the philosophical premise does not fit within the framework of science, and the evidenciary mechanisms are subjected to scrutiny and found faulty.

More to follow.

> Is there even more than one step? Think of a few examples of things being created. Were any of those examples, valid examples of things being caused to exist? Or are they just transformations of that which is already there? Think harder and broader–can you think of a single example in the natural world of something causing something else to exist? Sure, it’s reasonable to say that nothing comes from nothing–but as far as you know, nothing comes from anything! Creation ex nihilo is an alien phenomena from the get go. It’s difficult to even imagine a mechanism for it, much less to come up with a logically consistent argument for its necessity!

Excellent observation, something to really ponder.

> God as a first cause is a nice theory, but even that’s one more step than is logically required. That’s not to say that God couldn’t have started things going–this just isn’t a valid argument for why he had to.

Yes, that was what I was trying to convey.

Well, at least we can agree on something!

And I will try to make my responses more concise – sorry to anybody that is using this exchange as nacolepsy training. (My wife finds this discussion frightfully boring, but I love her anyway.)

Irishman:
>There is no process distinction to limit changes within species from changes to new species. (snipped – see above for complete context)

Me:
While I don’t deny that species vary according to age (egg to birth to sexual maturity, etc.) and that species can even alter and change (average height of humans, moths changing color, etc.), the evidence seems lacking to support the idea of one species mutating into another species.

Me:
>> While I don’t deny the logical possibility, the absence of fossil evidence of transitionary lifeforms is conspicuous.

Irishman:
>Yet transitional forms do exist.(snip)
>There are plenty of other transitional forms showing transitions from reptile to mammal, and reptile to bird (and not just Archeopterix that is so controversial).

Me:
While I’ve heard of fossils of lifeforms that many see as evidence of transitions between species, I am struck by the consipicuous absence of the expected quantity of them. If transitions arise through random mutations, wouldn’t you expect to see more mutations that didn’t work in the fossil record? Certainly more than mutations that were efficacious. I suppose this could be answered by saying that only the mutations that worked survived long enough to reproduce enough to put them in the position to be captured in the fossil record.

Irishman:
>To claim there are no transitional fossils is just uninformed.

Me:
I don’t believe I have made any claim to be otherwise – I’m just a band teacher, after all, not a scientist – but I still have my doubts when science speaks too boldly of things not known or known only in part. Regardless of my lack of training, I remain unconvinced by much of the evidence science presents and I can’t help but notice the prejudice against faith generally and Christians in particular (see the earlier posts by others in this forum!) You might say that this is a result of stubbornness, ignorance, or plain idiocy, but I hope through this discussion I have at least given you pause before you reach these conclusions.

Me:
>> Also, macro-evolution is necessary to deny the existence of a creative being or force,

Irishman:
>This is a logical fallacy. The lack of one explanation is not de facto justification for a different explanation.

Me:
I apologize for my poor sentence structure and incomplete thought masquarading as a logical fallacy. (What I wrote is not what I meant.) A better attempt at my intended meaning might read: Many people wish to avoid the existence of an omnipotent creator that would hold them accountable for their actions, and use macro-evolution to explain how our current world came to be. While this is not a scientific reason, it is not unreasonable to imagine that many scientists hold this view.

Irishman:
(snip)
> Science is concerned with the mechanism of how it occurred.

Me:
Which makes it odd that science would refuse to consider the idea of Intelligent Design. Is the very concept of supernaturalism so logically impossible that science turns up its nose prejudicially? Is ID considered an illegitimate mechanism merely because it is untestable? If so, then the same could be said for macro-evolution. I’m not just asking hypothetically – I haven’t heard a scientist defend their refusal to consider ID, and I’m very curious to hear what you say.

Irishman:
> If you wish to deal with God scientifically, then you have to submit the claim to the rigors of science.

Me:
I have no desire to deal with God scientifically. The very idea is ridiculous to me – as ridiculous as dealing with color monochromatically or philosophy Platonicly (or Nietzsche-ly or Bonhoffer-ly for that matter, if you’ll pardon the linguistic violence). Science is not big enough to understand God, just as Plato (or the others alone) doesn’t give a holistic picture of philosphy. However, those science-related matters that the God of the Bible has deemed us worthy to address in scripture, I will try my best to understand. Keep in mind, however, that the Bible is not a science text (thank goodness! Speaking of narcolepsy training…) but a collection of writings in several genres, including historical narrative (originally from oral tradition, so memorization is a primary concern over science) and poetry (where figurative language trumps scientific clarity). This does not however, negate the reality or accuracy of the text within its genre. When Edgar Allan Poe refers to a “black tarn,” do we imagine that he was referring to a small lake of petroleum deposits? No, we understand it as figurative language to describe a body of water in a particular place (in this case, outside the fictional “House of Usher”) whose color represents the mood of the narrator. Poe may or may not have had an actual pond in mind in writing the story, but the veracity and impact of the story does not hinge on the location of that pool. In the same way, when the Bible speaks of the breadth and glory of creation in Job 38-41 (within the context of poetic language in one of the oldest books of the Bible), we may interpret that he is referring to actual elements of creation in figurative language, or perhaps of unobserved elements of creation in literal language. In either case, the veracity and impact of God’s wisdom and strength compared to man rings true.

I said I was going to try to keep this shorter, didn’t I…hmm…

You might say that in the above example I am changing my reading of the Bible to give it the meaning I want -

>But the concept itself is hard to treat objectively, because people rewrite God to fit whatever niche they want him to fill.

- but instead I am trying to read the Bible in its intended way. I find newspapers almost intolerable because of their banal treatment of nearly every subject – I see no reason to exclude art from every form of communication. However, when I read them with an attempt to find the author’s intent, they are more tolerable. How can we know the author’s intent? Only from context, which is at the root of most Biblical misunderstandings and misapplications. Critics of the Bible often refer to passages about God killing women and children, without reading the context that perhaps it was better for them to die (especially the children) in innocence that be raised as God-haters. This is a hard teaching, I admit (and this truncated discussion of it remains insufficient), but context provides clues to a greater God than the misogynist, bigoted war-monger as which He is often portrayed. Certainly, misogynist, bigoted war-mongers will worship a God who is the same, but most who rewrite God to fit their needs are no better than a run-of-the-mill athiest or agnostic.

Irishman:
>“No evidence for God? That’s because God wants to be inscrutable.” You know what? That makes the claim untestable in the physical sense. Untestable claims are unjustifiable.

Me:
Not sure what you’re referring to in your quote above – I wouldn’t think of it as a Christian teaching, because Christians glory in the miracle that God chose to reveal Himself in the Incarnation (God became man in Christ) and in the revelation of Himself in scripture. In the ways that God is inscrutable, it is because of the ontological difference between He and us, not because He has not desired to communicate to us. Much like we would really like to teach our cat to use the toilet, but their brain power can’t handle more than a litter box.

Irishman:
> Before you can scrutinize how God’s intent affects God’s creation, first you have to prove you know God’s intent.

Me:
To know God’s intent is different than knowing that God has intent – I’m at this point only interested in the latter. Intelligent Design (ID) merely expresses that intent exists – determining what that intent is remains a question of faith, but we needn’t know why God created anything (the system we call the Periodic Table, for instance) to recognize the inherent design.

Irishman:
>But if God can be twisted, shaped, and reformed to avoid any form of scrutiny, then you cannot prove you know God’s intent. Ergo, it’s all guessing games.

Me:
God cannot be twisted, etc., but our interpretation can be when we are uninformed because we don’t know scripture. However, this eventually comes down to an issue of faith, because as Christians we are constantly searching for a deeper understanding of God’s will in our lives.

Me:
>> Now imagine for a moment – hypothetically, of course – that God doesn’t exist. Any work done to attribute reason to an effect would be necessarily suspect. In this case, the work of Galileo, Newton, and Pascal to name a few would have to be thrown out.

Irishman:
>Now you fail to grasp what science is and how it works. Their work doesn’t automatically require being thrown out. Science works by objective verification of evidence. If the findings work, they are accepted. If they don’t work, they are rejected. It doesn’t matter that Newton was into numerology and studying alchemy, optics works. Calculus works. Newtonian mechanics works. Newtonian gravity is accurate for common scales of behavior.

Me:
Perhaps I overstated my case, but science has to be more than mere pragmatism, doesn’t it? Besides, didn’t Heisenberg question the very nature of objectivism? I guess you could say that I treat science with the same sketicism you treat faith because I don’t accept “objective verification of evidence” as certain, just as you don’t accept scripture as certain. Simply put, I don’t trust humans (at least not their observations), and you don’t trust God (at least not the interpretations you’ve heard). I hope I’m not oversimplifiying the issue, and I don’t mean that to be a hypercritical statement – do you agree with me on that point?

Me:
> One way to prove the existence of God is to answer the question, “Does anything exist?” … If we can agree that things exist, then we ask, how did they come to exist? Working backwards, we can continue to ask that question ad infinitum. But there must have beeen a first thing that existed that caused all the other things to exist. This primo genitor, by definition, must be self-existent (nothing caused it) and eternal (it must have been there before time began). It may have other characteristics, but these are logically necessary.

Irishman:
>Careful: you are relying on our current conceptions of causality and necessity. Modern physics shows us that our current conceptions may not hold at the extreme ranges beyond our experience level. What cosmology tells us is the very nature of causality and time may cease to apply at the extreme.

Me:
Pardon me for saying that this is perhaps your weakest retort, and seems a bit out of character for you. Do I understand you to say that laws may exist which govern conditions we cannot experience? That doesn’t sound very much like scientific naturalism. In fact, it sounds like God-speak. This goes to my point that God is so much bigger than science – what is outside our experience is merely part of His reality.

Me:
>> Regardless of belief system, these are two common characteristics of God – indeed, the only two necessary characteristics of a deific being. It is important to recognize at this point in the train of logic that we do not know if we should call God Jehovah, Mohammed, Jesus, or Elvis – but that God exists is demonstratable through mere logic.

Irishman:
>What we also don’t know is if we should call this god “God”, or “quantum vacuum fluctuations”. What I’m saying is that you are projecting more content onto the logical position than is warranted. You are projecting an identity and will onto this “first cause”, but that is ungrounded. The only thing logic tells us is that the First Cause cannot be caused, or it wouldn’t be first. The cause of the universe cannot be within the universe, because it would be self-causing.

Me:
Actually, you have projected an identity that I hadn’t intended. According to my definition above, personality is not necessary and not mentioned. By calling that eternal and self-existant entity God, I have perhaps unwittingly brought the baggage of my previous mentions of the Christian deity. I suppose I should have called it “god” or perhaps even “hnfrsp” to lose any connotations with any previously known word. (Of course, that’s what the God of the Bible did in referring to Himself as “I AM” and what the Jews did by referring to Him as the tetragrammaton “YHWH” so even that may have aroused associations on your part.) The rest of your point is in agreement with my earlier statements. (We just can’t help but find common ground this time around!) I think I know why God didn’t ask scientists to pen the Bible – “Quantum vacuum fluctuations are my Shepherd, I shall not want” is a little awkward…

Irishman:
>Again, perhaps our concept of cause and effect breaks down at the limits, and self-causality is possible.

Me:
Pardon me for considering this patently ridicuous. I mean, doesn’t science still need to follow the compulsion of logic?

At this point, I need to call it a night. I will try to answer the rest of the essay soon. Again, thanks for your time.
-Kyle

If you don’t mind, I’d like to step in here with a few challenges.

“In brief (too late, I know), the existence of God is central to science because it informs the interpretation of all data. Analogously, the Galilean model of the solar system informs the interpretation of astronomical data, and what one thinks of Darwin’s writings informs interpretation of the fossil record.”

I’m sorry, but can’t God’s creation speak for itself? I don’t quite buy that God’s existence is central–it’s not his existence that draws one to conclude different methods and different interpretations of the data–it’s one’s dogma. God’s existence doesn’t get called out, for example, when people talk about atomic theory. God’s existence doesn’t tend to play out when one discusses thermodynamics. God’s existence becomes important when one discusses the age of the earth, and evolution. Why? Not because God’s existence negates these, but because certain established dogma does. Therefore, it’s not the existence of God that would demand a change in interpretation, but rather, the truth of a dogma.

So, consider this for a second. If God can somehow cause books to be written in Ancient Hebrew and Greek, certainly God can also speak using languages of mathematics and logic. Is it the same God that created the world and its inhabitants in six days, that created quantum mechanics, and its probabilistic symmetries? When God said, “Let there be light”, did he create Pauli Exclusion and chemistry? Can God’s creation speak against God?

There is belief, and reality. There may not be certainty, but certainly reality is a good guide to belief. If the two conflict, sure–it could just be your misunderstanding of reality, but the big question is–how likely is it? Couldn’t it also be likely that you’re mistaken? If faith is immune to a check in reality, what claims to intellectual honesty are left?

It is rationally imperative to accept that truth must be revealed by the actions and properties of that which is studied. That which is unknown may be amendable enough to conjecture, but that which is revealed should not be indefinitely questionable. If the believer is merely finding excuses to believe, his belief should be called into question. If God is real, and he created this vast expanse, all creation will point to him–or at the very least will not point away. What do you think God would say to you when he leaves so many clues, and you just ignore them? Would there be an excuse left for you? As such, is it even valid theology to go against his creation?

“OK, but science, as you say, asks “How?” So, how did these ingredients and conditions arise? One way to prove the existence of God is to answer the question, “Does anything exist?” (If we can’t agree that things exist, then you are most likely insane and have no business being a scientist!) If we can agree that things exist, then we ask, how did they come to exist? Working backwards, we can continue to ask that question ad infinitum. But there must have been a first thing that existed that caused all the other things to exist.”

Is there even more than one step? Think of a few examples of things being created. Were any of those examples, valid examples of things being caused to exist? Or are they just transformations of that which is already there? Think harder and broader–can you think of a single example in the natural world of something causing something else to exist? Sure, it’s reasonable to say that nothing comes from nothing–but as far as you know, nothing comes from anything! Creation ex nihilo is an alien phenomena from the get go. It’s difficult to even imagine a mechanism for it, much less to come up with a logically consistent argument for its necessity! God as a first cause is a nice theory, but even that’s one more step than is logically required. That’s not to say that God couldn’t have started things going–this just isn’t a valid argument for why he had to.

Kyle Kivett said:
> I wish to say here how much I have enjoyed our discussion – “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

Yes, it is nice to share a pleasant exchange over contrasting views.

> In my readings (admittedly limited), I have often seen scientists fail to make a distinction between the empirical micro-evolution (e.g., that viruses and bacteria mutate in response to treatment, making over- and under-medication a significant problem) and macro-evolution that has yet to provide conclusive evidence that one species can transmutate into another. While I don’t deny the logical possibility, the absence of fossil evidence of transitionary lifeforms is conspicuous.

Because the distinction you’re making is arbitrary. There is no process distinction to limit changes within species from changes to new species. The fact is most people’s standard concept of a species is even flawed, because we tend to conceive of them as static objects, when “species” is itself a transitional form. A simple example can be drawn from a hackneyed phrase about chickens and eggs. Biologically, the chicken egg came first, layed by a bird that was “one step” short of being a chicken. Now you just have to pick what “one step” defines the distinction of “not a chicken”. This is clearly exemplified by the concept of ring species. A ring species is a species that is geographically widespread such that the whole population is not interacting. What occurs is that there are varieties and sub-population groups along the geographic spectrum, whereby any two groups sharing overlapping geography can and do interbreed, but groups from the extreme ends not only do not interbreed, but cannot interbreed if brought together. This is a fascinating example of speciation at work.

You state the absence of transitional fossils as being significant. Yet transitional forms do exist. Talk origins has much discussion on the topic. What effectively ends up getting argued is how to define what a transitional form is. A recent find that is clearly a transitional form by any definition is Tiktaaluk – the odd “fish” found not too long ago. This “fish” not only has wrist bones (no other fish has them) in just the right place to match all land vertibrates, but it also has neck features clearly between land vertabrates and fish. There are several fish-like features, several amphibian-like features, and a number of ambiguous ones. Just because scientists choose some fuzzy line and classify it on one side of the line or the other does not change the truth that the features are intermediates. And Tiktaaluk was found where scientists predicted they should find intermediates.

There are plenty of other transitional forms showing transitions from reptile to mammal, and reptile to bird (and not just Archeopterix that is so controversial). To claim there are no transitional fossils is just uninformed.

> Also, macro-evolution is necessary to deny the existence of a creative being or force,

This is a logical fallacy. The lack of one explanation is not de facto justification for a different explanation. Each explanation must stand on its own merits. The best you get if “macro-evolution” is unproven is an opening in which to stick some other mechanism. Science is not concerned with creative beings or forces. Science is concerned with the mechanism of how it occurred.

> Imagine for a moment – hypothetically at least – that God exists and that he made the universe. If this is true, then it would be inappropriate to remove his intent from the study of His creation. Would you ignore an author’s childhood if he writes a book about children? Every effect has a cause, and to ignore the reasons behind the cause will obfuscate the effect.

If you wish to deal with God scientifically, then you have to submit the claim to the rigors of science. But the concept itself is hard to treat objectively, because people rewrite God to fit whatever niche they want him to fill. “No evidence for God? That’s because God wants to be inscrutable.” You know what? That makes the claim untestable in the physical sense. Untestable claims are unjustifiable. Before you can scrutinize how God’s intent affects God’s creation, first you have to prove you know God’s intent. But if God can be twisted, shaped, and reformed to avoid any form of scrutiny, then you cannot prove you know God’s intent. Ergo, it’s all guessing games.

> Now imagine for a moment – hypothetically, of course – that God doesn’t exist. Any work done to attribute reason to an effect would be necessarily suspect. In this case, the work of Galileo, Newton, and Pascal to name a few would have to be thrown out.

Now you fail to grasp what science is and how it works. Their work doesn’t automatically require being thrown out. Science works by objective verification of evidence. If the findings work, they are accepted. If they don’t work, they are rejected. It doesn’t matter that Newton was into numerology and studying alchemy, optics works. Calculus works. Newtonian mechanics works. Newtonian gravity is accurate for common scales of behavior.

> One way to prove the existence of God is to answer the question, “Does anything exist?” … If we can agree that things exist, then we ask, how did they come to exist? Working backwards, we can continue to ask that question ad infinitum. But there must have beeen a first thing that existed that caused all the other things to exist. This primo genitor, by definition, must be self-existent (nothing caused it) and eternal (it must have been there before time began). It may have other characteristics, but these are logically necessary.

Careful: you are relying on our current conceptions of causality and necessity. Modern physics shows us that our current conceptions may not hold at the extreme ranges beyond our experience level. What cosmology tells us is the very nature of causality and time may cease to apply at the extreme.

> Regardless of belief system, these are two common characteristics of God – indeed, the only two necessary characteristics of a deific being. It is important to recognize at this point in the train of logic that we do not know if we should call God Jehovah, Mohammed, Jesus, or Elvis – but that God exists is demonstratable through mere logic.

What we also don’t know is if we should call this god “God”, or “quantum vacuum fluctuations”. What I’m saying is that you are projecting more content onto the logical position than is warranted. You are projecting an identity and will onto this “first cause”, but that is ungrounded. The only thing logic tells us is that the First Cause cannot be caused, or it wouldn’t be first. The cause of the universe cannot be within the universe, because it would be self-causing. Again, perhaps our concept of cause and effect breaks down at the limits, and self-causality is possible. But either way, the logical result does not require a conscious, active agent to be the First Cause. Any other properties you assert for the First Cause are not justified by the logical position. They are just your assertions.

>> Irishman: There are challenges, but the methodology of science is to look at the how naturalistically, and that is what is being explored.

> Kyle Kivett: This is a definition of science that has taken hold in the last 200 years or so, but is not the necessary definition. Many early scientists (those mentioned before, et al) were attempting to find out more about their Creator by studying His creation. While I understand that science is an attempt to understand the laws by which the natural universe works, to deny the possibility of supernaturalism is foolish if, indeed, supernatural events can happen. However, this speaks to the predisposition of many scientists to deny the existence of supernaturalism because they don’t believe them possible, not because they can prove they don’t exist. Indeed, how do you prove a negative?

I don’t have to prove a negative, you must prove a positive. Prove something supernatural exists, and scientists will believe it. Scientific naturalism was born from the process of observing the world. The world works in consistent, repeatable ways. If it didn’t, life itself would be rather complex because you wouldn’t know if the dinner you fix tonight just like you did last night will be edible or toxic. Heck, you wouldn’t know which way gravity was going to pull. The motivations of prior scientists isn’t particularly relevant, what is is their methodology – the methodology that has framed science as a process. That process has been remarkably successful in providing results that lead to better answers and predicting results better.

> Specifically on point, many people abuse the word faith in myriad ways and contexts. How I am defining it is how it is used in the bible and by the foundational teachers of the Christian church for the last 6000 years. (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:9) That is, simply, believing God. Not believing IN God, but believing that God is who he says he is, has done what he says, and will do what he has promised.

It would be a lot easier to believe God if I didn’t hear everything third-hand. As it is, everything is relayed through ancient, multiply translated documents and oral stories. The ground you’re walking is a non-sequitur. I see the distinction you are attempting to make, but I don’t follow how that applies to terminology about “faith”.

> So we can look at what God has promised and because he has always fulfilled his promises before, we can know that he will continue to fulfill them. (The story of Abraham in Genesis is a fascinating example of this.) This is what I meant by faith leading from evidence.

Two comments. First, the evidence you have in this regard is mighty slim. Myth and allegory do not validate “he has fulfilled his promises”. Second, once you have evidence, it is not faith.

> You are correct that not all beliefs require faith (I believe I’m writing in American English), but when an outcome is unknown, faith is required. For instance, are you loved? Spouse, children, mothers can all do things out of obligation or for their own reward that you might misunderstand as love. If you demanded empirical evidence of their love for you, you will most likely be disappointed – not because they don’t love you, but because empirical evidence doesn’t exist. We must believe, through faith and as an extension from circumstantial evidence, that we are loved. We must have faith in our government that they will abide by the Constitution and the rule of law in their dealings with us. Other instances abound, but to deny the role of faith in everyday life is untenable. The object of faith is the key. We only trust the government so far because of the abuses we have seen so many times. Hopefully, we can trust our family a little more than the government, but in either case, we can look at past events, predict what will happen in the future, and then decide how to act based on the level of reliability of our prediction. Voila – faith, defined scientifically.

I don’t think you are using terminology correctly. There is a distinction between “faith” and “trust”. However, let’s look at the more extended point, that faith plays a role in our lives and decisions. Belief that our families love us because while we can see behaviors and actions we cannot feel their emotions. So we believe they love us because we project our own emotions onto them, and because we want it to be true. In that sense, there may be value in our lives for faith, as projected from evidence.

However, I don’t think those conditions are pure faith. We don’t live in pure states, I think that is a blended position. There’s the evidenciary grounds of behavior and stated words. There’s the projection of our own emotional abilities and conditions. There’s the trust granted to others that they mean what they say. Blend that with the projection of faith that they love us, because we want it to be true. The further you step from the evidenciary grounds (or the more the behaviors are at odds with the conclusion), the less you rely on evidence and the more you step into faith.

> Faith must lead from evidence. Indeed, it is a step in the same direction that the evidence leads. When faith conflicts with evidence, it isn’t faith, it is either foolishness or wishful thinking.

Now we’re stepping away from what faith is and into how you think faith should be used. You think that faith is fine if projected from evidence, but is wrong when it violates evidence. Okay, I agree with the latter and if you’re going to use faith then I hope you follow the former. But that is irrelevant to the definition of what faith is.

> Creationists are not all faith-based, nor are all people of faith Creationists, so be careful how broad a brush you use, …

I do try to be careful and emphasize the distinctions between believers and Creationists. However, I am not aware of any Creationists who are not “faith-based”.

>… but as I’ve mentioned before, there is only one set of data (the fossil record, genetic experiments, etc.) and there is a disagreement on how to interpret the data. It is logically possible that Creationists are just plain wrong – and it is just as logically possible that Evolutionists (i.e., macro-evolutionists) are just plain wrong. The other logical possibility is that they are both wrong.

You are correct, in the absense of evidence, logic allows those three possibilities. The fourth, that they are both correct, is eliminated because the specific claims of Creationism and Evolution are methodologically contradictory. Now let’s step beyond the limits of pure logic and look at the evidence, and evaluate those methods of the claims. Creationism states everything appeared like it is, forms are static. Evolution says life forms change over time, and all life has common ancestry. The evidence – from the fossil record to genetics to agricultural techniques to animal breeding to even the notion of extinction – all the evidence points to common ancestry and change over time.

> Personally, I find it extremely arrogant to imagine that we can understand the process and details of how life as we know it came to be, whether the process took less than 10K years, or more than 5B years – I don’t care, because we can’t know with any certainty in either case.

Perhaps we can’t know with certainty, given we only have evidence to stand on and did not witness the whole process from start to finish. But I find that a poor grounds to say that both possible means are equivalently likely. That evidence that we do have, including witnessing the process from within, on small scales, gives much greater credence to one method than the other. The only evidence supporting Creationism is 6000 year old stories. All the physical evidence supports a process of change from common ancestry – what we call Evolution. I don’t care if you care about the answer, I care about the answer. I’ll take the one consistent with the evidence, and don’t have much worry about how “arrogant” it might make me.

In my earlier post, I postulated that science’s answer to how things began is a logical impossibility. Even Julie Andrews knows that “nothing comes from nothing – nothing ever could.” Irishman wished to clarify my apparent overstatement:
> I will state that science currently doesn’t have an answer for how it all began – biogenesis is an open question in science.

In my readings (admittedly limited), I have often seen scientists fail to make a distinction between the empirical micro-evolution (e.g., that viruses and bacteria mutate in response to treatment, making over- and under-medication a significant problem) and macro-evolution that has yet to provide conclusive evidence that one species can transmutate into another. While I don’t deny the logical possibility, the absence of fossil evidence of transitionary lifeforms is conspicuous. Also, macro-evolution is necessary to deny the existence of a creative being or force, and the inherent assumption – one way or the other – will certainly affect how one sees tthe evidence. This contradicts Irishman’s comment that:
>However, from within the scientific context, God is irrelevant. Whether or not God played a role, science looks at the question from the standpoint of how it happened.

Imagine for a moment – hypothetically at least – that God exists and that he made the universe. If this is true, then it would be inappropriate to remove his intent from the study of His creation. Would you ignore an author’s childhood if he writes a book about children? Every effect has a cause, and to ignore the reasons behind the cause will obfuscate the effect.
Now imagine for a moment – hypothetically, of course – that God doesn’t exist. Any work done to attribute reason to an effect would be necessarily suspect. In this case, the work of Galileo, Newton, and Pascal to name a few would have to be thrown out. (Galileo was not a heretic – the Catholic church misapplied their interpretation of an issue not addressed in Scripture. When the church – or anybody – ignores truth to support their prejudices, error ensues. This hopefully helps answer an earlier question wanting clarification on how to tell what is a “misapplication” of Scripture.)

In brief (too late, I know), the existence of God is central to science because it informs the interpretation of all data. Analogously, the Galilean model of the solar system informs the interpretation of astronomical data, and what one thinks of Darwin’s writings informs interpretation of the fossil record.

Irishman continued:
>Scientists are currently exploring the question. There are some tenative findings and some suggestive points, some reasonable starting points for investigation. We know that amino acids are formed naturally in space. A certain class of meteorite is made of “carbonaceous chondrite”, a fancy way of saying carbony goo. Essentially it is a clump of long chain polymersof carbon. There is some evidence of how complex compounds formed out of simpler compounds through various chemistry reactions. The famous Miller experiment is one example, but hardly the only grounds. There is even evidence showing how some molecules will self-form around clay particles as a scaffold. Research is looking at the early Earth atmosphere, the oceans, and even underground and hydrothermal vents to determine possible ways the processes started rolling.

OK, but science, as you say, asks “How?” So, how did these ingredients and conditions arise? One way to prove the existence of God is to answer the question, “Does anything exist?” (If we can’t agree that things exist, then you are most likely insane and have no business being a scientist!) If we can agree that things exist, then we ask, how did they come to exist? Working backwards, we can continue to ask that question ad infinitum. But there must have beeen a first thing that existed that caused all the other things to exist. This primo genitor, by definition, must be self-existent (nothing caused it) and eternal (it must have been there before time began). It may have other characteristics, but these are logically necessary. Regardless of belief system, these are two common characteristics of God – indeed, the only two necessary characteristics of a deific being. It is important to recognize at this point in the train of logic that we do not know if we should call God Jehovah, Mohammed, Jesus, or Elvis – but that God exists is demonstratable through mere logic. How can we depend on logic? Without a logical mind, all our thoughts are a meaningless collection of experiences, and any conversation we attempt is just as meaningless. You can’t deny the inevitability of logic without accepting the black abyss of nihilism.

Irishman continued:
>There are challenges, but the methodology of science is to look at the how naturalistically, and that is what is being explored.

This is a definition of science that has taken hold in the last 200 years or so, but is not the necessary definition. Many early scientists (those mentioned before, et al) were attempting to find out more about their Creator by studying His creation. While I understand that science is an attempt to understand the laws by which the natural universe works, to deny the possibility of supernaturalism is foolish if, indeed, supernatural events can happen. However, this speaks to the predisposition of many scientists to deny the existence of supernaturalism because they don’t believe them possible, not because they can prove they don’t exist. Indeed, how do you prove a negative?

Irishman also disagreed with my use of the word faith. I said:
> Science ends when evidence runs out – faith keeps the train moving in the same direction.

To which Irishman answered:
> Arguable. Faith may keep the train moving, but the direction is not necessarily in the same line. Furthermore, many people use faith instead of evidence. Thus Faith is not an extension of evidence for them, it is a replacement.

I will answer below the train analogy, but on the second part of his response, I must say that this is a great point. The problem is that Irishman has stopped disagreeing with me and started disagreeing with people with whom I would have the same disagreement. Far too many Christians (and followers of other religions, I imagine) are not intellectually prepared to even desribe what they believe, let alone defend their beliefs to those that don’t hold the same beliefs. (For what its worth, Christians are told to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” 1Peter 3:15 NIV.) This lack of intellectual preparation is one of the reasons that non-believers have a poor opinion of Christians, and one of the reasons that I jumped into this snakepit of opinions contrary to mine. Not that I have every answer, but I am called to be engaged in the struggle to defend the hope that I have, which means this kind of conversation.

Specifically on point, many people abuse the word faith in myriad ways and contexts. How I am defining it is how it is used in the bible and by the foundational teachers of the Christian church for the last 6000 years. (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:9) That is, simply, believing God. Not believing IN God, but believing that God is who he says he is, has done what he says, and will do what he has promised. So we can look at what God has promised and because he has always fulfilled his promises before, we can know that he will continue to fulfill them. (The story of Abraham in Genesis is a fascinating example of this.) This is what I meant by faith leading from evidence.

You are correct that not all beliefs require faith (I believe I’m writing in American English), but when an outcome is unknown, faith is required. For instance, are you loved? Spouse, children, mothers can all do things out of obligation or for their own reward that you might misunderstand as love. If you demanded empirical evidence of their love for you, you will most likely be disappointed – not because they don’t love you, but because empirical evidence doesn’t exist. We must believe, through faith and as an extension from circumstantial evidence, that we are loved. We must have faith in our government that they will abide by the Constitution and the rule of law in their dealings with us. Other instances abound, but to deny the role of faith in everyday life is untenable. The object of faith is the key. We only trust the government so far because of the abuses we have seen so many times. Hopefully, we can trust our family a little more than the government, but in either case, we can look at past events, predict what will happen in the future, and then decide how to act based on the level of reliability of our prediction. Voila – faith, defined scientifically.

Faith must lead from evidence. Indeed, it is a step in the same direction that the evidence leads. When faith conflicts with evidence, it isn’t faith, it is either foolishness or wishful thinking. Creationists are not all faith-based, nor are all people of faith Creationists, so be careful how broad a brush you use, but as I’ve mentioned before, there is only one set of data (the fossil record, genetic experiments, etc.) and there is a disagreement on how to interpret the data. It is logically possible that Creationists are just plain wrong – and it is just as logically possible that Evolutionists (i.e., macro-evolutionists) are just plain wrong. The other logical possibility is that they are both wrong. Personally, I find it extremely arrogant to imagine that we can understand the process and details of how life as we know it came to be, whether the process took less than 10K years, or more than 5B years – I don’t care, because we can’t know with any certainty in either case. But both systems of thought depend heavily on taking one step (or more) beyond the current evidence – science makes an experiment based on what is known in the panople of science, while pure faith evaluates the step based on previous evidence and searches for confirmation from the panople of scripture. This is where most believers should take a cue from science – scientists are notoriously more careful about testing themselves, even though Christians are commanded to do so as well (1 Corinthians 13:5).

Please remember that my primary reason for entering this fray is to fulfill the commission of 1 Peter 3:15, mentioned above, and I am most interested in maintaining my gentleness and displaying the respect I have for you as a person and as an intellect. I pray that I would represent my savior in a way that pleases Him, and hopefully gives you a fair picture of who He wants me to be, whther I am that yet or not. Thanks for your time.

-Kyle

Careful where you’re going. Are you speaking evolution to apply to biological evolution, or the larger scale way it is often used to mean the universe itself? Assuming the former, I will state that science currently doesn’t have an answer for how it all began – biogenesis is an open question in science. However, from within the scientific context, God is irrelevant. Whether or not God played a role, science looks at the question from the standpoint of how it happened. Scientists are currently exploring the question. There are some tenative findings and some suggestive points, some reasonable starting points for investigation. We know that amino acids are formed naturally in space. A certain class of meteorite is made of “carbonaceous chondrite”, a fancy way of saying carbony goo. Essentially it is a clump of long chain polymersof carbon. There is some evidence of how complex compounds formed out of simpler compounds through various chemistry reactions. The famous Miller experiment is one example, but hardly the only grounds. There is even evidence showing how some molecules will self-form around clay particles as a scaffold. Research is looking at the early Earth atmosphere, the oceans, and even underground and hydrothermal vents to determine possible ways the processes started rolling. There are challenges, but the methodology of science is to look at the how naturalistically, and that is what is being explored.

The “why” question is broader. When you ask why, you are stepping beyond science into philosophy. There’s no evidenciary grounds for dealing with why. Why is about purpose. As a personal answer, I feel that “why” is an inappropriate question. We can talk about purpose from the perspective of a conscious agent. But I see no grounds to project a conscious agent onto the universe as a whole. Asking why is there life vs. no life is meaningless – it is here, it happened. There was no intention behind it. It’s like asking why is there the color red? Why is there sand? That’s the way things happened. Why only becomes meaningful once intent is introduced.

> As I mentioned in an earlier post, faith is based on evidence, which leads to belief.

And I disagree. Evidence leads so far. Faith is the step beyond evidence. If it’s beyond evidence, then it is without evidence.

> Science ends when evidence runs out – faith keeps the train moving in the same direction.

Arguable. Faith may keep the train moving, but the direction is not necessarily in the same line. Furthermore, many people use faith instead of evidence. Thus Faith is not an extension of evidence for them, it is a replacement.

> And scientists must have faith. Very little is known about stem cells, for instance, but because many scientists have faith that they will revolutionize medical care, research continues.

Again, contentious use of the word “faith” in that context. Scientists have reasons to feel stem cells will lead to new treatments or cures. These reasons are built upon the principle of what a stem cell is. There is a certain amount of hope involved, but mostly it’s projecting what is known (stem cells are undifferentiated and the source of all differentiated cells, so there should be some way to use them to grow differentiated cells that otherwise are difficult to grow) onto the logical progression of what could happen.

> Faith and belief aren’t merely similar: they are in a relationship of superior/inferior on the same path – the path of evidence-faith-belief.

I disagree. Creationists are a perfect example of Faith conflicting with Evidence. There’s no progression from one to the other. Furthermore, many of us form beliefs straight from evidence, without a faith step in between.

Here’s an point of contention between you and Some Guy. Some Guy’s contention is that the only solid existence we have for God is the written text and oral teachings. Vs the example of the roundness of the Earth, where physical evidence was present if not recognized. I won’t argue the point other than to highlight the issue.

> I still struggle with these issues, as well as with humility, but I can see where I was a few years ago compared to now and know that no earthly thing (willpower, Dianetics, or otherwise) would have brought me to where I am now. But that answer holds no merit to you if you don’t believe, because if I could prove to you beyond any shadow of doubt that God exists, you wouldn’t need faith, and “without faith it is impossible to please God.”

You are correct on one point, that answer holds no merit for non-believers. You see a change in your personality that is for the better, and attribute it to external influence. Yet there’s no “influence” to be nailed down. It’s your perogative to interpret your emotional growth and change as you see fit, but the reason it is unconvincing is because it is unexaminable. A personal interpretation is not justification for others. The rest of that is mumbo-jumbo to justify why God won’t give us solid evidence. It’s a logical “get out of jail free” card that allows God all the leeway he needs to remain non-disprovable. It’s the lauding of faith, because faith is all you have.

> Man and animals are of different stock and have different purposes. This is really the problem most Creationists have with Evolution, even if they can’t voice it as such: Evolution establishes a hierarchy, but a linear one, whereas Creationism establishes a clear delineation between the animal kingdom and human kind. There is only one set of data – what is at question is how to interpret the data, and the preconceptions you bring to the table will necessarily alter your understanding of the topic.

You are correct, that is the underlying distinction that makes religious people uncertain or resistive to Evolution. The emotional separation of humans from animals is the distinct point of contention. The specialness of humanity as God’s chosen, in God’s image, is significant enough that they resist findings that put that uniqueness into question. Of course, many religious people are able to accept Evolution. They do so by stepping beyond the literal need to be different and retain the spiritual difference. If God is great enough to create the universe out of nothingness and form the Earth out of the void, then surely he’s great enough to evolve humans out of animals and still find a way to infuse the soul. No? So the resistance of Creationists to Evolution on those grounds really is unnecessary. But for soem reason Creationists won’t listen to an atheist tell them so.

> More precisely, how people have used religion for their own personal gain or have misapplied religious principles because of their avarice, malice, or ignorance. But don’t mistake a misapplication for the fault of the real thing.

That’s really a sensitive issue. Just how is one to separate the misapplication from “the real thing”? Religious people justify abhorrent acts to themselves from within the framework of their religion, and frame their acts as morally justified. How are we as external viewers to separate the mistaken from the correct, when they can’t do it themselves? That’s a fundamental reason for atheist distaste for religion as a whole. There’s no internal structure that provides a clear boundary for delineation, everything is interpretation. Even the simple rules like “Thou shalt not kill” are repealed in later chapters where God directs his followers to annihilate people living on the land He intends for his followers. The hit and miss application of the rules, the post-hoc validation, the arbitrary determination “if it’s good then it’s really from God and if it’s bad then it’s either Satan or human fallability” – those are the things that lead atheists to reject all religion as bad.

> We all use words in our own way – communication is a constant struggle even between people who agree! My attempt was to define faith in the way that most people of faith use it, not how it was being defined in this context. My definition may have been limiting, but it was certainly broader than Irishman’s.

Breadth is not necessarily a particularly useful point for a definition. Conveyance of meaning is what is important. Sometimes adding breadth reduces the value of the word. Meaning comes from limits as much as from inclusion – heck, limits are probably more important. Words are just shorthand for concepts. Concepts are most important where they separate from other concepts. Blurring and stretching the lines does not aid communication, it reduces it.

Despite sometimes being used as synonyms, faith and trust are not the same thing. This we agree on. You say faith is not without evidence, but beyond evidence. You say faith relies upon evidence as far as the evidence goes. What I’m saying is that the point where the evidence leads up to does not require faith, because there’s evidence. So faith is the step beyond the evidence. But if it is beyond evidence, and up to the limit of evidence was not faith, the faith is without evidence. Faith is believing what you want to be true.

> Faith is NOT belief without evidence – that is foolishness

You said it.

-Kyle

First, a few clarifications. In entering this discussion, my prime intent is to defend the beliefs and thought processes that crawl around in my brain as they relate to science and faith. Secondarily, I wish to clarify what I see as some unnecessarily simplistic and caricatured ideas of faith, religion, and Christianity (often from both sides of the aisle, as it were.) Only tertiarily do I have any desire to move anybody from one side to the other – that’s not my responsibility. As it has been said by someone far more capable than I, “You don’t believe in God because you believe in the Bible; you believe in the Bible when you believe in God.”

Now some responses:

Some Guy said:

Actually, my point was that God (truth) exists regardless of our perception, so of course God would exist without written language. In fact, we have only had our Bible for the last 2000 or so years, and the Bible gives us about 4000 years of history before most of His believers had any scripture to study. (This is not where we have the young earth/old earth debate. Another time, perhaps…) But this speaks to the love of God; that he has allowed us in our epoch of time to have a means of knowing Him (through his scriptures).

Well, if you knew me, you would be able to see my growth and development as a husband, father, friend, teacher, and student of the Word of God, and I could remain silent. Since you have asked for my answer, I will give just one example of what God has done in my life: Even a few short years ago, I could not have written this series of posts without becoming agitated and frustrated with what I viewed as “the insanity of disbelief” and with being cinsistently misunderstood. However, now I have the spiritual maturity to speak in love, gentleness, and respect to those that disagree with me, even when they return kindness with venom. I still struggle with these issues, as well as with humility, but I can see where I was a few years ago compared to now and know that no earthly thing (willpower, Dianetics, or otherwise) would have brought me to where I am now. But that answer holds no merit to you if you don’t believe, because if I could prove to you beyond any shadow of doubt that God exists, you wouldn’t need faith, and “without faith it is impossible to please God.”

Again, yes, but then I would miss the joy of discovery each day as I learn more about He who is unfathomable.

Your thoughts reminded me of a quote I saw recently:
“Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal that has the true religion — several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight.
-Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)

The veracity of this “soundbite” is not where you might expect it: Man and animals are of different stock and have different purposes. This is really the problem most Creationists have with Evolution, even if they can’t voice it as such: Evolution establishes a hierarchy, but a linear one, whereas Creationism establishes a clear delineation between the animal kingdom and human kind. There is only one set of data – what is at question is how to interpret the data, and the preconceptions you bring to the table will necessarily alter your understanding of the topic.

It must also be noted that I believe that much of what is wrong with the world today (and throughout history) is the fault of religion. More precisely, how people have used religion for their own personal gain or have misapplied religious principles because of their avarice, malice, or ignorance. But don’t mistake a misapplication for the fault of the real thing.

On to Irishman’s comments…
In a previous post, I said:

To which Irishman replied:

We all use words in our own way – communication is a constant struggle even between people who agree! My attempt was to define faith in the way that most people of faith use it, not how it was being defined in this context. My definition may have been limiting, but it was certainly broader than Irishman’s.

Another exchange:
Me:

-Kyle

So you’re redefining the word so it means what you want it to mean, and not what everyone else expects it to mean?

> I believe my definition to be the most useful because faith must begin with trust (as in the friend analogy above), but faith in God, the Creator and sustainer of the universe, must need to go beyond trust into realms where evidence is not extant. This does not mean that it does not exist, but merely that we are not aware of it.

So because you need it to work a certain way to justify your faith in God, everyone else must use it that way?

> Because I see no REASON to not ascribe the Big Bang to God instead of to impersonal forces (in fact the latter seems to me unREASONable),

Now you’re stepping beyond science into ontology. Fine if you do so, but don’t equate that with science.

>… this leads me to believe (i.e. “have FAITH”) that other evidence for a created universe exists that has not yet been discovered.

Careful – the unqualified equivalence of “belief” and “faith” is misleading, and certainly counter to your previously stated aims. A “belief” is something held to be true. The grounds for belief can be faith, or they can be evidence. Those are different means of justification. Unfortunately, the terminology is not clearly distinct, and often shorthand is used that equates belief with faith and knowledge with evidence. I think this is unfortunate, as it muddies the water.

> You probably believe that evidence exists to the contrary. Our faith in either case stems from what has demonstrated trustworthiness to us in the past:

Now you’ve swapped word usage. You’re equating “faith” with my prior use of “belief” to include evidence as a possible ground. This is semantic sabotage. By juggling the words around in this manner, any coherent meaning becomes lost and is thus open to whatever you wish it to mean. But then you can’t argue your meaning is better than anyone else’s.

> … for me, the work that God has done and continues to do in my life, and for you, the science that accurately describes the world you see. In either case, our faith stems from trust, but is beyond trust, and is therefore faith.

Again, I disagree with your use of the word “faith” here, especially as applied to my “beliefs”.

No religion is static. Within Judaism, you have the change from worship centred around the temple cult before the destruction of the temple and worship in the synagogue after the destruction of the temple, continuing until today. In Christianity, there have been two major schisms resulting in three very distinct wings (four if you count the small Assyrian Church of the East), each with different ideas about the core beliefs of the religion. Take a look at reformers such as Zwingli or Luther: were they content to ignore contradictory evidence and believe it forever? Even Jesus was a rabbi brought up in the Jewish tradition who founded a radically new religion out of the old. Was Jesus content to keep the status quo? What about Mohammed? Henry VIII?

Religion is not as completely divorced from reality as the diagram suggests. Creationists attempt (!) to reconcile the physical world with the Bible. Judaism was very concerned with interpreting the Holocaust in light of the Torahic and Talmudic tradition (“Were we punished because we sinned?”, for instance). There are branches of Zen Buddhism that attempt to incorporate quantum physics as a linguistic model for their relationship with the universe. Vatican II attempted to bring the Catholic church into the 20th century by allowing, among other things, birth control for practitioners. Some Protestant churches are actively recruiting women for senior pastorships. As sociological ideas about the body and the role of gender changes, so too does religion. Most religions have a vested interest in central ideas, so while there are certain core ideas that will not change, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t less integral ideas that won’t. This is different from the scientific process, of course, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

Finally, some people change religions, or stop being religious, or go from non-religious to religious. They examine their system of beliefs, find them to be lacking, and change what they believe. Religions are made up of people, and while some people blindly adhere to certain beliefs, others challenge their beliefs.

On many levels, this flowchart is incorrect. Entire religions change because they refuse to ignore contradictory a priori evidence, and some religions are born out of others because of this refusal. Individual religions sometimes conform themselves to sociological beliefs rather than adhere to outdated ideas. Some people take a priori knowledge and change their religious status. I’m not saying that all beliefs of any given religion are up for grabs, but certainly the diagram’s implication that all religions (and religious adherents) ignore contradictory evidence all the time isn’t true.

It seems to me that this diagram idealises science and looks at the worst-case scenario in religion. Don’t some scientists cling to contradictory evidence and try to fabricate their findings? Like some religious fundamentalists, they cling to an elegant thesis and try to bend the facts to fit their model. In an ideal world, science adapts, and religion adapts. It seems to me that the creator of this diagram has a vested interest in portraying Judaism, Islam, and Christianity in a negative light. I don’t know anything about the author, so what I’d like to know is why science and religion aren’t portrayed on equal terms, and why the author has compared apples and oranges in an attempt to discredit the validity of faith.

Darn. I was hoping he would answer my question regarding his previous comments on evolution. I guess that’s what happens when somebody (in this case, half the bloggers) force you to question your own beliefs, or worse… make you think.

Kyle, I like your comment about the obviousness of the earth being round before we discovered that it was. The same thing could be said about God. If humans had not learned to communicate by writing words into a book, would God still exist? Just out of curiosity, what kind of “work that God has done” for you can you actually contribute to a deity, and not to the actual hard work of a human, or to your own conceptions? Wouldn’t the world around us still continue if you had never heard of or read the Bible?

The more I read and try to understand the world around me, the more and more I realize that this whole religion thing is nothing more than a figment of our primitive mind’s imagination. Only a human would create a belief system where everyone is told they have to worship an imaginary creature, or else suffer the consequences, whereby the only way to find out if we are right or wrong is to die.

I’m going to wait and see if I get smote or something for my blasphemy…

I appreciate your approach to the question at hand. In defining faith the way I have, I am certainly limiting its definition. However, I have tried to limit it in a way that opens up new possiblities to use it. I have offered my definition of faith because I was concerned that it was being used in simplistic and even dangerous ways. I believe my definition to be the most useful because faith must begin with trust (as in the friend analogy above), but faith in God, the Creator and sustainer of the universe, must need to go beyond trust into realms where evidence is not extant. This does not mean that it does not exist, but merely that we are not aware of it.

Take the case for the earth being round: is it round because it was found to be round, or was it found to be round because it is round? This can be carried to other less obvious matters as well. Was the universe expanding before the Red Shift was discovered? Yes. Because I see no REASON to not ascribe the Big Bang to God instead of to impersonal forces (in fact the latter seems to me unREASONable), this leads me to believe (i.e. “have FAITH”) that other evidence for a created universe exists that has not yet been discovered. You probably believe that evidence exists to the contrary. Our faith in either case stems from what has demonstrated trustworthiness to us in the past: for me, the work that God has done and continues to do in my life, and for you, the science that accurately describes the world you see. In either case, our faith stems from trust, but is beyond trust, and is therefore faith.

In your example of meeting a friend for lunch, I have evidence that clocks are not always synchronized exactly, that traffic interferes with the best made plans, that schedules are rarely exact, and planning to the second is impractical. I also have a pattern of behavior and other evidence to support the conclusion my friend does wish to meet with me. I would call that trust in my friend rather than faith.

This I do agree with.

This discussion has covered so much ground it is difficult to compose a comprehensive reply extemporaneously, so I will address the larger issue at hand.

The biig question that we all seem to be trying to answer is “What is truth?” This question could be answered specifically by defining what we mean by the word “truth,” i.e., “that which accurately explains, reflects, and defines reality.” Or we could answer the question more generally (mystically) by answering wiith more questions, like “Can truth be experienced?” or “Is truth what we experience or is it independent of our experience?” Most of the sciences (and much religion) are primarily focused on the former, while most Eastern religions (and some sciences) are more interested in the latter.

Science succeeds when it pursues answers the former question without prejudice and fails when it tries to answer the latter question, or pursues answers to either prejudicially. (This is the error of dogma – science and religion are equally guilty of this.)

Religion succeeds when it answers both former and latter questions equally well. (It should be noted that I think “religion” is a term often misapplied and more often misunderstood, especially in the contexts of Eastern Mysticism and Evangelical Protestantism.) Because of this, religion is greater than science in the same way that the Pacific Ocean is greater than the Bering Sea – not necessarily a matter of importance, just of scope and scale. Therefore the assumption that you must “choose sides” between science and religion is false, because they are not opposites.

Indeed, neither are faith and reason. Faith is NOT belief without evidence – that is foolishness – but faith BEYOND evidence. If you have an appointment to meet a friend for lunch, and they aren’t there on time, what leads you to believe they will show up at all? A purely reasonable person would probably realize that there are more potential obstacles to the expected meeting than likelihood that the friend will show up, and order without them. Most of us, however, would exercise a little faith in our friend and give them a few minutes extra before we eat without them. Is this blind devotion, or an understanding that our friend truly desires to meet with us and deserves a chance to show up? This isn’t exactly the way faith works in a religious context, but it demonstrates the difference and relationship between faith and reason. Also, to say that those with faith are lacking reason fails to account for some of the greatest minds in history, including C.S. Lewis, Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal to name a few.

What needs to be remembered is that the true answer to this question matters more than any of our answers to it. Logic leads inexorably to the realization that truth is what it is, not what we make it, and yet when our perception of truth is attacked, we react emotionally instead of responding with gentleness and respect. As this discussion continues, let’s question assumptions, correct error, and debate positions, but not attack one another personally. As much as I consider X-Files ridiculous TV schlock, I agree that “The Truth is out there,” and I’d like to think we are all sincerely trying to get closer to it.

As a meditative practice, there may be some benefits to Zen. But I have issues with some of the interwoven philosophy. Specifically, the concepts of reincarnation, and the “soul” concept that seeks enlightenment. These elements are every bit as much supernatural as the elements of more “standard” religions. They are just as unfounded.

James J. Murphy said:
> The fact is there is NO CONFLICT BETWEEN TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE SCIENCE. They are complimentary. They are two views of the same thing, reality. Different perspectives.

There are plenty of reasonable people who make the same assertion. However, the truth of that assertion can only be determined by defining “true religion” and “true science”. Throwing out undefined labels and then claiming the result will not get to the heart of the matter.

The conflict that Phil addresses between Science and Religion is one of approaches. Science is the approach of Empiricism, testing of knowledge. Faith is antithetical to empiricism and testing. Faith is the belief without evidence, or even in spite of evidence. “Gnosticism” is a good word (thanks John Armstrong). It’s about revealed truth rather than empirical truth. On that basis, there is an inherent conflict, an opposing of approaches to knowledge.

> Underlying science are its Laws. Science could not exist without its Laws. (Gravity, Mathematics, Physics…etc.) Which of course raises the question, where did the Laws of science come from? Certainly they didn’t pop out of thin air! There must be a Lawgiver.

You’re playing semantic games, and may not even realize it. Science is the method for studying objective reality. It works by empiricism. Scientific Laws are descriptions of behavior that are determined to produce accurate results. If errors are found in data compared to reality, then the Laws are adjusted to conform to reality. This is a different use of the word “Law”. You are trying to state that the Universe works by laws. This is unfounded. The Universe exists. It does what it does. Laws are just are attempt to describe that behavior in a predictive manner (we can guess the next state). Your wordplay allows you to create an analogy which then creates the need for a role to be filled, a role you fill with God. But the role is the result of the analogy, and the analogy is flawed.

> On the other hand, I regard the teaching of evolution as science-fiction. The evolutionists are teaching our children nonsense! If you want to believe your ultimate ancestors are some stupid amoeba, be my guest. I only know and believe what the Bible actually teaches, Adam & Eve, not the imaginations of men.

That’s an amusing irony. You claim Evolution is the imagination of men, and Adam and Eve are reality. Science says the reverse.

The thing is, the Bible does not declare Evolution false. There’s no reason to think that God couldn’t use Evolution to accomplish His goals. So decrying Evolution in order to retain your faith is unnecessary. NOTE: The Bible is NOT a science text book.

> THERE IS A GOD, whether you want to admit it or not. (Actually to Whom some day you will be held accountable for your sins, like everyone else. But that is another subject.) HE EXISTS, and His existence does not depend upon whether you believe it or not, thankfully.

You are correct on one point, the existence of God is independent of my belief in him. He exists or he does not. I believe, or I do not. The rest of that is your belief. There’s no evidenciary grounds sufficient to convince others. Your proseletyzing won’t change our minds. it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Some Guy said:
> I wonder if there is an inherent human characteristic in our brains that make us predisposed to want to so strongly believe in something improbable, that we will ignore all evidence to the contrary?

Some scientists are investigating the evolutionary basis for beliefs, including religious beliefs. There are also psychological studies into belief.

There are several factors for conspiracy theories. One is the feeling of superiority generated by believing you are one of the few smart enough to see through the “lies”. The feeling of secret knowledge, of seeing the clues and the discrepancies and solving the puzzle. Even when there isn’t a puzzle. The notions are fed by a cultural underclimate of suspicion of authority figures – the government in particular. Watergate and ensuing fiascos did a lot to poison the well for trust of the government. Factor in the ego trip that comes from being a “whistle-blower”, an voice in the wilderness as it were, someone trying to alert everyone else to the danger they face and don’t see. It can be alluring. Couple that to a weak grasp of logic and reasoning.

JustAl, harping on the electrical engineering part is irrelevant. James J. Murphy did not post that as credentials for justifying his beliefs, only to refute that he is an idiot. Given that it takes a certain amount of intelligence to study EE and get a degree, I think that’s a fair use of his accomplishment.

John, some have misunderstood you, but I get your point. Phil seems to dismiss the religious as irrelevant at best and contemptible at worst. That is not the best approach to get them to listen. From my perspective, I don’t see him as treating all Religious people that way, but there is some validity to the argument that he is open to misinterpretation, and his tone drives off people he should be trying to reach.