Two Questions for Christians

[PipeBox]

I'm sorry to jump into the middle of this discussion. But what do you define as evidence? For instance, politicians like to quote statistics as evidence for ideologies and positions and I always find problems with "evidence" like that. If you mean evidence as scientific experiments and studies done through archaeology, geology, biology, physics and chemistry then I'm absolutely on the same page.

No worries, and the "evidence" they quote, such as statistics, tends to be their interpretation of the evidence.  All of that is still evidence, it's just evidence of something different, such as subversion (on a meta level, I mean).  

[Kyuuketsuki]

But what do you define as evidence? For instance, politicians like to quote statistics as evidence for ideologies and positions and I always find problems with "evidence" like that. If you mean evidence as scientific experiments and studies done through archaeology, geology, biology, physics and chemistry then I'm absolutely on the same page.

I was asked what I meant by evidence once and this is what I came up with, I've scanned through it and I don't think it needs much updating.

What Evidence Is
Introduction
Recently, in forum, I was asked what evidence was i.e. what is a definition for evidence ... I admit I was shocked, frankly I had never even given the matter any though before, so I sat back to give the matter some thought.

Definitions
An "assertion" is something we can say about the universe in which we live or is relevant to some state of that universe. For the purpose of this discussion I am interested only in assertions as they pertain to the real (natural or materialistic) universe.

"Evidence" is anything that may support an assertion or increase its likelihood of being correct. All assessment of evidence is a form of probability, an interpretation, and is dependent upon the observer or interpreter.

In common usage the word "observe" simply means to see, to view something, but in scientific terms an observation (or rather a relevant observation) is a piece of evidence that has been agreed by all relevant parties to be correctly and accurately associated with the assertion which it is claimed to be. It is important to note that the use of the word "observation" in a scientific sense can refer to data that has not been directly observed, for example if the population of the United States is said to be around 350 million it is understood that that is backed up by population data … no single individual is capable of directly observing all 350 million individuals simultaneously.

Discussion
An observation should be regarded evidence when it is:
•   Compatible with the assertion … it is pointless to observe that trees are tall and assert that that is why they are green as the observation has no direct relevance to the assertion.
•   Not compatible with other assertions ... it is further pointless to observe that trees are tall and assert that that is why they are green when the (more logical) assertion that chlorophyll (abundant in the leaves of trees) better explains why the tree is green.

It is important to note that a lack of evidence, whilst not obstructing a given assertion, may not be used as a supporting observation for a given assertion i.e. it is not, in scientific terms, evidence.

Assume, for instance, that a respected scientist says there is a very strong case for life on Mars … should people who hear of this necessarily take this as evidence that there is life on Mars? Under normal circumstances people will tend to take the word of such a scientist and assume that what that worthy says is fact however if there is reason to doubt then they might start to ask themselves if that scientist might say that there was life on Mars when he or she had no specific evidence. If such doubt exists the first action would be to question whether that scientists statement actually does constitute evidence … is the scientists sphere of expertise compatible with his or her statement, has that scientist made such statements before and how were they evaluated at that time, has that scientist a hidden agenda or ulterior motive in making such a statement?

Despite the fact that the logic is, itself, self-evident there is a human tendency to ignore the second condition and it is common for individuals to regard as evidence observations which are accepted as compatible with other assertions. Sometimes this is because they simply refuse to consider the alternatives and will, instead, consider only a subset of possible assertions whilst at other times it is simply because they like the observation and assertion in question.

It is also important to understand that the conditions for an observation being acceptable as evidence are entirely independent of the nature of the observation i.e. an observation is valid evidence for a given assertion once verified (agreed to be true), once compatibility with the assertion is established and provided it is not also compatible with others.

Conclusion
When making an assertion about the state of our universe it is important to establish that the observational data used to justify that assertion is both fact (true, verifiable), compatible with the assertion and incompatible with others competing assertions.

For instance when someone claims that the diversity (observation) around us can only be explained by the actions of deity (assertion) not only is their no observed link between deity and diversity (and indeed no observation of deity) but there exists (in the theory of evolution) a perfectly plausible assertion that is supported by a huge number of observations.

References
"What Is Evidence", Yahouda Harpaz

I personally believe that the universe is as old as scientists hypothesize, I believe evolution was a part of the formation of life and I'm a Christian...After reading Genesis quite a few times for this specific reason I don't believe that the two contradict.

So what I'd call the theistic evolutionist position.

I think Genesis and science very much disagree:

Genesis & The Big Bang

Introduction
Fundamentalists will often use the argument attempt to claim that the bible and science are compatible in that Genesis can be interpreted as predictive of modern day scientific knowledge. The implications of such a claim, were it to be demonstrated as true would be immense ... whilst it would not automatically demonstrate the bible as being correct from cover to cover it would certainly lend it a great deal of credence.

The purpose, therefore, of this article is to compare the first chapter of genesis with current scientific knowledge and attempt to establish whether there is common ground between the two and from that determine whether the bible was right in what it says about the development of the universe.

Discussion

Genesis 1
Approximately 13½ billion years ago the universe was compressed to a point with no dimensions. This, in lay terminology, was the moment before time and space existed ... there was no matter/energy, time, or space, literally NOTHING.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The universe started.

On this level it is easy to compare current scientific theory with scriptural statements such as Genesis 1, 1 but where such comparisons fall down is if one goes further levels into scientific theory. Where does the fact that “the universe started” actually start and end? If we wish to be strictly accurate then the start of the universe was something that occurred over a time period that was too small to measure so in effect the very first statement of the bible has merit. However it must be recognised that there is no way in which science can recognise the existence of a creator god ... a creator god would have to be beyond nature for it to exist at this point and to create the universe within which we would eventually come to exist i.e. it would be supernatural and science can, therefore, safely ignore it.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The first point to note is that the bible has skipped a few hundred thousand years to reach this point conveniently missing out the expansion of the central singularity, the formation of various forces such as electromagnetism and gravity, photons, positrons, neutrinos (and their corresponding anti-particles), deuterium, ionised plasma, neucleosynthesis of helium and its cooling to a temperature of 10,000 Kelvin over a period of 300,000 years. At this point the first light is seen and it is here that we start to find sequencing problems with the biblical tale and the theory advanced by science.

According to the bible water is already in existence (presumably floating free in space) and the christian god (or rather his “spirit”) is able to move across it. This water is not in or of the Earth because the Earth has not yet been formed.

3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Presumably this refers to the period 300,000 years after the start of the universe when light is first seen and it is easy to accept that a supernatural deity, observing his creation, might consider the light to be good and that it was distinct from the dark. However the fact that this god then decides to refer to light as Day and dark as Night (further confirmed by the passage of the first day) indicates that cyclical day and night (the kind only found on planetary bodies) had begun ... at this point no galaxies or stars (let alone planets) existed just an ever-expanding cloud of rapidly cooling plasma. The reference to the time as a single day having passed is at odds with the observation that the universe at this time was already considerably older than the entire modern hominid history.

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Again it is hard to rationalise this with any kind of science in that it appears to be referring to the division of heaven from the rest of the universe. Again there is a reference to the total amount of time having passed (2 days).

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This is the third day and at this point it appears that the Earth has been created which means that the bible has mysteriously skipped forward around 6 or 7 billion years to the point of the Earth’s formation. Time for the christian god does not appear to be in any way particularly constant.

In fact time has skipped forward a fairly significant amount (a hundred thousand years or so) into the Earth’s early history rather than stopping at the point of the just formed Earth (by which I mean the first point at which one could observe the Earth and definitively state that it was a planetary body). Both land and water now exist.

11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The first vegetation appears and indeed vegetation likely did appear prior to true animal life at least on the planets land surface. The third day ends.

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Ah ... so Genesis says that the stars, the sun & the moon were created after the Earth? Strange that ... current cosmological thought indicates that the Sun would have formed either slightly before or at the same time as the Earth and the rest of the solar planetary bodies and the moon slightly after. Moreover the only apparent reason for their formation is to rule either day or night and to allow for signs (astrology?) and seasons. The only purpose of stars is to provide light for the Earth it would seem.

20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

No particular problem here though I note that no mention is made of earlier life forms than fish, fowl, whales etc. certainly nothing microscopic or even vaguely dinosaur-like.

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Simplistic but, again, no major problems.

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Well it isn’t the way science would have it i.e. that we evolved from a common man-ape ancestor.

28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Final orders I suppose?

Conclusion.
Currently, on the basis of a brief analysis of Genesis 1 alone, it can be seen that there are significant sequencing (order of creation) flaws and huge vistas of time unaccounted for not to mention the fact that Genesis 1 refers to the process of creation over a period of 6 days.

Whether or not one regards this as an accurate account of creation largely depends upon one’s belief system and the type of interpretation one wishes to apply. The majority of fundamentalists tend to be rather literal with regard to biblical interpretation and so the claimed 6 day creation period cannot be reconciled with the scientific account of universal development. Further more the evidence indicates that planetary bodies would have been created (at best) at the same time as their local star so the sequencing of universal development is not compatible with scriptural.

A less rigid interpretation might allow for flexibility in time (days) but does not account for the wild variance in terms of the length of each day.

A purely allegorical view of Genesis makes most sense as a method of uniting the two disparate worldviews i.e. that the bible was meant as a scriptural work aimed at simpler people in a time long past.

Side track, every once in a while I have these phases where it is hard for me to grasp what reality is. I can bring it about just by thinking about it...and it takes a long time to get back to reality...am I the only one who gets that? I believe the same thing as you, it's just fits of...I don't know...psychosis I guess.

Reality, I suppose, is what we experience ... there is, of course, no hard evidence to support anyone's view that what they experience is real (it's just assumed to be so I guess) but my answer to anyone who tries to use that as an argument to dismiss scientific thought usually revolves around an invitation to step in front of a fast moving lorry and find out. That sounds harsh but, quite frankly, I think those kind of arguments are dumb.

Kyu

[PipeBox]

Ya know, every time I think I'm making a long, detailed post, I always come back to either find the thread died or I've been completely outdone.  Very well detailed and presented, Kyuuketsuki!  I might be tempted to present my own list, but the topic is morality and I've derailed enough stuff.  

[Titan]

Actually, evangelicalism turns away from a literal interpretation of Genesis. I was actually ignoring one of my professors today and thinking about the formation of the universe as it appears through a Biblical perspective.

If you accept that Moses wrote Genesis while on Mt. Sinai then what you are faced with is how would he perceive that which he is viewing? What would God show him in a short span of time in order to give him "the jist" of creation (Remember, there is something far more important in the Genesis account than just a chronological recording of events).

Essentially, the theory is that Moses would have been standing on Mt. Sinai and suddenly he would be brought back in time to view creation as it began to unfold. If that was the case then what would be the interpretation and how would Moses divide it into coherent units of time?
This website is more along the lines of what I believe http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth
With specific reference to http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/greg_moore_does_old_earth_creationism_contradict_genesis_1.shtml

Fundamentalists will often use the argument attempt to claim that the bible and science are compatible in that Genesis can be interpreted as predictive of modern day scientific knowledge. The implications of such a claim, were it to be demonstrated as true would be immense ... whilst it would not automatically demonstrate the bible as being correct from cover to cover it would certainly lend it a great deal of credence.

Actually, fundamentalists would be less inclined to argue for compatibility and instead would argue that modern science has it wrong. Evangelicalism is the one that argues for compatibility. The distinction is important for many discussions concerning Biblical doctrine.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Actually, evangelicalism turns away from a literal interpretation of Genesis. I was actually ignoring one of my professors today and thinking about the formation of the universe as it appears through a Biblical perspective.

Which is fine if true but still gives you huge problems ... with a less than literal interoperation of your bible you then open a chink in your theistic armour where people like me can rationally ask you to justify why you regard some bits of your religious scriptures as true, others false and most importantly what methodology you apply in the decision making process.

If you accept that Moses wrote Genesis while on Mt. Sinai then what you are faced with is how would he perceive that which he is viewing? What would God show him in a short span of time in order to give him "the jist" of creation (Remember, there is something far more important in the Genesis account than just a chronological recording of events).

Actually there's a very good joke about that which I will try and find and post later.

Why should I accept Moses writing Genesis on Mount Sinai (or there being a god there) given that there are at least two chapters in Genesis, that each covers much the same ground in a different style (and some contradiction) the implication of which is that there were at least two authors.

BTW, I don't know how others feel about this, but I don't do theist URL's ... each and every time I have done so (and the reason I now take this stance) is that they consistently fail to deliver whatever said theist promises it will. Also, I write my own answers and post them myself, I fail to see why others shouldn't do the same. I don't particularly object to the "more information" type URL's but I do expect a fully formed argument to be posted.

Actually, fundamentalists would be less inclined to argue for compatibility and instead would argue that modern science has it wrong. Evangelicalism is the one that argues for compatibility. The distinction is important for many discussions concerning Biblical doctrine.

Fair point and I will amend that document accordingly.

Kyu

[curiosityandthecat]

Which is fine if true but still gives you huge problems ... with a less than literal interoperation of your bible you then open a chink in your theistic armour where people like me can rationally ask you to justify why you regard some bits of your religious scriptures as true, others false and most importantly what methodology you apply in the decision making process.

There's an interesting article about the use as Genesis (or the Bible in general) as a science text.

Warnick, B. & Fooce, C.  (2007.)  Does teaching creationism facilitate student autonomy?  Theory and Research in Education, 5(3), 357-378.

If you have access to EBSCOhost or ERIC you should be able to find it. I'll post some relevant quotes:

...the creation account -- the story of light triumphing over darkness, and order conquering chaotic preexisting primordial waters -- could be taken to foreshadow the reader's own struggles and eventual redemption (and, for Christians, that also of Christ). This sort of symbolic ordering makes meaning, understanding and reason possible. Clearly, the premodern sacred text plays a very different role from the modernist referential text. The sacred history focuses on changing the reader rather than describing the world.

When sacred narratives are read only in a referential way, as the modernist assumptions of the science classroom push us to do, they are fundamentally distorted. That is to say, they are distorted in that they are being read in a framework very different from the framework of scriptural composition and early interpretation. For the modernist, the stories are taken as merely one possible way of referring to independently existing events. They are taken as a possible representation of reality rather than as incarnating the form that gives us access to meaning.

[Genesis] is intended to be historical in some sense, to be sure, but the characteristics of the text mean that it does not lend itself to any straightforward historical classification. [Essentially,] Genesis is a 'literary-artistic representation' of creation history that is intended to enact a way of seeing the world.

...creationists seek to convince their audience that they are merely contemplating simple conclusions from the Bible, when really they are contemplating conclusions from the Bible shaped by their preunderstandings of how the Bible should be read (quoting Noll, 1994: 197-8)

S'just interesting.

[Titan]

Which is fine if true but still gives you huge problems ... with a less than literal interoperation of your bible you then open a chink in your theistic armour where people like me can rationally ask you to justify why you regard some bits of your religious scriptures as true, others false and most importantly what methodology you apply in the decision making process.

Actually, that has been the case for a long time. There is much of the Bible that is already interpreted figuratively, it is just a matter of figuring out, through debate and inquiry, which parts are valid as literal interpretations and which aren't. The process is a complex one, many dissertations are written on subjects that are disagreed on and many churches split due to singular interpretations of the Bible.

Why should I accept Moses writing Genesis on Mount Sinai (or there being a god there) given that there are at least two chapters in Genesis, that each covers much the same ground in a different style (and some contradiction) the implication of which is that there were at least two authors.

While you find the joke I'll try to find the evidence that it was Moses. But what style differences make you believe that it was a different author?

BTW, I don't know how others feel about this, but I don't do theist URL's ... each and every time I have done so (and the reason I now take this stance) is that they consistently fail to deliver whatever said theist promises it will. Also, I write my own answers and post them myself, I fail to see why others shouldn't do the same. I don't particularly object to the "more information" type URL's but I do expect a fully formed argument to be posted.

That is absolutely fair and a valid point. I still go to sites atheists suggest simply because there is a wealth of knowledge out there and I need to improve what I know. I just want you to know that there are a lot of answers to these questions. Ones made by people with astronomy degrees and Biblical degrees (for internal evaluation). I'm not a single isolated voice trying desperately to hold on to both science and Christianity.

curiosityandthecat
I'm inclined to agree with that interpretation. I don't favor teaching the Genesis story in the Bible. In fact I believe when we start trying to combine religion and state we always end up doing something far worst than secularists would (e.g. the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, etc.). What fundamentalists like James Dobson and Focus on the Family do not understand is that there was a VERY good reason the founding fathers did not use "God" once in the constitution. Regardless of their background they kept his name out for a reason. In the word's of G.K. Chesterton “Whenever you remove any fence, always pause long enough to ask yourself the question, ‘Why was it put there in the first place?’”

[Sophus]

While you find the joke I'll try to find the evidence that it was Moses. But what style differences make you believe that it was a different author?

Try to find evidence that it was Moses? Wouldn't you rather just look for the truth regardless of what that turns out to be? You're trying to defend yourself rather than look for truth. Besides, I thought it was pretty well agreed upon by historians that Moses did not write the Torah.

[Arthur Dent]

Besides, I thought it was pretty well agreed upon by historians that Moses did not write the Torah.

Who did write the Torah? Each of the Hebrew letters has a corresponding characterist and numerical value to it. Words themselves are made of letters with characteristics that describe the word. It's trippy.

[Sophus]

Besides, I thought it was pretty well agreed upon by historians that Moses did not write the Torah.

Who did write the Torah? Each of the Hebrew letters has a corresponding characterist and numerical value to it. Words themselves are made of letters with characteristics that describe the word. It's trippy.

Scholars believe it was a group of people from a later time.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Which is fine if true but still gives you huge problems ... with a less than literal interoperation of your bible you then open a chink in your theistic armour where people like me can rationally ask you to justify why you regard some bits of your religious scriptures as true, others false and most importantly what methodology you apply in the decision making process.

Actually, that has been the case for a long time. There is much of the Bible that is already interpreted figuratively, it is just a matter of figuring out, through debate and inquiry, which parts are valid as literal interpretations and which aren't. The process is a complex one, many dissertations are written on subjects that are disagreed on and many churches split due to singular interpretations of the Bible.

Science has an easy to understand method, in essence it is a method ... what is the method bible philosophers use to establish what is and what is not true about the bible?

More to the point, let me ask you a question ... is the Genesis account correct (by which I mean should it be regarded as fact, allegory or fiction)?

Why should I accept Moses writing Genesis on Mount Sinai (or there being a god there) given that there are at least two chapters in Genesis, that each covers much the same ground in a different style (and some contradiction) the implication of which is that there were at least two authors.

While you find the joke I'll try to find the evidence that it was Moses. But what style differences make you believe that it was a different author?

Can't find it, will post it when I happen across it next.

From Wikipedia:

Today virtually all scholars accept that the Pentateuch "was in reality a composite work, the product of many hands and periods.”In the first half of the 20th century the dominant theory regarding the origins of the Pentateuch was the documentary hypothesis. This supposes that the Torah was produced about 450 BC by combining four distinct, complete and coherent documents, known as the Yahwist (“Y” or “J”, from the German spelling of Yahweh), the Elohist (“E”), the Deuteronomist (“D”), and the Priestly source (“P”). Genesis 1 is from P, and Genesis 2 from J.

BTW, I don't know how others feel about this, but I don't do theist URL's ... each and every time I have done so (and the reason I now take this stance) is that they consistently fail to deliver whatever said theist promises it will. Also, I write my own answers and post them myself, I fail to see why others shouldn't do the same. I don't particularly object to the "more information" type URL's but I do expect a fully formed argument to be posted.

That is absolutely fair and a valid point. I still go to sites atheists suggest simply because there is a wealth of knowledge out there and I need to improve what I know. I just want you to know that there are a lot of answers to these questions. Ones made by people with astronomy degrees and Biblical degrees (for internal evaluation). I'm not a single isolated voice trying desperately to hold on to both science and Christianity.

Good for you (the last bit) but my experience has been that theist url's rarely (if ever) turn out to be the answer that the proponent claims they are and given that they are often long and time consuming I don't do them. In fairness to you of you point me to a url that you can clearly say is short (less than, say, a thousand words), you offer a short summary (which is actually what I'm after ... I don't expect you to be expert but I kind of expect evidence that you understand the argument being raised) and you don't do overdo url usage I will visit them.

Kyu