Two Questions for Christians

[NearBr0ken]

These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

[karadan]

1. None, because they have faith.

2. Never, because they have faith.

Denial is a powerful tool.

[EvolutionCalling]

It's common knowledge that any scientific fact is simply the Devil trying trick them and lead them astray.  Geeeze.

[Loffler]

1. None, because they have faith.

2. Never, because they have faith.

Denial is a powerful tool.

If you want a good larf, take a look at  this argument about faith I'm having over at politicsforum.org. I'm the OP.

Apparently, blind faith and faith aren't the same thing, faith is the same as trust, and faith in God is the same as the faith my brakes won't fail.

[MikeyV]

Good thread!

This is why the word "faith" is useless then, because my belief my car will start is nothing like belief in God. If they're alike, then the secular community has grossly underestimated Christian stupidity.

  brilliant.

[Dickson]

These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

I'll do my best.  

1.  I believe in evolution.  To me, there's no disagreement between believing in God (which I do) and thinking, as Pope John Paul II said, that "evolution is more than a theory."  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most Christians put some stock in evolutionary theories--it's just the hardline wackos who don't.  

2.  I can't.  But isn't there more to most things than science?  Music, for instance, is simply your brain's perception of the effect of vibrating air molecules, but there's so much more to a Miles Davis solo than the physics of sound, isn't there?  A cynic would describe emotions as chemical reactions and nothing more, but the feeling I get when I see my wife goes so far beyond chemical reactions.  

Not the answers you're looking for, I'm sure, but it's a start, huh?

[jcm]

These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

I'll do my best.  

1.  I believe in evolution.  To me, there's no disagreement between believing in God (which I do) and thinking, as Pope John Paul II said, that "evolution is more than a theory."  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most Christians put some stock in evolutionary theories--it's just the hardline wackos who don't.  

2.  I can't.  But isn't there more to most things than science?  Music, for instance, is simply your brain's perception of the effect of vibrating air molecules, but there's so much more to a Miles Davis solo than the physics of sound, isn't there?  A cynic would describe emotions as chemical reactions and nothing more, but the feeling I get when I see my wife goes so far beyond chemical reactions.  

Not the answers you're looking for, I'm sure, but it's a start, huh?

The bible shows a completely different process from evolution, so how can you be a christian and also believe in evolution?

I think we are evolved to feel emotions. As a complex creature, we need love and joy to survive. I think it is hard for people to understand how chemicals can combine to form a conscious mind, but it does happen in the universe. the mind is formed by "parts" it is not fundamental. the complexity of mind is due to the way the parts go together, not because of an outside or supernatural cause.

[Dickson]

The bible shows a completely different process from evolution, so how can you be a christian and also believe in evolution?

I think we are evolved to feel emotions. As a complex creature, we need love and joy to survive. I think it is hard for people to understand how chemicals can combine to form a conscious mind, but it does happen in the universe. the mind is formed by "parts" it is not fundamental. the complexity of mind is due to the way the parts go together, not because of an outside or supernatural cause.

The first one's easy:  I don't take the Bible literally.  


Interesting point about the mind's complexity.  Since it's 9 a.m. right now, my mind hasn't evolved enough to formulate a good answer, so I'll get back to you on that one once the caffeine has had a chance to do its magic.

[jcm]

The first one's easy:  I don't take the Bible literally.  

[Dickson]

so no flood, no universe in 6 days, no talking snakes, no walking on water, no rising from the dead, no magic hands, no rules written on rocks, and no women from ribs? if none of this stuff really happened then what is it doing in the bible.

take the 6 days to make the universe. if you measure a day from sun up to sun down or even 24hrs. and you say on day 1 god made this and god made that, then isn't that how long it took? If it took longer ,why didn't it say it took longer? there are plenty of metaphors that would work to demonstrate a really long time. People 1000 years had no problem with creation in 6 days. why would christians change there minds about the time of creation, only after science said "no that is not right"?    

No flood, no 6-day universe, no rib-women.  Sorry.  

The creation stories (there are 2 distinct ones in Genesis) are sooooo similar to other cultures' creation myths that it's hard for me to take them literally.  But, a lot of the Bible was written to a specific audience.  Jesus didn't heal epileptics by saying "be gone, disease that causes synapses in the brain to fire in erratic patterns, leaving the victim convulsing on the ground!"  This wouldn't have made sense to people.  He would have been run out of town for being crazy.  

Since Jesus used so many metaphors (in the forms of parables) in his teaching, it makes sense that metaphors show up elsewhere in the Bible, too.  

But . . . I think that life is too complex to have gotten here on its own.  Call me a proponent of "light intelligent design."  I wholeheartedly believe that evolution is a fact, but I have a little trouble seeing how that eons-long process started on its own.  Let's look at water: it defies physics by expanding when it freezes.  If water followed the rules, then ice would sink.  The frozen tops of lakes and ponds would sink to the bottom, reduce the amount of oxygenated water for fish, and kill them all.  To me, logic dictates that there's some planning behind that.

[myleviathan]

Let's look at water: it defies physics by expanding when it freezes. If water followed the rules, then ice would sink.

Water doesn't defy physics just because it is less dense in solid form. Some molecules react differently than others. The structure of a molecule of H20 pairs in such a way to make it less dense when it freezes. Water is made of two gasses, so they're not going to mix the same way that a salt does (the mixture of a metal and a transitional element).

[Dickson]

Interesting.  Is your background/ job working with chemicals?  Science is a field I find fascinating but never excelled in.


Am I wrong in saying that the trend, though, is for things to contract when they cool?  (It's likely that I slept though class on the day this was explained)



At any rate, I think there are some things that can't be explained by science.  Why I love my dog, for instance, or why I prefer Faulkner to Hemingway.  There's no scientific explanation as to why I hate raw tomatoes:  I just do.

[jcm]

Let's look at water: it defies physics by expanding when it freezes. If water followed the rules, then ice would sink.

Water doesn't defy physics just because it is less dense in solid form. Some molecules react differently than others. The structure of a molecule of H20 pairs in such a way to make it less dense when it freezes. Water is made of two gasses, so they're not going to mix the same way that a salt does (the mixture of a metal and a transitional element).

Hey I didn't write that!  

[McQ]

There are a few items that need to be addressed in your beliefs that I think keep you from an understanding of evolution, biology and chemistry.

1.  ....To me, there's no disagreement between believing in God (which I do) and thinking, as Pope John Paul II said, that "evolution is more than a theory."  

First, the roman papa isn't a scientist and doesn't have much of a clue of what a scientific theory is. Evolution doesn't need to be "more" than a theory to begin with to be the explanation of how humans came to exist. Second, there is a disagreement between the god of the christian (catholic) bible and evolution in the literal sense of each. It's the catholic church's attempt at appeasement or compromise (maybe they're still stinging from that whole "Galileo Debacle") that has them saying this.

2.  I can't.  But isn't there more to most things than science?  

If you want to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with this, go ahead. But that doesn't make it true.

Music, for instance, is simply your brain's perception of the effect of vibrating air molecules, but there's so much more to a Miles Davis solo than the physics of sound, isn't there?  

Is there? Yes, it's chemistry, and the complex nature of the human nervous system, beginning with our marvelous brains.

A cynic would describe emotions as chemical reactions and nothing more, but the feeling I get when I see my wife goes so far beyond chemical reactions.

Your opinion and definition of cynic fall short of the reality that it is chemical reactions. Again, be careful of just filling in the gaps in your knowledge automatically with statements not based on evidence like (paraphrasing here), "It has to be more than chemical reactions."

But . . . I think that life is too complex to have gotten here on its own.  Call me a proponent of "light intelligent design."  I wholeheartedly believe that evolution is a fact, but I have a little trouble seeing how that eons-long process started on its own.

This is the same thing I hear constantly when people have a less than thorough understanding of evolutionary theory and/or genetics. You can't "wholeheartedly" believe evolution is a fact and then turn around and say that life is too complex to have gotten here on its own. That means you don't agree with evolution, since this is what evolution says!

Let's look at water: it defies physics by expanding when it freezes.  If water followed the rules, then ice would sink.  The frozen tops of lakes and ponds would sink to the bottom, reduce the amount of oxygenated water for fish, and kill them all.  To me, logic dictates that there's some planning behind that.

Water doesn't "defy physics". Where did this come from?

At any rate, I think there are some things that can't be explained by science.  Why I love my dog, for instance, or why I prefer Faulkner to Hemingway.  There's no scientific explanation as to why I hate raw tomatoes:  I just do.

Again, just because you think it doesn't make it right. There are things that you cannot explain (like water freezing), but that doesn't mean they haven't been explained or are not capable of being explained. And why do you believe there is no scientific explanation for your dislike of raw tomatoes? Food taste in people is something that has been explained well. It is an ongoing and well-studied branch of neurobiology. http://www.boston.com/news/health/artic ... _feelings/

I'm pointing all of this out not to be a jerk or say, "you're wrong, I'm right", but to caution against blanket statements that are based on a lack of knowledge rather than a careful study of the things at hand. One of the big problems that we run into is people not understanding a topic, and then filling in the gaps in knowledge with something easy, but without merit.

Hope the responses make sense.

[jcm]

Jesus didn't heal epileptics by saying "be gone, disease that causes synapses in the brain to fire in erratic patterns, leaving the victim convulsing on the ground!"  This wouldn't have made sense to people.  He would have been run out of town for being crazy.  

Fine, but you do believe that a man named jesus did put his hands on people and took away either their blindness or disease through miracles?
If jesus did not actually do this to people, then why is it in the bible?

Since Jesus used so many metaphors (in the forms of parables) in his teaching, it makes sense that metaphors show up elsewhere in the Bible, too.  

I have no problem with parables if they teach about real life. Rainbows existed before the great flood, so saying they didn't is a lie.

But . . . I think that life is too complex to have gotten here on its own.  Call me a proponent of "light intelligent design."  I wholeheartedly believe that evolution is a fact, but I have a little trouble seeing how that eons-long process started on its own.

I agree, but how i differ with you is i don't think a conscious mind had forethought in creating the universe. The fact that the earth is stable and hospitable, does not mean it was designed for us. The earth was once completely different for millions of years. After the earth is destroyed, the universe will continue on without in any concern. Space is dirty and full of stuff that would kill us instantly. We are bound to the earth like a fish bound to the sea. With out oxygen to breathe, we would die, yet there is no oxygen in space, no gravity to keep us strong, not way to speak through the air. The earth and the universe where not design around us, we were designed through evolution to fit in the system. We do not exist in the universe easily, it takes a whole lot of effort to keeps us alive on a tiny blue speck in the universe.

I don't think consciousness exist supernaturally or like magic. It is a product of the physical complexity of the brain. Just because you can not see the mind does not mean it is "out there". A mind has a physical component related to every single function in it.