Do you think the Bible takes precedence over evidence?

Page 6 of 8 [ 119 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Do you agree with the statement that "The authority of the Bible should never be compromised by mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals." (Full quote below)

I am a YEC and believe there is only one interpretation of the Bible, and it has precedence over any evidence or scientific theory.	1%	[ 1 ]
I am a YEC and believe there can be different interpretations on the Bible, but because there can be only one truth, scientific theories may sometimes help identify that truth.	1%	[ 1 ]
I am a YEC and believe that science and religion deal with different questions and are not in conflict	1%	[ 1 ]
I am a YEC and believe something not listed in the poll.	3%	[ 2 ]
I am a Christian but not YEC and believe there is only one interpretation of the Bible, and it has precedence over any evidence or scientific theory.	3%	[ 2 ]
I am a Christian but not YEC and believe there can be different interpretations on the Bible, but because there can be only one truth, scientific theories may sometimes help identify that truth.	9%	[ 6 ]
I am a Christian but not YEC and believe that science and religion deal with different questions and are not in conflict	10%	[ 7 ]
I am a Christian but not YEC and believe something not listed in the poll.	1%	[ 1 ]
I am neither Christian nor YEC but feel the urge to click on something	70%	[ 48 ]

Total votes : 69

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Apr 2010, 10:04 am

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specte ... dium=email

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

16 Apr 2010, 5:01 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

PLA wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Thom_Fuleri wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

pandabear wrote:

Do you really view yourself as a pawn in a supernatural war?

Inasmuch as Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar were, yes. This would get into a debate about Calvinism versus Armenianism though.

Given how we tend to think at right angles to everyone else, I'd say we're more like knights...

That would depend upon whether you visualize the knight as moving in an "L" shape or a "Y" shape.

Isn't it always "L"?

The "L" shape of a knight's movement is due to thinking orthogonally, but it works equivalently to consider it as 1 forward + 1 diagonal in a "Y". I think the "L" shape is easier to visualize though, when calculating the possible movements.

Hey, you're right!

_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

16 Apr 2010, 6:06 pm

Yeah, "Y" a "shortcut"... If i wanted to be orthodox about check rules, i'd use a "T" instead though. <.<

(edited for using chess and replacing it by Y, tiredness)

Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

17 Apr 2010, 3:46 am

I love how this thread has become completely derailed.

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

18 Apr 2010, 5:03 am

Thom_Fuleri wrote:

I love how this thread has become completely derailed.

Chess trivia is more interesting than "is evidence evidence?"

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

20 Apr 2010, 1:47 pm

PLA wrote:

Chess trivia is more interesting than "is evidence evidence?"

I agree. That's why I didn't ask that question. We have some young Earth creationists saying no evidence will change their views because they know what is true and the evidence will change soon enough to fit their views. I wanted to know how common that attitude is among YECs.

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

21 Apr 2010, 3:01 am

Gromit wrote:

PLA wrote:

Chess trivia is more interesting than "is evidence evidence?"

I know.

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

26 Apr 2010, 5:05 pm

Something I found for AG's thread is relevant here, too:

Quote:

Epistemic Rationality: A belief B (or cognitive state) is epistemically rational just if a person's holding B is in some sense relevantly related to the goal of believing what is true and not believing what is false. "Epistemic" refers to knowledge, or - as in this case - the goal of knowledge, the acquisition of true beliefs. From http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/relepisthandout2.html

Kurt Wise, Orwell's friend and the two authors of the book on the Creation Ministries International web site are all proud to be epistemically irrational. iamnotaparakeet, who first recommended that web site to me, has ignored my question whether beliefs should be adopted on the basis of which are most probably true, independent of whether they are comforting. That is just an informal way of asking whether he is (or wants to be) epistemically rational. I see his attempt to argue that "All of the ideologies can be treated as axiomatic foundations from which to develop postulates and theorems which make testable predictions" as an attempt to reconcile young Earth creationism with rationality, but I don't think it works. Our other YECs aren't even trying. Perhaps they themselves believe they can't afford to try to be epistemically rational.

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

28 Apr 2010, 1:20 pm

Compartments, Departments and Apartments topic

Stephen J Gould (RIP) has written a book about religion and science being in separate spheres of influence. Bibles and other tomes of religious thought occupy one facet and Science, engineering occupy another. Some things can be explained or understood better with one idea, and some with others. The wisdom is knowing which one to use and not to use to understand different applications. The age of the earth is not overshadowing the story of Genesis. The two are different topics, different ideas, and like parallel lines (according to the definition), do not meet. Metaphor and evidence are mutually exclusive.

_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo

Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

28 Apr 2010, 3:20 pm

sartresue wrote:

Long ago, this was quite true. Science was very young and still learning about the basics, and so science was a limited look at the way simple things worked while religion was the only way to answer the big questions.

Unfortunately, science is not satisfied with simple things, because simple things can lead to complex things and many complex things are just lots of simple things put together. Science discovers a way to measure the age of the Earth, and suddenly there is conflict. Science discovers that lightning is just static electricity (albeit very big!), not God's wrath on the sinners. Science discovers how animals evolve, how life reproduces, and the idea that God simply whisked everything into being one day suffers a severe blow. Every discovery chips away at the unknown, and God ends up pushed into a smaller and smaller box.

The key difference is that religion states "this is true, because it must be true." Science states "this is true, because it is observed to be true." Religion is truth based on faith; science is truth forged through doubt.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Apr 2010, 3:25 pm

Actually, religions tend to be based more upon history and books such as the Bible which make historical claims. Science works best when it deals with what can be observed and tested in the present, but when a scientist makes a claim regarding history, that is where the conflict is.

Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

28 Apr 2010, 5:19 pm

Possibly because history is fictional. Like many of the things humans believe in, the past does not exist. We can thus say anything we like about it with no way to prove or disprove anything.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

28 Apr 2010, 6:57 pm

That's part of the beauty of it.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

28 Apr 2010, 7:58 pm

Thom_Fuleri wrote:

Possibly because history is fictional. Like many of the things humans believe in, the past does not exist. We can thus say anything we like about it with no way to prove or disprove anything.

You don't actually believe this. Why say it?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Apr 2010, 8:26 pm

Thom_Fuleri wrote:

Possibly because history is fictional. Like many of the things humans believe in, the past does not exist. We can thus say anything we like about it with no way to prove or disprove anything.

Nonsense. Our account of history is necessarily incomplete and is probably faulty to some extent. But the past really truly existed. Our memories of our own past are reasonably sound. And the physical evidences of the shared past abound in the present.

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Apr 2010, 12:51 am

Thom_Fuleri wrote:

...history is fictional. ... the past does not exist.

... What The Farce? This should be made into a T-Shirt and misattributed to Stalin.

Page 6 of 8 [ 119 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Do you think the Bible takes precedence over evidence? Post Reply New Topic

Do you think the Bible takes precedence over evidence?