What if Eve had not eaten the apple?

[MarcAC]

I've been following this thread without finding the need to comment until now; well played Nissus. It is indeed strange when people try to apply a scientific method (of discovering truth) to a faith based method (of discovering truth) and claim their conclusions using the scientific method superior.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Well even if you started now you could never negate how the Old and New testament have influenced both science and the minds of the worlds greatest thinkers and inventors.

If we just assumed that it was unworthy and as dross, and should never have had influence and been used it at all society, the world would be a whole different place. But that's speculation. The facts are as thus. Many great scholars, scientists and leaders of our society were and are believers in the Old and New testament and it profoundly has influenced all of culture as we know it. So as much as you'd like to destroy it, or go back in time to make it null and void. IT is what it is, and we are what we are and it will continue to affect and drive culture and society in different directions.

Yes I largely agree. Although my hope is that going forward as scientific knowledge increases that the reliance on religion will gradually fade and become irrelevant as it is becoming in large parts of Europe. I hope the USA will eventually follow but culturally the USA is relatively immature and I estimate some 30 years behind European perspectives. But those admittedly are my opinions based on my having spent half my life in Europe and the other half in the USA.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

Hiya.

It is indeed strange when people try to apply a scientific method (of discovering truth) to a faith based method (of discovering truth) and claim their conclusions using the scientific method superior.

Can you quote an example where religious faith has resulted in a truth?

 

[Nisus]

MarcAC,

Hiya.

Can you quote an example where religious faith has resulted in a truth?

Christopher Columbus--
""It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel his hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me....
There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures....
I said that I would state my reasons: I hold alone to the sacred and Holy Scriptures, and to the interpretations of prophecy given by certain devout persons....
I am a most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous presence. For the execution of the journey to the Indies, I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied....
No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Saviour, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service. The working out of all things has been assigned to each person by the Lord, but it all happens according to His sovereign will, even though he gives advice. He lacks nothing that it is in the power of men to give Him. Oh, what a gracious Lord, who desires that people should perform for Him those things which He holds Himself responsible! Day and night, moment by moment, everyone should express the most devoted gratitude to Him."

Libro de las profecias (Columbus' Book of Prophecies)

Didn't people also believe the world was also flat at this time?

 

[Vindicator]

You need to distinguish between inductive logic that we use every day and in science, which is what you are referring to here and the faith as used in religion which is baseless. Others here have described the two concepts as evidential faith and non-evidential faith. They are distinctly very different.

I would think the relgionists themselves consider a large part of their faith as evidential. One will usually have issue with the nature of the evidence. Subjective experience would be the religionist's "evidence"; it may not be testable by scientific means and even if so science may come to scientific conclusions on brain chemistry and psychology.

What if this test was that of the "religious experience" of God? Science will explain the brain chemistry but who is to say it wasn't God? Science may lead to the conclusion that there is no God because God "wasn't detected". Does that mean God doesn't exist? Can the scientific method gaurantee detection of every existing reality?

What one must accept is that belief in God, clearly, far predates the scientific method; so did the general belief of a flat earth at the centre of the solar system. The utilization of the scientific method has indicated that holding these views, at present, would be against one's available faculties of perception.

What science has yet to demonstrate is that belief in God is against ones available faculties of perception. Why then, should the religionist dismiss a view that predates the scientific method itself because the scientific method has failed in application to shed any light on its truth?

 

[Cris]

Vindicator,

I would think the relgionists themselves consider a large part of their faith as evidential. One will usually have issue with the nature of the evidence. Subjective experience would be the religionist's "evidence";

Yes that is indeed the usual theist response. The problem there is that they cannot show how to distinguish such “feelings” from their imagination, which is the more credible explanation. So those arguments fail to be convincing or credible to the skeptic.

it may not be testable by scientific means and even if so science may come to scientific conclusions on brain chemistry and psychology.

Yes perhaps not too long in the future. When we understand a great deal more about the brain then I suspect we may dispel many religionist claims.

Science may lead to the conclusion that there is no God because God "wasn't detected".

No, science doesn’t work that way. It will only show what can be detected and make no conclusion about what cannot be detected.

Does that mean God doesn't exist? Can the scientific method gaurantee detection of every existing reality?

We won’t know that until we know absolutely everything there is to know. Probably a few years out I suspect!!!

Why then, should the religionist dismiss a view that predates the scientific method itself because the scientific method has failed in application to shed any light on its truth?

I agree but there is also no support to hold the view as true since there is no method to prove it true. One may simply hold the concept of a god as speculative without the need to assert it true regardless. The position of “we don’t know” should be perfectly acceptable. But the existence of the scientific method should give the theist reason to pause for thought over his/her unsupported assertions. I.e. knowing that there exists a method that shown itself worthy in so many areas but somehow it doesn’t work with religion. Is the method wrong or is religion at fault?

 

[MarcAC]

Can you quote an example where religious faith has resulted in a truth?

First, let us be clear on what we're talking about.

What do you opine to be "a truth"?

Also, on "Faith Basics"

However, within religion there is no past success rate, so faith in this context is not statistical or inductive logic, instead it is purely blind.

I find it hard to apply the term "past success rate" when comparing science and religion. What in your opinion would qualify as a "past success rate" in religion?

Further – the religionist then additionally asserts with certainty that their faith is true. Contrast that with the every day and scientific perspective that their faith has no certainty.

While this is true, I will forward that we must be clear on what exactly is belief as opposed to truth. I wonder how many scientists would state that they "believe the special theory of relativity to be true" if asked? I as a Christian cannot see the quality of that answer as any different from "I believe God exists" or "I believe Jesus is the Son of God".

"Show me the evidence!"

The scientist will probably whip up stories of atomic clocks racing around the earth on shuttles and light being bent by the Sun and such.

The religionist will state that people have written of such a character, archeology has brought unearthing of various settings which coincide wth descriptions within these writings.

Of course with that alone one could believe King Arthur existed with his Knights of the Round Table etc...

But then the religionist will also speak of their personal experience of Jesus Christ.Of course this in not objectively veriefiable - it's like trying to describe the feeling you get when you kiss your wife/husband. You have to experience it to believe it. One objectively verifiable thing for the religionist, of course, is the millions that believe and the billions gone before.

In theist religion there is no such process – faith there is simply a certainty that god did it. I hope you see the important distinctions and use them appropriately and further understand my assertion about religious faith being irrational and useless as a means for determining truth

What "truth"?

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

I like the attempt with Columbus,although that is not what I had in mind. However, what he prayed for was to discover the Indies, that is what he felt he was beng told. He didn't find it though since the whole Americas were in the way which is not what he expected at all.

So his doscovery of the Americas was entirely by accident rather than faith.

 

[Hapsburg]

Didn't people also believe the world was also flat at this time?

No, actually, by that time, most leaders believed the world to be round, which was the only way they could've gotten to East Asia by going across the Atlantic. They just didn't know there was a whole 'nother continent in the way.
About a century previous, people believed the world was flat, and a lot of the commoners still believed it up into Colombus' time. However, most rulers and intelligent people thought that the earth was round, which was proven.

 

[Nisus]

Colombus' voyage led to the confirmation, that not only could one arrive to "the indies" via the atlantic, but also that the world wasn't flat. Yes the idea of the world being a sphere was accepted among the more educated etc, BUT within a century of columbus' discovery--Much truth was brought to light. Which previously was not only heavily disputed but it wasn't close to being generally accepted.

Discover--
To notice or learn, especially by making an effort:
To be the first, or the first of one's group or kind, to find, learn of, or observe.
Archaic. To reveal or expose.(<--that's the best definition imo) To dis-cover or un-cover. Basically find something that is there, but it existed anyways, and independant to wether anyone acknowledged it.

No he didn't intend to discover the americas, and yes his intent was to discover a way to the indies--instead he discovered something monumentally more significant than a trade route--He discovered and entire continent!! (well islands first, they say he landed in the bahamas or something, I can't recall)

It's just amazing that till 1492 they knew nothing about the western hemisphere of the world. This revitalized the spirit of discovery, who knows how much longer the world would have been left stagnent and stuck in the relatively same state if he hadn't had faith to make this voyage.

Plenty of Truth and knowledge was discovered, after first being inspired by faith.

 

[Nisus]

That example is based a lot on how you look at it. And what you consider truth to be. Plenty of truth waits to be uncovered, but still exists independant of wether anyone acknowledges it.

What started off as faith, grew into a voyage, then later turned into knowledge, experience and actual truth and testimony later carried onto other humans, to consider adopt and incorporate.

For example, the indigenous folk obviously knew that they lived there before Columbus arrived on their shores, but the eastern hemisphere of the world didn't know this. Anyways if you let your mind search the possiblities one can begin to understand what truth and knowledge was networked into humankind's collective conciousness, shortly thereafter.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Plenty of Truth and knowledge was discovered, after first being inspired by faith.

It's an intresting claim but the crux of the proof will be whether faith came first or whether there were plenty of other hints that the world might be round. I.e. was his adventurous spirit because of a belief in a god or just basic human curiosity and some real hints that it was possible, i.e. empirical evidence. I doubt it was religious faith alone. Remember that in those times if it wasn't sanctioned by the Church then it wasn't going to happen, so claims that it was inspired by faith only are not really credible.

The next issue will be how many other pursuits apparently inspired by religious faith failed? In any endeavor where evidence is not the motivating force we will have a lottery condition. Some will succeed and some will not. The fact that because religious faith is hailed as the motivating force doesn’t mean it is a reliable mechanism for discovering truth. If we use faith to decide the flip of a coin, I’d predict your chances of being right by faith are about 50%, i.e. the same as statistical prediction.

How about using religious faith to predict a new star? What are the chances of looking at just the right spot rather than using scientific methods?

Could you demonstrate that religious faith is a reliable mechanism for determining truth rather than it simply being a mathematical and statistical issue? For example I am sure a lot of people who died in 9/11 prayed and died. Some of those who prayed and survived thanked their god for their survival. I’d suspect that the differences between the two are just a matter of statistics and had no supernatural factor.

 

[Cris]

Hapsburg,

Ok good point. Do you happen to have any web references pointing to beliefs about the round world at that time?

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

What do you opine to be "a truth"?

That a god exists or does not exist as an example.

I find it hard to apply the term "past success rate" when comparing science and religion. What in your opinion would qualify as a "past success rate" in religion?

Previous proofs for the existence of gods or the supernatural. There are none so you have no past success rate, which is the issue; you cannot use inductive logic to support the idea that a god exists. You must start from scratch.

While this is true, I will forward that we must be clear on what exactly is belief as opposed to truth.

Belief is the conviction that something is true. The validity of the belief must be based on something that demonstrates the conviction is actually true, otherwise an unsupported belief is simply a guess at best, or as I frequently state – a fantasy.

Truth is something independent of belief, i.e. the actual existence of something or a specific condition.

I wonder how many scientists would state that they "believe the special theory of relativity to be true" if asked?

Most I would hope but their belief is based on empirical evidence. Note also that scientists will readily accept that it is false if someone can demonstrate it so.

I as a Christian cannot see the quality of that answer as any different from "I believe God exists" or "I believe Jesus is the Son of God".

You have no empirical evidence on which to base your claim.

The scientist will probably whip up stories of atomic clocks racing around the earth on shuttles and light being bent by the Sun and such.

OK, yes, empirical evidence.

The religionist will state that people have written of such a character, archeology has brought unearthing of various settings which coincide with descriptions within these writings.

But these do not represent empirical evidence of the things you want to prove. For example, God and Jesus are meant to exist now. Can you construct any type of experiment to demonstrate their current existence?

But then the religionist will also speak of their personal experience of Jesus Christ.Of course this in not objectively veriefiable - it's like trying to describe the feeling you get when you kiss your wife/husband. You have to experience it to believe it.

Yes I understand, and emotions can be quite powerful. But while the kiss is real the alleged personal experience of Jesus cannot be distinguished from emotional imagination, and therein lies one of your key problem areas.

One objectively verifiable thing for the religionist, of course, is the millions that believe and the billions gone before.

But that’s the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Popular belief gives no indication of truth, e.g. most people believed the world was flat for a long time. Using your approach you must also conclude that at some point in the past the world was indeed flat.

What "truth"?

That what is claimed is actual.

 

[MarcAC]

That a god exists or does not exist as an example.

I don't need an example, thanks. I need a definition of what you hold to be "a truth" which would suffice within a context common to both religion and science - that is what I was referring to when I used truth in my post above.

But is there common ground between scientific truth and religious truth - are the same methods used to judge religious "truth" as opposed to scientific "truth"? Should one use science to judge religious "truth" and religion to judge scientific "truth"?

The common ground would naturally be reality. But what is that? Scientific "truth"? If that's the case it keeps changing, and it is never certain? I am still on my quest to discover what exactly truth is - science and religion are both my tools. I use all my "available faculties of perception".

Previous proofs for the existence of gods or the supernatural. There are none so you have no past success rate, which is the issue; you cannot use inductive logic to support the idea that a god exists. You must start from scratch.

There are many believers that have gone before, lived and died for their belief in the truth of their experience of God's existence. For those who share the experience through His Word that is proof enough.

I make no statements that "God Exists" is a Truth. I say I BELIEVE it is true.

Belief is the conviction that something is true. The validity of the belief must be based on something that demonstrates the conviction is actually true, otherwise an unsupported belief is simply a guess at best, or as I frequently state – a fantasy... Truth is something independent of belief, i.e. the actual existence of something or a specific condition... Most I would hope but their belief is based on empirical evidence. Note also that scientists will readily accept that it is false if someone can demonstrate it so.

So because a belief is based on "something that demonstrates the conviction is actually true" it must be truth? Is that what you're saying? Here you obviously mean scientifically demonstrates, right?

Truth must be independent of belief - be it scientific or religious. Would you say science is independent of what scientists believe? Is it independent of what they perceive? If so your definition would put it in the realm of your Truth.

Science is clearly dependent upon what scientists conceive or perceive and thus believe unless you want to state that science is Truth... but then we run into problems... cause then Truth is tentatively true until it can be proven untrue and it follows that reality is tentatively real until it can be proven unreal. What is reality then?

You have no empirical evidence on which to base your claim... OK, yes, empirical evidence... But these do not represent empirical evidence of the things you want to prove. For example, God and Jesus are meant to exist now. Can you construct any type of experiment to demonstrate their current existence?... Yes I understand, and emotions can be quite powerful. But while the kiss is real the alleged personal experience of Jesus cannot be distinguished from emotional imagination, and therein lies one of your key problem areas.

Only a pesonal experiment - you can try it too. If you've tried and failed well all I can say is try and try again. I've tried and successfully "detected" God's presence. So have others it appears.

And yes, the problem, clearly is that you're describing how something feels without being able to describe a tangible counterpart, like a kiss. Try proving to someone you kissed your wife/husband by describing the feeling in your heart that you get from the action.

But that’s the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Popular belief gives no indication of truth, e.g. most people believed the world was flat for a long time. Using your approach you must also conclude that at some point in the past the world was indeed flat... That what is claimed is actual.

And herein lies my problem with science as truth. Popular belief is a function of "popular perception". People believed the earth was flat because it - simply - immediately looked that way. Sure, you had the little guys using Sun shadow-timings and whatever to show otherwise but the little guys' perception wasn't immediately tangible (not many math brains back then).

Using science as truth, we must conclude that at one point the Earth was at the centre of the - then - Solar System... etc... One shouldn't rate these beliefs by their historical timing, and likewise, belief in God. The question of who plays who in the theist, atheist game remains open. Who is the math brain now?

 

[Nisus]

Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come. People can be looked at as vessels for truth/knowledge. Since data, is really the only thing that carries on with us from one moment to the next. And for those that believe in the soul, all knowledge truth and experience is grafted into the frequency vibrations of the soul and spirit, eternally.

We can't incorporate any kind of matter (aside from food/water i.e fuel) into ourselves, but we can retain knowledge. Then it's what we do with that knowledge that equates into the results of our lives.

NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

Now this is where the man of faith is distinguished from the athiest, in that, the man of faith--looks upon the same evidence--but interprets it as being testimony and evident, to the influence of God.

The athiest attributes the evidence to, the closest cause it seems. Which is the easiest answer, ironically enough. Though the athiest would claim that the man of faith takes the easiest path by attributing it all to the power of God.

However a true believer in God will follow the works and all the evidence till he finds God.

I don't think any believer is satisfied with having faith alone. Faith only satiates the appetite for the most desired knowledge, while in the meanwhile we look for the smaller substance and the smaller evidence that eventually leads to God Himself.

 

[Vindicator]

The problem there is that they cannot show how to distinguish such “feelings” from their imagination, which is the more credible explanation.

More credible because it can be tested scientifically? In that case one must state it is scientifically credible.

Is the method wrong or is religion at fault?

Maybe neither; the method may just be inapplicable or wrongly applied.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

There are many believers that have gone before, lived and died for their belief in the truth of their experience of God's existence. For those who share the experience through His Word that is proof enough.

Understood, but that doesn’t mean it is proof for anyone else, and neither does it mean it was actually true. That someone is personally convinced that something is true doesn’t mean it is true. This is why external testable methodologies are more reliable as a means for the determination of truth, the scientific method being the most widely accepted at the moment.

I make no statements that "God Exists" is a Truth. I say I BELIEVE it is true.

Yes I understand but I am more interested in whether it is really true or not. The fact that many believe doesn’t move the position forward.

So because a belief is based on "something that demonstrates the conviction is actually true" it must be truth? Is that what you're saying? Here you obviously mean scientifically demonstrates, right?

I would choose the best method that has a history of establishing knowledge. Science has a proven track record and nothing else comes close. Why not then choose science? Doesn’t it follow that if something is demonstrated as true then it is true, otherwise the mechanism would be invalid? However, science rarely speaks of truth or proof. These are layman’s terms. The scientific method allows theories to be developed which describe processes that can be repeatable to the extent that we can call the results facts. Yet science isn’t arrogant to the extent that such facts could at some future time be overturned. This reflects the reality that in this universe nothing appears to be entirely certain.

Truth must be independent of belief - be it scientific or religious. Would you say science is independent of what scientists believe? Is it independent of what they perceive? If so your definition would put it in the realm of your Truth.

The scientific method is a process that if followed is entirely independent of what scientists believe. Many scientists become frustrated because the method will not provide them the proof they believe must be true. They cannot then claim a proof until they either develop better tests or accept that they are mistaken.

Science is clearly dependent upon what scientists conceive or perceive and thus believe unless you want to state that science is Truth... but then we run into problems... cause then Truth is tentatively true until it can be proven untrue and it follows that reality is tentatively real until it can be proven unreal.

No, that is false. See my previous statements.

What is reality then?

Beats me. We might be living within a matrix but how would we know?

Only a pesonal experiment - you can try it too. If you've tried and failed well all I can say is try and try again. I've tried and successfully "detected" God's presence. So have others it appears.

Yes indeed I’ve tried. Wouldn’t say failed but realized there was nothing there. The problem here, as I have stated many times, is that the claim of a personally experienced god cannot be distinguished from emotional imagination and a strong desire.

And herein lies my problem with science as truth.

Then update your perception of science as I have outlined above. Science doesn’t claim truth; that is the realm of religion. Science attempts to approach truth through research and experimentation. Religion begins with the assertion of truth but has no method to demonstrate it true. In neither case can we be entirely certain of exactly what is true.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.

Not really. Knowledge is something we establish by various means, but in many cases such knowledge has been discovered untrue. For example - the flat earth idea was considered common knowledge. Newtons laws, were found to be untrue for very high velocity objects, etc.

People can be looked at as vessels for truth/knowledge. Since data, is really the only thing that carries on with us from one moment to the next.

Unless your memory fails, as I am finding it frequently does now I am in my fifties.

And for those that believe in the soul, all knowledge truth and experience is grafted into the frequency vibrations of the soul and spirit, eternally.

No not really. Merely believing in a soul doesn’t make it real. A soul must actually exist to have any effect. That raises another issue of how something immaterial might actually be able to record knowledge – an issue debated at length many times here already.

NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

That appears to be false in every respect.

Now this is where the man of faith is distinguished from the athiest, in that, the man of faith--looks upon the same evidence--but interprets it as being testimony and evident, to the influence of God.

Yes agreed. But if God does not exist then his faith is meaningless.

The athiest attributes the evidence to, the closest cause it seems.

Most modern atheists will usually look to science with proven methodologies.

Though the athiest would claim that the man of faith takes the easiest path by attributing it all to the power of God.

Which is what you’ve just said above “the man of faith--looks upon the same evidence--but interprets it as being testimony and evident, to the influence of God.”

However a true believer in God will follow the works and all the evidence till he finds God.

Why when he already believes God did it?

I don't think any believer is satisfied with having faith alone.

Fundamentalists do.

Faith only satiates the appetite for the most desired knowledge,

I don’t believe that can be true. It is exactly because I have no faith that I find I am driven to search much deeper than the theist who already believes the ultimate answer is God.

while in the meanwhile we look for the smaller substance and the smaller evidence that eventually leads to God Himself.

If one were truly open minded one would search not expecting a specific answer but be prepared to discover something far more interesting and extraordinary.

 

[Nisus]

Nisus,
If one were truly open minded one would search not expecting a specific answer but be prepared to discover something far more interesting and extraordinary.

Like Cristopher Columbus finding the Americas when all he really wanted to do what find a trade route to the Indies?