Belief versus logic

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I had an interesting conversation with a friend at work yesterday. I was telling him about a meeting I had just been in where I had been helping some programmers review their plans for a big project that was coming up on a system I am familiar with. I had spotted a problem with the requirements that would need to result in a change to several data structures, which no one had noticed so far.

My friend took this in and asked, "And they believed you?"

I was surprised at his question. I said, "It's not a matter of belief. I didn't tell them to make a change based on my authority as a subject matter expert. I showed them logically, based on the existing structures and the project requirements why the change is needed."

I think this is indicative of the conflict between religion (belief) and science (logic). Religion is founded on authority-based beliefs. No logic is needed or (too often) even welcome. Certainly, the requirements for supporting evidence are far different. Science, on the other hand, is primarily driven by evidence and logic. Sure, there is a tendency to defer to long-established authority... a hold-over from the mental habits of our ancestors, I expect. But in its most efficient form, science is not about "belief." It's about "knowledge."

[BecauseHeLives]

I have no problem with most of your analogy. But, I think you are forgetting some of the requirments for faith. Evidence is not a requirement for faith. The Word of God is a requirement for faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is all you need. You know, God came to this earth in the form of a man and was still rejected and murdered even though He did no wrong. All because his ideas didn't jive with the world view of the Jewish leaders of that day. People still deny he was God that actually met Him.

To take this more to your point I think that you think that creationists believe that all science and religion don't mix. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Creationists simply believe that they are more open minded that science is quite occasionally wrong. Especially when it conflicts with the Word of God.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I have no problem with most of your analogy. But, I think you are forgetting some of the requirments for faith. Evidence is not a requirement for faith. The Word of God is a requirement for faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is all you need.

It's all you need to be a Christian. But it has nothing to do with being a scientist.

To take this more to your point I think that you think that creationists believe that all science and religion don't mix.

You would be wrong on your guess there. What I believe regarding Creationists is that they want to re-define science to be subservient to their beliefs -- which would make it cease to be science.

[BecauseHeLives]

I have no problem with most of your analogy. But, I think you are forgetting some of the requirments for faith. Evidence is not a requirement for faith. The Word of God is a requirement for faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is all you need.

It's all you need to be a Christian. But it has nothing to do with being a scientist.

To take this more to your point I think that you think that creationists believe that all science and religion don't mix.

You would be wrong on your guess there. What I believe regarding Creationists is that they want to re-define science to be subservient to their beliefs -- which would make it cease to be science.

You can't expect a Christian to believe a "collection of evidence" collected by man over the Word of God. Seriously. I understand where you are coming from. the difference is that you are using worldly wisdom where I adhere to spiritual wisdom.

"But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the Truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." (James 3:14-17 KJV)

"The fear of The Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Proverbs 1:7 KJV)

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. The Law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him." (Psalm 37:30-32 KJV)

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

What I believe regarding Creationists is that they want to re-define science to be subservient to their beliefs -- which would make it cease to be science.

You can't expect a Christian to believe a "collection of evidence" collected by man over the Word of God.

Actually, I can and do. Evidence is irrefutable. The "Word of God" says that the Sun moves around an immobile Earth, that bats are birds, and that the whole universe is around 7000 years old. Since all evidence points to different facts, your only choices (so far as I can tell) are to believe that which is false or to accept that "the Word of God" isn't all you believe it to be.

[BecauseHeLives]

Actually, I can and do. Evidence is irrefutable.

You know that's a misleading lie. Evidence does NOT equal fact not imply proof.

The "Word of God" says that the Sun moves around an immobile Earth

That's a gross mis-interpretation of bible scripture that you KNOW is not in agreement with modern Christian interpretations.

See http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178

, that bats are birds,

Another gross INTENTIONAL mis-interpretation. When the bible was written creatures that had wings were called birds.

See http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

Are you saying that we had scientific classifications for birds at the time of Deuteronomy? If science re-classifies the woodpecker as a fish tomorrow were you lying yesterday when you called the woodpecker a bird? If you want to make good atheist arguments that anyone with bible knowledge will listen to then you'll have to leave out the bird/bat argument.

and that the whole universe is around 7000 years old.

Closer to 6000 years old but who's counting?

Since all evidence points to different facts, your only choices (so far as I can tell) are to believe that which is false or to accept that "the Word of God" isn't all you believe it to be.

You have no facts to stand on in your above statements as I have discounted all of them. That must mean the Word of God is correct. LOL

I sense a DOS coming up real fast....

[royaldiadem]

I think this is indicative of the conflict between religion (belief) and science (logic).

Where do you believe logic came from?

Sterling

[A Person]

OOOH he's setting up for his "you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to use logic" argument. He's really really proud of that. He thinks it's a slam dunk.

[royaldiadem]

OOOH he's setting up for his "you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to use logic" argument. He's really really proud of that. He thinks it's a slam dunk.

So answer.

Sterling

[A Person]

I'm sorry I shouldn't have preempted you. I really would like to hear your argument first so that I don't misrepresent your position.

Actually the one I really want to hear is how atheists can't eat spaghetti without borrowing from the Christian worldview.

[Sanjuro]

I had an interesting conversation with a friend at work yesterday. I was telling him about a meeting I had just been in where I had been helping some programmers review their plans for a big project that was coming up on a system I am familiar with. I had spotted a problem with the requirements that would need to result in a change to several data structures, which no one had noticed so far.

My friend took this in and asked, "And they believed you?"

I was surprised at his question. I said, "It's not a matter of belief. I didn't tell them to make a change based on my authority as a subject matter expert. I showed them logically, based on the existing structures and the project requirements why the change is needed."

I think this is indicative of the conflict between religion (belief) and science (logic). Religion is founded on authority-based beliefs. No logic is needed or (too often) even welcome. Certainly, the requirements for supporting evidence are far different. Science, on the other hand, is primarily driven by evidence and logic. Sure, there is a tendency to defer to long-established authority... a hold-over from the mental habits of our ancestors, I expect. But in its most efficient form, science is not about "belief." It's about "knowledge."

You know, this is a very good post. It reminds me of some sociology I've been looking into. More specifically how certain predispositions to personality types (see Briggs/Myers) effect peoples behaviour and tendency to believe a flight of fancy over hard evidence. I think certain personality types can be a big factor and am beginning to wonder if its not all a moot point as there will simply be those who look at the world as a set of 'beliefs' and those who look at it as a set of facts and logic.

Now to your point. I think one could draw a loose connection between science and a belief of sorts. You gather the evidence .. hypothesize (ie: believe that "this" is the logical outcome based on evidence), test the hypothesis, and if it fails gather more evidence to form another. To me, scientist get a bad wrap about not being creative or artistic, people like to label them as cold, calculating and lacking belief. Of the physicists, chemists, and astronomers I have known nothing could be further from the truth.

But that said I know a lot of the aforementioned who are christians and still scientists. They may not fall into the category of the type of chrisitian that the fundamental left wingers demand, but then again if everyone did we'd still be pushing wheelbarrows to work.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Actually, I can and do. Evidence is irrefutable.

You know that's a misleading lie. Evidence does NOT equal fact not imply proof.

What do you see as the difference between evidence and fact?

The "Word of God" says that the Sun moves around an immobile Earth

That's a gross mis-interpretation of bible scripture that you KNOW is not in agreement with modern Christian interpretations.

Jos 10:10-14 -- And the LORD threw them into a panic before Israel, who inflicted a great slaughter on them at Gibeon, chased them by the way of the ascent of Liv-horon, and struck them down as far as Azekah and Makkedah. As they fled before Israel, while they were going down the slope of Liv-horon, the LORD threw down huge stones from heaven as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died because of the hailstones than the Israelites killed with the sword. On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in mid-heaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD heeded a human voice; for the LORD fought for Israel.

1 Sam 2:8 - He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and on them he has set the world.

1 Ch 16:30 -- The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.

Job 9:5-9 [talking about God] -- he who removes mountains, and they do not know it, when he overturns them in his anger; who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble; who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals up the stars; who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the sea; who made the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the chambers of the south.

Job 38:22,23 -- [God speaking] "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war?"

Ps 75:3 - When the earth totters, with all its inhabitants, it is I who keep its pillars steady.

Ps 93:1 - The LORD is king, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed, he is girded with strength. He has established the world; it shall never be moved.

Ps 96:10 - Say among the nations, "The LORD is king! The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved. He will judge the peoples with equity."

Ps 104:3-5 - You set the beams of your chambers on the waters, you make the clouds your chariot, you ride on the wings of the wind, you make the winds you messengers, fire and flame your ministers. You set the earth on its foundations, so that it will never be shaken.

Is 40:22 - It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in.

Rev 6:12-14 - When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

Rev 7:1 - After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on earth or sea or against any tree.

So modern Christian interpretation is needed to make all this not say that the Earth is flat, immobile and circled by the sun and the stars? Where did this modern stuff come from? The "atheist world view," is my guess.

[BecauseHeLives]

It's your own interpretation of that scripture that is misleading you. Many of the descriptions were metaphorical and you seem to have missed the meaning of the scriptures because of it.

[Sanjuro]

It's your own interpretation of that scripture that is misleading you. Many of the descriptions were metaphorical and you seem to have missed the meaning of the scriptures because of it.

Cool, I'll just take that whole Genesis "7 day creation" thing and that leviticus "man laying with man" thing as a metaphor. I'll be glad to hear your new interpretation about how 7 days is actually evolution over millions of years (and man is a metaphor for camping too many people in one tent) any time now.

[BecauseHeLives]

It's your own interpretation of that scripture that is misleading you. Many of the descriptions were metaphorical and you seem to have missed the meaning of the scriptures because of it.

Cool, I'll just take that whole Genesis "7 day creation" thing and that leviticus "man laying with man" thing as a metaphor. I'll be glad to hear your new interpretation about how 7 days is actually evolution over millions of years (and man is a metaphor for camping too many people in one tent) any time now.

You are going from one extreme all the way to the other extreme. I suppose this is pretty good proof that one can't study the bible without the Holy Spirit's discerning guidance.

[Sanjuro]

It's your own interpretation of that scripture that is misleading you. Many of the descriptions were metaphorical and you seem to have missed the meaning of the scriptures because of it.

Cool, I'll just take that whole Genesis "7 day creation" thing and that leviticus "man laying with man" thing as a metaphor. I'll be glad to hear your new interpretation about how 7 days is actually evolution over millions of years (and man is a metaphor for camping too many people in one tent) any time now.

You are going from one extreme all the way to the other extreme. I suppose this is pretty good proof that one can't study the bible without the Holy Spirit's discerning guidance.

Sorry that I stumbled into the exclusive province of your high horse.

Sir, no offense to you personally, but that is a completely ridiculous statement. Seems that when someone points out the fallacy of your 'logic' you immediately have to retreat to the rose coloured safe zone of holy rhetoric, innuendo, and denial. Actually, I've been seeing a lot more of that around here lately. Considering that any of the more "rational" christians are run off by the likes of these religious left wingers, it's no wonder.

[BecauseHeLives]

Sorry that I stumbled into the exclusive province of your high horse.

Sir, no offense to you personally, but that is a completely ridiculous statement. Seems that when someone points out the fallacy of your 'logic' you immediately have to retreat to the rose coloured safe zone of holy rhetoric, innuendo, and denial. Actually, I've been seeing a lot more of that around here lately. Considering that any of the more "rational" christians are run off by the likes of these religious left wingers, it's no wonder.[/quote]

Would you like me to quote scripture from the bible that explicitly states what I said above? You obviously think I'm making this up. My guess is you really don't care.

[Sanjuro]

Would you like me to quote scripture from the bible that explicitly states what I said above? You obviously think I'm making this up. My guess is you really don't care.

No sir, I don't think you get my point. You might as well be talking piglatin or pulling quotes from the quran. Your so called "spirit guidance" is nothing more than "making shit up as you go along" when it doesnt fit reality, or more to the point, what your ego wants it to.

I read "Created the heavens and the earth in 7 days". I then say, "wait that can't be. By its own 'logic' there wasn't even a "day" to exist if there wasn't yet light ...and oh wait ... that whole thing completely contradicts what we know through evidence about the universe. While I would love to believe that simple and mythical explanation, It must not be (not to mention there are MUCH better creation myths out there, but I digress).

You read "Created the heavens and the earth in 7 days". And say.. "well there is evidence that says otherwise, and people who believe that, but since I'm making shit up to fit what my ego desires and not accept the reality of the situation, I say they're wrong.. oh look here's a verse (that for whatever reason I can arbitrarily decide IS or ISN'T a metaphor) that backs me up and explains that I'm filled with a spirit that makes me see this and them not.. la la la la...." *polishes rose colored glasses, skips away*

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Seems that when someone points out the fallacy of your 'logic' you immediately have to retreat to the rose coloured safe zone of holy rhetoric, innuendo, and denial. Actually, I've been seeing a lot more of that around here lately.

It appears to be a safety valve indeed. I point out that the Bible says the Earth in immobile (discounted by evidence), and that instantly becomes "metaphor." But talk about the Bible and a 7-day creation (also discounted by evidence) being a metaphor, and you get "it's not a metaphor because you can't read the Bible correctly."

What it boils down to is that BHL and his ilk are more concerned that the Bible says what they mean, rather than dealing with the Bible meaning what it says.

[Sanjuro]

What it boils down to is that BHL and his ilk are more concerned that the Bible says what they mean, rather than dealing with the Bible meaning what it says.

That is very close to being good enough to use as a signature quote...

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

What it boils down to is that BHL and his ilk are more concerned that the Bible says what they mean, rather than dealing with the Bible meaning what it says.

That is very close to being good enough to use as a signature quote...

Perhaps, but it was cribbed from someone famous...

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.

[A Person]

Creationists simply believe that they are more open minded that science is quite occasionally wrong. Especially when it conflicts with the Word of God.

What a a smug and self-deluding statement. Creationists simply believe that if the evidence conflicts with the 'word of God' (as expressed in the Bible), then the evidence must be wrong.

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Eventually if the evidence becomes painfully obvious then the Bible will be re-interpreted to show that, for example, when God "spreads out the heavens like a tent over the circle of the Earth" that obviously means a spherical Earth and an expanding universe.

Science has never claimed to infallible and is often 'wrong' or incomplete, but it does claim to be self-correcting - and can be shown to be so. Newton was right about many things and is rightly respected by physicists, but his gravitational theory has been superseded. Fraud occurs occasionally and is discovered with the subsequent loss off credibility and livelihood of the perpetrator. Sometimes this takes longer than it should, usually it's discovered when later discoveries conflict with the fraudulent evidence (e.g. Piltdown man).

[Sanjuro]

What it boils down to is that BHL and his ilk are more concerned that the Bible says what they mean, rather than dealing with the Bible meaning what it says.

That is very close to being good enough to use as a signature quote...

Perhaps, but it was cribbed from someone famous...

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.

Poser!

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.

Poser!

I prefer "unimaginitive," thanks.

[royaldiadem]

"

I'm sorry I shouldn't have preempted you. I really would like to hear your argument first so that I don't misrepresent your position.

You are forgiven. and I must say smart and kind. Thanks.

Actually the one I really want to hear is how atheists can't eat spaghetti without borrowing from the Christian worldview.

The foundational account of the Scriptures is the revelation of God, the Creator. (Isaiah 40:12,22,26)

All things exist because of Him.(John 1:3, Colossians 1:17)

To do, converse, or think all presupposes God because we are created in His image and exist under His authority and control. (Jeremiah 32:17,27)

To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him.

Therefore the materialist is inconsistent and denies his own foundational worldview in order to defend his worldview in order to attempt to refute the God of the Scriptures.

Therefore, atheists can't eat spaghetti and deny that God exists because they are living inconsistently with their own worldview.

Sterling

ps: Please be sure to read the references, the entire premise rests on your willingness to carefully consider each statement and reference.

PS