quote:They're not mutually exclusive. One can ideally try to attain all of them. Additionally, I believe that one *can* live logically and consistently without compromising the others.
They're not mutually exlusive, but nobody ever fully attains any of them. If I'm going to spend time and energy improving my virtues, I think my time will be better spent working on other failures of mine than imperfect logical self-consistency.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are we actually disagreeing here? Someone who believes in a young earth can teach the scientific findings with the same honesty that a Christian can teach about Islam.
It would only be a contradiction if a Christian tried to BE an Muslim at the same time. Since science isn't actually a religion and you can be a scientist without your microscope saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", then he's fine.
I can agree with all of that. Our disagreement is pretty small. My problem is when he says stuff like "they're two paradigms of looking at the world." Technically, as I said, its not lying. But it is a dangerous half-truth. The two are not compatible in any way, unless most of paleontology is thrown out the window (which begs the question, why bother?).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if instead of throwing one or the other out the window, he believes they are compatible and that will be shown when more information comes to light? That doesn't require either to be tossed, allows each to be true in their spheres, and quiets if not removes the cognitive dissonance.
---
*muses* I wonder if it is BECAUSE I'm Mormon that I'm not having a problem with this at all. There's a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants that I think is fascinating. I don't know all that it means, but part of it is relevant, I think.
quote: 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth; 27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments. 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
quote:Edit to add: Good for you? You do not have the same problem Dr. Ross does. Your "A" can change, it is modifiable, it can accept new evidence. The problem with Dr. Ross is that his "A" cannot be modified, it cannot accept new evidence.
You're setting aside the part where Porter has some logical inconsistencies, and yet manages to do so without being a half-honest BSer, Mucus.
I mean, on certain issues in scripture, I imagine Porter assigns certain relative possibilities to A and B. But on other issues, his relative possibilities for error might change...and on some issues especially, I imagine his relative possibilities might be approaching faith-level certainties.
In which case, the difference merely becomes one of degree...and on some issues, not so many degrees at all.
quote: Good for you? You do not have the same problem Dr. Ross does. Your "A" can change, it is modifiable, it can accept new evidence. The problem with Dr. Ross is that his "A" cannot be modified, it cannot accept new evidence.
No, in my example, A cannot change. A can be wrong, and there are many different reasons that A can be wrong, which I talked about earlier, but A is A.
If I become convinced that A is wrong, then I'll stop believing A. I may believe B fully, or I may believe C, which is somwhere between A and B.
Yes, I can change what I beleive. We have all done so many times. Including, I'd wager, Dr. Ross.
I don't really see how Dr. Ross and I are so different.
posted
mph: I think we're scratching at semantics. When I say "change", I mean (as you said) your A changes due to mistranslation or misinterpretation.
Dr. Ross cannot change his mind, if as I repeat, he is a young earth creationist as he said he is. No probability stuff either. From wiki:
quote: Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as both a mandatory moral guide and a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history... As Henry Morris, a leading Young Earth creationist, explained it, Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster.
In Kurt Wise's words as a fellow young earth creationist:
quote: Creation isn't a theory', he says. 'The fact that God created the universe is not a theory—it's true. However, some of the details are not specifically nailed down in Scripture. Some issues—such as creation, a global Flood, and a young age for the earth—are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories.' ... I cannot stand people who propagate non-truth', he says. 'In school, my hand never went up unless the teacher said something I knew was wrong. I didn't care who the teacher was, if they said something I knew was wrong, my hand went up. There's just this automatic reflex action. It's really an issue of integrity.' ... He is concerned that there are 'creationists' around who, because of their understanding of particular scientific issues, deviate from the scriptural foundation promoted so strongly by Dr Henry Morris, for example.
'The thing I hope above all else is that no matter what scientific models we play with and toss off the hill, so to speak, that the hill is always built on Scripture. That is one thing I am very concerned about.'
quote:Dr. Ross cannot change his mind, if as I repeat, he is a young earth creationist as he said he is.
Of course he can. He can't change his mind beyond certain perameters and remain a normal YEC, but he certainly can change his mind. Just because he hasn't done so doesn't mean he cannot.
In a similar fasion, I also cannot change my mind beyond certain parameters and remain a Latter-Day Saint. That doesn't mean I cannot change my mind.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't agree with that. Evidence that doesn't get through peer view because of methodological errors is one thing. Evidence that other people just don't find convincing but don't have a problem with the method you used to arrive at it is just fine.
I would have to agree, but I think your second case is quite entirely hypothetical, so I don't think it contradicts my point.
I don't think its hypothetical at all. Just last week Rabbit mentioned that the effect of global climate change on hurricane frequency and intensity is currently hotly debated. From what she said, it seems clear that several peer reviewed papers have been published in the last couple years that made markedly different conclusions on the matter. However, the reviewers obviously concluded the methodology was sound. Also, some scientists must find some of the conclusions more convincing than others in order to continue work in the field.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Literally true means a seven day (each day 24 hours) creation, Eve springing from Adam's rib, and so forth. These are so wrong that even Catholics can no longer defend them.
These elements are fundamentally irreconcilable with paleontology. Quantum mechanics and special relativity can be reconciled since either can be modified or extended. The literal truth of the Bible cannot be reconciled with palaeontology since the literal truth cannot be modified.
You are building a strawman.
First, when two theories contradict each other it isn't essential that both be modified in order to reconcile the two. Modification of one of the theories could be enough.
Second, Although the belief that the Bible is literally true precludes changing anything written in the Bible, it does not preclude extending or adding to what's written in the Bible. The Biblical account of creation is very short and doesn't really contain any detail at all. Certainly one can imagine God giving a far more detailed account of how the earth was created that wouldn't contradict anything in the Bible. Given more detail, it is imaginable that one could find an explanation for why the earth appears scientifically to be 4.5 billion years old even though its less than 10,000 years old. I personally don't believe such an explanation exists but I can imagine that is does.
Finally, the key feature in the analogy I was trying to make is that Scientists believe that a Unified field theory that would explain the contraditions between Quantum Theory and Special relativity exists even though they have not found it. They can only speculate about what this theory looks like and how it would change the way they understand either Quantum Theory or Special Relativity. Similarly, it is imaginable that someone could believe that young earth creationism can be reconciled with the science even though they don't know how. The can believe that a solution exists which would bring the two together even if they don't know what that solution would be and how it would alter their understanding of either Paleonology or the Bible. And they could continue working within the tow disparate paradigms for now trusting that a reconciliation does exist even though they don't know what it is.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They can only speculate about what this theory looks like and how it would change the way they understand either Quantum Theory or Special Relativity.
It's worth noting, though, that a good number of such theories have been rejected as data came along which contradicted them. Where are the failed attempts to unify creationism with the real world?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironic, since it is utterly incompatible with creationism. (And it's true: they have not rejected it.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
