Posted on 09/24/2005 7:20:09 AM PDT by gobucks
Well, the US is now outsourcing something else: Scientific Illiteracy.
Sorry it took me a while to reply to you earlier. If you don't mind, I'd like to continue our discussion.
You claimed that if evolution is true, there is no sin. I asked you why you think that follows, for I don't see it.
You then asked me if I believe if sin. I answered yes.
Would you mind, then, explaining to me why you think evolution implies there is no sin? I'd really like to know the basis of your reasoning.
First off, what is sin ... to you? To me, it any deviation from the will of God, as so thoroughly discussed in the Bible. Sin in short is akin to asking the question: what is God's preference as I weigh my options, and then doing what God has previously defined as sinful.
The reason I said w/ evolution, there is no sin is as follows: it denies an entry point for sin. Sin's entry point into the Human world is via Adam. Evolution makes a claim about the origin of "Adam", which contradicts what the Bible says about his origin. Without Adam, you have no sin. You may of course have lawlessness. But not sinfulness.
I didn't know you liked it so much you refer to it elsewhere...; but at the least you should ping me when you do so.
It indicates you understand basic Freeper ettiquette.
That's a reasonably good definition.
The reason I said w/ evolution, there is no sin is as follows: it denies an entry point for sin. Sin's entry point into the Human world is via Adam. Evolution makes a claim about the origin of "Adam", which contradicts what the Bible says about his origin. Without Adam, you have no sin. You may of course have lawlessness. But not sinfulness.
I don't see how your logic follows. Science tells us humanity did not always exist. Thus, there had to be a first man. That was Adam. This is true whether or not evolution is true. If there was an Adam, God could have endowed him with a soul and revealed Himself to him. Adam could have rebelled against God and sinned. I don't see how evolution rules any of this out. Science can't address the question of a soul, divine revelation, or morality.
The only theological difference between a creationist and and a theistic evolutionist, as far as I can see, is that the theistic evolutionist believes God used evolution as his tool to make Adam's body.
I honestly don't see why this distinction has any theolgoical importance. Why does the specific manner in which God shaped man matter? Why do you care whether God gradually shaped man, using various intermediate forms, before reaching the final product of Adam? Theologically, all that matters is that the end product is a rational being with free will capable of knowing and loving his Creator (or rejecting him). Why do you find that the process of shaping man matters?
Please accept my apology. I'm still learning.
"The only theological difference between a creationist and and a theistic evolutionist, as far as I can see, is that the theistic evolutionist believes God used evolution as his tool to make Adam's body."
If Adam had sprung out of the earth via a process that unwinds over time, then the Eve part of the story has serious, serious problems, doesn't it? And rationally, doesn't it make the eve part fully deniable, regarding her origin? I'll answer your other questions after your response...
Although folks would disagree ... I'm still learning too...
no problema..
And rationally, doesn't it make the eve part fully deniable, regarding her origin?
Not necessarily. If the story is taken literally, it would only necessitate a one-shot miracle to create Eve. I don't see how any scientific evidence could rule it out.
That being said, I don't think the Eve story is meant to be taken literally. However, I don't see how it makes any theological difference whether it is literal or not.
BTW, aren't we getting off track here? I thought we were talking about whether evolution rules out sin.
Scientific evidence doesn't rule out I.D. either...but that doesn't lessen the protest against it.
In short, if Adam was created as the first man, along w/ Eve, then sin has an entry point. But if the 'evidence' states that they both 'evolved' together and just 'appeared' then the how of how they got here is no more valid that the hopi creation story.
This means sin as a concept is associated w/ biblical myths and is not a bon fide concept. That is how evolution taken as is 'rules out' sin...(and by extension, rules out the reason'd'etre for the Reconciler)
That's because the ID people are claiming that ID is a scientific theory. If they simply asserted it as a theological point, there would be no controversy.
In short, if Adam was created as the first man, along w/ Eve, then sin has an entry point. But if the 'evidence' states that they both 'evolved' together and just 'appeared' then the how of how they got here is no more valid that the hopi creation story.
What's the "how" got to do with sin? It seems to me that as they are there, sin has an entry point, regardless of how they got there. What am I missing?
This means sin as a concept is associated w/ biblical myths and is not a bon fide concept.
Again I don't follow you. If the Bible uses symbolic and allegorical language to convey truth, why does that make the truth any less "bon fide?"
I was thinking about this earlier comment you made:
"Theologically, all that matters is that the end product is a rational being with free will capable of knowing and loving his Creator (or rejecting him). Why do you find that the process of shaping man matters?"
I don't think man was shaped. I think he was created. And I think he was created first, from direct materials from the earth.
I think Eve was created directly out of a man.
I think these things are directly impacted by the presentation of what T.O.E states: that woman was not originally sourced from a man. T.o.E fundmentally affects the sequence of how we got here. So, if that is accepted, then all other aspects of the Bible are reduced to myth, not just 'symbols and allegories'.
And that is how 'sin' as an idea is no longer a revealed truth, but just part of a particular myth.
But all that said, I found your selection, theologically, of 'all that matters' very odd. You coupled the word rational with the concept of free will - and you 'reasoned' that 'theologically', that was 'all that mattered'. I don't know quite how to describe why I know this outlook is flawed ... but I'm pretty sure it has major flaw.
For example, Free will - it is just amazing how much time the Calvinists and Arminians argue over this one point. When I was your standard rational materialist, btw, the free will stuff was obvious. I made decisions, consequences followed, wa la, proof that free will was 'real' was always there ... I didn't bother to think about it. It was like gravity.
Now, 4 years after the big change, I'm beginning to have very grave doubts about my ability to defend the central theme of 'free will'. Calvinists reading this would say 'duh', but I've not been able to fully leap into that camp, either.
Let me ask you a question ... do you know how to make God feel loved? (and I ask your patience, for all this does connect quite thoroughly to evolution - for in the end, evolution - sex - God/Christ - sex are intracately linked).
The two aren't mutually exclusive. God created man (Gen. 1:27) by shaping him (Gen. 2:7). The word usually transalted as "shape" or "form" is the same word used to describe the act of shaping a pot out of clay. Like a potter shapes a lump of clay into a pot, God shaped slime into man.
I think these things are directly impacted by the presentation of what T.O.E states: that woman was not originally sourced from a man.
Sorry, but that's just not true. It's true that the TEO states that the first man was born of a subhuman mother. However, there is no scientific way to rule out the possibility that God then, with a miracle, created the first fully human woman so that he would not have to mate with subhumans.
So, if that is accepted, then all other aspects of the Bible are reduced to myth, not just 'symbols and allegories'.
I don't see how that follows. Just because one part of the Bible is allegory and symbol does not mean that all of it is such. Furthermore, just because something is symbolic or allegorical does not mean it is untrue or not to be taken seriously.
For example, sin is not symbolic. It can't be. It's metaphysical, not physical, and symbols are by definition physical things. The whole point of the Garden of Eden story is to teach about sin and the consequences of sin, original and actual. Just because the story contains symbolic or allegorical elemnts (I reject the claim that it is entirely allegorical) does not make the reality of original sin and its consequences, spiritual death among other things, any less real.
But all that said, I found your selection, theologically, of 'all that matters' very odd. You coupled the word rational with the concept of free will - and you 'reasoned' that 'theologically', that was 'all that mattered'.
You misunderstand me. I do not believe rationality and free will are the only things of theolgoical importance. My point is that they are all that is necessary for there to be sin. Why? Because sin occurs when a rational creature freely chooses to reject the will of God. Okay, so you need one other thing for sin: God and His will. So the only things necessary for sin to exist are 1)rationality 2) free will and 3) God with a will. Okay, okay. YOu need a fourth thing: the willingness of a free creature to reject the will of God.
I was pointing out things necessary for the existence of since because you were claiming that evolution made the concept of sin impossible. I believe I have disproved that claim.
Now, 4 years after the big change, I'm beginning to have very grave doubts about my ability to defend the central theme of 'free will'.
Why? It is a central theme of the scriptures, as well as the Church Fathers.
Calvinists reading this would say 'duh', but I've not been able to fully leap into that camp, either.
Good. Calvinism is a vile, unscriptural heresy with a perverse view of God. I would rather burn in hell than worship the god of Calvin. Thankfully, the one true God is not Calvin's god.
Let me ask you a question ... do you know how to make God feel loved? (and I ask your patience, for all this does connect quite thoroughly to evolution - for in the end, evolution - sex - God/Christ - sex are intracately linked).
By giving Him glory.
"Good. Calvinism is a vile, unscriptural heresy with a perverse view of God."
So I keep hearing. But somehow, what Calvinists say, even if I don't like how they say it, is making more and more sense to me. Just why is this?
It also looks like somehow you are relying on something your average scientist would say is unacceptable: that since we can't 'disprove' Eve was outright created by a miracle, the possibility it happened is acceptable ... on a rational basis. By this logic, I.D. is fully acceptable, scientifically, yes?
You are leaving room for 'miracles'. Within scientific rationalism, I don't see this as a rule - the possibility of miracles is expressly excluded. So, I confess, I am a bit confused by what you are meaning here:
"Sorry, but that's just not true. It's true that the TEO states that the first man was born of a subhuman mother. However, there is no scientific way to rule out the possibility that God then, with a miracle, created the first fully human woman so that he would not have to mate with subhumans."
I find Calvinism insidious because of its doctrine of double predestination and the denial of the universal salvific will of God. But let's not get off topic. We can come back to this later.
It also looks like somehow you are relying on something your average scientist would say is unacceptable: that since we can't 'disprove' Eve was outright created by a miracle, the possibility it happened is acceptable ... on a rational basis. By this logic, I.D. is fully acceptable, scientifically, yes?
Sure, so long as it remains a theological point and it is not claimed to be a scientific theory.
You are leaving room for 'miracles'. Within scientific rationalism,
I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific rationalism."
I don't see this as a rule - the possibility of miracles is expressly excluded.
Not at all. It is true that when a scientist seeks to explain a phenomenon, he tries to find natural explanations. However, this in no way implies that must believe miracles never happen. Indeed, many scientists are Christians, which means that they must believe that miracles occur sometimes.
Now we are getting closer. We both agree with this statement. The question is this: why, exactly, is he biased to find 'natural' explanations? I would argue that within the grounds that train scientists, one is taught that they MUST evaluate evidence, and MUST do so exclusive to any other forms of inquiry.
Your average scientist would, gently, point out that evidence for miracles does not exist, has never existed, and all scientific investigations of miracles have produced inconclusive evidence at best, and proof of fraud the vast majority of the time. Miracles can't be disproven, yes. But evidence for them doesn't exist at all - given the premise of how one defines the scientific method is agreed upon, and I speak in that general sense.
Unless I miss my mark, two types of science exist: that kind exploring stuff that is happening now. And forensic science ... stuff that happened then, but the cause is no longer present. I.D. is forensic science ... they don't credit God. I'm comfortable with I.D., b/c I'm full aware that the Universe is a big place. And I.D. doesn't EXCLUDE God either.
But, I think I can now see where we are going, for I had said:
"By this logic, I.D. is fully acceptable, scientifically, yes?"
And your reply:
Sure, so long as it remains a theological point and it is not claimed to be a scientific theory.
This connects to a thread I posted earlier:
Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - It would ‘become the death of science’ .... "...if it became part of science" .... to finish Provine's comment.
When I posted this thread, what I was really looking at was how weak the MSM sounded regarding the position of the scientists. Now, I'm actually relooking at the 'death' of science ... and what does that imply happens to the 'scientists'? I had thought the death comment was ridiculous hyperbole. But now I am not so sure.
It is one of the few times within the fight the MSM sounds alot like a religion I practice - born again Christianity. There, death as a word is used a lot. But being born again is spoken of too...; but the scientists don't see that part. That is why many of the sidebars of the major news outlets have 'Science', 'Sports', 'News', 'Entertainment' ... but not 'Religion'.
Faith and Reason were decoupled, curiosity, when roughly? Mid 1800's? Your comment about what a scientific idea tangibly is is based upon the recent idea that the decoupling was VALID.
You have fully accepted the arguments about what science actually should consist of, and what it should exclude. How did this happen to you exactly? (and for my own frame of reference, I am asking myself what exactly happened that I overrode my own decoupling, and recoupled them? That happened in July 2001 - for if on a rational basis, all that happened was that I suffered a mental collapse into irrationality, well then some clever scientists should have written about what 'causes' that too...; and I'm open to looking at that).
Anyway, I think we're getting into positivism and neo-positivism now, btw; but maybe not.
In short, it seems to me I.D. simply cannot be called 'science', as 'science' is currently defined, according to you.
So, the ID/Evo fight seems to me to be a political fight over who has sovereignty over what the word 'science' means, in the end.
It is going to be interesting, very interesting to see what the courts say about that sovereignty. But I can guess ... they'll apply the same rationale they applied in RvWade.
This means, in the court rooms at least, scientists have little to fear about I.D. being taught as 'science' in the public classrooms of the USA. These 11 'parents' are going to win this fight. Roberts himself said it: his 'faith' is decoupled from his reason, so the good Democratic senators have nothing to fear. And look at the votes he got! (I think I'm in the minority in my concern about him ... for now.)
Let's hope so! Kids have enough crappy teaching to wade through without having to deal with things like ID, Phrenology and Astrology in their science classes.
Because finding the natural explanations of natural phenomena has proven extremely useful. Inovking the supernatural is, in a sense, giving up on finding a natural explanation. This is dangerous, however, because you can't ever rule out the possibility that there is a natural explanation you haven't thought of. If you simply throw up your hands and invoke the supernatural, you risk missing an important discovery.
I would argue that within the grounds that train scientists, one is taught that they MUST evaluate evidence, and MUST do so exclusive to any other forms of inquiry
I agree, expect with one proviso: this only applies to knowledge about the physical world. Metaphysics is an equally important area of study, to which the scientific method is wholly inapporpriate.
Miracles can't be disproven, yes. But evidence for them doesn't exist at all - given the premise of how one defines the scientific method is agreed upon, and I speak in that general sense.
I don't know if that's true. There are plenty of phenomena that have occurred in the past (Lanciano, Lourdes, etc) that have some scientists convinced they are miraculous.
But in a sense, I see the point you're getting at. A scientist should never simply accept a supernatural explanation and should continue searching for a natural one.
However, I would argue that this attitude is only there for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. You want scientists to only look for natural explanations because you never want them to give up. It is very much possible that a phenomenon thought to be miraculous will turn out to have a natural explanation which has lots of practical applications. On a personal level, however, when considering whether to accept a religion, I think it is wholly appropriate to take seriously the fact that certain phenomena do appear to be miraculous, though it would be dangerous to make them the sole basis of one's faith.
I'm comfortable with I.D., b/c I'm full aware that the Universe is a big place.
Are you comfortable with the fact that IDers accept common descent of man and apes and a Universe billions of years old? The ID models proposed by Behe, Dembski, and Denton are no more compatible with a literalist reading of Genesis than is standard evolutionary theory.
And I.D. doesn't EXCLUDE God either.
Neither does Darwinian evolution. Note, I say Darwinian evolution, because most ID models postulate an evolution of sorts as well.
Faith and Reason were decoupled, curiosity, when roughly?
I don't think they were ever decoupled, at least not among Catholic and non-fundamentalist Protestants.
You have fully accepted the arguments about what science actually should consist of, and what it should exclude. How did this happen to you exactly?
I see that the modern definition of science produces results, and I see how introducing supernatural hypotheses like ID into science can discourage research.
BTW, I think I was a bit imprecise about the scientific acceptability of ID. The IDers do make some claims that are scientifically invalid, such as their claim that an irreducibly complex biological system cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion. This assertion has in fact been disproven in the lab.
I would say that science cannot disprove (indeed, can never disprove) the proposition that the unvierse is designed, or that God guided the process of evolution.
I'll leave you with just two thoughts:
First, don't confuse methodological naturalism with philsophical naturalism. Scientists only seek out natural explanations in their methods simply for the pragmatic reason that it's always useful to keep searching for one. This does necessarily imply that the supernatural does not exist. At most, it merely implies that supernatural events are rare enough so that a natural explanation is very likely to exist for the vast majority of the phenomena we see, and hence it is always worthwhile to continue searching for the natural explanation.
Second, reason and faith cannot be decoupled and cannot be in opposition. Yes, science and faith are decoupled in the sense that the scientific method cannot investigate supernatural phenomena. (Of course, they are not decoupled in the sense that scientists must adhere to certain ethical standards, which faith has a great deal to say about). However, it is essential to note that science is not the sole means by which we use reason. For example, metaphysics and moral philsophy are extremely important areas of inquiry for which the modern scientific method is wholly inadequate. These are areas where both faith and reason are required and cannot be decoupled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.