The Creation Museum

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Not that it's a huge issue or even related, but whether Jesus existed is not the issue for many non-Christians. Instead, it's whether the doctrines associated with him have any value or not.

Just a clarification.

I realize that. But still it's oversimplification to equate Jesus with a unicorn.

 

[muffler dragon]

It really depends on what we're talking about. Regarding what's inside the event horizon of Black Holes that BKB brought up earlier, I have a very low level certainty of what happens to matter after it enters a Black Hole.

That's very reasonable. I can completely understand having varying amounts of confidence in what we know or what evidence can be provided on myriad things.

But getting back to the original subject of this thread, I have near 100% certainty that evolution is correct - and by that I mean the idea that current species share common ancestors and that all life on this planet (including humans) evolved from one or more initial states of life. I think the exact mechanics of evolution are still being worked out and we don't know exactly what influences are most important, but I'm near 100% certain that I share a common ancestor with modern apes (as does every other human).

Got'cha.

I emboldened the "one or more", because that is literally the first time I believe I've seen that. For some reason, I've had it in my mind that evolution professed a singular delineation of species. Feeling rather sheepish.

I realize that. But still it's oversimplification to equate Jesus with a unicorn.

Indeed. However, have you not seen how heavenly unicorns can be? :p

 

[Gatorubet]

I realize that. But still it's oversimplification to equate Jesus with a unicorn.

The Book of Charlie: Chapter two, verse one.

 

[AKAK]

MMMkay...

Less personal... more about Jesus riding dinosaurs.

Ignore the Jesus on dinosaurs part... embrace the rest.

 

[MaxBuck]

I think that is a gigantic cop out. Filling the gaps of knowledge with, "well we don't know right now, so it has to be 'magical' explanation"

 

[Brewtus]

The amount of written accounts about Jesus Christ vastly outpace documents we have about every other person of antiquity (before the printing press) combined. Yet you call Jesus and fairy tale. Interesting.

First of all, I didn't call Jesus a fairy tale in my response - I didn't even mention his name. While I don't think he was the Son of God, I don't know and don't really care if he really did exist. What I take away from the writings about Jesus are his teachings of morality and how people should treat each other. But that's a whole other topic.

My question, which you still have not answered, is what method do you use to validate truths about the universe? If I were to ask a Muslim or Hindu about their spiritual beliefs they would be just as devout and certain about what they believe as you. Until you can provide a testable method of verifying the validity of different religious and supernatural claims, they are not on equal footing as those claims made by using the scientific method.

I emboldened the "one or more", because that is literally the first time I believe I've seen that. For some reason, I've had it in my mind that evolution professed a singular delineation of species. Feeling rather sheepish.

Since there's currently no scientific consensus on one standard model for the origin of life, I've left the possibility open to cover a few theories (different forms of life may have originated simultaneously, some became extinct while perhaps bacteria and archaea had different origins).

 

[muffler dragon]

Since there's currently no scientific consensus on one standard model for the origin of life, I've left the possibility open to cover a few theories (different forms of life may have originated simultaneously, some became extinct while perhaps bacteria and archaea had different origins).

To me, multiple strains (or whatever term you want to use) makes more sense. If it can happen once, then there is the chance it can happen more than once. To be honest, the singular delineation of evolution to me has always just been a little bit problematic for me to swallow.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

First of all, I didn't call Jesus a fairy tale in my response - I didn't even mention his name. While I don't think he was the Son of God, I don't know and don't really care if he really did exist. What I take away from the writings about Jesus are his teachings of morality and how people should treat each other. But that's a whole other topic.

My question, which you still have not answered, is what method do you use to validate truths about the universe? If I were to ask a Muslim or Hindu about their spiritual beliefs they would be just as devout and certain about what they believe as you. Until you can provide a testable method of verifying the validity of different religious and supernatural claims, they are not on equal footing as those claims made by using the scientific method.

I'm not going to pretend that we can equate to spiritual religious truths to our knowledge of some scientific facts such as the boiling point of water. I do realise that what science calls facts are ever evolving, but you would have to admit that science doesn't always get it right the first time either. Nutritionists have recomended the food pyramid for years saying to avoid fats especially saturated and to consume lots of carbs. New studies are coming out that saying it's actually the high carb diets that are killing us. That a diet based on low carbs and high fats and protiens is actually better for weight loss, cholesterol, and heart disease. The point is science can get it wrong.

No, moral and religious truths can't be measured in the same we can measure the speed of light so you're right they are not equal.

But the point of using Socrates as an example is to establish that we can establish some degree of confidence in truth outside of that which is scientifically measureable. We accept that Socrates probably lived because someone wrote something about him and what he said. We have this same kind of evidence with regard to religions. We have our experience on this earth of witnessing human behaviour. We have ideas about morality. We have philosophy. We have outside sources of history. We have archaeology. We can go through the same process as deciding if Socrates was alive to find whether a religion or any religion is true or not. Admittedly, truth in religion is much more complex than establishing Socrates existence, but that doesn't mean it's impossible or even improbable. We have to match up these religions and their truth claims to what we know about morality, philosophy, history, and reality.

Let's start somewhere as an exercise. I know you disagree, but for instance I think philosophy has established the necessity of a supreme being to either create ex-nihilo or sustain the cosmos, but it has to be at least one. And since I only believe in infinity as a mathematical concept not a phyiscal one, I lean towards ex-nihilo. (There's some evidence at least that the universe has a size limititation, I know it's not conclusive, but the opposite seems pretty conclusive. The mathematical concept of an infinite amount of points in between 2 points is nice mathematically, but practiclly has problems. After so many times of cutting something in half the results lack locality. But I'm using knowable data to decide how I think about something that is not scientifically measureable.)

Now this philosophical supreme being is hardly the representation of a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic supreme being, but the philosophical supreme being doesn't rule out any of them either. I think it is obvious that existence of a supreme being might have major implications for us here on earth.

Then you start including, ideas about reality, morality, and history to see if any (or none) of the religions fit what you know about those things. And like science you come to some degree of certainty.

 

[Brewtus]

I'm not going to pretend that we can equate to spiritual religious truths to our knowledge of some scientific facts such as the boiling point of water. I do realise that what science calls facts are ever evolving, but you would have to admit that science doesn't always get it right the first time either. Nutritionists have recomended the food pyramid for years saying to avoid fats especially saturated and to consume lots of carbs. New studies are coming out that saying it's actually the high carb diets that are killing us. That a diet based on low carbs and high fats and protiens is actually better for weight loss, cholesterol, and heart disease. The point is science can get it wrong.

Well technically theories evolve and not facts, but I think I understand your point and yes I agree that science doesn't always get it right the first time. But that's the beauty of science; it has a built-in self-correcting mechanism that allows theories to be tweaked as new evidence is found. No credible scientist is going to claim that they are 100% certain about anything. And while I don't think your food pyramid is the best example, I'll use the Theory of Gravity: Newton first proposed the law of universal gravitation. However new evidence was discovered (there were discrepancies in Mercury's orbit) that pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. Then Einstein proposed a new theory of general relativity which accounted for the new evidence. And in the last few decades scientists have discovered new anomalies which can't be fully explained by general relativity so Einstein's theory may have to be tweaked even more. But just because we continue to revise the theory of gravity doesn't mean that our current understanding isn't extremely accurate and useful - most spacecraft trajectories are still calculated using Newton's formulas.

No, moral and religious truths can't be measured in the same we can measure the speed of light so you're right they are not equal.

But the point of using Socrates as an example is to establish that we can establish some degree of confidence in truth outside of that which is scientifically measureable. We accept that Socrates probably lived because someone wrote something about him and what he said. We have this same kind of evidence with regard to religions. We have our experience on this earth of witnessing human behaviour. We have ideas about morality. We have philosophy. We have outside sources of history. We have archaeology. We can go through the same process as deciding if Socrates was alive to find whether a religion or any religion is true or not. Admittedly, truth in religion is much more complex than establishing Socrates existence, but that doesn't mean it's impossible or even improbable. We have to match up these religions and their truth claims to what we know about morality, philosophy, history, and reality.

Science doesn't cover the area of morality and I would never claim that we look to science for a sense of morality. Science may be able to explain why humans consider some things moral and some not, but I'll leave ethics up to the philosophers. However, if "religious truths" also cover miracles, then I think theoretically those are subject to testing by science to determine their validity. For instance, Catholics believe that during Communion the bread and wine actually turn into human flesh and blood (please note that I'm not claiming that you believe this). If that's true then we should be able to validate that "religious truth" by testing a sample in a lab.

Let's start somewhere as an exercise. I know you disagree, but for instance I think philosophy has established the necessity of a supreme being to either create ex-nihilo or sustain the cosmos, but it has to be at least one. And since I only believe in infinity as a mathematical concept not a phyiscal one, I lean towards ex-nihilo. (There's some evidence at least that the universe has a size limititation, I know it's not conclusive, but the opposite seems pretty conclusive. The mathematical concept of an infinite amount of points in between 2 points is nice mathematically, but practiclly has problems. After so many times of cutting something in half the results lack locality. But I'm using knowable data to decide how I think about something that is not scientifically measureable.)

Now this philosophical supreme being is hardly the representation of a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic supreme being, but the philosophical supreme being doesn't rule out any of them either. I think it is obvious that existence of a supreme being might have major implications for us here on earth.

Then you start including, ideas about reality, morality, and history to see if any (or none) of the religions fit what you know about those things. And like science you come to some degree of certainty.

I'm open to the possibility of some sort of supreme being (however unlikely), but philosophically I don't think that explains anything with more certainty than claiming the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, or that there are multiple universes so given enough time and enough universes, our universe, the Earth and humans are a given certainty. Explaining a complex phenomenon by using an even more complex phenomenon is an even less probable scenario, not more.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Well technically theories evolve and not facts, but I think I understand your point and yes I agree that science doesn't always get it right the first time. But that's the beauty of science; it has a built-in self-correcting mechanism that allows theories to be tweaked as new evidence is found. No credible scientist is going to claim that they are 100% certain about anything. And while I don't think your food pyramid is the best example, I'll use the Theory of Gravity: Newton first proposed the law of universal gravitation. However new evidence was discovered (there were discrepancies in Mercury's orbit) that pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. Then Einstein proposed a new theory of general relativity which accounted for the new evidence. And in the last few decades scientists have discovered new anomalies which can't be fully explained by general relativity so Einstein's theory may have to be tweaked even more. But just because we continue to revise the theory of gravity doesn't mean that our current understanding isn't extremely accurate and useful - most spacecraft trajectories are still calculated using Newton's formulas.

Science doesn't cover the area of morality and I would never claim that we look to science for a sense of morality. Science may be able to explain why humans consider some things moral and some not, but I'll leave ethics up to the philosophers. However, if "religious truths" also cover miracles, then I think theoretically those are subject to testing by science to determine their validity. For instance, Catholics believe that during Communion the bread and wine actually turn into human flesh and blood (please note that I'm not claiming that you believe this). If that's true then we should be able to validate that "religious truth" by testing a sample in a lab.


I'm open to the possibility of some sort of supreme being (however unlikely), but philosophically I don't think that explains anything with more certainty than claiming the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, or that there are multiple universes so given enough time and enough universes, our universe, the Earth and humans are a given certainty. Explaining a complex phenomenon by using an even more complex phenomenon is an even less probable scenario, not more.

You basically asked how we find truth in religion, right? Is that not satisfactory at all?

As for what Catholic's believe about the Lord's table that's up to them. I firmly in the category of it being a symbol.

As far as a supernatural even being testable; I guess I don't know if I think I supernatural process can be tested. But the results likely would. Let's try one. A person is said to have died. The person's side is cut open with a sword. Blood and water comes from the person. Person is declared dead. Person is buried.

Same person is seen 3 days later walking and talking. People touch the scar on the side and in the hands. Person is able to eat and drink. Hundreds of people saw person after 3 days later.

We have strong evidence that a person died. Then later we have strong evidence that he lived. Now maybe that's not the scientific lab testing you're talking about, but it sure does seem like the science available

I want to tie up some loose ends.

Asking whether I beilieve in Leprechauns and Unicorns in direct comparison to religion is not explicity calling any religion a fairy tale, but it does implicity call all religons fairy tales.

 

[Buckeye86]

Asking whether I beilieve in Leprechauns and Unicorns in direct comparison to religion is not explicity calling any religion a fairy tale, but it does implicity call all religons fairy tales.

Which, of course, they are... except for the one that a person happens to believe in.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Which, of course, they are... except for the one that a person happens to believe in.

I see what you're saying. And that's probably at leat somewhat true. My only argument I guess is: one of them may be true whether any one believes them to be or not. I do not begin to espouse that my belief in something makes it true. Truth is accordance with reality. But like science where we admit to having certain degrees of certainty about things the same is true for religon.

I'm definitely no universalist, but just because a religon is overall not true doesn't make all the tenents not true. For instance if the Christian view is true then it is also true that there is only one God. Muslims and Jews would hold to that same tennent even if they get other things wrong and vice versa. So like fairy tales they wouldn't be ultimately true, but would contain truths.

I think it's very reasonable to hold the different religons in the same regard that they are reaching for some kind of religous truth in the same way that competing science theories are reaching for scientific truth. So in that way religon is not like fairy tales.

 

[Buckeye86]

I think it's very reasonable to hold the different religons in the same regard that they are reaching for some kind of religous truth in the same way that competing science theories are reaching for scientific truth. So in that way religon is not like fairy tales.

The bible does not play so nice:

Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

To me, the bible clearly refutes belief in any other religion... quibble with calling other religions fairy tales, but the bible certainly does not accommodate for them.

So... does that part of the bible not apply? And if so, what is different about a non-literal understanding of that passage versus a non-literal understanding of the passages concerning the creation story?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

The bible does not play so nice:

Mark 16:16



To me, the bible clearly refutes belief in any other religion... quibble with calling other religions fairy tales, but the bible certainly does not accommodate for them.

So... does that part of the bible not apply? And if so, what is different about a non-literal understanding of that passage versus a non-literal understanding of the passages concerning the creation story?

I think you misunderstand me. Saying a religon has a certain measure of truth like in the example I gave doesn't give the whole religion truth. Nor does that afford adherents to that religon salvation.

 

[Brewtus]

As far as a supernatural even being testable; I guess I don't know if I think I supernatural process can be tested. But the results likely would. Let's try one. A person is said to have died. The person's side is cut open with a sword. Blood and water comes from the person. Person is declared dead. Person is buried.

Same person is seen 3 days later walking and talking. People touch the scar on the side and in the hands. Person is able to eat and drink. Hundreds of people saw person after 3 days later.

We have strong evidence that a person died. Then later we have strong evidence that he lived. Now maybe that's not the scientific lab testing you're talking about, but it sure does seem like the science available

I want to tie up some loose ends.

Asking whether I beilieve in Leprechauns and Unicorns in direct comparison to religion is not explicity calling any religion a fairy tale, but it does implicity call all religons fairy tales.

Your example of Christ rising from the dead is exactly what I mean by a theoretically testable religious claim. Unfortunately we can't go back in time and conduct any scientific studies. Do you believe that miracles are still occurring and if so, could you provide examples that could be tested? As for your claim of "strong evidence", hearsay isn't even allowed in our court system so I'm not sure how you can claim that third party accounts of someone rising from the dead can be considered strong evidence.

I'm still trying to understand how someone can empirically test the claims of one religion vs. another. The Qur'an claims that the Prophet Muhammad performed many miracles with as much certainty as the Bible, what method do you use to determine that the Qur'an is not accurate but the Bible is? The Qur'an has many historical writings and archeological findings that support its claims, why is this kind of evidence acceptable for the Bible but not other holy books?