AJ,

>it is believed to the ultimate truth ... supposedly truer than all other truths<
More or less so. However, this makes sense only to those who “carry within themselves, pre-formed, a mental space where the Truth may eventually lodge” (Ortega y Gasset), and should not be forced on those who do not. Returning to my previous example, somebody unfamiliar with Australian politics would not understand why one has to say “small el liberals”, although in this case it is not hard to explain the need.

Yes, Truth, as I understand it (or Ultimate Reality, cf. above), has a rationally objective as well as a psychologically subjective dimension. (And yes, one would need to define properly all these terms.)

Thank you for reminding me that I perhaps should not have used the term ‘trivial’ in the sense of ‘everyday” (in maths one uses the term to denote problems easy to solve). What i meant was, that e.g. to decide about the truth of how many fingers are there on your hand you have to be knowledgeable in neither anatomy nor mathematics, although anatomy, and certainly mathematics, deals with many ‘non-trivial’ questions that cannot be answered that simply.

In principle (though not always in practice, and never mind Goedel) it is easy to decide about the (formal) truth of a mathematical proposition; the question about the truthfulness of a physical theory is principally much more complicated, and I maintain that it is much, much more complicated to decide about Truth where so many other things - metaphysics, psychology, tradition etc. - are involved and interconnected. So there are all sorts of shortcuts (myths, doctrines, etc.) offered as a “first approximation” of the otherwise incomprehensible Truth. The philosophically unsophisticated - but not only those - equate these shortcuts with that Truth, or reduce Truth to the truth as they see it in their (or others‘) scientific investigations. Both shortcuts are legitimate, rationally self contained. Only those who Ortega y Gasset refers to above see these as only approximations - some good, some not so good - of the whole, principally incomprehensible, Truth.

George,

I'd have to say, conversing with you is certainly is a thought-provoking experience. We may not necessarily change the minds of others, but if we can broaden them, or at least provoke some thought, then OLO has served a valuable purpose.

Dan,

I need to expand on what I wrote in my last response. Some of my points were far too brief due to the word restrictions, and if I don't take the opportunities during the extensive periods between your posts to clarify what I am saying, then I could be here for the rest of the year explaining simple concepts to you.

My point about the differences between the commitment of Creationists and Evolutionists, in regards to their beliefs, cannot be put down to one simple notion: The fear of God. So hyper-focusing on the word “fear” and stating that Christians don't live in fear isn't going to debunk a logical point.

My point is very basic and logical, and this is one of the reasons I've said that some Theists here are having trouble grasping basic logic.

Forget eternal consequences (both good and bad) here for a moment. There is another major difference between both Theistic belief and Atheistic belief that Theists often have difficulty grasping, and that is the motives that can be derived from the belief in something, as opposed to the absence of a belief in something.

This is why I raised the point about wars and terror in the name of religion. The belief in something divine can drive people to do, say and think things that wouldn't otherwise be done, said or thought in the absence of a belief in something divine. This is one of the reasons that the 'Stalin' argument is so silly, and doesn't work. Yet it is repeated over and over!

So getting back to my main point, and forgetting eternal consequences, some of the many ways you can distinguish between Evolutionists and Creationists, is the fact that Evolutionists don't believe their theory as unquestioningly as Creationists do. Evolutionists don't love Darwin, or his Theory.

Continued...

...Continued

Especially not with the undying passion that Creationists do.

So my main point on this thread is still standing strong, and hence, one of my points about the Theists (George aside) on this thread.

I was astonished when you said you'd be interested to see my examples of Theists failing to grasp basic logic on this thread! The more you post, the stronger my points become, since you give me more and more angles to approach my arguments from, and your counter-arguments do virtually nothing to weaken my points.

As for the trivialisation of the definition of “evidence”, this is a poor way to argue your beliefs. You can narrow down the definition of 'evidence' all you like, but it doesn't take away the fact that there is far more evidence for Evolution than Creationism.

The way we interpret the evidence is also quite insignificant if you're trying to prove different theory. Bringing Evolution into question doesn't prove Creationism, but none of the Creationist's arguments even do that! This is why they're ridiculed so much, and treated as a joke.

The assumption of many Theists, that there are only two possibilities (creationism and evolution), goes back to my point earlier about the Theist's assumption that the mindset of Atheists is comparable to the mindset of most Theists.

The only real argument that Creationists have, is the so-called “proof” of design. But this is ridiculous for many reasons - complexity is not necessarily synonymous with design. Even the 'Irreducible Complexity' argument - which was debunked shorty after it was raised by Behe - never proved design.

The points that Creationists come up with, are either gross misunderstandings of science and/or evolution, or half-truths that ignore many other logical points.

Even if Creationists could dis-prove evolution, they'd only be part-way there, because they'd still have to prove Creationism. A belief that, so far, has no credible proof at all.

That fact that there is a 'controversy', or that this thread has continued for so long, means nothing when there are some out there, who have unshakable and fundamentalist-style beliefs.

AJ,
After another four posts of fervent support for evolution, your concluding comment concerned those out there with unshakable, fundamentalist-style beliefs (raise eyebrows!).

This does partly explain the length of this thread, but I disagree that all such people are found on only one side of the argument.

However, I would like to get away from using the term ‘fundamentalist’, as it carries little meaning outside of a particular context. (Thanks, david f, for giving us some dictionary type definitions of the word, a few posts back, to try and keep us on track.) These days the word ‘fundamentalist’ is often used as little more than an insult, a bit like calling people ‘communist’ in the McCarthy era.

You accused theists of having failed to accept basic logic provided on this thread. When I asked you to supply an example of this, you came up with ‘that Evolutionists can’t be compared with Creationists’ or (as best I understand) there being some qualitative difference between evolutionist and creationist scientists.

Well, that’s your opinion. And opinions are great. Opinions are what this website is about. You believe evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe evolution is largely held to for philosophical or historical reasons, but not for the force of evidence. But opinions and logic are a different category of beast.

I’ll admit to not being able to follow your points very well, but it is impossible to ‘fail to accept basic logic’ until we are first presented with some.

If you want to find those with unshakable beliefs, have a look at those who posted comments above declaring evolution an established ‘fact’ in a similar sense to the testable and repeatable assertion that water boils at 100 Deg.

For many, evolution is an unshakable tenet of faith, and for some, an important base in their philosophy. However, in you, AJ, I’m glad for having discovered an evolutionist that is so open to being persuaded of the possibility that it may be wrong.

david f said,
“Bible believing Christianity does not encourage the spirit of inquiry which is necessary for a scientist although there are cases where it has not succeeded in stifling it.”

The idea that Christianity is somehow in conflict with science, or that they are in some way ideologically opposed not only runs counter to history, but would be a surprise to the thousands of practicing scientists who happen to be Christian. It is a false dichotomy.

Science is a method which can be applied successfully by anyone. Without doubt, Western science owes much to the Greek philosophers. And scientific impetus also had tentative beginnings in other parts of the world.

Yet I stand by what I said about modern science owing much of its beginnings to the European Christian mindset.

Science started to flourish in Europe roughly in the middle of the last Millennium at a time when certain currents of thought came together, not least of which was the influence of Christian theology and the increased availability of the Scriptures (via the printing press). Crucial was the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator and therefore could be rationally interpreted. People began searching for the laws set in place by an orderly creator. If there was no creator, or if the Greek gods, who were always fighting with each other, made the world, why should people have assumed that the universe contained any order?

David f mentions these scientific categories:
chemistry – try taking away the contributions of Boyle and Ramsay,
physics – think of Kelvin and Isaac Newton,
David f says, ‘biology rests on evolution’. I say codswollop!
biology – the greatest biologists, Mendel and Pasteur, argued against Darwin,
astronomy – Copernicus, Galileo.
All of these solidly believed the Scriptures. Even Galileo defended his views scripturally to the Pope (with whom he was having a personal spat. Others throughout the church gladly welcomed his views).

Christianity is not in any conflict with the scientific method, or any healthy, practical science.
It is, however, willing to pick a bone with philosophy masquerading as knowledge.

de Merengue wrote:
The idea that Christianity is somehow in conflict with science, or that they are in some way ideologically opposed not only runs counter to history, but would be a surprise to the thousands of practicing scientists who happen to be Christian. It is a false dichotomy.

de Merengue left off my adjective Bible believing. I take Bible believing Christianity to mean a literal belief in a seven day creation, in a world wide flood, in Jesus walking on water and turning water into wine and other instances where laws of nature were suspended. That is totally opposed to science.

Modern biology rests on evolutionary theory. It is the accepted scientific consensus.

As de Merengue wrote 'science started to flourish in Europe roughly in the middle of the last Millennium,.

However, it certainly was not due to Christian theology. It was a restoration of the spirit of inquiry that existed in the classical world, knowledge of such thinkers in the Arab world as Avicenna, Averroes and the Jewish physician, Maimonides and the Reformation with the questioning of religious doctrine that accompanied it.

Galileo argued from Scripture because he could not argue from experiment and observation and be listened to. Copernicus published his works posthumously because he was afraid of Christian persecution. Isaac Newton spent the last part of his life in theological ruminations. Apparently he was a Unitarian who opposed the church doctrine of the Trinity.

de Merengue wrote 'the greatest biologists, Mendel and Pasteur, argued against Darwin.'

Pasteur argued against Darwin, but his argument was not based on science. It was based on his faith in the Bible.

Darwin lacked an adequate mechanism to explain inheritance. Mendel could have provided that.

From the net: Mendel concluded that organisms evolved from the simple to the complex. He might have supported Darwin and his work. Some think that Mendel not only did not understand Darwin but was actually opposed to some of Darwin's ideas."