Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Cheap blow Min.
Many philosophers and theologians in particular, and specifically Christians would disagree.
One might be lead to believe that true science leads people to believe Earth is younger than 10,000 years too, if you accept their pseudo-science.

No intention to take cheap shots. Its just a question. Id actually like to know.
You dont seem to make quite the bright line distinction between religion and philosophy that another might.


You did give me part of an answer there, tho, saying that some would come to one conclusion, some to another.

It looked to me as if one could go "I think therefore" or, "the Bible is inerrant therefore.." and build from there. Am I wrong about that?


As for "true science" my experience has been that only the pseudo-science people talk about that, and they get it back wards.

I was drawing a parallel.

Just because it looks like science, doesn't mean it is.
Just because it looks like philosophy, doesn't mean it is.
I think it is wrong to pit these two against each other.

To abandon philosophy is to abandon science (physical sciences).
To abandon science is for philosophy to abandon reality.
Both are needed.

YEC is based on a Biblical interpretation that is all.
To say philosophy leads them there, is just as good as saying science does too.

I don't know of any philosophical focused theologians/exegetes on this board other than me who are YEC. And I would insist that not only does philosophy NOT lead to YET . . . In fact in CANNOT do so. I am in the camp that says that philosophy alone cannot address the question of whether the universe came into existence a finite ago at all, much less when it happened. That is a scientific and theological question. So I would advise against using a creation model as evidence for or against she validity of philosophical reasoning.

Jac3510 wrote:I don't know of any philosophical focused theologians/exegetes on this board other than me who are YEC. And I would insist that not only does philosophy NOT lead to YET . . . In fact in CANNOT do so. I am in the camp that says that philosophy alone cannot address the question of whether the universe came into existence a finite ago at all, much less when it happened. That is a scientific and theological question. So I would advise against using a creation model as evidence for or against she validity of philosophical reasoning.

Jac,

This comment makes no sense at all to me.

It seems you have cut the branch you are sitting on.

Science for example is based upon methodological naturalism and naturalized epistemology both of which ARE philosophies both of which also inform philosophical positions. Similarly theology is predicated upon philosophy (logic, epistemology etc) and also informs.

The way you interpret the evidence for YEC is predicated upon philosophy and your YEC position is a philosophical one! You can say it is theological or *cough* scientific but then that position is in turn a philosophical one.

Swap words around all you like, you cant do anything without philosophy and the ultimate final position one holds about something is philosophical.


Squib.

Hmm. There's food for thought.
Valid, but I have a feeling something is amiss.

Are you taking in the context of Audie's comments which Jac and I were responding to?

YEC is a philosophical position, but philosophy itself doesn't lead one to a belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years.

Kurieuo wrote:Hmm. There's food for thought.
Valid, but I have a feeling something is amiss.

Are you taking in the context of Audie's comments which Jac and I were responding to?

YEC is a philosophical position, but philosophy itself doesn't lead one to a belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years.

I didn't even read Audies comments.

The way one reaches a conclusion uses philosophy and this also includes the way "evidence" is interpreted.

I don't see how it can be escaped.

Perhaps I missed the context..

My point was..

The way I see it if someone wants to say philosophy doesn't get them to X, well then what logic did they use to conclude X? (We could add what belief theory , truth, epistemology and so on)

X can be OEC, YEC, evolution, intelligent design, conclusions from a news article replace X with anything...

As soon one decides "how" to interpret something one cannot escape the reality that too is a philosophical position.

To say philosophy doesn't lead you there or for others to attack philosophy, is to cut the very branch off that you are sitting on.

Audie wrote:This thread is worthy of more time than I can give it, alas.

A thought tho..

This forum seems much given to philosophy, and I as a non-philosopher sort looking from the outside have sometimes had the attitude that philosophy often serves to let people drift pretty far from shore.

IF the study of philosophy and the Bible leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is less than 10K yrs old, of what possible use is it?

Unfortunately your argument against philosophy is unsound. For example you can't even do science without philosophy.

Audie, the bottom line is you used philosophy to make your claim here and your claim is a philosophical one!

Perhaps this will help you understand where your thinking is going astray.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE8el_qscvE[/youtube]

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Hmm. There's food for thought.
Valid, but I have a feeling something is amiss.

Are you taking in the context of Audie's comments which Jac and I were responding to?

YEC is a philosophical position, but philosophy itself doesn't lead one to a belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years.

I didn't even read Audies comments.

The way one reaches a conclusion uses philosophy and this also includes the way "evidence" is interpreted.

I don't see how it can be escaped.

Not everyone reaches a conclusion rationally.
YEC case in point, eh Jac.

Kurieuo wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Hmm. There's food for thought.
Valid, but I have a feeling something is amiss.

Are you taking in the context of Audie's comments which Jac and I were responding to?

YEC is a philosophical position, but philosophy itself doesn't lead one to a belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years.

I didn't even read Audies comments.

The way one reaches a conclusion uses philosophy and this also includes the way "evidence" is interpreted.

I don't see how it can be escaped.

Not everyone reaches a conclusion rationally.
YEC case in point, eh Jac.

Well there is good and bad philosophy.

Squible wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I don't know of any philosophical focused theologians/exegetes on this board other than me who are YEC. And I would insist that not only does philosophy NOT lead to YET . . . In fact in CANNOT do so. I am in the camp that says that philosophy alone cannot address the question of whether the universe came into existence a finite ago at all, much less when it happened. That is a scientific and theological question. So I would advise against using a creation model as evidence for or against she validity of philosophical reasoning.

Jac,

This comment makes no sense at all to me.

It seems you have cut the branch you are sitting on.

Science for example is based upon methodological naturalism and naturalized epistemology both of which ARE philosophies both of which also inform philosophical positions. Similarly theology is predicated upon philosophy (logic, epistemology etc) and also informs.

The way you interpret the evidence for YEC is predicated upon philosophy and your YEC position is a philosophical one! You can say it is theological or *cough* scientific but then that position is in turn a philosophical one.

Swap words around all you like, you cant do anything without philosophy and the ultimate final position one holds about something is philosophical.


Squib.

You're confusing philosophy with logic. Rationality requires the use of logic, and philosophy requires rational thinking. Therefore, philosophy employs logic, but they are not the same. Similarly, there are philosophical commitments underlying YEC and OEC and different approaches to science, etc. But those commitments are not the same as the thing itself.

As such, I can say again that philosophy qua philosophy does not lead to either YEC or OEC. Moreover, philosophy qua philosophy cannot even address whether or not the universe came into existence a finite time ago (contra Craig and his never ending arguments against infinities and use of Hilbert).

edit:

And squibble, I'd highly recommed you read The Unity of Philosophical Experience. It is an EXCELLENT book and fairly easy to read. Very enjoyable. It gets at the heart of the relationship between philosophy and other disciplines. Audie, you might find the book helpful as well given your question here.

I didnt express my idea very well, and I suppose I should not try to post here when I dont have time for it. I dont want to be superficial and clearly Im not equipped to argue philosophy.

I think my core idea was wondering what it says about logic / philosophy / religion singly or in any combination if one can through any of those find their way to something as absurd and false as yec. Maybe it only says something about the person, not the tools.

If nobody thinks my post is worth reading or responding to, thats ok, I might not understand the answer.

Tools can be misused. If I am wrong about YEC, it is not because philosophy or theology or the Bible are wrong (they may be, but we don't know that based on me being wrong about YEC). Rather, that just means that I've misused the tools. And so it is with any discipline. The good news is that if you learn to use the tools properly, then you can see for yourself where I (or anybody else) has misused them. And so, witness the very long discussion K and I are having (well, right now, the case K is presenting) on hermeneutics. One (or both) of us is wrong, but others who have studied can see our arguments and figure out for themselves where we have made the mistake. And that, at core, is what peer review is about. It is not about convincing the person themselves that they are wrong, but rather the community considering the arguments and deciding whether or not they are properly employed and useful for further consideration. What that looks like in practice is different from discipline to disicipline--from tool to tool--but the underlying idea seems to be the same to me regardless.

Jac3510 wrote: You're confusing philosophy with logic. Rationality requires the use of logic, and philosophy requires rational thinking. Therefore, philosophy employs logic, but they are not the same. Similarly, there are philosophical commitments underlying YEC and OEC and different approaches to science, etc. But those commitments are not the same as the thing itself.

As such, I can say again that philosophy qua philosophy does not lead to either YEC or OEC. Moreover, philosophy qua philosophy cannot even address whether or not the universe came into existence a finite time ago (contra Craig and his never ending arguments against infinities and use of Hilbert).

edit:

And squibble, I'd highly recommed you read The Unity of Philosophical Experience. It is an EXCELLENT book and fairly easy to read. Very enjoyable. It gets at the heart of the relationship between philosophy and other disciplines. Audie, you might find the book helpful as well given your question here.

Jac,

I have read plenty and I am not confused in the slightest. Do you honestly think I am that naïve? I have read enormous amounts on these topics over the years.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.

I am not referring to the "field of" philosophy itself as such. I am talking about philosophy in general or that which has derived from "the field/s of philosophy" itself, as such it is in this sense I am taking issue with.

In that we use philosophy to get to X. There is no escaping this.

I am full well aware of philosophy of logic which studies the nature and scope of logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of "whatever else" and so on. I also understand demarcations. So please, do not assume I am uneducated on these matters.

I disagree with you that they are only scientific or theological questions. I see it as scientific, theological and philosophical.

In addition, Craig and the argument he employs for infinites could be correct, if it is the case then that puts you in a rather awkward position.

The status of YEC as a fantasy is not open to serious question, so perhaps theology and philosophy are just not the right tools for addressing the topic.