• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Foundations of Genesis Apologetics

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Do such parents bother with doctors or dentists? Do they take their car to a faith healer when it breaks down? Do they get a carpenter to fix their central heating boiler when it breaks down?

I find it hard to believe then that they don't see the dishonesty in using religion to cherry pick scientific facts. So yes, it is their choice, but how honest they are being is open to interpretation. If one of their children is ill, would they want the best medical care? Only medical research is entirely predicated on the fact of species evolution and shared ancestry, so again they can pretend it isn't, but that seems like wilful ignorance to me, and that seems dishonest. Their choice of course, like not going on a cruise just in case the world really is flat, but teaching your child the world is flat, even if you believe it to be so, seems dishonest to me. I feel desperately sorry for children who have their education ruined in such a way.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Yeah, it is not just religions in the end.
It is that some people do subjectivity and objectivity differently than others and that is not limited to religion.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...
Seems a little facile to me, if not deliberately disingenuous as you know not all beliefs are not equally credible.

No, that is to simple. Some are not equally credible, others have no standard of objective credibility.

The world is not just one factor and thus neither objective or subjective. Or physical or mental. Or logical or illogical.

The world is in practice a lot of contexts and there is no single methodology for it all. There are at least 3 and they have all limits.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Yeah, it is not just religions in the end.
It is that some people do subjectivity and objectivity differently than others and that is not limited to religion.

Sorry I'm not sure what that means or what it has to do with my post. The more objective evidence there is to support a fact the more dishonest it is to deny it. If they denied objective facts existed at all then I'd be less inclined to think they were being dishonest, but cherry picking science to weed out a fact as well supported as species evolution, then relying on medical science that is entirely predicated on that fact is demonstrably dishonest.

You have an infection, the doctor explains the disease has evolved to be resistant to certain antibiotics, so they once worked to cure you, but no longer. Why would you listen to him?

I'm over simplifying to make a point obviously.

FYI someone suggested creationist parents were lying to their children, and someone else took umbrage at that claim. I was merely examining how honest it is to deny a fact like species evolution. Especially if you accept other facts validated in precisely the same way by exactly the same method.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
No, that is to simple. Some are not equally credible, others have no standard of objective credibility.

You seem to be repeating my own post back to me?

You already accepted not all beliefs are equal, yet when someone pointed out that Aron Ra believes in truth, you replied that "That is still a belief." If all beliefs are not equally credible then why compare them in this facile way?

I'm making no comment on philosophical schools of thought or their efficacy.
The world is in practice a lot of contexts and there is no single methodology for it all.

Though the scientific method is demonstrably the best method we have for understanding reality, and its successes in a very short space of time are quantifiable.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sorry I'm not sure what that means or what it has to do with my post. The more objective evidence there is to support a fact the more dishonest it is to deny it. If they denied objective facts existed at all then I'd be less inclined to think they were being dishonest, but cherry picking science to weed out a fact as well supported as species evolution, then relying on medical science that is entirely predicated on that fact is demonstrably dishonest.

You have an infection, the doctor explains the disease has evolved to be resistant to certain antibiotics, so they once worked to cure you, but no longer. Why would you listen to him?

I'm over simplifying to make a point obviously.

FYI someone suggested creationist parents were lying to their children, and someone else took umbrage at that claim. I was merely examining how honest it is to deny a fact like species evolution. Especially if you accept other facts validated in precisely the same way by exactly the same method.

Yes, you are picking out a part of the world and then making a general rule based on your chosen rules for which other rules are possible.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You seem to be repeating my own post back to me?

You already accepted not all beliefs are equal, yet when someone pointed out that Aron Ra believes in truth, you replied that "That is still a belief." If all beliefs are not equally credible then why compare them in this facile way?

I'm making no comment on philosophical schools of thought or their efficacy.


Though the scientific method is demonstrably the best method we have for understanding reality, and its successes in a very short space of time are quantifiable.

No, all beliefs are not the same as for all being one type. All beliefs are beliefs, but there are different types and they all have limits.
Where physical, intellectual or moral/emotional.

You are using one type to declare that all of the world is covered by that type of rule.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Yes, you are picking out a part of the world and then making a general rule based on your chosen rules for which other rules are possible.

I don't make any rules that influence the scientific method, or measure it's successes, as those successes are objectively quantifiable. I have created no rules here at all, though i did make an observation based objective evidence.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don't make any rules that influence the scientific method, or measure it's successes, as those successes are objectively quantifiable. I have created no rules here at all, though i did make an observation based objective evidence.

Please explain the external sensory data behind the observations; hear, see and so on. Or reference an instrument which can do it.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Take #2 That is not science. That is your opinion.

I disagree, as its successes are an objectively quantifiable fact. As is the fact it is more successful at helping us understanding reality than any other method, nothing else has come close. None of that is just my opinion.

If people want to hold an unevidenced belief that there is more than the natural physical world and universe that's their choice, but that is just a bare subjective opinion. Now while I don't go as far as claiming only the material world and universe exists, I won't believe there is more until someone can demsonrate some objective evidence for the claim.

I'm being careful not to make claims I cannot evidence, as I always am, but of course I am as prone to error as anyone else. However my comments about science were no just my opinion.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
That they are successes and you know this objectively.

Is that a question?

As I said the successes are objectively quantifiable, it is not a subjective opinion. You keep implying this is my subjective opinion, but that isn't the case. The subjectivity lies in cherry picking which parts of the method one will accept, based solely on the fact those scientific facts dispute or refute some part of unevidenced beliefs.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Is that a question?

As I said the successes are objectively quantifiable, it is not a subjective opinion. You keep implying this is my subjective opinion, but that isn't the case. The subjectivity lies in cherry picking which parts of the method one will accept, based solely on the fact those scientific facts dispute or refute some part of unevidenced beliefs.

So it is a fact of a part of the world, that are unevidenced beliefs? Or it that a case of actual real existing non-existence?
 
Top