The Faith & Religion mega Thread

It is my understanding that fundamentalist organized religions hold dear the tenet that "All you have to do is Believe, and all will be revealed to you". That seems backwards to me. Logic and critical thinking don't work like that. Only Blind Faith does. Seventh Day Adventists are a fundamentalist church like that and even they disown Veith as "too radical".

But there is some truth in it. There are all kinds of things that you cannot learn without some preceding degree of committment to the process. Haven't we all seen people who wanted to try out Linux but quickly decided that it demanded too much of them and went back to Windows?

One's 'reality' is their IMAGE-ination. https://www.shortform.com/blog/your-...-your-reality/

Originally Posted by enorbet Veith as "too radical".

Cite please.

Re: Veith as too radical

Originally Posted by mrmazda Cite please.

Aside from Walter Veith's multiple "releases" from formal teaching positions in scientific fields, his books and lectures received admonition from some Seventh Day Adventist organizations sketched out even in wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia-Walter Veith Veith's view of the KJV Bible Veith holds that some of the new versions of the Bible coming out came from manuscripts with corruptions introduced by the Alexandrian text and varies and is less reliable than the Majority Text.[25] The Adventist church does not hold a KJV only view,[26] although a number of Adventists continue to prefer the King James Version. Because of his 2004 lecture "War of the Bibles", Veith was denied access to SDA churches in Germany for a time but was reinstated in 2010.[27] A periodical recommended that Veith "revise from scratch future comments on this topic to be balanced, fair and serious or to dispense with them".[28] The Adventist Biblical Research Institute disagrees with Veith's view of Bible translations.[26]

In my view it only matters little that Veith's own religious views are controversial among his fellows in religion. Arguing about doctrine and mythical details are of little concern to me being absent objective evidence. My only real concern with Veith is his obviously agenda driven pseudoscience especially in the areas of Evolution and Earth's age, both surviving hundreds of years of expert (and extreme) scrutiny. Science doesn't concern itself with absolute certainty, only levels of probability. The probability of accuracy for Evolution and Earth's age are well into the high 90s percentile odds. To gain any ground against such odds requires extraordinary evidence, much like the nature of fire as oxidation, not "phlogiston", and the existence of Gravity. Veith exhibits none of that level of discipline.

"The probability of accuracy for Evolution and Earth's age are well into the high 90's percentile odds."

You realize, of course, that all such things are utterly impossible to "scientifically" know, and that "percentiles" cannot meaningfully be applied here. We cannot "lay odds." Thus, we cannot rely upon nor defend them. It simply can't be done.

Both the assumption about "Earth's age," and "Evolution™ as the sole explanation of the vast diversity of life upon this planet," is simply that: "your faith." Your belief. Not "science."

Likewise – folks like "Veith." Operating within the framework of your sphere of religious thought, and calling the whole thing "science." And, apparently, generating controversy within your chosen religious orbit.

The cold reality is that "science" cannot even begin to answer these – as I call them – "Big Kahuna questions." Because it does not have hard, objective data to work from which "inevitably" leads to the desired "Big Kahuna answer." You are asking too much of "science." More than it is literally capable of doing.

From your Bible: "Were you there, when the foundations of the world were laid?" There's important wisdom there . . .

If you start with a premise that you, for some reason or another, "want to believe," then it is a simple matter to "cherry-pick" the things which you find to support your position. But, this is not "science," because "science" works the other way. (And, even "science" can "conclude" that the world is flat.)

"Three blind mice." That's where we all are firmly stuck. "Sux to be mortal."

Sundialsvcs it seems to me you believe that 1) Truth implies 100% certainty, and 2) The only certainty possible is "with my own eyes".

Going backwards, eyewitness testimony is recognized as barely above hearsay even in a court of law which is many orders of magnitude less strict and rigorous than The Scientific Method. The reasons this is so should be essentially self evident to any thinking person who has even a few years of life experience, certainly anyone who has witnessed magician's acts. Our eyes are biased and easily fooled.

"My own eyes" also has a sample of one further adding to the unreliability. As I recall, you as a child (and I assume little or no experience in photography let alone Astrophysics) watched Apollo Moon Landings and "just knew" it was faked. Given photography in a Moon environment was absolutely new, that wasn't a huge stretch to think. "It looks odd" because it absolutely WAS odd! - no frame of reference, totally unprecedented!

FFWD to the 21st Century and numerous outfits like "Mythbusters" but perhaps far more notably, Nvidia, the top graphics corporation who has spent countless man/hours and dollars on digital re-creation to appear virtually immersive and real, setup a test, plugging in light source intensity, lack of atmospheric effects, albedo and hundreds of other parameters to see if the results A) looked real, and B) matched or not to Apollo photos and videos. Everything matched perfectly. This is but one example of vast numbers of actual experts in each field who checked why Apollo photos "looked odd" to the untrained eye.

You can write it off as "Argument From Authority" but the sample size is huge and every one of them come to the same conclusions - every attempt in over 50 years to debunk Apollo Landings has failed miserably and vast amounts of data in every field confirm it, whether from those who desire a Pro outcome or those who desire a Con outcome. Unless one is pre-judiced, one has to at the very least, recognize the proponderance of evidence must at least cast some doubt on the conclusion it was a hoax. This doesn't even address the issue that "authority" does matter. Nobody in their right mind is going to hire a child, or their plumber to do brain surgery on their Mother.

On to #1 - Truth requiring certainty. The only 100% certainty that exists is Mathematical literally because it is an abstract construct. One equals One, no more, no less. One plus One equals Two, no more, no less BY DEFINITION. From these incontrovertible definitions, totally apart from any agenda from any one person or group of persons, any data reduced to simple quantities can be proved correct or incorrect, within the realm of Mathematics.

Once we use math to apply to real world events, 100% certainty is no longer possible as there are way too many variables, even unknown variables. This is why we can postulate that the flap of a butterfly's wings in Africa can be a trigger for a hurricane in the US and see that as a possibility for how minor events can combine with other events to conclude in major events, but proof is impossible.

Now, dealing with whether or not events further upstream can result in reasonable odds predictions of a hurricane reaching US shores, that is demonstrably true. Surely there is such a mathematical term representing real world variables and that is called Standard Deviation. It has a formal name because it has been researched for many generations and all we need do is look around us at the technological marvels around us not to mention the vast degree of acceleration gathering to see that this methodology can by no means referred to as "three blind mice".

I think I've mentioned this here before but if so it bears repeating. I have photos of Main Street taken circa 1910 of the town in which my GrandFather was born showing hitching posts still lining the street. By the time he died in 1981 Main Street was paved and lined with automobiles, radio, telephones and television were ubiquitous and multiple passenger jets flew overhead each day, and rockets had taken photos of most of the planets of our solar system as Voyager whizzed by. (I won't bother you with "men walking on the moon" at this point).

One does not have to plant a seedling to know how old it is since we can count the rings of the adult tree. I won't expand on and belabor the point but I submit it is entirely demonstrable with ridiculously high odds that while we may not know the exact year, month, day and hour Mother Earth coalesced into a firm planet, we most definitely know within reasonable percentage deviation it is NOT measured in mere thousands of years, not even millions. It is entirely reasonable and safe to say that the Earth is between 4 Billion and 5 Billion years old.

If you'd like to see how we know this this is a decent start https://earthsky.org/earth/age-of-ea...-planet-earth/.

The same sort of odds applies to Evolution and BTW I truly don't grasp why Evolution is a topic of discussion regarding the existence of a Divine Creator. Disproving Evolution would not result in any conclusion regarding a Creator's likelihood, only some scripture, and not others, since there have been thousands, all of which disagree in part or whole cloth.

Your "faith" in "the religion of science" has always been captivating. We don't know that "Evolution is the answer" beyond the species level. And, we don't know "how old the Earth is." All that we have are clues, and those are "as we continue to interpret and debate them." Let us always, therefore, keep this very firmly in mind as we proceed. There is always room for "another Nobel Prize."

I recently passed a billboard by the freeway, here in the Deep South, by an overtly-religious organization. It said: "Created in Seven Days," or "X.XX billion years of nothing." Both require faith." Uh, huh. And I don't choose to believe either of them. I don't know what "the answer" is, but I don't think that either of these positions are "it."

"But also, 'science.'" We are all(!) "peering through a glass, darkly." I personally choose to be skeptical about a great many things which are strutted about as "'scientific' [x]." To clarify – I embrace the notion that "I don't [have to ...] 'know.'" And, to me, that position is not 'ignorance' or 'Luddite.'

This is why I specifically rejected: "percentiles." This, to me, is an entirely inappropriate use of a specialized statistical term. None of us humans are actually in the position to say that "the probability that [I am right ...] is ..." Nor will we ever be. "Sux to be mortal."

LOL here we go again! Maybe your definition of Faith is quite different from mine but to me (and Merriam-Webster)it means

Originally Posted by Webster's Dictionary (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return

I happen to take issue with "proof" and prefer "evidence" but that seems to create some conflict as to the definition of "evidence". In Science, one man, one paper, one book, isn't evidence. That's basically an anecdote.

The Scientific Method has strict requirements. It is NOT a Belief System by definition or it isn't scientific. To be scientific evidence, any claim must be falsifiable, independently repeatable, and survive severe scrutiny from many trying to "poke holes" in the hypothesis before it can even be recognized as "scientific theory". It also is a requirement that the hypothesis make predictions that sooner or later bear out, commonly by and against the scrutiny of others. Such rigor increases the level of confidence of veracity.

We DO know the age of the Earth well beyond the accuracy the Egyptians knew pi, with which they built the pyramids. Consider pi for a moment.
The ancients first measured it as "3". It is useful (obviously) even at that crude estimation. Archimedes improved on that and got ""3.14" which is a few percentile more accurate. In 2024, thanks to computers, we know pi out to the first six billion decimal places !!! That, too is a few percentile improvements, but really in common practice, not really much more useful that 3.14159, or even 3.142.

So...are you of the opinion we don't really know the value of pi? Do you have even the faintest of understanding of what it takes to land a spacecraft on a comet or asteroid? I submit they surely didn't get there on faith.

This is the level of understanding of the age of Earth and Evolution. Even if we are off by a raging 10%, again it is utterly safe to say the Earth is 4 Billion years old. It is even vastly more safe to say it is NOT merely thousands of years old. Literally the ONLY people who think it is, are fundamentalist of Abrahamic Religions, and they have no credible evidence.

I have to thank you, sundialsvcs, for your last post as you inspired me to do some searching. What I found I think you will find fascinating. It's a video by a Believer who is also a scientist, a Biologist in fact. In this one he explores both Young Earth and biblical Creation as opposed to the creation of the mechanism of Evolution.

Naturally I disagree with some of it, since I am a non-believer, and well...Occam's Razor, but I cannot argue with his methodology and I very much like his gentle ways of dealing with conflict and contradiction. Here's a preview - he agrees with several tenets of both Young Earth and gaps in Evolution and what could conceivably fill those gaps.

Anyway I think even the most hardcore fundamentalists here, will at least find this enlightening not to mention entertaining. In full disclosure (why would I post a link to something I disagree with?) , I think it does a decent job of explaining why Science isn't Religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvK_Onjzj9I

Originally Posted by enorbet BTW I truly don't grasp why Evolution is a topic of discussion regarding the existence of a Divine Creator. Disproving Evolution would not result in any conclusion regarding a Creator's likelihood, only some scripture, and not others, since there have been thousands, all of which disagree in part or whole cloth.

Exactly. Creation and evolution operate at different levels and the constant attempts by fundamentalists and others (including you, enorbet) to force them into a clash is ultimately pointless. It's like confusing the question of who wrote Hamlet with the question of who killed Hamlet's father. The latter question is about the realities of Hamlet's world, the former about why that world even exists. If Hamlet were to say, "I believe in Shakespeare and therefor Claudius could not have killed my father." it would be an obvious non-sequitur.

I also get annoyed by the constant confusion of theories and hypotheses in these arguments. A hypothesis is a putative fact which may or may not be true but which, if it were true, would explain an otherwise inexplicable result. If the hypothesis is subsequently proven to be true, it ceases to be a hypothesis and becomes a fact. Theories are explanations of the facts and how they are linked together. Such explanations can be adequate or inadequate but it makes very little sense to say that they are true or false.

Well hazel it's kind of funny. I disagree that I force a clash with Religion over Evolution. The clash exists almost entirely with fundamentalists who insist on infallible, literal interpretation of scripture. I do point out that I see that as rather obviously fallacious and that goes back to your previous post about "Believe and all will be revealed". I see no similarity between trying Linux and Blind Faith. One doesn't even have to believe Linux is an improvement over any other OpSys. Some try it just to prove it's not as good. In any case belief one way or another is hardly a prerequisite.... not so with some Religion.

OTOH I totally agree regarding scientific theory. While a hypothesis must gather evidence to become a theory, that's not the purpose of theory. By definition theory is largely the mechanics explaining how a process works. For example, someone, possibly Fred Hoyle was first to formalize it, created the hypothesis that heavier elements were created in stars to explain how a progression from Hydrogen > Helium continued. Over time, especially as we began to understand the nature of novae, it all gelled into the Theory of Nucleosynthesis since the requisite energy and pressure was found to exist in some stellar environments. This aided greatly in mapping out star evolution, under special scrutiny right now due to JWST (which is exacvtly why it was built).

I have said more than once that Darwin's title, "The Origin of Species," was deliberate. I have read the book – I have it in hardcover – and it is quite clear. He begins by thoroughly documenting the existence of species-level evolution, then explores other possibly-related topics. But he does not aver that "evolution" is the source of the vast diversity of life. No one can know that. He thoroughly probes the topic, which is precisely what he set out to do. (And, he was a good writer.)

In fact, there are clearly many built-in biological "error controls." Creatures faithfully procreate "after their own kind." Sometimes, miscarriages occur. If a monkey were to rape a baboon, nothing would happen. And, so on. We don't yet understand how many of these things work, but we can very plainly see that they are there. And this cuts against the grain of "random(?) processes" leading to brand-new viable organisms, "both male and female."

And, don't try a "Carl Sagan" [RIP ...] on me. Your "billions and billions" won't persuade me. That's hand-waving.

In other words – and, I like this thought a lot – "guess what ... there are more mysteries!" In your endless quest for "certainty," which is a good thing, always expect to find another "mystery." Endlessly keep looking for the answer, but don't expect to find it.

So: with regard to topics like this, my position is simple. "I don't know what it 'is,' and I never expect to. But I do think that I see what it 'isn't.'" And, it does not bother me in the slightest "not to 'know.'" While others find the very idea extremely uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Creatures faithfully procreate "after their own kind."

But what is a kind? It looks pretty obvious at first sight. For instance, we have two kinds of moderately large gull in the UK: herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls (greater black-backed gulls are larger still but not relevant to my argument). Herring gulls have light grey wings and pink legs while lesser black backs have dark grey wings and yellow legs. The species do not interbreed. Seems pretty clear-cut!

But if you track lesser black-backed gulls eastward through the Urals and into Asia, their wings get gradually lighter and their leg colour more and more muddy. As you move across the Behring Straits into North America and onward, the leg colour clears to pink and the wing colour stabilises as light grey. They have become herring gulls. And it is probably these American birds that are the ancestors of our Western European herring gulls.

Now imagine a similar gradation across time rather than across space. Dogs and wolves used to be seen as different species. Admittedly they can produce fertile hybrids but then so can wolves and coyotes. Now DNA analysis suggests that dogs and wolves should after all be seen as the same species. Similarly with domestic cats, European wildcats and Mediterranean wildcats (the most probable ancestor of the domestic cat). They used to be considered completely separate species. The whole thing is fuzzier than a lot of people think.

While I completely don't understand your problems with large numbers, sundialsvcs, I think I do understand your problem with "kind", largely because it's straight from a 2000+ year old composite document. I also am confident you didn't even bother to click on the link I provided in #11845 which is a video by a Believer who is also an Evolutionary Biologist and who is so balanced and gentlemanly to point out when Young Earth and Anti-Evolution arguments make valid points.

A major bonus is that being a Believer and something of a scripture scholar, he fully explains what "kind" means biologically and where it departs from actual evidence, and where it isn't all wrong.

Hazel did a good job with some studied examples. The video explains how and why "kind" is insufficient. It's only one aspect of a much larger process. If you desire to appear (or far more importantly, BE) a serious thinker, someone who is critically skeptical rather than blindly skeptical, dismissing anything you don't currently grasp offhand, you really should attempt to grasp what "kind" truly is and that Sarwin, though certainly a milestone scientist, has been scrutinized and revised dramatically in the 164 years since he finally published Origin of Species.

Science does not stand still. Just as Newton is still valid and useful in many areas but deficient and useless in others, the same is true for Darwin. Science welcomes revision. Revision, based on new evidence, is the definition of "Progress".... and a Billion is just as valid a number as Ten. It's just harder to "wrap your head around". Nevertheless such numbers are not only valid but important... how important depends on your chosen field of concern, but this one is both close to home and utterly visible... well, with the aid of a microscope. The average adult male has on average 36 TRILLION cells making up their flesh and bones. Some doctors and medical students likely find that useful knowledge. You might if you ever "go under the knife" or need medicine of any kind.

It's substantially less than Billions, but the distance between Memphis and London is roughly 277,200,000 inches and since you are also apparently concerned with percentiles, you wouldn't want to underestimate that distance by even one inch, let alone one percent, stepping from your boat to the dock but if you didn't panic (and know how to swim) you could likely adjust and manage any miscalculation That would be far less disastrous than a 20% miscalculation which might serve you up for sharks dinner. Improving one's ability to measure accurately is important and useful regardless of the number system. I mean if you don't like 1,000,000,000 how about 10^9?