We shouldn't even know what Paul's religion is!

[EWM]

If you mean they don't take Genesis 1 literally, then that's included in the part about them being evolutionists. But they still believe what EWM asked about, which is that God was responsible for putting the first man and woman on the earth.

Most scientists who believe in God, believe he/it started the big bang and the universe went on its own from there.

 

[erowe1]

Most scientists who believe in God, believe he/it started the big bang and the universe went on its own from there.

Did you take a poll or something?

I don't know what the majority view is, but I didn't say "most," I said "tons." I'm sure that the number of scientists who believe in God, and who believe that God did more than cause the big bang and then disappear from the scene, if they aren't an absolute majority of all scientists, are a significant minority.

 

[idirtify]

That's the thing. At first it was just the idea of all humanity having 2 common ancestors that was stupid, then you had to switch it to the idea of there being a God. It's not like you can just say, "That's what I meant."

And, by the way, there are tons of evolutionists who believe God is behind it all.

Upon what are you basing such a confident-sounding claim; a leap of faith?

 

[erowe1]

Upon what are you basing such a confident-sounding claim; a leap of faith?

Which claim?

If you mean my claim that it's logically impossible for you to base all of your beliefs on reason and none on faith, that is easily demonstrated, and I've already done it. As far as I know, it's not a controversial statement either.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't read the quote. You probably mean my claim about evolutionists believing in God. There are polls on this kind of thing from time to time. Here's one recent one. According to it, 33% of all scientists believe in God, and an additional 18% (so a total of more than half) believe in a universal higher power.
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

Also, I've spent many years in higher education. I speak to academics all the time from all fields, including every branch of science, who are Christians of some variety. It would be statistically impossible for me to encounter that as often as I have if it were a very rare thing.

 

[idirtify]

Which claim?

If you mean my claim that it's logically impossible for you to base all of your beliefs on reason and none on faith, that is easily demonstrated, and I've already done it. As far as I know, it's not a controversial statement either.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't read the quote. You probably mean my claim about evolutionists believing in God. There are polls on this kind of thing from time to time. Here's one recent one. According to it, 33% of all scientists believe in God, and an additional 18% (so a total of more than half) believe in a universal higher power.
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

Also, I've spent many years in higher education. I speak to academics all the time from all fields, including every branch of science, who are Christians of some variety. It would be statistically impossible for me to encounter that as often as I have if it were a very rare thing.

Yes, I was asking for the basis for your claim that boldly states: “there are tons of evolutionists who believe God is behind it all”.

Now you are giving me all kinds of reasoning for your claim. That is very curious. You were just recently arguing against reason and admitting that all your claims were based on LEAPS OF FAITH.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, I was asking for the basis for your claim that boldly states: “there are tons of evolutionists who believe God is behind it all”.

Now you are giving me all kinds of reasoning for your claim. That is very curious. You were just recently arguing against reason and admitting that all your claims were based on LEAPS OF FAITH.

Once again, despite all my attempts to correct you about this, you still either misunderstand me or deliberately misrepresent what I've said.

I have never, ever, argued against reason. I believe in reason. And I accept on the basis of faith that reason is a valid way to learn truth.

But without faith, it would be impossible for me to trust in reason.

The people whose trust in reason results in contradictions are those who pretend to do so without any faith. I am not one of those.

 

[EWM]

Did you take a poll or something?

I don't know what the majority view is, but I didn't say "most," I said "tons." I'm sure that the number of scientists who believe in God, and who believe that God did more than cause the big bang and then disappear from the scene, if they aren't an absolute majority of all scientists, are a significant minority.

What do you think these scientists believe when it comes to "doing more" than the big bang?

 

[EWM]

Which claim?

If you mean my claim that it's logically impossible for you to base all of your beliefs on reason and none on faith, that is easily demonstrated, and I've already done it. As far as I know, it's not a controversial statement either.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't read the quote. You probably mean my claim about evolutionists believing in God. There are polls on this kind of thing from time to time. Here's one recent one. According to it, 33% of all scientists believe in God, and an additional 18% (so a total of more than half) believe in a universal higher power.
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

Also, I've spent many years in higher education. I speak to academics all the time from all fields, including every branch of science, who are Christians of some variety. It would be statistically impossible for me to encounter that as often as I have if it were a very rare thing.

I think you misunderstood what scientists were getting at when they said they believed in God. Believing in God doesn't necessarily mean believing in the Bible. There are many interpretations as to what God is.

 

[erowe1]

What do you think these scientists believe when it comes to "doing more" than the big bang?

I assume their views are variegated. But undoubtedly many of them believe that there is some sense in which God exercised providential control over the universe such that humanity would come about.

 

[erowe1]

I think you misunderstood what scientists were getting at when they said they believed in God. Believing in God doesn't necessarily mean believing in the Bible. There are many interpretations as to what God is.

Who said anything about believing in the Bible?

 

[EWM]

Who said anything about believing in the Bible?

Most views about God are based on Biblical stories. My whole point is that God can be interpreted in many ways. God can be a complex form of energy for all we know, and not necessarily a divine being that watches over us and intervenes. Most scientists won't accept the god described in the Bible because it is not based on scientific evidence. Granted, they can't fully explain the god they DO believe in, but putting a question mark on it is more logical than accepting mythology created by early man.

 

[erowe1]

Most views about God are based on Biblical stories. My whole point is that God can be interpreted in many ways.

Since you recognize this, why would you try to caricature something I said as though it only allowed for one interpretation of God?

Most scientists won't accept the god described in the Bible because it is not based on scientific evidence.

There you go with the word "most" again. The claim I made wasn't about "most scientists."

 

[EWM]

Since you recognize this, why would you try to caricature something I said as though it only allowed for one interpretation of God?

If that's the case, you didn't make it clear. So you accept the idea that the Bible is not an accurate account of real historic events?

 

[erowe1]

If that's the case, you didn't make it clear. So you accept the idea that the Bible is not an accurate account of real historic events?

If you already know it, why would there be a need to make it clear?

No, I don't accept that. The claims I made that you were responding to weren't about what I believe, but about what many people believe.

Edit: And I did make it clear in post #180.

 

[YumYum]

If that's the case, you didn't make it clear. So you accept the idea that the Bible is not an accurate account of real historic events?

What do you define as a "real historic event"?

 

[erowe1]

What do you define as a "real historic event"?

Good question. I was going to say something about that. But I assume when he said "accurate account" he meant "literal account."

There are, of course, many Christians who do believe that Genesis 1 is an accurate account, but who don't read it literally, and who believe in evolution. I assume that many of the scientists who are Christians (not an insignificant number according to the poll I linked) fit into this category.

 

[EWM]

What do you define as a "real historic event"?

An event in which its legitimacy can be supported by evidence.

 

[idirtify]

Once again, despite all my attempts to correct you about this, you still either misunderstand me or deliberately misrepresent what I've said.

I have never, ever, argued against reason. I believe in reason. And I accept on the basis of faith that reason is a valid way to learn truth.

But without faith, it would be impossible for me to trust in reason.

The people whose trust in reason results in contradictions are those who pretend to do so without any faith. I am not one of those.

Of course you have argued against reason. When you claim that all reasoning is based on a leap of faith, you are arguing against reason. When you claim that MY reasoning and other’s are based on leaps of faith, you are definitely arguing against reason. And when you pick and choose when to make that argument (typically against those who are disagreeing with religious beliefs), you are most certainly arguing against reason. But actually your argument fails in every case, except when you admit that your own reasoning is based on leaps of faith. And since you have not denied or retracted that admission, it renders all your opinions less credible. So as it stands, you admitted a handicap in your capacity to reason, which means you have no authority to say anything about how many evolutionists “believe God is behind it all” – or anything else, for that matter.

Which brings us back to your first statement. On what authority to you claim the ability to correct me?

 

[erowe1]

Of course you have argued against reason. When you claim that all reasoning is based on a leap of faith

That would only be an argument against reason if I were one of those people who thought it was irrational to have any beliefs based on faith.

Again, I'm not one of those people. Therefore, that wasn't an argument against reason.

Do you seriously not understand this. Because if you don't, then you're a crack up. But if you do, you're just being really annoying.

 

[idirtify]

That would only be an argument against reason if I were one of those people who thought it was irrational to have any beliefs based on faith.

Again, I'm not one of those people. Therefore, that wasn't an argument against reason.

Do you seriously not understand this. Because if you don't, then you're a crack up. But if you do, you're just being really annoying.

When you disagree that reason is more rational than faith, and ignore all relative comparisons that show reason is more rational, and selectively aim your argument only at those who disagree with your religious views, you are most certainly arguing against reason. Even though you are technically only trying to drag your opponent’s capacity for reason down to your level, you are still arguing against reason. But again, the only thing you really accomplish is to demonstrate that your own capacity to reason is no better than a leap of faith. Now if you want to make more confessions about your capacity, such as saying you think faith is not less rational than reason, by all means go ahead and further diminish your credibility. You have already firmly established that you have insufficient credibility to cast ANY judgment about MY capacity (or anyone else’s than your own).