From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:25:50 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug24.172414.6036@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
|  When I wrote the above, I considered placing a parenthetical
|explanation of the term "anti-faith," but thought it unnecessary, as
|surely people would understand it in context.
|
|I was wrong.
|
|This thread (or the part I've been in), has focused on the issue of
|whether faith is an appropriate tool in evaluating evidence.  Some
|think it is, some say it isn't. 

It depends in part on the context.  In the context of a scientific study
religious faith is *irrelevent*, and should thus not be allowed to intrude.
This is not to say that science assumes God not to exist, merely that the
Universe is sufficiently consistant that it can be studies in its own right,
without directly involving God.

If you do not follow this principle, you are not really interested in, or
using, the scientific method.

|As such, wanting to avoid "those who
|do not rely on faith" kind of terms, I opted for pro-faith (which I
|don't think got used) and anti-faith.  This was not meant as an insult
|or a personal attack.
|
How about 'those who restrict faith and science to thier proper scope'.
We can have, and rely on, faith, it is just not appropriate ot use it in
a scientific discussion.

|>|> Ask all the questions you want, but don't be so arrogant to think that
|>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>|> God must run the universe on your terms.
|>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>   Please apologize for this.
|
|This one I have trouble appologising for, as it is the attitude I have
|seen repeatedly.  "If I were God, I wouldn't do it that way, so that is
|wrong."

Perhaps you have seen it repeatedly, but you seem to see it in a lot of
situations where other people do not.

All I expect of God is that he treat me according to His own rules.

Other than that, He can run the universe however he wants.
|
|The world is very real.  It has existed in its current state (post-fall)
|  for roughly 6,000 years and will end its fallen existance and be returned
|  to perfection.
|We are on it for a purpose.
|We can know a lot about the world around us.
|We can also "learn" things which are not true and need discernment to
|  distinguish right from wrong.

On what evidence, other than faith, can one base this discernment?
In the abscence of relatively objective criteria for 'discernment',
science must stick with the objectively verifiable, and that includes
an old Earth.

|I feel that the idea that the world is millions of years old and life
|  "just happened" is one of these things which are learned but wrong.

Who said 'it just happened'. (Well, actually a lot of people, but when
they say that they are shifting into metaphysics, so the statement is
not 'scientific' in any useful sense).

Can't the Universe be old and still have God involved?

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic