Creation/Evolution

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Isn't that a question you should ask the next poster?

But before you do that, maybe you should answer the question I have asked you?

Originally posted by daniel58
I did you said "Or because it contradicts your Christian faith" and I said "Yes".
You are confused about who you are talking to, again.

The thing is, it is all written down. Please try to tke more care.

Originally posted by daniel58
All morality comes from God.

I think that many things come from God, like our nature and limitations, of course none of us would exist if God didn't.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
twhitehead,

When "the concept of continuity" was mentioned to you, I think what was meant was the principle of the uniformity of nature.

I'm sure you are familiar with the argument that this must be accepted without justification in order for the scientific enterprise to continue.

Originally posted by daniel58
1. If all morality comes from God, then so must your conscience.
2. I was talking to Andrew Hamilton.

Originally posted by twhitehead

if you don't mind I'll leave the issue of my agreement or otherwise until I've sketched the argument for you a bit better.

The principle of the uniformity of nature is not just about whether the laws of nature have been the same at all times in the past. Science proceeds on the basic assumption that the future will resemble the past in this regard. There would be no point in attempting science otherwise, since if the laws of nature change tomorrow and at random thereafter, science as we know it will be impossible.

So we assume that the future will resemble the past. Can we justify that assumption? Well, you might point to evidence that suggests that the laws of nature have remained the same so far (after the big bang).
But we can see that this reasoning is circular. All the evidence from the past establishes is that the laws have remained constant so far. This gives no assurance that they will remain so, unless we rely on the very thing we are trying to establish, namely that the future will resemble the past.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
if you don't mind I'll leave the issue of my agreement or otherwise until I've sketched the argument for you a bit better.

The principle of the uniformity of nature is not just about whether the laws of nature have been the same at all times in the past. Science proceeds on the basic assumption that the future will resemble the past in this regard. The ...[text shortened]... on the very thing we are trying to establish, namely that the future will resemble the past.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still feel that it is not so clear cut.
I'm sorry I gave you the impression that things were in any way clear cut. As I said, I merely sketched one version of the argument.

It is more a case of we assume that patterns can be determined in the universe and that once patterns are determined they are more likely than not to continue into the future. I think this is a basic assumption we make and must make about the universe but is hardly restricted to science.
I think that's equivalent to my sketch actually. I agree that it is not restricted to science.

However, the creationist view, or any other view for that matter would not be free from the same assumption, and therefore the point is not particularly important.
I disagree insofar as CalJust actually need not make quite that assumption. This is because he has wrapped his assumptions into a tight narrative bundle with the label 'God' which has some different properties to the uniformity of nature as viewed from a rationalist perspective.

Also, rationalist defences that deny there are any assumptions without (non-circular) justification are prone to versions of the argument I have presented.

But of course your above description is not what Cal Just was referring to, nor what I replied to.
That's true, I apologise for my error.

I simply don't buy Cal Justs claim that all the evidence available currently fits two different explanations,
Whilst I don't personally buy any of CalJust's explanations I think it is important to realise that there is a sense in which, if you are clever enough, you can make your world view, atheist or theist, compatible with the available evidence.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I disagree insofar as CalJust actually need not make quite that assumption. This is because he has wrapped his assumptions into a tight narrative bundle with the label 'God' which has some different properties to the uniformity of nature as viewed from a rationalist perspective.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely a theist must believe that God follows certain rules and is consistent in those rules? I really cant see how a theist can avoid the exact same assumption we are discussing.
You might argue that it comes down to the same thing, however you have already seen that it plays out a bit differently if the buck stops with god, and god is bound only by god's nature, since then god can monkey around with the uniformity of nature with delirious abandonment, if only to test our faith by making the world look very old.

I disagree. I believe you can always convince yourself that the evidence fits your world view, but to some extent if your world view is wrong, you must ignore or manipulate undesirable evidence and must become aware that you are doing so. I also think that there is no good reason to argue that we should not discuss the evidence. The only way that we could fail to come to a consensus on the meaning of a given piece of evidence is if it truly does fit both view points, or if one of us is lying to ourselves.
We will have to agree to differ I reckon. My view is that the available evidence can, with sufficient ingenuity, be incorporated into many different world views, even YEC. We might regard the arguments used in order to facilitate the compatibility implausible, but of course we are judging that from within our world views.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
You might argue that it comes down to the same thing, however you have already seen that it plays out a bit differently if the buck stops with god, and god is bound only by god's nature, since then god can monkey around with the uniformity of nature with delirious abandonment, if only to test our faith by making the world look very old.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I would be perfectly happy with a creationist who argues that God deliberately tampered with the evidence to mislead us. However I am yet to meet a creationist who will admit as such. They instead argue that the evidence points fair and square at a young earth.
Well, I think we agree that they are just wrong about that.

Cal Just even pointed me to a book apparently written by scientists presenting exactly such evidence. The evidence must rely on the exact same uniformity principle we are discussing or it is of no value whatsoever. Evidence by its very nature relies on that principle.
I agree that evidence relies on that principle, but that doesn't negate my original point, which is: we must rely on the uniformity of nature which is an assumption we must accept as basic. If we try to argue with the theist that our world view contains no such basic assumptions, we will lose for the reasons I've mentioned. I have since interpreted your view as taking this as a given which is not specific to science, and I agree.

The fact that you can turn around and say that the theist has such assumptions too is not necessarily a good counter, since they can argue that their foundational assumption is called 'god' who is even more basic than the uniformity of nature. This they take on faith. They take god as a premise and argue in the other direction, so the fact that they have foundational assumptions is a given, it doesn't damage their position in the same way.

Granted, some theists might not have the ingenuity to execute their arguments properly and some might insist that the evidence points to a young earth as well as the existence of god. All we can do there is debate as best we can and try to point out the flaws I think.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I agree that evidence relies on that principle, but that doesn't negate my original point, which is: we must rely on the uniformity of nature which is an assumption we must accept as basic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But I still fail to see how it harms my position in any way.
It doesn't. What it does is indicate where particular care is advisable in the execution of debating your position.

So for example, if you were to say something like:

"I personally think it is not true in the slightest that anything must be accepted without justification when dealing with science."

then that would be open to the line of attack I have outlined, since the scientific process itself rests on certain basic assumptions (like the uniformity of nature) which must be accepted in order to proceed, but which cannot be justified without circularity.

Now, I admit that this in turn can be countered because you could argue that not to accept these assumptions is self-stultifying and that this in itself constitutes a rational justification, even though a logical one would be circular. That's fine, if you don't mind playing out those variations, then it isn't for me to criticise, and in any case I have admitted that I was at fault to bring it up in the first place.

And I am more than willing to do just that and I found it interesting that Cal Just was not, and wondered what his reasons were for not being willing to do so.
Good luck with that, I don't tend to argue much with creationists but that is a matter of personal taste rather than principle.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
It doesn't. What it does is indicate where particular care is advisable in the execution of debating your position.